House of Representatives
18 August 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 391

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Broadcasting and Television

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 because television and radio

  1. a) affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a ‘Dual System of Regulation’ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Dr Edwards, Mr Hurford, Mr McLeay and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Tertiary Education Assistance

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

That the decision of the Government to withdraw all forms of financial assistance to students of non-State tertiary institutions in the main, business colleges, is in total conflict with stated Government education policy.

The decision will result in a shortage of places for training secretarial and clerical students and an inordinate demand upon the State Government technical education systems.

At a time of severe economic disruption, this action must lead to an unnecessary worsening of the current employment situation for school leavers.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Dr Jenkins and Mr Keating.

Petitions received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter of the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations.

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of Northern and Central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia.

Lord Graham as Minister of External Affairs and Defence has said: ‘International Communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assault upon the whole of Africa … It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotisms, its philosophies, and even much of its learning . . . ‘

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years, and Cuban communist troops reported to number 25 000 are dominating nearby Angola, and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly, the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people.

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves, the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles.

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia to Australia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defence alliances can be gauged with better accuracy.

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately.

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

Petitions received.

Australian Association for Better Hearing

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

The humble petition of certain members of the Australian Association for Better Hearing, and other citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that a financial burden is imposed on hearing impaired members of the public in that the special telephone equipment, which is essential for such hearing impaired citizens to make telephonic communication, is subject to installation costs and rental charges.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government give every consideration to waiving the installation costs and rental charges of the special telephone equipment required by hearing impaired members of the public.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Edwards and Mr Fry.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 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.

Gambling Casino in Canberra

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

That the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra would debase the National Capital and increase crime in Canberra.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should seek to preserve the dignity of the National Capital by disallowing any ordinance to authorise the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra.

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

Petition received.

Private Nursing Homes Subsidies

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of private nursing homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the private nursing homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laiddown adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

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

  1. Make sure that subsidies paid to private nursing homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the private nursing home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow $6 per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
  2. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  3. That those pensioners who have their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a means test.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

That the delays between the 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.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the index could adversely affect the value of future increases in aged 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 matter of urgency to:

  1. Require each quarterly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI 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 entitlements to pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Unofficial Post Office, Carina East

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

That Australia Post reverse its decision to close Carina East unofficial post office in Queensland and that this office continues to operate in its present capacity

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Carina East unofficial post office be maintained.

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

Petition received.

Replacement Constitution

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 believe that Australia’s Constitution is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratic Constitution. This new constitution should be drafted at a representative directly elected people’s convention following extensive public debate, and then put to a referendum of the people.

The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament, as a matter of urgency, will help to promote such public debate and will arrange for the holding of such a people ‘s convention and referendum.

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

Petition received.

Whaling

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

That due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians.

It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

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

Petition received.

Radio and Television Programs

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

That we believe that laxity in the control of broadcasting standards has given viewers:

  1. poor quality programs
  2. excessive violence
  3. obsession with dehumanising sex and nudity
  4. an unrealistic presentation of life.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to:

  1. implement stricter quality control over television and radio to give viewers programs that are of a higher standard
  2. ensure that the original official program standards booklets are reinstated and their rules interpreted and enforced in accordance with the healthy social background of our traditional Christian culture and standards of citizenship.

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

Petition received.

Education

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners, certain citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that:

The Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, in his Guidelines to the Australian Schools Commission has placed the independence of the Commission in jeopardy. The Guidelines direct the allocation of funds in Education where previously the Commission provided funds on a basis of need.

We condemn the cutbacks in Education spending and ask that the Honourable J. L. Carrick honour his promise to provide a minimum growth expenditure in Education of 2 per cent in real terms over the second and third years of the triennium. by Mr Yates.

Petition received.

page 393

CENSURE OF GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

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

That this House censures the Government for its deceptive statements on tax changes.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Oxley moving forthwith the motion of censure of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

It is an unprecedented action on the part of the Government not to accept forthwith a motion of censure against it. The motion strikes right at the heart of the integrity and credibility of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). The integrity and credibility of the Treasurer are in a shaky condition -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Already in the presentation of his argument the honourable member for Oxley is not addressing himself to the question whether Standing Orders should be suspended. He should address himself purely and entirely to that question and not to the substance of the motion. I suggest that it is in that form, and that form only, that he can now address the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understood the honourable member for Oxley to be saying why Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The whole force of the proposition I am putting is that it is necessary for this matter to be debated forthwith. The word of the Treasurer is under serious question and in serious doubt, not just here but also outside this Parliament. It is the cause of national comment in the media this morning. The Treasurer may well have contributed to this development through his own unequalled display of incompetence yesterday at the National Press Club luncheon -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now debating the issue. He should confine himself to why Standing Orders should be suspended; in other words, to the urgency that leads him to move for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr HAYDEN:

-I appreciate your forbearance, Mr Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that any motion of censure moved against a government is a most serious action; but the seriousness of that action is given much greater emphasis when a senior Minister of a Government, as a result of the censure motion, has his credibility and integrity as an office bearer of the Government called into the most serious doubt. That is exactly what is implied in the motion of censure which we have put before the House.

I should have thought that a competent Minister would have been suitably equipped with the sort of information which would allow him immediately to present himself in a debate of this nature and to present a defence of the Government ‘s position. Yesterday the Treasurer displayed at a public forum that he could not do this. Yesterday I found that his office could not answer a simple question as to how it was possible for defence expenditure to increase in real terms by one per cent, as the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, when in fact the increase is only 7.4 per cent and inflation certainly will not be less than 10 per cent and probably will be closer to 12 per cent or 13 per cent on this Government’s statement -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now going beyond the terms of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is all germane. There seems to be a mounting doubt in one’s mind as to whether the Treasurer is the master of his own circumstances or is a puppet for the advisers of his Department -

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Oxley be not further heard.

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

AYES: 80

NOES: 33

Majority……. 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I second the motion. By next July the vast majority of Australian taxpayers will be worse off.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Adelaide be not further heard.

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

AYES: 81

NOES: 32

Majority…… .49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 82

Majority……. 49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 396

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 396

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Treasurer Is it a fact that by reducing the tax indexation factor by half next financial year the Government effectively will make taxpayers meet the cost of about half the proposed tax changes? Does he agree that such a deceptive tactic justifies the Australian Financial Review editorial comment this morning, namely ‘This is a shabby confidence trick unworthy of any Government 7

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is typical that a question of this type should come from a man who was responsible for the greatest tax fraud in Australia’s history. I want to make that perfectly clear because the ‘tax changes’ for which the honourable gentleman bore a direct responsibility were nothing more than an outright hoax. If one looks at those changes for a moment one can see quite clearly what they represented in terms of revenue forgone. The Hayden so-called tax reform cost in terms of revenue forgone in a full year $205m; our reform which is far reaching and genuine, will cost in terms of revenue forgone $1.3 billion. In other words, our tax reduction will have a cost to revenue more than six times that of the so-called tax reforms of the honourable gentleman. Quite apart from that, I mention again that part of the Labor Party package is higher taxes. I have quoted before what the honourable member for Adelaide has said on that subject. I want to nail very clearly the distortion of the facts concerning the costs contained in this Budget. We pointed out on page 20 of the Budget Speech that:

Full automatic indexation to prevent effective rates of personal income tax from increasing purely because of inflation will be maintained in respect of the new system in future years.

The Speech went on in stark clarity to say:

However, transitional arrangements will apply with respect to the indexation adjustment due on 1 July 1 978.

The cost of indexation this financial year is estimated at $965m. This, together with the cost of restructuring the personal income tax scales, will mean that the Government will receive $1.3 billion less from the taxpayer this financial year. Under the transitional arrangements that will apply to the indexation adjustment on 1 July 1978, dependant rebates will have operated unchanged throughout 1977-78 and will be indexed by the full indexation adjustment. The Speech continued:

The new rate scale, which will have been operating only during the second half of the financial year, will be indexed … by half the factor given by the annual indexation rules.

I went on to indicate the magnitude of this change during the course of the subsequent year and to say that the cost of indexation and the restructuring of the personal income tax scale is estimated at some $1.8 billion in 1978-79. 1 want to say to the honourable gentleman, and I make the point advisedly in this House, that the Government is becoming a little tired of the constant inconsistencies in statements made by him, the distortions and the plain errors of fact. When in government the honourable gentleman costed the Opposition’s economic program which I presented in 1973-76. He will recall that he was wrong in fact then and was embarrassed subsequently in the House. More recently, on two separate occasions the honourable gentleman has costed his employment programs and costed them in error. If that was not bad enough, to add consistency to his distortions the honourable gentleman came forward yesterday with a statement about people on $10,000 a year. He was wrong in fact again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have allowed the Treasurer to answer the question in a rather broad fashion simply because the question related to whether or not certain actions warranted censure. However, I believe that the Treasurer is now going beyond relevance to the question.

Mr LYNCH:

-Thank you for that, Mr Speaker. Let me close on a point of real relevance to this country, to this Government and to taxpayers generally. Our reforms are genuine. The reforms of the former Government were a hoax. Ours will cost the revenue $1.3 billion this year. So many people will be advantaged, and I have given chapter and verse on that score before. We will stand for those reforms. Let the Opposition in this House seek to deny them.

page 396

QUESTION

BRANDY

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister noticed the recommendation in a recent Senate committee report that import duty on imported brandy should be raised by 35c to the level applying to other spirits? Is the Government aware of early forecasts of a huge grape surplus in 1978? Is the Minister aware that surplus grapes can be stored economically only in spirit or brandy form? Will the Government study the implication of this important recommendation, which could work in the interests of sorely pressed grape growers throughout Australia?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-I do know that not only the Senate committee report but also the Industries Assistance Commission report have spoken of some of the problems that are emerging, particularly in the brandy market. In the honourable gentleman ‘s electorate, for example, there has always been a significant dependence on brandy outlets. There has been a growth in vertically integrated vineyards and wineries and significant new investment in the industry in a number of regions in Australia. There has also been a change in taste as far as the Australian wine consuming public is concerned in that consumption of red wines seems to be somewhat on the decline while consumption of white wines has increased significantly. In those circumstances there are forward problems for the wine grape growers. The honourable gentleman has quite correctly drawn my attention to the report of the Senate Committee and has suggested that perhaps in that way some action might be possible to alleviate the potential future overproduction.

The honourable gentleman would be aware that in this Budget the Government has been cognisant of some of the projected difficulties in the wine grape area and that there has been no change in the incidence of fiscal obligation as far as the wine industry is concerned. Of course, that is in marked contrast to the efforts of the previous Administration which saw fit, having made a great to-do about the lifting of excise, to impose very penal tax obligations on the industry in a way which significantly affected its returns and certainly prejudiced the economic conditions of wine grape growers. This Government has not followed that trend. It has recognised the problems, and no tax or excise change with regard to wine products was included in the Budget brought down the other day by my colleague. With regard to the Senate committee report and the Industries Assistance Commission report, I will take on board the honourable gentleman’s question and will ensure that during the Government’s deliberations on these matters his concern about future over-production and the impact on gowers’ returns is a material factor in the Government’s reaching its decision.

page 397

QUESTION

TAXATION: PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. He will be aware that under the tax scales which he announced in the Budget the average tax rate on incomes up to $16,000 a year will be 24.Sc in the dollar. What rate of tax will be applied under the primary producers’ fiveyear tax averaging scheme? Will it be 32c, as appears to be stated in the Budget Papers, or such lower rate as the average tax payable on actual income would indicate? I ask this question because if it is to be the 32c rate the tax averaging scheme has effectively been abandoned.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– As the honourable gentleman is aware, the averaging provisions for primary producers are being retained. The tax applicable to taxable income between $3,751 and $16,000 under the averaging provisions will be calculated at the standard rate of 32 per cent. The first $3,750 of taxable income will attract the zero rate. Concessional rebates will reduce the tax payable. I think I have covered all the questions which the honourable gentleman has posed, but I will look in detail at his question and if there is any marginal matter which I have not covered I will reply in writing.

page 397

QUESTION

FARM INCOMES AND TARIFF PROTECTION

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that the income of farmers will fall in real terms by between 12 per cent and 14 per cent this coming year? Is he aware that the cost of maintaining the textile and footwear industries in their present form is estimated to be about $800m a year and that this is a subsidy paid in the end by exporters? When the Industries Assistance Commission is again inquiring into these industries will the Minister ask it whether and, if so, how this grievous burden can be lifted from the bent backs of the farmers?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Regrettably I am aware of the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which indicates that the income of farmers is likely to drop by between 12 per cent and 14 per cent. This is a matter of great concern to the Government. Indeed, it is a matter of great concern to everybody on this side of the House and also to others who have a feeling for people. It is because of the feeling and concern that this Government has for individuals who live in Australia and seek to work in Australia that the Government has taken firm action and indicated that it will continue to take firm action to inject confidence into all sections of the community. The Budget Speech delivered by the Treasurer on Tuesday indicates clearly that our financial policy is balanced and directed in this way.

It is all very well for my good friend to draw attention to the plight of the farmers- I well know the plight of the farmers because I represent a large number of farmers in a rural electorate- but he should balance this argument by also drawing attention to the problems facing people who are employed in other industries and people who have the responsibility of conducting those other industries in this country. All people have a right to employment if they wish to work. It is this Government’s intention to pursue policies that will assist people employed m all industries whether they be primary or secondary industries. I do not subscribe to a policy designed to play one section of the community against another. I shall not support action by anybody inside this House or outside it which is designed in this way. This Government will continue to pursue policies to overcome the difficulties that it inherited. In 1972 when the Liberal and Country Parties left office 136 769 Australians were out of work- 2.4 per cent of the population.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I regret having to interrupt the Minister but the matter which he is now dealing with is not relevant to the question asked.

Mr FIFE:

– To conclude my answer I say to the honourable member and to the House that the Government will continue to steer a course designed to lift the level of employment in Australia and, at the same time, look after the interests of primary producers.

page 398

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

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

– I direct a question to the Treasurer about the personal income tax proposals. In particular, I direct attention to his statement in his Budget Speech on Tuesday night that:

Full automatic indexation . . . will be maintained in respect of the new system in future years.

How does he reconcile that assertion with his assertion in Statement No. 4 attached to his Budget Speech that:

The indexation factor to be applied to the rate scale in 1978-79 will be half that given by the annual indexation rules . . .

That is, except for dependent rebates. Does he propose full or half indexation for personal income tax in 1978-79?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Give us an honest answer this time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will withdraw that statement

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw it.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-It is typical that the Leader of the Opposition should pose questions in this House on the basis of selective quotations. Perhaps all the honourable gentleman can do is not understand the documents but read one particular newspaper editorial this morning. Part of the assertion by inference behind what the honourable member suggested is some fiddling of the figures. The honourable gentleman knows more about that to the extent of an amount ofwhat was it- $4 billion or $5 billion at some stage. The honourable gentleman quoted from page 20 of the Budget Speech- no doubt the question was handed to him by his so-called economic manager- which stated:

Full automatic indexation to prevent effective rates of personal income tax from increasing purely because of inflation will be maintained in respect of the new system in future years.

The statement went on to say:

However, transitional arrangements will apply with respect to the indexation adjustment due on 1 July 1 978.

As I mentioned to the honourable member for Oxley a few moments ago- no doubt not with the comprehension of the Leader of the Oppositionthe cost of indexation this year is $965m. This, together with the cost of restructuring the personal income tax scale, decisive, unprecedented and comprehensive as that step is, will mean that the Government will receive $1.3 billion less from the taxpayer this financial year. The 1978-79 estimated cost of indexation and the restructuring of the personal income tax scale is $1.8 billion. That, of course, is a figure which comprehends one half indexation as the documentation in the Budget makes explicit.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I propose at this stage that the House should take a break -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– so that the Treasurer could find out from his advisers what he is talking about.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Oxley not to come to the table in that fashion and make a statement unless he receives the call. I will have to deal with him if he persists in doing so.

page 398

QUESTION

BUDGET: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to reported statements by the Premier of South Australia that South Australia had been especially hard hit in the Budget? Is there amy foundation to these statements?

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

-One might expect the Premier of South Australia to make that kind of statement because we know that he has been looking for a reason for an election for quite a while. He seems to be attempting to fabricate a reason around the Budget. I think it ought to be pointed out that under the Commonwealth’s policies all States are treated equally and all States are treated fairly. It also should be pointed out that under the policies of this Government, States have had greater sums than ever before in untied tax reimbursement grants to spend as they wish. Under the financial arrangements that have been made a more generous situation has prevailed than has been the circumstances in the past, not only in relation to the States themselves but also particularly in relation to local government.

I think it ought to be known that total funds increased by nearly 12 per cent so far as South Australia is concerned, and that is slightly more than the average increase to all the other States. So South Australia is being treated in fact a little better than the average. That again contrasts with the increase in the Commonwealth’s own expenditures and outlays of 10 1/2 per cent. So this year, as last year, in many aspects the Commonwealth is treating the States more favourably than it is treating its own expenditures. Specific purpose payments have increased by $39m and total funds to South Australia by $122m. These are very substantial increases and show quite plainly that South Australia has been very well treated.

But if there were any doubt, figures that have been published in South Australia in recent times make it quite plain that what I have been saying is correct and what the Premier is saying is unfortunately wrong. He ended his budget year with a surplus of more than $18m and if his State was short of funds for any specific purpose of any kind the South Austraiian Government could use some or all of those funds in any way that it chose. How can it be suggested, therefore, that the Commonwealth has treated South Australia shabbily when South Australia ends up with $ 18m in kitty, which is a very substantial surplus for a State with an economy the size of South Australia’s? I think that one fact alone indicates that the Premier of South Australia is drawing a very long bow with only one purpose in mind.

page 399

LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945 I present for the information of the House the annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner for the year ended December 1 976.

page 399

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE ACT 1972

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 31 December 1976.

page 399

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the advice from the Industries Assistance Commission on continuation of short-term assistance for certain chest freezers up to 350 litres.

page 399

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade · Richmond · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974, 1 present the annual report of the Export Development Grants Board for 1976-77.

page 399

NATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the National Training Council for the year ended 3 1 December 1976. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement relating to this report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MACPHEE:

– The National Training Council provides advice to the Government, through me, on the many facets of a national training policy for industry and commerce, including the development of industrial training in all fields and levels of employment, including small businesses; the need for research, investigation and inquiry in the occupational training field; and the information and publicity needs to stimulate interest in industrial training. The Council is a tripartite body, with senior representatives from the industrial and commercial sector, the union movement, and Commonwealth and State governments, and provides a most valuable forum for consultation amongst those sectors about their respective interests and responsibilities to assist the advancement of occupational training for the Australian community. I believe the Government is most fortunate in having the advice of a group of the standing and experience of the National Training Council in determining training policies to meet the nation ‘s needs.

page 400

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Land Deals in Victoria-Australian Capital Territory -Citizenship applications-Yugoslav Citizens in Australia-Television services in Isolated Areas -Shipbuilding Industry-Unemployment in Whyalla

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My grievance today relates to a very serious matter which is being discussed in the Victorian Parliament at the moment. It is very strongly related to events that have taken place in this Parliament since at least December 1972. After taking office in December 1972, particularly during the 1973-74 financial year, the Labor Government in Canberra made very large sums of money available to the various States for a variety of purposes. The Labor Government recognised the problems being experienced by the States in raising sufficient finance from their traditional sources and adopted a rational approach to the matter.

Prior to the elections in December 1972 the Australian Labor Party promised to help the States to overcome the enormous backlog that existed in the provision of services in the urban development, roads, sewerage and housing fields and in many other fields. The Victorian Liberal Government benefited from this assistance as much as the other States in most of those areas. In some areas it probably did better than most of the other States. Clearly no bias or prejudice was displayed by the then Labor Government in Canberra. An honest and sincere attempt was made by the Labor Government quickly to catch up on the shortages created during 23 years of complacent government. Nevertheless the Labor Government was constantly attacked by those who now sit in government in this place and by the State governments which were being assisted. Party politics prevailed and the welfare of the people became secondary.

Quite recently members of the Labor Party in the Victorian Legislative Assembly have been tirelessly pursuing and questioning the Liberal Government in that State on the activities of the Housing Commission of Victoria in the purchase of land for the construction of low cost housing. The Age newspaper has shared their concern about these deals and its insight team came up with some very interesting information. The Liberal Party Premier of that State endeavoured firstly to shrug off the matter, but the prima facie evidence was too strong and he finally succumbed to the demands for the holding of an inquiry into the allegations. Even so the terms of reference of the inquiry are fairly restricted. That remains a matter for his conscience.

The scenario goes like this: For years it has been the practice of the Housing Commission of Victoria when it is seeking land to buy it in broad acres and then to subdivide it, service it and erect homes upon it for those in the low income bracket. The curious thing that continually arises in the cases under review is that the Housing Commission has never bought the land directly from the original vendors. A developer or finance company always has been the owner of the land when the Housing Commission has decided to buy. Following past practice, the Valuer-General is required to appraise the land and to recommend an offer to be made for it by the Housing Commission. In the case of the Sunbury purchase the land was zoned as rural and was being used for that purpose when it came under the ownership of a finance company known as Lensworth Finance, which made an offer for it to the farmer owning the land. The land was then valued by the Valuer-General as though it were residential land and not rural land, which in fact it was. As a consequence it was bought by the Housing Commission for $1.5m more than was paid for it some twenty short days before that by the finance company.

The point that arises out of all this is that at that time large sums of money were being made available by the Australian Labor Party Government in Canberra to the various States to help them to overcome their problems, particularly their difficulty in housing people in the lower income bracket. Money was squandered by the irresponsible Government in Victoria in the purchase of land at Sunbury that I have just mentioned. It is only one small instance of money being squandered by an irresponsible Liberal government. That happened with regard to land at Pakenham that also was purchased by the Housing Commission. After its purchase it was found that the land was flood prone and that not all of it could be used for housing. In this regard I quote from an article in the Melbourne Age of 9 August of this year, which states:

The Housing Commission paid more than $2. 5m in 1973 to buy land that the local shire had valued at $355,900 4 years earlier.

The land, at Pakenham, was the first of three massive land buys on which the Commission laid out more than $10m in 1973.

Some of the Pakenham land was later ruled to be flood prone. Two-thirds of its has since been banned from urban development

The Commission bought the land as four adjoining parcels between the Princes Highway and the Gippsland railway line, west of Pakenham township.

Toomuc Creek runs through the middle of it

On average the Commission paid more than seven times as much as Berwick’s shire valuers had said the land was worth four years earlier.

If that sort of irresponsibility had not been engaged in by this incompetent government in Victoria there would not be some 16,000 to 18,000 people still on the waiting list of the Housing Commisison for accommodation in homes. If those millions of dollars had not gone into the pockets of real estate developers through deals that are yet to be investigated quite a number of those people who live with their relatives or live in makeshift accommodation and caravans would be living in houses settled on a nice piece of ground. That is an example of the sort of irresponsible attitude that was adopted by the Liberal Government. I have also done some very interesting reading regarding the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. In this regard I refer to an article written by Mr John Hurst in the Nation Review of 6 July of this year, which reads:

One of Australia’s biggest finance companies, the American owned Industrial Acceptance Corporation, stands to make several million dollars, and perhaps a lot more in the long run, in a land deal with Victorian Government planning instrumentality, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.

The IAC, S 1 per cent owned by Citicorp, an offshoot of the Bank of America, holds about 1,500 acres of land at Point Cook on Port Phillip Bay. It has been mortgagee in possession since the collapse of Cambridge Credit in 1 974.

IAC has found it difficult to sell the land because most of it has been zoned rural by the Board.

That is the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The article continues:

Authoritative sources now claim the IAC is negotiating to sell the Board about 750 acres of the land for about $5,000 an acre. At that price the Board would be paying the IAC $3,750,000 of public money.

And the other 750 acres? Well the sources say that the Board might be willing to rezone it residential. If that happened the price could up to $10,000 an acre or more and the IAC would stand to make a few more million clear profit.

Again we have an example of the gross inefficiency and incompetency of the Victorian Liberal Government in allowing people to become rich out of money that has been made available to the State Government or an instrumentality like the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works to enable it to get on with the job of either building houses for people or catching up on the backlog in the provision of sewerage services. In only three short years tens of millions of dollars went from this Parliament to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works for it to do the task it is supposed to do, and that is to catch up on the sewerage backlog. Now it also is of a mind to pay high prices for land- very high prices which are way outside any valuation. I leave it to each honourable member to determine in his own mind the Board ‘s motive for doing this.

The point is that Australian Government money, money from all the taxpayers in Australia, was provided with the best of intentions by a Labor government that did care about getting things done. It was criticised greatly by the Liberals in this country for doing so, but now we find that it was those who were doing the criticising who were squandering money left, right and centre and making individuals rich. There is evidence that officials of the Liberal Party and officials of the Premier and of the Minister for Planning were all involved in these things in one way or another. A public inquiry is going on, but the only problem about it is that the terms of reference are perhaps not as broad as they ought to be. This is a matter of great disgrace and great shame to the Liberal Party of Australia- not that that is any surprise to a number of people. This matter must be cleared up. It has to be said in this House that there has been a squandering of funds by incompetent Liberal governments, in Victoria at least. That sort of thing ought to be drawn to the attention of this Parliament because it was this Parliament which voted the money.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– I rise during this Grievance Day debate to speak about the future of Canberra. The House would be aware that Canberra, the national capital, went through an explosive boom during the years of the Labor Government. It became the social laboratory of the mad alchemists, and not unnaturally the experiment blew up in their faces. There were labour shortages and the price of a normal 3-bedroomed house doubled during that period. Building workers from all over Australia flocked into Canberra, the national capital. To say that Canberra resembled a gold rush town of the 1830s would not be an exaggeration. All this came to a sickening end with the Hayden Budget of 1973. Jobs were stopped and expansion of the Public Service disappeared overnight. In short, the balloon burst.

The people of Canberra knew who were to blame and in December 1975 for the first time members of the Liberal Party were elected to Parliament by the voters of the Australian Capital Territory, with instructions to restore good, sound government. The people of Australia know how this Government has responded to the task of salvaging the country’s economy. They know that the long, relentless struggle to reduce inflation and in turn to reduce interest rates and to create jobs is progressing well. People seem to forget at the moment that there are more people in Australia in work now than ever before. I say that as an aside, because we all know the other side of the problem; there are many thousands of people not working. When we have such a problem it amazes me that the sanctimonious members of the Opposition, who have a duty to their electors to help pull Australia through, can do nothing but lend their support to the disruptive forces of the Left who want to wreck Australia in the name of social change.

This national city, Canberra, has been through a period of fundamental change in the last 2 years. The cutbacks introduced by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) were immediately tempered by skilled government and good administration. Undertakings were given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that there would be no sackings in the Public Service due to budgetary restraints. Departments that had become flabby were required to knock their administration and work efficiency into shape. In other words, the Disneyland aspects of the Whitlam Administration were removed. Several major building projects were got underway again and essential community facilities were constructed. Balanced development returned to Canberra in 1975-76 and 1976-77. The bolting horse was captured, quietened, rubbed down and put to work. All this has been done in 20 months. It has been done so efficiently that we have changed the electorate of Canberra which I represent from being in a position of undersupply of almost everything to being in a position of full supply and, in the cases of land, housing, schools and perhaps shops, excess supply. It is said by many people that we now have too much in a material sense. Except for the problems of youth unemployment and some areas of depressed demand in business, Canberra is in great shape.

But what of the future? Senator John Knight, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) and I have achieved what we set out to do for the electorate of Canberra when I threw aside a good career in law to try to assist the return to sanity in this fair Australian city. The people of Canberra have responded magnificently. They now pay their way like all other Australians. They are no longer the spoilt, pampered people of Canberra derided by the rest of Australia. They are now citizens of Australia in every sense. They have taken on the chin the increases in charges which the Government I support has imposed in order to get the house in order. In 1977-78 the necessary slow-down in growth will allow the Government to divert massive resources in order to bring the development of Belconnen into line with that of Woden. Very large amounts of money are to be spent in an area which gradually is being changed from a veritable desert of community facilities to a thriving centre. The seal of approval of these efforts has been given by that great Australian retail store, the Myer Emporium Ltd, which has decided to come to Canberra. By the end of 1978 Canberra’s development will be evenly spread; it will be of a high standard; and it will be adequate. That is exactly what we promised to do when we came to government in 1975. We promised to do that in three years and we will achieve that goal.

At this point, however, I must throw down a new challenge to my party, to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister. What of the future? What are the Government’s intentions for the people of Canberra and, more importantly, what are its plans for the employment of our young people? We have never had real trouble with employment in this city. It is predominantly a city of public servants. Its past phenomenal rate of growth has ensured jobs in the building industry and in the Public Service, but this will not continue. It cannot continue under the very proper policies of this Government which has undertaken to contain public expenditure and to reduce the tax rip-offs of the past. The people of Canberra do not want a growth rate of 10 per cent. Currently we are enjoying the slower growth rate so that overpasses can be built, so mat we can catch up with health centres, so that community centres and schools can be developed before they are needed rather than many years later, and so that shops can be constructed when needed rather than years afterwards. But we need a blueprint from the Cabinet as to how it sees the future of Canberra. We need certainty and confidence so that our families can plan their futures and so that businessmen can invest and provide facilities for the private sector. We need to diversify our employment base and we need positive action in order to do so. We need much more than mere tokenism.

Experience over the last 18 months by the combined business and Public Service groups created to promote Canberra indicates that hard headed businessmen will not come to Canberra on the basis of its good looks. They need more than the incentive of a prosperous market of 200 000 people. Much success has been achieved already through the offer of special leases, but the evidence is that incentives must be developed to match those offered by the State departments of decentralisation. Employment opportunities must be created for our young people not just by the mindless expansion of the Public Service. In the national capital we must have choice and diversity for our young people to ensure that it reflects the real Australia and is not an unduly artificial city.

I suggest that Cabinet consider the following measures to reassure the people of Canberra and the rest of Australia as to the future of Canberra, now that the wreckage of the Whitlam years has been cleared: A statement should be made in this House by the Prime Minister on the expected growth rate and pattern of growth of the national capital over the next three to five years.

The Government should undertake, on behalf of the people of Australia, to guarantee that the current high standard of our national capital will be maintained in the future so that all Australians will remain proud of their national capital and see it as continuing to be second to none in the world.

The full ramifications of the moves towards constitutional development for the Australian Capital Territory should be explained to the people of Canberra. A suitable period should be dedicated to debating those proposals which give the people of this city a say in the administration of local matters.

Consideration should be given either to a referendum or to a properly conducted public opinion poll to test just now much local control should be handed over to our local Legislative Assembly.

The Government should immediately announce the transfer of at least 1000 public servants into Canberra and future plans for further transfers should be outlined

Wide-ranging incentives for the establishment of clean, labour intensive industries in Canberra should be developed as a matter of urgency and should include payroll tax rebates, low interest rate loans, concessional rates on municipal charges, freight equalisation incentives, subsidised industry based child care facilities, as well as concessional rates for electricity. With those measures put before the people of Canberra, full and proper incentive will return to my electorate as will business sector and Public Service confidence.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– It is hard to follow the euphoria of the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) who has just spoken and who claims that the people of the Australian Capital Territory and of Canberra are now standing on their own two feet. If he looked around he would find that this Government, in a very short space of time, had beaten them to their knees and reduced the opportunity they had. For example, they face increased school fees for kids and fees have been put up on all sorts of things for the Territory which was once a showplace for the rest of the nation. But I am not going to speak on that matter. I want to follow some of the matters raised by my colleague the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). Before doing so there is another matter which interests both of us as it concerns the area we represent. Recently I was shocked to be informed by two migrants that their applications for Australian citizenship had been rejected on the basis of their lack of proficiency in the English language. There was just one statement. No attempt was made to follow up or to ascertain the factors, if any, as to why they were not proficient. I have some doubts about the situation. It indicates an inadequacy in our efforts to integrate our migrants into this country.

I would like to know whether the English test is applied to all who make application for citizenship. I would like to know whether the nature of the test is the same for all applicants. I would like to know how many people have been rejected under this test. To me, it smacks of the same methods which were used in my youth to prevent people entering Australia. Then, it was possible to give dictation tests in Swahili or some such exotic language in order to refuse admission. It sees to me that with these standards in English for citizenship there should be some examination and follow up. If applicants are told that they are unsatisfactory then we should ask: Where have we as a nation failed because in seven or eight years these people have not become proficient in the language? If we follow the situation through we find that even the children of these people have problems in gaining a proper use of the English language. At a school in my electorate 593 children come from migrant parents. There is one migrant English teacher to assist them to gain a full knowledge of the use of the language of their adopted country.

One can take this situation through to so many other schools in my area and those of honourable members surrounding it. Primary schools have up to 73 per cent of their school population coming from migrant families and often English is not widely spoken in the home. Yet there are no facilities for migrant English teachers or there is a grave deficiency. As I have pointed out, in one school there is one migrant Englishteacher for the S93 kids who need help. Of course, the trouble is that that one teacher has to spend her time with the few students who have no English at all. The bulk of the students who need some assistance simply have to do without.

I return to the matter raised by the honourable member for Burke. We have heard from this Government about new federalism, about how we hand finance over to the States and there is no question of accountability because one does not have to worry about the performance of the States. It is suggested that in a conservative State like Victoria there is no need to examine the situation as it is so efficient. This is said about a State where corrupt land deals have been revealed in the past few weeks- a State which was unable to make matching grants for the Albury-Wodonga development. Another feature which might be looked at was mentioned by my colleague and that is the land deal at Sunbury. He mentioned a firm called Lensworth Finance which was involved. That is a South Australian firm. Land development in South Australia has been done in such a way by the Australian Labor Party Government by its land commission purchasing land, developing it and releasing it at a price so that those who speculate in land cannot make a rich return. So the South Australian company transferred itself to Victoria. What happened? I think the facts are pretty clear. I think the first offer for land was made on about 6 July 1973. Then, 20 days later, that South Australian firm by coming to Victoria was able to make a cool $1.5m on an option to purchase and there is severe doubt whether that contract really existed.

One wonders how far this matter can go. At that time plenty of land was available in Victoria in as close proximity to the centre of Melbourne as that area, for $1,800 an acre. Yet it was necessary for the Victorian Government to pay $3,400 an acre. As my colleague has said, this Government criticised the Whitlam Government for its expenditure. The Whitlam Government realised the defects in housing. It realised that 1 8 000 people in Victoria were on the waiting list for welfare housing. It realised that the length of waiting time was five years. It tried to give money to the State to carry out a responsible program. But this is the sort of response one gets. In mid- 1973 the Government in Victoria took a non-co-operative attitude. It went on a spending spree, paying excessive prices for land thus giving large profits to enterpreneurs without regard to the real needs of how land could be provided for those people requiring housing. This is a very sorry story. It applies not only to Sunbury but also to Melton and Pakenham and other areas.

This matter was raised in 1973 by the Press and by the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament. They asked that the matter be examined. But what happened? The Minister who was in charge of housing at that time refused an inquiry. When fresh efforts are being made to have an inquiry now that Minister holds a legal ministerial position which requires him to authorise the inquiry, he refuses. Yet the Minister of Housing in Victoria was compelled to say that at this stage, after deferring an inquiry for nearly four years, a police inquiry was unavoidable and desirable. One wonders how the new federalism will work when there are Ministers such as those I have mentioned who not only refuse to hold inquiries into allegations made against them when they held previous portfolios but who also, when an inquiry is announced, refuse to resign and to withdraw from their ministerial responsibilities whilst those inquiries are made into their involvement.

This is the sort of thing that one can expect from conservative governments. It follows the line of action in Victoria over a long period of years. Ministerial responsibility has gone by the board. Ministers for transport who held interests in companies manufacturing automatic drink vending machines made sure that water taps disappeared from railway stations. There have been land scandals concerning the purchase of land for schools. This is something that a Federal Government, which is talking about giving the States responsibility, should realise. It should realise that the efforts of the Whitlam Labor Government to provide housing were sabotaged by conservatives in the States. The present Federal Government is now saying that these same governments have the responsibility to expend the funds.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-My grievance today relates to matters brought to my attention by some of my constituents. These constituents, who originally came from Yugoslavia, are most concerned about the activities of the Yugoslav Consul in Perth, the details of which I will outline shortly. I want to say at the outset that I cannot vouch for all the information I have received. Some of the evidence either has been destroyed or withheld by certain individuals, because I am informed, of fear of retribution. But the information which has been conveyed to me comes from several sources which I consider to be sufficient reliable and is so serious as to impose upon me a responsibility to relate these charges to the Parliament. One of the men who has made these allegations is the Archpriest of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Western Australia. I hope that by bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the public I will be able in some way to help to eradicate such practices in the future.

In short, I am concerned that certain Australian citizens who originally came from Yugoslavia are being intimidated and have had their individual freedoms interfered with by a consular representative from another country. I will outline some of the allegations which have been made. Firstly, a number of migrants associated with this church- the Serbian Orthodox Church- decided to form a soccer club. The club, I am informed, was small and had only about 30 active members. The Archpriest informed me that each member of this club received a letter from the consul stating that the club was formed without the approval of the consulate. They were told that the club was seen to be anit-government– that is, anti-Tito- and that they should bear in mind the possible consequences of their continued membership of this club should they return to Yugoslavia. These letters were signed by the consul. I emphasise again that I have tried to obtain a copy of this letter but with no success. Needless to say, the soccer club has been disbanded.

I am also informed that members of this community attending the Serbian Orthodox Church were told that continued membership of this church might have adverse consequences for their relatives in Yugoslavia. Church members, when applying to the consul for visas, are asked if they are connected with the church and are asked to provide the names of others associated with the church. A number of these peoplesome 20 to 30-have stopped attending this church to protect their own safety and that of their relatives in Yugoslavia. Some continue to donate money to the church but this in now done on an anonymous basis. The Australian citizenship of these people is not recognised by the consulate. Those who wish to renounce their citizenship of Yugoslavia are required to renounce their country in the presence of the consul or his representative. In a number of cases in other parts of Australia, letters forwarded to the consul seeking to renounce former citizenship simply are not answered.

When wishing to travel to Yugoslavia on an Australian passport many of these peopleAustralian citizens- are informed by the consulate that they do not need an Australian passport because they are citizens of Yugoslavia and should therefore travel on Yugoslavian passports. When these people do renounce their former citizenship in the presence of consulate officials- this happens only rarely- they encounter further troubles. One lady in Perth who took this step, because she was a naturalised Australian and wanted to travel to Yugoslavia as an Australian, has waited in vain for 18 months to receive a visa. Despite her constant attempts to obtain one, she is still waiting. When a former Yugoslav citizen travels to Yugoslavia on an Australian passport, I am informed by the Archpriest that it is necessary to establish contact with the police in Yugoslavia. Those who have returned from trips on this basis have informed their church leader in Perth that they are questioned and followed during their visits. They are questioned by the secret police about the anti-communist activities of some Yugoslavs living in Perth.

These are just some of the allegations made by some of my constituents. I bring them to the attention of the House because I find it incredible that Australian citizens living in Australia and ostensibly enjoying the individual freedoms which that citizenship conveys, including the right of free association, the right of assembly and the right to practise one’s religion, are having their rights interfered with by the consular officials of another country. Australia is a free country, Perth is a free city and all our citizens are free. I am amazed that activities such as those I have outlined are alleged to have been undertaken in our society.

I think it is appropriate in this context that I should quote from a publication entitled The Review of International Affairs dated November 1 976 which is published periodically in Belgrade for the Socialist Alliance of Working People. The article I will quote from was written by Mr Dolanc who is Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. The article has an intriguing title - Conclusions concerning the social organisation of Yugoslav citizens temporarily employed abroad and the tasks ahead’. I should mention that all Yugoslav migrants are regarded as

Yugoslav citizens temporarily employed abroad. It is anticipated that they will return to Yugoslavia and this terminology explains, firstly, why consular officials are not happy about such migrants seeking only Australian citizenship, and, secondly, it provides such authorities with the authority they require to interfere with these citizens abroad, particularly those who do not follow the wishes of the Government of Yugoslavia. Mr Dolanc states in the article:

The Presidency notes that the organisation of clubs, societies and other forms of association by Yugoslav citizens abroad has arisen from their needs and interests, that it has reached an important level and strongly fosters their ties with the homeland, patriotism, successful social protection -

And I emphasise this - resistance to assimilation and other negative influences.

He also speaks of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Alliance as representing ‘the basis of our socio-political activities connected with citizens temporarily employed abroad*. In addition, he indicates in the article that embassies and consulates and cultural and information centres should take an active part in carrying out these obligations, one of which is the need to provide backing and assistance to those forms of association overseas whose work is in line with ‘our socio-political realities’.

When statements of policy such as these are placed in the context of my earlier remarks, I am afraid that I notice a rather disturbing correlation. It seems that the objectives and obligations referred to by Mr Dolanc are being directed against those former citizens of Yugoslavia who live in Australia and who wish to renounce their former citizenship and become Australian citizens. In many cases they have come to Australia because they want to enjoy the privileges and individual freedoms which life in Australia can offer them. Many of them do not want to be citizens of both countries. Those Yugoslavs in Australia who wish to maintain dual citizenship rights can do so. I have no quarrel with that It is their right so to choose. But I do suggest that those who express the wish to become and who do become solely Australian citizens should not be intimidated or in any way have their individual freedoms interfered with by any consular official from any country. It is against the whole spirit of our nation.

As I said at the outset, I am very conscious of the fact that I cannot produce hard evidence to support some of these claims. Allegations such as these are always difficult to substantiate, but because I consider my sources of information to be sufficiently reliable- they include a responsible church leader- and because I regard these allegations as being of an extremely serious nature, I feel that it is my duty to bring them to the attention of the Parliament in order to protect not only my constituents who have raised this matter with me but also any people from other countries who have decided to make Australia their home and might be subjected to the same kind of treatment. I stress that this is not a question of backing any faction; it is one of backing human rights. It is my hope that, by my bringing these matters to the attention of the House, these practices, if they occur, will be eliminated. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to undertake a full investigation of all the matters I have raised in this debate.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I rise in this Grievance Day debate to raise a number of matters that relate to the incompetence of this Government and of its allies in Victoria. Huge sums of money are made available to the State governments- I refer now to the Victorian Government in particular- for a whole range of reasons. In the case of the Victorian Government, when that money gets to the point of distribution that is where the skulduggery starts. My colleagues, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) and the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), have referred to some of the deals done during the time that Mr Vance Dickie was the Minister of Housing in Victoria. The land buys and illegal deals that went on then had to be seen to be believed. An inquiry will be held, but the matter certainly has not reached that stage yet

One particular case to which I want to refer is the case in which Mr Dickie recommended that the Government buy land from an Adelaide based company, Lensworth Finance Ltd, when it was claimed that, in fact, there were better offers around. The Lensworth company made a cool profit of $ 1.6m in 3 weeks on an option on land at Sunbury, north of Melbourne. The Government made a number of fundamental errors, purposely or otherwise. While people in my electorate are eating the paint off the walls and living in some of the most depressed conditions in which anybody could ever be asked to live, this money is going into the pockets of land dealers and the crooks within those organisations. The Government did not even take the necessary steps to serve notice on the land owners to treat and then to negotiate with them compensation at a value in accordance with the land’s current use. At the time the land was agricultural land, but the Victorian Government paid nearly twice its value as agricultural land; it paid for it as residential land. At the same time as the Government was negotiating to buy the land from the Lensworth company at $3.4m, that company allegedly was taking up options to buy the land from the owners for $ 1.8m. A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. Mr Vance Dickie has been around for a long time; so it could not be said that he is naive. That would seem to me to be a classic example of the skulduggery that has gone on.

Another instance is when the Urban Land Council bought land at Thomastown that was being developed by Development Underwriting Ltd, which was having a liquidity problem- a problem common to many land dealers. A Mr Charles Hider, M.L.C.-a Liberal M.L.C., I might add- is a director of Development Underwriting Ltd. The Urban Land Council purchased land also on Tailors Road, Kealba, which was believed to have been owned by Development Underwriting Ltd or a subsidiary. Both Thomastown and Kealba were inferior locations; there were better locations about. One could be excused for being rather suspicious about this. It just happened that these locations were chosen and the Urban Land Council bailed out the companies or company involved, which had liquidity problems. They were in diabolical circumstances. However, one of their directors happened to be a Liberal M.L.C. Strangely enough, who should come to their assistance and buy this chunk of ground that was not worth the price paid but the Urban Land Council, which is responsible for handling money that is paid in by every taxpayer in this country.

There are much better programs and much greater areas of need, amongst the migrant groups in particular and amongst the unemployed, on which that money could be better spent instead of paying for the next swimming pool, another day on the golf course, another yacht or a boating expedition by individuals who are none other than land sharks. When one considers the people involved, one might remark that Ned Kelly at least had the decency to wear a mask.

Another area in which this sort of situation can be clearly pointed to is Geelong. This area clearly involves the Commonwealth Government because, as a growth centre, Geelong relies directly and deliberately on Commonwealth funds. One would have thought that the disbursement of those funds should have been under the direct scrutiny of individuals such as Mr Dickie, the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Lands in the Victorian Government- all the individuals who should have been taking the responsibility. But since that time it has become the responsibility of this Government also to ensure that moneys that pass into the hands of those authorities are distributed for the purposes for which they are allocated and do not fill the pockets of land speculators and the crooks I have mentioned.

Under legislation that was passed by the Victorian Liberal Government land owners in the Geelong region stand to make millions of dollars. Under the legislation- the Geelong Regional Commission Bill- the profits from any rezoning of land for development by the Commission must be paid to the existing land owners. Under those circumstances the land owners at that time stood to receive for each thousand acres thousands of dollars or several millions of dollars more than the existing value of their land. The money would have been provided by public funds allocated to the development of Geelong as a growth centre. It was alleged that the legislation was drawn up by a group of Liberal backbenchers from the Geelong region. The people in the region protested about the situation and alleged- it was later denied- that one of the individuals involved had a vested interest in that legislation being passed by the State Government. How long is this going to go on?

If the inquiry discloses that it involves, as it no doubt does, particular individuals in the Geelong area as well as money that is allocated through the various councils and authorities in Victoria, which are putting up with this skulduggery, when is the Federal Government going to act? When is the responsible Minister going to ask where this money is going? How is it that companies such as Lensworth Finance Ltd can make enormous profits under the conditions to which I have referred, by negotiating a price which is something like $1.3m higher than the price they are negotiating with the land owners? This was public knowledge because it was challenged at the time. But no action was taken by Mr Vance Dickie. All he did was to co-operate in the whole exercise.

Further to that, we have the case of a son of the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, aif Ken Wheeler, who sold a farm in the Wodonga district to the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, which is sponsored by the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government. What happened was that the price paid was greater than the highest bid at auction only a short time before, and after the deal the former owner had his property leased back to him at a low rental. For God’s sake, when is this going to cease? It seems to me that the guilty men in Victoria, the colleagues of people who occupy the treasury bench in this Parliament, have to stand up and answer that question. I challenge the responsible Minister to come into this Parliament at some time in the future and give an explanation as to why taxpayers ‘ money is going down the drain.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– If the members of this House and of this nation were to look at the map of Australia setting out the present boundaries of the Federal electorates, if they were to look at the electorates of Maranoa, Dawson, Leichhardt, Kalgoorlie, Wakefield, Darling and Kennedy, and if they were then to consult the Library and estimate the contribution made to the national economy by those electorates, some very interesting results would be produced. If their research went a little further they would find that in those electorates there is a lamentable lack of what is now regarded as a very ordinary amenity, and that is television. The very people who are associated with the production of the massive wealth of this nation are denied any sort of television reception. I have gone through this exercise for 1 1 years now with successive governments, and I will admit that I have been given valid reasons why television could not go immediately into those areas. The valid reasons related, of course, to the concept that television should go first to the most densely populated areas. If the pressure of politics and of vested interests was not taken into account and if pure compassion, understanding and some sort of just reward for living in those areas and producing the massive wealth of this country were to apply, television would have gone into those areas first. There would have been no question about that. But after 23 years it is a little difficult to continue to accept reasons why television is not being received in those places, particularly when in many cases the cable passes over the heads of the people involved.

I am a little tired of accepting the verdicts of the bureaucratic commissions which were brought into existence by the Labor Government and which were given powers to set aside the elected representatives of this nation and be a law unto themselves. They pass verdicts on whether or not they will research the possibilities of videophones and other futuristic instruments so that they can get a slap on the back from the people with whom they live. Let them get out and endure some of the difficulties that we have to endure. Let them sit at home at night in places like the ones I have in my electorate, and I will name a few. Aramac, Muttaburra, Jericho and Tambo are towns in probably the richest merino wool producing area in Australia. Caulfield and Sanford are in cattle producing areas and Greenvale is one of the largest nickel producing areas in this nation. Those towns have no television whatsoever and are hundreds of miles from anywhere. Pentland, another cattle and killing centre, does have television. It you sit up and strain your eyes until you go silly you might get some sort of reception. That sort of thing has been going on year after year, and I do not see any indication in the present Budget that television will be provided in those areas. I have been a Minister and I realise the agony involved in making a decision to allocate funds for various things.

Let me deal with the Coombs report. In the conspiracies of the Labor Government of that time, the Government did everything in its power, through the medium of that report, to wipe the people in the country out of existence altogether. The $1.5m, or whatever it was that the Government paid for that lousy, crummy painting, Blue Poles, would have provided all the television we wanted in those days. Where is that painting now? It is hanging somewhere, and I believe that the paint is peeling off. It would be no loss if the paint peeled off altogether. This is an extremely serious matter for those involved. We cannot constantly go back and say to those people that once again no provision has been made for television, that a bureaucrat in Canberra had a few meetings and sent out one or two experts, who went through the areas like brumbies with their tails on fire, giving some sort of indication that they were half interested, taking a few details here and a few details there, and coming back and making a decision unfavourable to those people. How long can people like the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) and the rest of us be expected to stand by? This cannot be worked out on statistics. Surely there is some compassion somewhere, some understanding that the very vitality which is seeping out of this nation is the vitality that has seeped out of every other nation which has crashed, that the people in the inland are drifting to the parasite cities. The more quickly that is realised the better.

I might appear to be a little stirred, but I think that 23 years is a pretty fair time; we are now getting into the 24th year. How do other honourable members trunk I feel when I go into one of these areas and accidentally ask: ‘Did you see the commercial celebrating the 2 1st anniversary of commercial television?’ People in those areas would settle for a smoke signal. That is how difficult it is. The dme for talk is over. I appeal most earn.estly to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) to set aside the recommendations of his Commission. In fairness to the Minister, I should say that I know he bases his decisions on those recommendations. I was a Minister and I know how these matters are processed. One hopes, looking at the whole balance of the economy, that one will make the right decision on the recommendations. But in the evaluation of the people representing those electorates, the right decision has not been made, and the amount of money involved is not of any great consequence. So much for that.

Another matter I should like to deal with briefly is that of the small miners’ tribunal. The Government has a policy and will proceed with it as soon as the matter can be discussed and some sort of preliminary planning arrangement set up. I am quite confident that that will happen, but I want to support the case for the small mining fraternity. I do not mean the ordinary gouger or fossicker, but the numerous people around the country who have small mining projects which cannot get off the ground. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who is at the table, would appreciate this because some of the legislation he put through in relation to these matters when he was Minister for Mines in New South Wales was most commendable. At this stage we are not even looking for funds. We are seeking a tribunal, call it what you like, which in the early stages would be able to pass on expertise, advice and necessary consultation to people who can handle the mining industry. If we look at the history of rnining in this nation we will see that almost every major mining project, even to this day, has been discovered not with highly sophisticated equipment but by the ordinary bloke who gets around the country and fossicks out the lode that really matters. In the case of Mount Isa it was Campbell Miles. Weipa was discovered by a geologist, which is not surprising. He was a qualified man, but even so he was not doing some scientific research but discovered Weipa in the ordinary process of exploration. It is through small men such as those that the great mining discoveries have been made. I have already arranged to have discussions with the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) and I hope that eventually the matter will go through to our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) and that we can look at the possibilities of a section of the Bureau of Mineral Resources being made available first of all for consultation specifically with the small miner. In the course of time, when through the medium of the splendid Budget which has just been brought down in this House and through other processes we bring about the restoration of prosperity, I hope that we will be able to provide bridging finance to assist these people to get their ventures off the ground.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– It is not often that I agree with the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and I do not know that I agree with everything he said today. However, I certainly support the remarks he made about the lack of television services in country areas because, having a large country seat I know the problems of trying to get something moving on this matter. However, in blaming the Labor Government I think that the honourable member was on the wrong track because he knows that phase 7 was completed 18 months to two years ago and since then the present Government has done absolutely nothing about an ongoing program. He should be putting pressure on his own Minister to get something done.

That is not my reason for rising in the Grievance debate. I refer to another matter which I have raised on a number of occasions concerning the situation which now exists at Whyalla. Since it became obvious 18 months to two years ago that there could be a lack of orders coming into the shipyards and the possibility was that the shipyards would close down, there has been a lot of concern among local people. The unions in the city, the town council and various organisations expressed their concern for the future of the city because the shipbuilding industry was the backbone of the city and was the industry upon which Whyalla grew. There were many approaches, including some very strong approaches by the Premier of South Australia, Mr Don Dunstan, to the Federal Government to ensure that this large decentralised city was not going to be severely damaged by any lack of shipbuilding orders or by a decision by the Government to allow the shipbuilding industry to die. All approaches have received a negative response. I introduced a deputation of Whyalla organisations to the Minister about 18 months ago. The deputation wanted to find out what the future held. There have been approaches by various other bodies such as the Whyalla City Council, the chamber of commerce and the combined union councils but all these approaches have received a negative response. In many cases they received no response whatever and this also caused some concern because the people who were worried about the future could not get any indication from the Government as to the position. They took the trouble to invite Ministers to Whyalla but up to date all approaches have been to no avail. It appears that the industry has gone.

Problems began in Whyalla six to eight months ago and the situation now is that lay-offs are starting. This Government, which claimed during the last election that it supported a viable shipbuilding industry, is going to allow this industry to die slowly. The crunch day has come to Whyalla and many people, some personal friends of mine, have received their notices. What they are going to do now nobody knows. This is a decentralised area and while the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd may be able to absorb a number of people into the steel works in the city there are a lot of tradesmen who find now that there are no employment opportunities for their trade in that city. These people will have to either move on or accept a lower paid job in the steel works. Although there have been assurances from BHP about the job situation it is obvious that it will not be able to absorb all those tradesmen who will become redundant.

A few months ago- in late May- there was the release of a report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The recommendations in the report raised the hopes of the people in Whyalla. The report states that on 4 May 1976 the whole Committee resolved that a subcommittee to be known as the Sub-committee on Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters investigate and report on those matters with particular attention being given to manufacturing, backup industries and research facilities. Of course, this raised the hopes somewhat of the people in the city for most of the members of this Committee were fairly responsible members of this Parliament. They presented a report on which a fair amount of work had obviously been done. Certainly it was a considered report and I thought that the Government should have taken up its recommendations.

The Whyalla City Council was concerned about the report and tried to do all it could to see that the report was adopted and as a means of achieving this, asked for a meeting of all South Australia senators both Labor and Liberal. It requested that they come to Whyalla and have discussions with the Council about the report and whether it would be accepted by the Government. The meeting was attended by six South Australian senators. There were Senators Bishop, McLaren and Donald Cameron from the

Australian Labor Party and Senators Jessop, Messner and Davidson from the Liberal Party. Having been invited, I also attended as did Mr Max Brown, the local member for Whyalla in the State Parliament. After a deep round table discussion with the Whyalla City Council all senators unanimously agreed to support the recommendations of the Committee. In addition the South Australian Premier had indicated his full support for the recommendations of the Committee. As a result all six senators signed a joint letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) asking that the package deal contained in the report be accepted. I also sent a letter to the Prime Minister making a similar suggestion. We have learned in the last week that the recommendation has been flatly rejected by the Prime Minister and that is where the matter now rests.

After this conference took place the Whyalla City Council organised a further deputation to see Senator Cotton about the matter and in the report of that meeting which was sent to me the deputation said that it was received courteously and cordially. However, I am afraid that the other matters contained in its report are not very encouraging. The delegation sought some information as to how matters were progressing but up till the present time there has been a lamentable absence of information available to the community. One of the suggestions of the Minister was that officers of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs would be sent to Whyalla to make suggestions. As soon as it became clear in Whyalla what the future of the city would be the South Australian State Government set up a working party which has been working solidly since trying to find alternative industries and to make suggestions as to how the problems that have bit the city can be overcome. So what the Federal Minister suggested was a little late in the day because the South Austraiian Premier had organised a working party to look into all those matters long before the Federal people had taken any positive steps. While some positive suggestions have been made and a small amount of work has been found, these are only band-aid approaches and certainly do not solve the problem that Whyalla faces.

My time is running short so I suggest that what the Government should do is retract its complete rejection of the recommendation that the report be adopted. It is not too often that we get all the senators from a State on the one side and in this case the senators, both Liberal and Labor, combined to sign a joint letter and issue a joint Press statement to the effect that they supported the adoption of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and recommended the acceptance of the package deal contained in the report part of which was that a committee of all interested parties in the industry be formed. These include the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government because Newcastle is involved, the South Australian Government because Whyalla is involved and the Australian Council of Trade Unions because one cannot come to any arrangement unless the employees in industry also have a fair say in what is going on. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence suggested that this committee be formed to find out what can be done to ensure that effect is given to its recommendations, that is that Australia should maintain a viable shipbuilding industry as part of its defence program. To bring that about the Committee fully supports the retention of the Whyalla and Newcastle shipyards as viable propositions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 411

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Mr Speaker has received advice from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) that he has nominated Mr Charles Jones to be a member of the Select Committee on Tourism to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Young.

page 411

STUDENT ASSISTANCE SCHEMES AND MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ministerial Statement

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– by leave- In October last year I announced substantial increases across the board for 1977 in allowances for the 10 student assistance schemes administered by the Department of Education. The Government is continuing its policy of providing a comprehensive range of assistance to students to ensure that all are able to achieve their maximum potential and will not be prevented from doing so by a lack of financial support. Under the present Government the numbers of students assisted has grown and a record number is expected to be assisted in 1978 as shown in the following table:

Allowances

This growth in numbers, combined with increases in allowances for 1977, has resulted in a large increase in the funds allocated for direct assistance to students. In 1973-76 expenditure on student assistance was $ 154.9m. For 1976-77 expenditure increased to $ 186.9m. In considering allowances for 1978 the Government has had to balance economic restraint against its concern that student should not suffer hardship. Changes have therefore been directed to students whose needs were assessed to be the greatest. Those student who must live away from home to continue their education, those students who are self-supporting and those students who have the responsibility to support dependants are, in my view, most affected by rising costs. Allowances for these groups will be increased with effect from 1 January 1978 at an additional cost for 1977-78 of $4.3m bringing the total appropriation for the financial year to $224.7m.

The following increased rates will apply for 1978. Other allowances under the schemes will remain unchanged.

Assistance for Isolated Children

The maximum rate of the additional boarding allowance is to be increased from $450 to $500 per annum for 1978.

Aboriginal Secondary Grants

The boarding allowance limits- the maximum amount reimbursed of the actual costs- will be increased for 1978 from $1,450 per annum to $1,600 per annum where the student is enrolled at a boarding school, from $28 per week to $30 per week for students in hostels and from $20 per week to $22 per week for students in private board.

Postgraduate Awards

In 1959 the Commonwealth for the first time offered competitive awards to students undertaking postgraduate research. From a modest beginning of 100 awards in that year the number has grown each year until, in 1977, there is an estimated 2235 postgraduate students being assisted under three schemes. These schemes offer the original Postgraduate Research Awards, Postgraduate Course Awards, which were first made in 1971, and Postgraduate Awards at Colleges of Advanced Education, since 1974. For 1978, 700 new awards will be offered for competition. This is a reduction of 100 on the number offered in 1977 and, because students offered awards in previous years are continuing thenstudies, will reduce the total number being assisted to an estimated 2130 in 1978. This decision, which brings the number of awards on offer to approximately the number made in 1974, has regard for the increasing supply of students with higher degree qualifications in recent years, a situation which justifies a small tapering of the scheme.

Means Tests

To ensure that maximum assistance is directed to the most needy, entitlements to benefits under most schemes are subject to means tests which are normally applied to the combined incomes of a student’s parents in the previous financial year.

Maximum benefits are payable where the combined parental income, less certain allowable deductions such as for other dependents, is not more than an amount called the marginal adjusted family income, known as MAFI. Parental incomes in excess of the MAFI attract a reduced entitlement calculated by reducing the maximum allowance by $2.50 for each $10 by which the combined parental income exceeds the MAFI. To compensate for rises in incomes during the last financial year, the means tests will be relaxed to ensure that maximum benefits continue to be directed to those most in need. The MAFI for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and related schemes and the Additional Boarding Allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme will be increased from $8,200 to $8,700 for 1978. Similarly the MAFI for the Secondary Allowances Scheme and the Special Supplementary Allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme will be increased from $5,100 to $5,800.

Loans

Last year the Government appointed a committee to examine the desirability and feasibility of introducing a system of loans for Australian post-secondary students either as a supplement to existing schemes or as a replacement in whole or in part for those schemes. The valuable report of the committee was tabled in Parliament on 2 June 1977. It recommended two inter-related loan schemes, one of relatively small loans administered mainly by educational institutions and one of larger loans administered jointly by educational institutions and financial institutions. Careful consideration has been given to the committee ‘s recommendations and it has been decided that no action be taken at this time to implement a scheme of student loans.

Business Colleges

I have indicated the substantial additional expenditure which will be provided for student assistance in 1977-78. It is appropriate in this context to refer to the Government’s decision to phase out the payment of a fees subsidy to a small number of private business colleges. Following the abolition of fees in tertiary institutions including technical colleges by the Whitlam Government, a few private business colleges attracted per capita grants. The colleges had to establish themselves as non-profit-making institutions and, subject to the normal means tests, students at the colleges were eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance Allowances. About one half the students receive these allowances.

For 1976 my Government decided not to approve of the payment of fee subsidies to any additional colleges because of the escalating costs. Out of a total of more than one hundred private business colleges currently in existence, only 18 attract the benefits. These 18 colleges have some 4000-odd students enrolled in courses approved for the fee subsidies involving a cost of $2. 36m in 1977. The size of the per capita grants varies substantially between institutions. Most of these institutions, in addition to the subsidy, charge fees of as much as $600. One possible action for the Government would have been to include all private business colleges in the fees subsidy scheme. The costs of this action would have been very great. Not to do so, however, would be to continue an inequitable and discriminatory system of assistance. Since fee subsidies have been paid to some colleges more than 80 private business colleges have continued to operate and provide a useful service without Government assistance and I see no reason why these, and those which have received assistance to date, should not continue to do so and complement the parallel courses made available in government institutions.

Migrant Education Program

Additional funds are being provided in 1977-78 for the Adult Migrant Education Program. A sum of $9.633m is included in the appropriations for 1977-78, as compared with an expenditure of $8,959,645 in 1976-77. These funds will allow the Adult Migrant Education Program to be maintained in 1977-78 at a similar overall level of activity to that in 1 976-77 and provide for an increase in the living allowances for adult migrants attending full time English language courses. The new rates of living allowances mean an increase of $9.15 a week for single students and $16.55 for a married student with a dependent spouse and bring the allowances to $45.15 and $76.55 a week respectively. The allowance for dependent children is increased from $7 to $7.50. These revised rates will apply from early November 1977.

The Adult Migrant Education Program offers a range of full time and part time courses and classes including evening continuation classes as well as radio, correspondence and television English language programs. Funds for migrant and multicultural education in schools are provided, in the main, through a component of the Schools Commission’s General Recurrent Grants Program. An amount of $25.457m was provided to education authorities in the States in 1976-77 through that Program. The Schools Commission is yet to recommend the level of funding for this purpose for 1978 although funds for 1977-78 will be sufficient to allow at least a similar level of activity nationally to that in 1976-77. In addition to the Schools Commission Grants, $560,000 is included in the Department of Education’s appropriations for the production and supply of special teaching and learning materials for primary schools with children from non-English speaking backgrounds and for special assistance in respect of refugee children.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) by leave- The Opposition is most dissatisfied with this statement. Already my colleague Senator Wriedt, who is the shadow Minister for Education, has answered the ministerial statement made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate. I want to confirm the remarks of my colleage and also to refer to some of the other factors which are clearly illustrated in the statement. The statement covers a number of matters and I do not have time to debate them all. Basically the statement relates to student assistance schemes. Honourable members will notice that student allowances are to be increased only very slightly- by amounts of $2 or $3 a week.

It was always the intention of the Labor Government that students would be able to receive sufficient sustenance to guarantee them a reasonable standard of living. Associated with this objective was the proposition that students might need additional capital assistance by way of loans. This Government went to a great deal of trouble and expense to set up a committee of inquiry to determine whether loans would be worth while and, if so, what sort of loans should be made available. That committee duly reported that two types of loans should be made available- in other words, that there should be financial assistance to students. But we now find that no action at all is to be taken on that recommendation. As a result students are to be deprived of the facility of loans.

In the limited time available to me in this debate I want to mention some other matters which

I think are very important. One matter relates to business college students. I take issue with the Government because I have in front of me a letter which I received from the Australian Council of Independent Business Schools, dated 10 August 1977, and which clearly indicates a number of very unsatisfactory matters, not the least of which is the claim that the Minister for Education is proposing to dispute the Council’s representations and not to grant its wishes in respect of students who at present attend the colleges which it represents. The letter says that the Minister is not even prepared to see representatives of the Council. This is a quite deplorable situation. Further, the Council disputes the accuracy of the definition of ‘business colleges’ in the Minister’s statement as against the definition of business colleges’ under the existing scheme. It was well known when the Labor Government introduced this scheme that business colleges had to qualify. They had to be non-profit organisations; they had to have skilled teachers; and there had to be definite credibility and accountability.

The Council makes the point that to lump all these so-called business colleges together with institutions, many of which have been established since the last century and which have substantial enrolments, is surely clouding the issue and misleading. It points out that in addition the majority of those other so-called business colleges have a very low level of enrolment. It compares those business colleges with the wellqualified business colleges that now qualify for an entitlement. It points out that at least 10 000 students are enrolled in independent business colleges, 5000 of whom are enrolled in full time courses and receive the student living away from home allowance and qualify for per capita fees assistance. In other words, a very worthwhile tertiary facility, maintained on a non-profit making basis and available to many people who are finding it difficult to obtain jobs because of a lack of skills, is being denied assistance.

I notice that the Minister for Education gave the specious reasoning that the Labor Government intended to phase out assistance in this area. The Labor Government intended to so no such thing. Assistance to the Mercury College in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney was approved by the then Minister for Education, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), in the dying stages of the Labor Government. The Labor Government was expanding the scheme. The letter from the Council states:

The Council is conscious of the difficulties confronting the Government … but we believe that the decision … is ill-considered and arbitrary itself and takes no account of alternative means by which the scheme could have been improved. Our original submission to the Government suggested criteria which could be applied to determine whether or not colleges qualified for assistance.

The letter then set out the criteria. It suggested that a college should be non-profit making, that there be qualified teachers, that the courses be full time and that there be opportunities to teach people skills. The Council clearly made the point that it called for an inquiry to establish the criteria and that it would willingly take part in any such inquiry. In its letter the Council made the point:

The removal of the means-tested TEAS living allowances from students has not been explained and appears to the Council to be capricious, illogical, indefensible and discriminatory.

The letter also states:

The Council has requested the Government to reverse its decision and urgently requests that interim funding for 1978 be guaranteed forthwith pending a thorough review of the position of non-state business colleges being undertaken and including consideration of a more appropriate funding method.

I make an urgent plea to the Minister in this House, who is sympathetic in a number of other areas, to have a look at this problem. In total, 10,000 students in a very effective area of education are to be denied opportunities to continue their courses. There is massive unemployment in this country. In many cases people could be placed in employment if they had acquired new skills. This applies particularly to young women who are searching for jobs everywhere and many of whom are university graduates and need to take second courses to acquire these skills.

I also want to talk about migrant education. This area has to be looked at in the light of the statement just presented.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I am grateful to my colleague for his support. It is quite inadequate to suggest that the amount of money outlined in the statement will meet the needs of migrant education. Honourable members will notice that the amount involved is about $9.6m. New South Wales alone, which I would say has to cater for perhaps one-third of the needs in migrant education, asked for and was denied $5.5m. Obviously that State would not be able to receive $5.5m out of the paltry amount of $9.6m. New South Wales made the point quite clearly that the States have the burden of looking after migrants. It also made the point that because the funds are not available there will be no new classes, there will be no effective classes in industry and there will be no women’s day classes. We know that already there is overcrowding in the migrant area. In other words, the opportunity will not be given for the purchase of new textbooks. We should bear in mind that migrants are coming mainly from the Lebanese and Asian areas and that textbooks are not printed in their languages. There is a complete denial of the facilities that should be made available to migrants.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was making a point about the inadequacy of trie funds provided for migrant education. By way of further illustration I hark back to the 1976-77 Budget. In that Budget the migrant education allocation was reduced to $ 10.6m from a previous allocation of $2 1.4m. In other words, the Labor Government was giving quite substantial funds to migrant education. If one looks at the explanatory notes in relation to migrant education at the time of that Budget one will see that in 1 975-76 $10m was spent on child migrant education in only six months. So one can see that a substantial amount of money is required in the migrant education field. Of course, the Government now says in respect of child migrant education that it is picked up in what is called the Schools Commission funding. Yet if one looks at the previous Budget one can readily see that there had not been an adequate acceleration in the funds provided there in a general sense to provide sufficient funds for child migrant education, if in fact it was costing in excess of $20m at that time.

I refer now to the migrant education program. The statement indicates that an appropriation of $9.6m is regarded as being sufficient and adequate. I make the point, which has quite some support, that this is far from adequate. I reiterate that in New South Wales alone the amount sought for adult education was $5. 5m. By taking that as being the need of perhaps a third of the total one can see that one would need at least $ 16.5m for adult education if one is to provide adequate facilities. I emphasise the problems which certainly apply in New South Wales at the present time and which almost certainly apply in all the other States. This money provides for no growth factor in migrant education.

There is no more urgent need than the provision of the opportunity to give the migrants of this country an education, particularly from the point of view of language communication. Unless migrants get the opportunity to learn the language they cannot absorb the skills. To bring them to this country and not give them a chance immediately to participate in the community, particularly at the work level, is to impose a penalty on them. It is very important that they be given the opportunity to have intensive full time training in the English language when they are brought here. That will be denied to them by this allocation of funds.

I mention the fact that there will be no new classes in New South Wales, for example. The present classes in industry will not be expanded and could well be restricted. The day classes for women will not be able to continue. No new equipment has been provided since 1975. The textbooks are as old as 1967. As I have mentioned, we now have a completely new type of migrant. We now have migrants from the Middle East, particularly from the Lebanon, and Asian countries for whom there are no text books at all. Furthermore there has been no teacher training for migrants with these disabilities.

One can see the great problems that the States are having in trying to cope with what is legally a Federal responsibility in the migrant education field. It is not good enough just to have a Treasury assessment that says: ‘You received so much last year. We will just add a little to it and that should be sufficient’. It would be more appropriate to look at the problems of last year and see how onerous they are and how incapable the system is of meeting the needs and then to say: This is an area that needs a massive injection of funds because people are involved ‘. To penalise a migrant at this stage could be to penalise him for the rest of his life in this country. Unless he gets a chance to get these skills at the time of his introduction to this country there is very little chance for him later on in life. Those of us who have an interest in the manufacturing base of this country see when walking through the factories that the low wage earner is usually the migrant who has not had a chance to improve himself. The penalty applies not only to him but also to his wife and family.

It is for those reasons that, in the short period of time I have had at my disposal, I have illustrated how inadequate this statement is, how mean it is from the point of view of the allocation of funds and how incorrect it is to suggest, in relation to business students, that as only 18 out of 100 colleges would be getting any benefit the Government ought to phase out the scheme. Again I emphasise the point that was made in the letter to me, and obviously to the Minister, from the Australian Council of Business Schools is that the criteria of the Minister for Education are wrong. The Minister would not even see representatives of the organisation. The Council makes the point that it is a non-profit organisation. It is catering for 10 000 students. It has suggested that there be an inquiry. It has said that it would participate in that inquiry. The Council says that it is completely wrong to suggest that all business colleges are of the same standard. It readily acknowledges that there is an infinite number of business colleges that are only on the fringe, but says that those that are catering for the needs of people ought to be maintained.

To phase out support for those colleges and, worse still, to phase out the student allowances for the youngsters who are there is going to penalise them further. It will mean that these people will not be able to maintain themselves. In other words, if the colleges want to remain in existence these unfortunate students will have to pay quite substantial fees. It is contrary to the whole Australian philosophy of education and to the suggestion that we are doing our best for the young people of this country. I hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), who is quite sympathetic, quite capable and quite understanding of the needs of people, will have another look at this statement and its shortcomings. I hope that he will have a look particularly at the submissions that have been made by the people who are interested in migrant education at a State level as well as the submissions those who are interested in the students of business colleges.

page 416

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs · New England · NCP/NP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. In this morning’s Australian there is a quote allegedly from a spokesman on my behalf on how I enjoy acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The comment is made that it is a pleasant change after concentrating on cows and cockies. I assure the House that if that statement was made it was not made on my behalf and that I would much rather be known as the farmers’ friend than for my dalliances with diplomats.

page 416

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Report of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, I present the report of the Committee. A protest signed by one member of the Committee and a dissent signed by two members of the Committee are included with the main report. I also present the minutes of the proceedings taken in connection with the inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Macphee)-by leaveproposed:

That the House take note of the report.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I had intended to seek the leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. I take it that I am now speaking to the motion and that that means I now have a speaking time of IS minutes.

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

-That is correct.

Mr BRYANT:

– I do not know whether that will inhibit me. I want to read to the House a statement made by my colleague Senator Neville T. Bonner, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. It is a statement that he made in the Senate on behalf of the Committee. As the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I want to place it on record here on the Committee’s behalf.

Since it was first established in December 1976, the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory held 1 1 days of public hearings- 8 in the Northern Territory and 3 in Canberra. Evidence was taken from 65 persons. Towards the end of the inquiry the Committee divided into 4 sub-committees for visits to 16 Aboriginal communities for discussions with Aboriginal leaders on the subject matter of the inquiry. Under clause (a) of its terms of reference, the Committee was requested to examine and report on the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act relating to the identification of traditional owners of Aboriginal land and the means of establishing the views of Aboriginal traditional owners to the satisfaction of the relevant Land Councils.

Evidence before the Committee indicated that generally tribal people knew who the traditional owners of the land were and that disputes over ownership of land were rare. Because of this and other evidence placed before it the Committee concluded that the methods adopted to date by both the Northern and Central Land Councils are appropriate to identify the Aboriginal traditional owners. However, both Land Councils expressed concern at the pressure by various interests to identify traditional owners. The

Committee believes that as a result of this pressure there is a risk that identification may not be as thorough as is considered necessary. The Committee stresses that part of the Government’s on-going responsibility is to ensure that the Land Councils and the agencies involved in the identification process have adequate time and resources to carry out the necessary procedures for identification.

The Committee concluded, on the point of consultation with traditional owners, that generally the procedures of consultation adopted by the Land Councils are appropriate. However, the Committee found that in some instances the communication of Land Council decisions was ineffective. Where a delegate may not have the necessary clarity of explanation, the Committee considers that trained Aboriginal officers of the Land Councils should be made available to explain any intended action of the Council to Aboriginal groups or to traditional owners.

The Committee was charged with the responsibility of examining the Northern Territory legislation. Under clause (b) of its terms of reference the Committee was requested to report on the adequacy of provisions of the law of the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife conservation and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land. Under the Land Rights Act the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory is empowered to make ordinances in respect of these matters. In the Act it is referred to as reciprocal legislation. In accordance with this power the Aboriginal Lands and Sacred Sites Bill was introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 3 March 1 977. This Bill, which relates to the protection of sites of significance, entry to Aboriginal land and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land, lapsed on the dissolution of the previous Assembly. The wildlife conservation aspect is covered in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance which was assented to on 26 May 1977.

The Committee considers that the main deficiency in the Aboriginal Lands and Sacred Sites Bill was that the role of the Land Councils was reduced and as such did not accord with Federal Government policy. The Committee also considers that some of the provisions of the Bill were complex and confusing and could lead to uncertainty and delay in administration and enforcement. Many problems associated with the reciprocal legislation would have been overcome if close and meaningful consultation had been undertaken in the first instance by all parties concerned and because of this the Committee has concluded that such consultation should take place before the reciprocal legislation is reintroduced into the new Assembly.

The Committee believes that the Northern Territory legislation should contain the following provisions: Power to delegate by the Land Councils,* permits to include conditions approved by traditional owners; conditions to include that a person should leave the land if requested by the traditional owners; power to revoke a permit with penalty for non-compliance; the right for a community occupying land not occupied by the traditional owners to issue permits to allow visits to that community; the traditional owner to have power to delegate; the traditional owner to give permission to enter his land in circumstances where it is not practicable to obtain permits from a Land Council; and that officials, politicians- I would prefer to use the word parliamentarians’- and police should notify in advance their intention to enter Aboriginal land.

In respect of sacred sites the Committee believes that the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act should be examined and, where appropriate, its provisions adopted. In particular any legislation should make provision for the initiative for the protection of sacred sites to rest with the Aboriginals themselves. A statutory authority with Land Council representation should be established and be responsible for coordination of requests for protection, the initiation of prosecution, and establishing the most appropriate method of protection in each circumstance. Sign posting and fencing should be avoided where possible. It should be mandatory for prior adequate consultation to be held between organisations and individuals and the relevant Land Council. If there is any proposed activity that requires earth works or clearing the maximum penalty for desecration of sacred sites should be sufficient to deter wilful desecration and the onus of proof to establish that the desecration was not wilful should rest with the defendant.

In relation to wildlife conservation, while the Committee concludes that the provisions of the Territory Parks and Wildlife and Conservation Ordinance are generally adequate, some amendments are needed to make provision for the Parks and Wildlife Commission to negotiate and conclude agreements with the relevant Land Councils to protect fauna and to ensure that Aboriginals have a right to kill wildlife for food and ceremonial purposes in cases where there is no agreement with the Commission.

In respect of entry to seas adjacent to Aboriginal Land, the strong views expressed to the Committee give credence to the suggestion that control of the seas by Aboriginals could give rise to ill feelings between the Aboriginal and nonAboriginal community. As far as nonAboriginals were concerned, there was ample evidence that there was substantial recreational use of the waters in the large centres of nonAboriginal population, such as Gove. Barramundi fishing is taking place within 2 kilometres of Aboriginal land or land under Aboriginal claim. The Committee notes that the Land Rights Act was drawn up so as to preserve existing rights. The provisions relating to mining are the most obvious example of this. The Committee is aware of the strong desire by Aboriginals to obtain rights over the 2 kilometres area. These expectations were raised in the Aboriginal community following recommendations by the Woodward Commission. The Committee believes that the non-fulfilment of these expectations could also have serious repercussions. The Committee is of the view that sacred sites within the sea should be protected. The Committee has endeavoured to formulate a proposal which takes account of the various points of view presented to it and the needs of the whole community. It therefore proposes that the Northern Territory legislation should make provision for the following:

  1. The right of Aboriginals to enter and use the resources of all waters adjoining and within 2 kilometres of the land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. This right is to include the closing of areas of the sea which are of significance to Aboriginal communities, either for traditional use, or for enjoyment of the waters or for the creation of buffer zones;
  2. The ajoining areas in substantial nonAboriginal centres of population to be opened for recreational use;
  3. The rights of existing commercial fishing licences to be retained and that new fishing licences be issued only after consultation between the Fisheries Branch of the Department of the Northern Territory and the relevant Land Council; and
  4. The Aboriginal Land Commissioner to arbitrate in cases where disagreements arise between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal interests over the use of the seas 2 kilometres from Aboriginal land.

The majority of the members of the Committee believes that the Parliament should maintain a continuing oversight of the administration of the Land Rights Act to ensure that the letter and spirit of the Act have been observed. The report accordingly recommends that the Parliament establish a committee to inquire further into the operation of the Lands Rights Act.

I have been reading the statement presented to the Senate by our Chairman, Senator Neville Bonner. The Committee was almost in unanimous agreement with most of that statement and most of the report. However there were several matters upon which one of my colleagues and I disagreed with the Committee. I think that this Parliament abdicated its responsibility to the Aboriginal people when it chose to place the responsibility for the implementation of legislation upon the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. This Parliament must accept full responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs. That is the responsibility placed squarely upon us by the referendum of 1 967. 1 think that the result of that referendum was one of the most emphatic demonstrations of public mandate that any Parliament could receive. Regardless of the political complexion of any of the other legislatures in this country we cannot remove ourselves from that duty. The fundamental issue is the advancement of the Aboriginal people of Australia to an equal place in this society with the rest of the community. That can be done on a proper basis only by the national Parliament and the national Government.

Land rights is a fundamental question to the Aboriginal people. It is an issue that has not so much to do with the material way in which we look at the ownership of land as the spirit of the land. As described to us in the past, the Aboriginal people obtain spiritual refreshment from passage across land. Most of us can understand that feeling. There is a great wave of enthusiasm in this country for the preservation of the landscape and for those things which we value, either by inheritance or for the sheer beauty of them. We have to take that only a few steps further to have a better feeling about the land rights situation of the Aboriginal people. It does not stop with the land.

The issue in the debate between myself and my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and the rest of my colleagues, although not all of them, was the question of the rights to the sea. The Committee was not unanimous about this. Two of us have chosen to put in a dissenting report. That does not mean that others were in absolute agreement or that the Committee did not take a great deal of time to try to resolve the difficulty. It is my view that we should have conferred the ownership of the sea area, 2 kilometres from land, upon the Aboriginal people with rights of access to that area coming by application to the Aboriginal people. The Committee has chosen to advocate that, in fact, the sea shall be more or less open with rights to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people but with absolute right of access to Aboriginal people. I do not trunk that goes far enough. I do not think we understand the spirit in which the Aboriginal people look upon the land and the sea. The sea is an extension of the land. It is not a different environment; it is a permanent part of their environment.

I think the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly made a very poor effort to take up the duty imposed upon it by this Parliament and produce satisfactory legislation. It was unsatisfactory in many aspects. The Assembly was a most unsatisfactory agent in this regard. In fact, the legislation was not proceeded with. It was explained to us that it was tabled and was available for open debate. However, I believe the legislation was drafted by people who had little sensitivity towards the issues at stake. I believe it will be quite fatal for us to pass this duty over to any other agency, whether it is a State government or a legislative assembly. I believe it is time we took up the whole issue of land rights. It is time we did something in Queensland. Perhaps we should actually purchase from the Queensland Government such areas as the Torres Strait Islands, Palm Island and so on, and deed that land in trust to the Aboriginal community in the same way as we are talking of land rights in the Northern Territory. If we are going to wait for the 6 States to legislate equally with us in the spirit in which we interpret the needs of the Aboriginal people and the duties imposed upon us by the people of Australia, we will wait a long while. The Aboriginal people have been waiting toolong.

The subject of land rights has been a difficult question for all communities everywhere. That is part of the great problems of the Middle East. It was thought that the Indian lands were made secure for the Indian people over 200 years ago by the British Parliament through the agency of that well known revolutionary, George III, by proclamation. The Maori lands were dealt with by treaty, I think in 1840. The Spanish laws of the 16th and 17th centuries provided absolute rights to land for indigenous people. None of those laws has succeeded. We nave a high and important duty. We have a difficult task. It will only be carried through if we ourselves supervise the matter down to the last full stop.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

– I notice that the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, Senator Bonner, is presently in the chamber. I think it is appropriate for me at this stage to say to Senator Bonner that I feel he discharged his duties as Chairman of this Committee in a very responsible way. I think the Parliament is indebted to him for that work. I am very pleased to be associated with the report but I am disappointed with certain aspects of the dissenting report of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). Part (a) of the dissenting report states:

  1. . that due to restraints in time a properly prepared final draft of the Report has not been circulated to members for their considered response before presentation to the Parliament.

In my opinion this reflects adversely, and in an unwarranted way, on the service provided to the Committee by the secretariat and, in particular, on the two men closely associated with the Committee. In my view these gentlemen should be congratulated for getting this report prepared for the Parliament in such a short time, particularly as they were subjected to very serious and inconvenient time constraints. I feel- I know that all members of the Committee will agree with methat these gentlemen worked extremely efficiently and in a very thoughtful and cooperative manner. The logistics of the exercise were known to the honourable gentlemen some time ago and they did not object then. On 4 May 1 977 all members were informed in an agenda paper that as the report had to be tabled in the Parliament by 1 8 August and as its printing would take approximately three weeks, it would need to be cleared by the Committee before 28 July. The secretariat therefore proposed that a meeting to clear the report should commence in Canberra on Tuesday, 26 July, at the latest. Notice of this meeting was given to members in May. Because this date was not convenient to some members of the Committee all members, including the two honourable members opposite, agreed to the meeting being held on 28 and 29 July. This agreement was reached early in June and all honourable members were informed. No objections to this time schedule were made. The constraints on printing time were known to all members of the Committee at that time.

I submit, therefore, that the honourable gentlemen had the opportunity to take the action they required in paragraph ( a) of their dissenting report very early in the piece. They did not do so.

I comment briefly on paragraph (b) of the dissenting report relating to paragraph 129 of the report which relates to the entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land. The dissenters state that the recommendation of the Committee in this regard represents a departure from the spirit and intention of the Woodward Commission’s recommendations. I refute this. I say to the honourable gentlemen that Woodward’s recommendations on the 2 kilometre limit was not based so much on the sanctity of the sea, but rather on the need to protect traditional fishing rights and the need to establish a buffer zone of sea in order to preserve the privacy of Aboriginal land. In this respect the Committee noted that at present fishing and other seafood gathering by Aborigines was not adversely affected by nonAborigines.

The Committee also noted that the concept of a buffer zone to protect the privacy of coastal Aboriginal people could be ineffective. The Committee noted that because of the isolation of the area few non-Aborigines would enter the seas adjoining Aboriginal land anyway. In my view this section of the report does not reduce Aboriginal rights in respect of Aboriginal land. What it does is protect the rights of all people in the Northern Territory. We should realise that we are talking here about 81 per cent of the total coastline of the Northern Territory. The Committee was obliged to consider the rights of all people. It should be remembered that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was drawn in order to preserve existing rights and usages. The provisions relating to mining are the most obvious example of this. Of course, there are existing fishing licences. Also, there is ample evidence of substantial recreational use of the waters near the larger centres of non-Aboriginal population.

I think the Committee has attained a sensible position in this very sensitive area. Aboriginal rights have been and will be protected through the appropriate land council. I believe that all recommendations contained in paragraph 129 of the report quite adequately protect the rights of traditional owners in this regard. I also reject the third item of dissent by the honourable members for Wills and Hughes. I do not think that this recommendation, that is to establish a committee to further inquire into the Land Rights Act, in any way presupposes the inability of the Minister to administer the Act effectively. This is what those honourable gentlemen contend. If they are to be consistent, they should level the same charge against the present Committee. The need for an ongoing review does exist, primarily because the Northern Territory complementary legislation which we were charged to investigate originally, has not yet been finalised. I also suggest that the Committee should again be a committee of the Parliament and not just of the House of Representatives. The present House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is fully occupied with two very substantial references from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). I think the suggestion by the honourable gentlemen greatly understates the role played by our senatorial colleagues in preparing the present report. They have built up substantial expertise in this field which should not now be lost to the Parliament.

I also comment on the lone protest made by the genial giant of the Parliament, the honourable member for Wills who, I think, has done the cause of land rights a disservice by castigating the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in such strong terms. He seems to proceed on the fallacious assumption that all wisdom resides in Canberra. I think that by registering this protest the honourable member has ignored the fact that the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory in its report, after a proper investigation, has constructively criticised the complementary legislation of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

More importantly, he has ignored the very real efforts the Assembly has made to modify and improve its original legislation and the conciliatory approach it has adopted in respect of many very significant areas of the report. By making this protest, he has run the risk of creating greater friction between the Assembly and the Aboriginal people at a time when the Assembly has made genuine attempts to improve its complementary land rights legislation in favour of the Aboriginal people. If this protest helps to diminish the confidence of the Aboriginal people in their legislature, the long term effects may be very serious indeed. More importantly, it should be noted that the honourable member’s protest is outside the Committee’s terms of reference. We were not asked to comment on whether the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should introduce complementary legislation. We were asked to comment on the suitability of such legislation. That concludes my comments on the dissenting report by the honourable gentlemen opposite.

I would like to make briefly some general points relating to the inquiry by the Select Committee. In general, during my visits to Aboriginal communities I found that traditional owners, whilst happy to have land rights, did not really see the significance of the legislation. After all, they know their own traditional land and have always regarded it as theirs, anyhow. This Act is really only giving a piece of paper or white man’s legitimacy to what they have always regarded as their own land. There is no dispute in this area. The Aboriginal expectation has been raised, to the extent that he wants to know what the legislation means to him over and above the formality of receiving land rights. In most cases I have found that Aboriginals now expect to move to their traditional land and to enjoy the same facilities as they now have in the major settlements. I simply draw this to the attention of the House because that is the Aboriginal expectation in the areas I visited and it has very substantial long term implications for government policy and very substantial monetary implications.

Another matter I want to raise concerns the problems which may confront Aboriginal communities at present living in settlements which are not located near their traditional land and which in fact belong to other Aboriginal groups. I refer to those Aboriginals presently living in places such as Areyonga and Jay Creek. For example, the Aboriginals now living at Areyonga have their traditional land at Docker River, but they no longer have any close affiliation to that land and, in fact, have completely dissociated themselves from it. They have lived at Areyonga, which is the traditional land of Aboriginal people now living at Hermannsburg, for some 40 years. Their children have been born there and many of their people have been buried there. They regard Areyonga as their home. I am concerned about what might happen should the traditional owners decide to move to Areyonga in these circumstances. Of course, this could well take place if mining developments proceed in this area. There are a number of instances such as this and I am concerned that the strong emphasis on traditional ownership might well lead to there being many displaced Aboriginals in certain instances and might create tensions between traditional owners and other Aboriginals which did not exist previously.

I would like also to raise the question of who will advise Aboriginal traditional owners about the pros and cons of mining on their land. In my opinion, such advice should be independent and balanced. These communities have the right to know of the direct benefits they might receive from mining ventures rather than just to hear of the disadvantages. I am not saying that mineral producers should advise them; but equally I am not saying that they should be advised by conservationists or even by the land councils. I tend to the view that such advice should come perhaps from an independent government agency such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

There is one remaining point I would like to mention, namely, the possibility of creating additional land councils. In my view, this may create a number of difficulties. The number of bodies interposed between the traditional owners and their land should be kept to a minimum. This is necessary because the traditional owners see themselves as being the sole decision makers in matters concerning the use of their land. It is difficult enough to get them to accept the need for the existing land councils, let alone the need to establish new ones. This may also open up the possibility of non-traditional owners gaining control of smaller councils; but I think the main objection is that it would be logistically and financially difficult to service these bodies with the necessary personnel- personnel with expertise in anthropology, the law and so forth.

In conclusion, I wish to say that the Committee has been very thorough in its inquiry under the terms of reference. It has visited 16 settlements and taken evidence from 65 witnesses. All in all, I think that the report will do much to ensure the effective implementation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I commend the report to the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The House will appreciate that the Labor Opposition has a very sincere, genuine and enduring interest in this question of Aboriginal land rights, since it was during the period of the Labor Government’s administration that the first land rights legislation was introduced into this Parliament and the debate continued for a substantial period, notwithstanding opposition and frustrating delays that were prompted by the then Opposition. Regrettably the events of 1 1 November 1975 prevented that legislation from being enacted. Subsequently the new Governmentthe present Government- introduced legislation. There has been some deterioration of the standard of the legislation, as we see it and as it appears to be, in terms of the Woodward recommendations. Foremost among the points where there has been some alteration and some deterioration of high principles, ideals and objectives are the questions that relate to the control of adjoining seas by the Aboriginal people.

I will not take up the time of the House this afternoon in going through the main body of the report. The report is a very good one and substantially it speaks for itself. I am quite pleased that there has been scrutiny of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly’s role in providing legislation supplementary to the Federal legislation which was passed in this Parliament last year. It is true, as has been mentioned, that the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory operated diligently. Fourteen members of the two Houses of Parliament were involved in its work, which extended over the period of time referred to by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean). Indeed, four previous Ministers who had responsibility for Aboriginal affairs were on the Committee. The present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) took an intelligent and active interest in the affairs of the Committee. We spent 1 1 days in public hearings in the Northern Territory and visited many Aboriginal communities. I believe that the report is an extremely significant and well informed one. We covered the identification of traditional owners and such matters as the extent to which there is adequate consultation with traditional owners.

Then, of course, we examined the Northern Territory legislation. I do not think I am begging the question in any way when I say that we found the attitude of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to be totally inappropriate, inadequate and unsuitable. There was not a good word to be said for the legislation that was introduced by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as complementary legislation to the main Bill. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs spoke out in a forthright way. Of course, there was also some indication that members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly had not complied with pre-arranged conditions. Be that as it may, those events have now passed by. It is clear that it is not good enough to leave matters with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly without some kind of supervisory role. I am not talking about general legislative rights, I hasten to assure the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). In respect of Aboriginal affairs and land rights, there is undoubtedly an antipathy towards the recommendations of the Woodward report on the part of dominant members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. They happen to be members more of the National Country Party than of the Liberal Party. I should not be happy, prepared, contented or placated to leave the affairs of the Aboriginal people in the hands of representatives of that type who consistently in their behaviour and certainly in their draft legislation have shown that degree of antipathy.

We went on to look at sacred sites, the question of entry on to Aboriginal land, wildlife conservation and entry to seas adjacent to Aboriginal land. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and I are not mavericks- we are not outcaststo have brought down a dissenting report as we have done. The honourable member for Perth wants to castigate us for emphasising this particular aspect. Let me remind him of the minutes of one of the concluding meetings. They contained the following:

Mr Johnson moved;

That the principle of paragraph 121 (a) of the Chairman’s draft report relating to seas adjoining Aboriginal land, be endorsed by the Committee.

Paragraph 121 (a) stated the following:

Control of the seas 2 kilometres adjoining Aboriginal land should be vested in the Aboriginal traditional owner of the land adjacent.

Who supported that motion? The honourable member for Wills happened to be absent when that question was put. If he had been there he would have supported it. He nods his head asserting that. But the people who did support it included me, Senator Cavanagh and the Chairman of the Committee, a Liberal Chairman, Senator Bonner. He believes that control of the seas two kilometres adjoining Aboriginal land should be vested in the Aboriginal traditional owners, yet the report has been brought down with an emphasis to the contrary. This is the very antithesis of what the Chairman, Senator Cavanagh and I sought to secure by way of that motion. We had a great deal of evidence for and against the proposition that control of offshore land should be vested in the Aboriginal people. I do not think I have to remind the honourable member for Perth that in the papers we had before us- the summaries of evidence- we could see that coastal Aboriginal groups strongly supported this idea. They stated they were prepared to negotiate arrangements to allow the use of waters for reasonable recreational purposes in areas adjacent to non-Aboriginal centres of population and to negotiate with commercial fishing interests who wished to exploit areas within those two kilometres. The Northern Land Council made provision in its draft Bill for Aboriginal control of seas adjoining and within two kilometres of Aboriginal land. As further evidence, Mr Justice Woodward stated:

It seems to me that the legitimate interests of Aborigines will be protected if their traditional fishing rights are preserved and their right to the privacy of their land is clearly recognised by the establishment of a buffer zone of sea which cannot legally be entered by commercial fishermen or holiday makers. An exception would have to be made in cases of emergency.

He went on to recommend: . . that the definition of Aboriginal land where a coastline is involved should include both off-shore islands and waters within 2 kilometres of the low tide line.

We had evidence from anthropologists who stated that Aboriginals assert rights of ownership over the sea in the same way as they claim ownership over their land- through myth, ceremony and sacred objects. They stated that the sea is owned by individual clans and that clan ownership focuses on clusters of sacred sites which extend to cover the areas of sea surrounding them up to the boundary of territory belonging to neighbouring clans. We have this great weight of evidence on this matter. Of course, I do not have time to express all of it today. All we seek to do is to indicate very clearly to the Parliament and especially to the Aboriginal people that some members of that Committee uphold the recommendations of Woodward in this regard. I think we put the situation honestly and forthrightly when we stated: we recommend that legislation of the Federal Parliament or the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly vest control of the seas adjoining Aboriginal land to a limit of 2 kilometres in the traditional owners. Further, we recommend that the appropriate Land Council be authorised to act for the traditional owners in granting access to such areas to non-Aboriginals having regard to the protection of sacred sites, traditional use and enjoyment of waters, the creation of buffer zones for Aboriginal communities and the protection of Aboriginal fishing interests.

What is the position in a nutshell? Despite the weight of evidence and despite the Woodward principles, all of which have been endorsed holus-bolus by the Labor Party, the Committee’s report recommends that we should depart from those principles. It will simply mean that, whilst the Aboriginal people will have rights, they will not have ownership of those 2 kilometres offshore. The Aboriginal communities will have to apply for their rights against the great weight of vested interests and the establishment. The Aboriginal people will have to join the queue. The process will be turned right around. Blacks need not apply, one might say. Even if the Aboriginal people do apply, they will have an uphill climb to get there. We suggest that it should be the other way around and that the right to the land should be vested primarily in the Aboriginal people and that others should have to apply. We have indicated that there should be provisions enabling those people who apply to go to the Land Commissioner so there can be arbitration and determination at times of argument or controversy.

We do not suggest that the white people of the Northern Territory should be denied the right to go into those areas and fish or to use those waters for recreational purposes. We are simply saying that the whites all around Australia have had the inside running for a long time and that it is time we reversed the process and gav ve the Aboriginal people a flying start in this lond of situation because it involves their fishing and their religion. That two kilometres should be regarded as part of their land. We believe that this is a high principle to put and that it would result in a situation in which Aboriginal people would act in a cooperative way, if there was not a very obvious need for them to use their land, to ensure that it could be made available for other purposes. In the event of a scrimmage- a rip roaring controversythe competent Land Commissioner, who has gained respect already from members on both sides of this Parliament, would settle the issue. Does such a proposition have to be criticised? Let it be clearly understood that the honourable member for Perth, for one, is not prepared to uphold the principle that the Aboriginal people should have land rights in respect of those two kilometres off-shore. In any event, the Chairman of the Committee, who happens to be a member of the same party as the honourable member for Perth, agrees with the honourable member for Wills and myself.

I do not have to apologise for expressing concern, together with the honourable member for Wills, about the great pressure in terms of time under which we had to operate. We indicated that it was due to the constraints of time that we finally did not have the benefit of a well prepared and documented report after all the papers had been swapped over and so on. The honourable member for Perth does not want to give away that right. It is written into the Standing Orders that we are entitled to it. For him to suggest that we are reflecting on the competence of the staff of the Committee is unjustified. I regard his suggestion as a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, which amounts to impertinence. We made it very clear that we regard the staff as extremely competent people and sincerely hope that they will be given more consideration in terms of the time that the Government Printer extends to them.

Finally, I believe that the recommendation which has been made to the effect that there should be a continuing committee will have the effect of pre-supposing the inability of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to administer the land rights legislation. I think it is a very bad principle to have committees of this type breathing down the necks of Ministers. That is unnecessary. But the extent to which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs considers that the ordinary processes of supervision in which members of Parliament traditionally engage need to be supplemented, he has the privilege and the prerogative of invoking the attention of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I believe it would be highly competent of him to do that in regard to land rights, as he has been doing recently in respect of alcohol and health problems affecting Aboriginal people. Let me say to the Aboriginal people who might be listening today that they ought not to give up hope. The opportunity could well arise for a Labor Government to reinstitute provisions which will enable them to have not only the right to use those waters adjacent to the sea but also ownership. That process would contribute to the dignity of the Aboriginal people in no uncertain manner.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Firstly, I should like to commend the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory on this report. I hope to have time to discuss some of the remarks made by the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). This report aims at co-operation and consultation at a high level with people who live in the Northern Territory. There has been a lot of criticism of the legislation introduced by the people who live in the Northern Territory, but the people who introduced the original legislation and those who now criticise do not live in the Territory and do not know what is involved in Aborigines and Europeans living side by side. It is all right to visit the place and walk around and listen to what people say or are told to say or what the land councils say, but one has to live in the Territory to get some feeling about it. I am glad that this Committee has considered the fact that both blacks and whites live in the Northern Territory. The original legislation introduced by the Labor Party and reintroduced by the Liberal Party was, as I have said before, the most divisive piece of legislation on the Northern Territory ever introduced, and that division will continue if we are not aware. The most divisive part, of course, related to the 2 kilometres off-shore provision. This report represents a genuine effort to get the peoples of the Northern Territory to live alongside each other and develop the Territory together. Let me say that if the 2 kilometres off-shore had been handed over, not necessarily to the Aborigines but to the people who advise them and speak for them to a great extent, those people would have seen to it that there was division amongst the whites and blacks who live in the Territory.

I should like to refer briefly to the Press statement of 17 August put out by the Chairman of the Committee. At page 2 of that statement he took the Government to task and stated: the Government saw fit to abdicate its total responsibility to the Aboriginal people and condone the proposed introduction of complementary legislation dealing with Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory by the Legislative Assembly.

The members of the Legislative Assembly, whether it be Letts or Withnall or Kentish or Isaacs, live in the Northern Territory. Yet people have the hide to sit here in the Federal Parliament and talk about something of which they have no idea whatsoever. That statement is borne out by the introduction of many parts of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. I do not agree with the Chairman’s comments and I regret his remarks, which no doubt he espouses under section 51, placitum (xxvi), of the Constitution. The 1967 referendum altered that part of the Constitution to provide that the Commonwealth had the power to makelaws in respect of people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. That alteration did not give the Commonwealth exclusive power to do such things, and the many people who say that it did are quite wrong. Territorians should have the right to legislate for the land and water and people in their own Territory.

The honourable member for Hughes said that not one good word had been spoken about the complementary legislation. Let us face it, tremendous pressure was brought to bear on the Legislative Assembly at the time to put down the legislation so that it could be discussed. When the Majority Leader introduced the legislation he said just that, but no one has taken the point. Whether it be the Labor Party or the Minister or whoever, people have just slammed the legislation. It has to be considered, and that is exactly why it was put down. Thus the Commonwealth Government gave no lead with regard to the 2 kilometres off-shore problem. I do not know what their idea was, but about seven Ministers of State in this Parliament were concerned. However, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly brought down the legislation and it had to be considered. May I add that members of the Opposition have said that there is tremendous evidence in support of the 2 kilometres off-shore provision, but there was also strong evidence that it should not be closed to one section of the community. I believe that it is a public domain, and paragraph 2 of the recommendations in the report states: entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land- The Northern Territory legislation should make clear provision for the right of Aboriginals to enter and use the resources of all waters adjoining and within 2 kilometres of Aboriginal land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition.

Then there is the reference to the fact that those who require it should negotiate with respect to the Closing of areas of sea which are of significance to them, either traditionally or for the enjoyment of the waters. So the Aborigines have the right to use that water anyhow but if they want it closed to someone they have to apply to the Commissioner. This is very fair to everyone in the Northern Territory, whether black or white. I say once again that we all have to live there and we have to live together and develop the Territory. Under the provisions of the legislation which came into this place, that could never have occurred. I can assure the House now that if the 2 kilometres off-shore are closed there will be strife all the way along the line. Such a provision would undermine the very good relations which have been built up over the years between the Aborigines and the Europeans who live in the Territory.

Let me mention the Woodward report, which seems to be quoted as gospel. I seem to remember the Chief Secretary of the Legislative Assembly saying at the time the report was introduced that it had never been debated in any Parliament in Australia. That is very true, yet the report is accepted as gospel. Paragraph 423 of the Woodward report states:

However I am unable to endorse a claim to an area of sea as great as twelve miles from the coast. It seems to me that the legitimate interests of Aborigines will be protected-

I think the honourable member for Hughes read this section about a buffer zone and fishing rights. The report goes on in a more or less conversational tone and paragraph 424 begins:

To establish these principles some arbitrary figure has to be arrived at . . .

Woodward continued:

I have already suggested that it should be two kilometres at low tide. In many cases there are mud flats and estuaries to be considered.

Woodward did not appear to me to be laying it down as hard and fast as is now being demanded by the land councils.

The Northern Land Council was set up by the previous Government to advise Woodward on how to distribute land among the Aborigines but the Central Land Council soil has not got away from being completely dominated by its white advisers. It is now 1977, many years after this report was presented and I would like to know who decided upon the area of the sea zone and who gave the advice and evidence to Woodward. I doubt whether it would have been the traditional Aborigines but the Northern Land Council. I say this after having been in the country for many years and through it very extensively in the last few months. In the time of the Woodward investigation the land councils were completely dominated by their white advisers and had been for a long time but I would say in their defence that they have evolved to such an extent that on one occasion when this Committee was taking evidence in Darwin they wished their white advisers out of the room while they spoke to us.

By the same token we can see that people in the land councils could be acting in a manner which will get Aborigines off side with the other people who live in the country and lead to a completely unfair approach being taken to the seas around the coast of Austrafia. I wonder how honourable members from Victoria and New South Wales who have spoken on this matter would feel if their States were in the situation of the Northern Territory where 20 per cent of the Norther Territory is Aboriginal land and another 40 per cent is under claim and could well become Aboriginal land. In other words, 40 per cent of land and 80 per cent of the Northern Territory coastline could be under the control of Aborigines if the decision were taken to have a 2 kilometre sea zone and to make any interested party other than the Aboriginal people apply for permission to use those waters. That would represent 80 per cent of the coastline. How would Queenslanders and Western Australians feel if they had to apply for permission before they could fish, swim or use the beaches along 80 per cent of their coastlines? So this proposal is complete nonsense. It is completely unfair to the rest of Australia and is giving a very dangerous lead in an atmosphere where we are talking about separatism in other parts of the world. If this is not separatism I do not know what is.

I think that the Committee’s report is very sound in that it gives Aborigines the right to use any part of the sea and the right to apply for use of any specific part. These applications will go before a commissioner and their case will be presented through the relevant Land Council. It also gives Europeans the right to operate in the same way. I commend the report and support particularly paragraph 133 of the Committee’s report which states that there should be an on-going committee to review the legislation because as we have seen in very recent times the land councils are operating in a very overbearing manner. This is something which we Territorians fear and do not want. We want to live alongside the Aborigines and to develop the country together with them. That is what the whole proposal should be all about.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 426

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received advice from the Prime Minister that he has nominated Dr Edwards to be a member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Fife, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 426

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That notices Nos 1, 2 and 3, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition opposes the deferment of these notices-

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Corio be not further heard.

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

AYES: 77

NOES: 31

Majority…… 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question before the Chair is that notices Nos 1, 2 and 3, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, the Opposition registers the strongest -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 76

NOES: 31

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 78

NOES: 31

Majority…… 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 427

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS) BILL 1977

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

Declaration of Urgency

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I declare that the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill 1977 is an urgent Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill ‘.

Question put-

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

AYES: 78

NOES: 31

Majority…… 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of time

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

That the time allotted for all stages of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill 1977 be until 9.30 p.m. this day.

I have moved this motion because of the character of the legislation and the fact that the Government believes that it is quite imperative that it be introduced and passed with the maximum possible expedition. It is, of course, the first time that a guillotine has been moved by this Government, in contrast to its predecessors; but it has done so in this instance because it feels that the nature of the legislation is quite unusual and is specifically designed to protect the interests of the Australian public. We are most concerned about the general effect of the disruption on a number of public utilities and, insofar as the legislation is necessary to ensure that the mails can flow and that services can be provided to the community, we see the only way by which that result can be achieved as being the moving of the guillotine.

The motion does enable this House to have reasonable time for the consideration of the Bill at both the second reading stage and the Committee stage. There is obviously within the Parliament’s time a capacity to determine whether it wants to extend the second reading debate or prefers to spend more time on the Committee debate. This contrasts quite markedly to the practice that was followed by the previous Leader of the House, who found it so much easier on each occasion to lay down very rigorous and tight time constraints which meant that rarely more than one person and at the maximum two people from the then Opposition were ever allowed to have a say on pieces of legislation of major national consequence. We see this legislation as being very significant legislation.

There is no suggestion that the legislation is not going to be adequately canvassed in this House. The procedures involved in its introduction began at a quarter past three and if we had not had the few divisions that have just concluded the House would have had from a quarter past three until six o ‘clock and then from six o’clock until 9.30 p.m., which means that about six and a quarter hours have been allowed to debate it. In those circumstances we believe that the time set down in the guillotine motion is adequate for reasonable consideration of the measure. In the House of review, of course, there again will be an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail. We believe that the form of the legislation, its nature, its purpose, its character, and even the timing, are all quite material in the resolution to have it passed at the earliest possible date. In those circumstances, we believe it to be quite imperative that the legislation be put through on the basis of this motion. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition considers the method by which the Government has introduced this legislation and is seeking to pass it to be quite foreign to the proper practices in a democratic parliament.

Mr Sinclair:

-Tell Freddie that.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Freddie is not a member of the Parliament at the moment; the Minister is. The Bill which has been declared urgent and which the Minister apparently does not consider to be very serious was handed to honourable members less than 10 minutes ago. The Bill will have very far reaching consequences, as I am sure the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations (Mr Howard) knows. The Opposition has not had an opportunity to discuss the legislation as a party; nor has it had a chance to consider the Bill itself.

Whilst this may or may not be necessary legislation, and I do not wish to debate the Bill at this stage, it is important that the Parliament know what is in the legislation that it is being asked to pass. Less than 3 minutes after the second reading debate starts the spokesman for the Opposition will be required to reply to the second reading speech on a very detailed piece of legislation which was given to him only an hour ago. It was given to him only after a request was made to the Minister, and on the basis that no other member of the Opposition would be entitled to see the legislation. This is far reaching legislation. Those lawyers on the Government side who take the trouble to read the Bill will know that it contains provisions whereby a Minister, without having to have recourse to the courts as does any other employer, and without even having to go through the normal government operations, will be able to give a direction to employees and they will have to carry out that direction on pain of dismissal. No protection whatsoever is left. That is the legislation that is being forced through this Parliament without the Opposition having any opportunity to discuss it.

I see some shamefaced members opposite but they will vote for it. I heard one honourable member in this chamber defending the rights of certain railway employees to take certain action. Under this proposed legislation they could be dismissed instantly, with loss of all rights, for taking that action. That is what that honourable member is going to vote for in this Parliament.

This Bill is not a matter of urgency and even if it were there is no reason why the Government could not have given reasonable notice to the Opposition. The Bill has been printed for some considerable time and the Minister had time this morning to put it before a meeting of his own Party. This would not have been the first time that legislation had been given to the Opposition in advance of its being brought into the Parliament so that it could be considered. That has happened on a number of occasions. I suggest that the reason why this Bill is being put forward in this manner is not because it is looked upon as being urgent; it is to widen an industrial dispute, not to solve it. That is the real purpose of this Bill. It is significant that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been in the chamber to husband his latest political gimmick through the Parliament although he has left the chamber for the moment. He has been in here guiding this legislation through. I suggest that if honourable members on the Government side had had the opportunity of reading this Bill before it came into the Parliament they would have realised that it is not merely a Bill to deal with a narrow dispute in the Redfern Mail Exchange or some other industrial dispute. This Bill represents the most sweeping industrial legislation that has come into this Parliament in years. It is worse than the Trade Practices Act which the Government tried to foist on the Parliament on an earlier occasion.

Mr Carige:

– It is good legislation.

Mr SCHOLES:

-If the honourable member for Capricornia happens to believe in totalitarianism and authoritarianism, whether it be communist or fascist, it is good legislation. I happen to believe that we live in a democratic society. Obviously honourable members on the Government side do not. There is no reason for dealing with this Bill urgently. There is less reason for the Government withholding it from consideration by the Opposition before dealing with it in this Parliament. This exercise is nothing more than a farce. If honourable members look at the Minister’s second reading speech they will see that this Bill has no other purpose than to highlight and inflame industrial relations in the Post Office.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I call the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 77

NOES: 30

Majority…… 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 78

NOES: 30

Majority…… 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

The purpose of the Bill I am introducing to the House today is to enable Commonwealth Government employing authorities, in the public interest to suspend from duty, or in appropriate circumstances dismiss, government employees who take industrial action which disrupts the provisions of services to the Australian community; and stand down, without pay, government employees who cannot be usefully employed as a result of industrial action taken by fellow government employees or by workers in private industry, or who are engaged on functions the performance of which is seriously disrupted. The feature that distinguishes government employees is their responsibility for providing the wide range of services essential to the well-being of a modern day community. If government employees do not fulfil, or are not able because of the actions of others to fulfil, these responsibilities the effect reaches into the very fabric of our society.

I do not need to remind honourable members that the Australian community has been subjected to great inconvenience and hardship through the industrial actions of some government employees and their trade unions. It has been deprived of services to which it is entitled. One need only point to the current disruption to community mail services. The Government is not prepared to tolerate this type of situation. To do so would be to shirk its clear duty to protect the public interest. Finally, let me emphasise that it would be the Government’s hope that it will not be necessary to use this legislation and it is the Government’s intention that this Bill will be passed by the Parliament but will not be proclaimed to operate unless circumstances so dictate. Certainly it recognises that the very great majority of government employees and their unions have acted, and do act, responsibly. Indeed the legislation would not have been necessary but for the actions of a minority. I commend the-Bill to the House.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The way this legislation has come before the Parliament is incredible. At 2.45 p.m. today, I received a copy of this Legislation- the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill-with a note which said I was not to show it to anyone until the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) brought the Bill before the

Parliament. That copy of the legislation arrived only because I sought to see it. When this tremendously important legislation, which could have enormous and immediate ramifications in the industrial relations area, was finally put before the Parliament, it was presented with all the persuasion and eloquence that the Minister could muster for a whole minute. He spoke for one minute, according to the parliamentary clock. The Minister had half an hour to deliver his second reading speech but he spoke for one minute to put forward this incredibly different legislationthis repressive legislation- which will have very widespread effects and could immediately have very devastating effects in relation to one industrial dispute concerning the Post Office. The Parliament received one minute’s explanation as to why it should support such legislation. It is an affront to the Parliament and an affront to the people of Australia that the Minister can put forward such legislation with no arguments except virtually preliminary statements.

This legislation comes before the Parliament presumably because the Government wishes to ave some immediate impact on the postal dispute. Let me give the House some background to that dispute because the Minister has provided honourable members with no information whatever. The fact is, as I understand it, that the postal unions have been in discussions with Australia Post for well over a year. In that time, they have been trying to negotiate an extension of the 36%-hour week to all postal employees. At the moment, a little over half of them work a 36%-hour week. All employees in Telecom Australia work a 36%-hour week. So the fact is that in this postal-Telecom area, the vast majority of employees already work a 36%-hour week. What is at stake here are the terms on which the 36%-hour week will be extended to that minority of employees in this area who do not enjoy it at present.

It is a fact also that substantial anomalies exist because of the non-application of the 36%-hour week to some employees. For example, this situation can arise in post offices in which perhaps a dozen employees may work. Eleven of them may work for 36%-hours a week but the mail sorter may work a 40-hour week. That is a situation which just cannot be allowed to continue because it clearly promotes industrial trouble. That industrial trouble has finally surfaced because of the impatience of those people who do not have the 36%-hour week. The trouble has finally bubbled to the surface and has resulted in the application of bans in all States in the course of the last week or so. But at this time, when this legislation conies before the House, the fact is that the bans have been removed in all States, I understand, except in New South Wales and South Australia- m Sydney and Adelaide. In all other States the bans have been lifted today.

The Government has introduced this legislation at a dme when the postal and telecommunications unions have recommended that all bans be lifted. They have been lifted in four of the six States. In South Australia the decision was that they would be lifted if they were lifted at Redfern in Sydney. Of course, Redfern is the trouble spot and has been an industrial relations problem area for some time. I do not have time to go into the reasons for this. But in this case, the special problem at Redfern is that the new rosters put forward by Australia Post for the application of the 36% hour week result in quite a substantial loss of income for the employees working at Redfern. They would lose on average $20 a week. That is much more than employees would lose at any other post office in Australia. That is why there is a special problem at Redfern. That is why presumably today the employees at Redfern rejected the recommendation of Commissioner Sweeney and the recommendation of their unions that they should lift the bans there and that there be negotiations with Australia Post for a week or so to see whether an appropriate form of rosters can be worked out.

Let me say at this point of time that the Opposition feels it is a pity that the employees at. Redfern did not see fit to accept their union recommendation. The union recommendation seems to have been a very sensible recommendation and I am pleased that in most States it was accepted. But it is a pity that the employees at Redfern have not seen fit to accept it. However, this legislation will not help to settle this situation. This legislation could make the industrial relations scene at Redfern and perhaps elsewhere much worse. I will come to that later.

What does this Bill do? This Bill covers employment not just in the Post Office. It covers all Commonwealth employment, whether the employees are employed under the Public Service Act, by Government authorities, in the Commonwealth Teaching Service or whatever. All these employees are covered by this legislation. If they undertake industrial action- it does not have to be a strike; it could be a go-slow campaign, any ban or limitation on work or not performing work in the normal way- they can be suspended, stood down or dismissed. This is a quite substantial change because although there are provisions under existing legislation for penalties to apply- stand-downs can be achieved under the present legislation and there is provision under the Post and Telegraph Act for some disciplinary action to be taken against employees- there are certain procedures to be gone through. What this legislation enables is for the employing authority to arbitrarily decide that it will impose this penalty forthwith. The Minister has the power to assume the powers given to the employing authority. So the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) sitting opposite me right now can decide today, if he wants to, or at any time once this legislation is proclaimed that a particular group of employees can be suspended and that other employees can be stood down and perhaps dismissed. That is the power this Minister is acquiring from this legislation. That is a very substantial change from the way in which the procedures currently operate.

The fact is that if an employer wants to have a stand-down clause imposed under the present legislation, he must go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and persuade it that a stand-down clause should be implemented. The employer has to persuade the Commission of this. It is not something that is easy to do. The employer must put a convincing case to the Commission that the employees should be stood down by the employers. But all that will be sidestepped by this legislation. I would like to quote to the House an extract from the decision of Mr Justice Sharp in the distilleries case in 1976 in which he was faced with an argument for the application of a stand-down clause in respect of employees when the employer felt that there was not enough work for the employees because of power stoppages or whatever it was. The Commissioner said:

This comes to what seems to me to be the essence of the argument, namely, the purpose of a stand-down clause. I do not accept the contention . . . that standing down employees without pay should be an employer’s right if that were the most convenient way of avoiding economic loss. The concept that it was managements’ prerogative to use labour at will has had no place in western society for many decades. It has been replaced by the concept that the use of the labour of human beings is a privilege accorded to management on defined terms. One of those terms is that reasonable security of earnings be assured to the labourer. This is the purpose of the notice clause in awards and very substantial grounds must exist for this Commission to include any provision which would enable it to be abrogated, even temporarily, by unilateral action.

What the judge of the Arbitration Commission was saying is that security of employment is basic to the rights of employees and that to abrogate those rights by obtaining stand-down clauses there must be very substantial grounds indeed and the Arbitration Commission must be persuaded by argument that that is the case. What the Government is doing here is saying: ‘To hell with all that; we do not want to have that procedure any more. We will just decide of our own volition, regardless of the industrial relations effects that it might have, to suspend employees or to stand down others. For instance, we will not have the expertise of the Arbitration Commissioners to assess the industrial relations implications of what we are doing’. The Government is abrogating the fundamental rights of Commonwealth employees. It cannot expect to introduce legislation like that, which abrogates fundamental rights, without there being a reaction.

The realities of the situation must be that this will cause enormous dissension amongst Commonwealth employees. Every Commonwealth employee is potentially affected by this legislation. He does not have to be involved in an industrial dispute. If the Minister were to decide that because of an industrial dispute certain employees did not have enough work to do on a particular day, he could stand those employees down, on his own decision. The issue would not have to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator. The Minister could decide off his own bat.

Australia Post in the postal dispute to this stage has not seen fit to use any of the existing provisions to suspend or to seek stand down clauses in relation to the industrial action going on its area. Provisions exist for that to be undertaken, but Australia Post, the employing authority in the postal dispute, has taken no such action. But this Government, when most of the bans have been lifted- perhaps with a bit more persuasion we could have the rest lifted in the very near future- has come in with this sledge hammer which ensures that there will be adverse reaction. It is possible that all the bans that have been lifted will be reimposed. I do not know about that; we are not in charge of industrial relations. But the fact is that the Government risks the retaliation of the people involved in that dispute and of others.

If the Government wants to exacerbate industrial disputation in this country it is going the right way about it. In fact, we on this side of the House think that there is a very good chance that that is precisely what the Government wants to do: It wants to exacerbate industrial relations because it is making such a hell of a mess of the economy that it is trying to provide an alternative focus of attention. This fits very well into the pattern which has been developing over the past few months.

Without going into the finer detail of this legislation at this stage- we will have a Committee debate on it- the Opposition strongly and strenuously opposes the legislation. It is bad legislation. It abrogates the fundamental rights of Commonwealth employees. It could have very adverse industrial relations effects. The Government should be ashamed to have brought such legislation before the Parliament.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to support the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in presenting the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill to the Parliament. Having listened to the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the first thing I want to do is remind the House of what the Minister said, that is, that the provisions of this legislation will be used only in the gravest circumstances. It is perfectly clear to the Government that if it is to discharge its responsibilities it is necessary that this legislation be passed by both Houses of the Parliament. But the Minister has made it perfectly clear that it will not be proclaimed and used unless it is necessary in the national interest. That is what this Government is concerned about; that is what the previous Administration did not spend sufficient time being concerned about. Therefore, this legislation is necessary. I think that before too long the common sense of all Australians will be brought to bear and the great majority will support an elected government having this sort of legislation available should circumstances arise when it is necessary to use it.

The honourable member for Gellibrand spent some time referring to the possible use of this legislation in the postal service as an example. He made some comments about the present dispute. It is desirable, therefore, that I put on record the tremendous problem we are facing today with regard to the postal service which, after all, is essential. There is a requirement of the Australian Postal Commission and its employees to see that Australians receive their mail. There has been an enormous amount of disruption, particularly in the past year or two, and certain sections of the community have been distressed and disadvantaged beyond an acceptable level. The Government is sick and tired of this situation, the Commission is sick and tired of it, as is the community. The honourable member for Gellibrand and his colleagues ought to remember that the community is sick and tired of it.

What is the issue that caused all the problem we have with the Postal and Telecommunications Union? The dispute is over an agreement to implement a 36%-hour working week for those members of the union who do not presently enjoy that advantage. That ought to be remembered. As the honourable member for Gellibrand rightly identified, the prime problem is in the New South Wales division, at the Redfern Mail Exchange. But the Opposition spokesman said: ‘We know we have troubles in Redfern, but I do not have enough time today to tell the House all about them’. I invite honourable members on both sides of the House to study the record of the Redfern Mail Exchange. I am certain that the Postmasters-General in the previous Administration and members of the Labor Party generally would not be too pleased, as Australians, if they were to see the shocking record with regard to Redfern. After all, the federal executive of the union is unhappy. The elected secretary is unhappy and has made public statements rebuking the New South Wales executive for its attitude. Whilst the problems might be restricted to New South Wales and South Australia to date, when there are problems in the Redfern Mail Exchange there are problems not only in New South Wales but also in getting the mail through all over Australia. These problems have been disadvantaging the Australian community for far too long.

It ought to be remembered that the Government and the Australian Postal Commission agreed to support the implementation of a 36% hour week for members of the union who do not presently enjoy those working conditions, on the arrangement and understanding that the guidelines laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would be followed. Is any member of the Opposition going to dispute that guidelines set down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be followed? Is there any argument that it is reasonable to expect commissions, unions, employers and employees to accept those guidelines? In short, one of the significant criteria is that the implementation should be at negligible cost; in other words, that there should be no additional cost to the community if people are going to work shorter hours. Negotiations have been going on for 14 months. Surely people are not going to wonder now. Everybody is getting a bit sick and tired of the disruptive tactics that have gone on.

What is the position in the mail exchange in Redfern in Sydney? It is simply that in the implementation of the agreement there will need to be new rosters. At the moment there are uneconomic shifts and restrictive work practices. I invite any former Postmaster-General- I think there were two Postmasters-General in the previous Administration- to say publicly that they were never concerned about the restrictive work practices at Redfern. I have here a list- I am informed that it is not an exhaustive list-of 40 restrictive work practices currently implemented at Redfern. I seek permission to have this list incorporated in Hansard so that honourable members can have for the record the position as it presently applies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The document read as follows:

page 434

LIST OF RESTRICTIVE WORK PRACTICES AND INHIBITIONS TO ECONOMIC OPERATIONS AT CENTRAL MAIL EXCHANGE SYDNEY

(Note: This list is not exhaustive but these are the main restrictive practices).

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The overall cost is in excess of $3m. The arrangement was that, because of the $3.4m which this exercise is costing, with the shorter working hours there would be new rosters to remove some of the restrictive work practices and some of the uneconomic shifts at a saving of $3m. That is what the argument is all about. It was a reasonable approach, agreed to by the Postal Commission and agreed to by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which a significant section of the union is now prepared to ignore completely. While all this has been going on, particularly in the last few weeks, the matter has been subject to further arbitration and an element of the trade union movement has continued to say: ‘We are not concerned about the view of the umpire. ‘ Yesterday Commissioner Sweeney suggested a standoff position for seven days so that the matter could be considered further -

Mr Willis:

– I have said all this.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Gellibrand says he has said all this. He did not bother to inform the House of all the details necessary for honourable members to have an understanding of the intransigent attitude with which the Government is faced. When Commissioner Sweeney yesterday suggested a seven-day stand-off period to talk further about the position, did the New South Wales division accept that reasonable decision? No. This afternoon it said: ‘We are not interested in what the umpire has to say. We are not interested at all. We are simply going to continue the bans and limitations which we have imposed. We are going to continue to disadvantage Australians’, and the mail service continues to be disrupted. So the community is being disadvantaged.’ Too often in Australia recently in too many ways we have seen a few people disadvantage by prejudicial and intransigent attitudes the welfare of the entire community. In this case they are even prejudicing the welfare of their colleagues.

This type of approach by any section of the Australian community becomes intolerable. It becomes intolerable for the authorities, it becomes intolerable for the Government, and it is intolerable for the community. Whilst this legislation is in no way designed to deal simply with a postal dispute, and in fact it is made perfectly clear that the Government hopes that the legislation will not be used, it ought to be understood that when governments are faced time and dme again with this sort of challenge from elements within the trade union movement there has to be legislative authority available should it need to be used.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Before I deal with the provisions of the Bill, I want to touch upon the manner in which it was introduced. This Bill was deliberately kept away from the Opposition by the Government. The Bill was prepared many weeks ago at the time of the air traffic controllers’ dispute. The Government, if it wanted to, could have given this Bill to the Opposition for proper consideration of its contents when the Parliament resumed on Tuesday, but it deliberately withheld it from the Parliament. When a government withholds from the Opposition, it is also withholding from the Parliament. It withheld a provision that it intended to introduce on this day of this week so that the Parliament- not just the Opposition but the Parliament- would not have the opportunity to study the contents of the Bill, would not have the opportunity to discover whether the Bill had objectionable matter tucked away in what might otherwise be seemingly innocuous provisions, provisions against which even members of the Country Party might rebel were they in a position to examine the legislation properly.

No one knows what this legislation means. It has been impossible to examine it in the short time that it has been available to the Parliament. I keep emphasising the Parliament and I remind everybody that it is the Parliament. It is not just the Opposition members of Parliament who have been cheated by the Government through not being given copies of the BDI. Members of the Government back benches have been cheated too because they have been asked to put their heads in the noose, without knowing what is in the nose bag until the noose is pulled tight. That is no way in which to treat the national Parliament of Australia. The Parliament of Australia is the voice of the people of Australia. When the Parliament of Australia is treated with the utter contempt with which the Government has treated it on this occasion, the Government is registering its utter contempt for the people of the Parliament. The people who sent us here. We are the people, and the Government ought to remember occasionally that the Parliament is the people of Australia. The Government is not the people of Australia.

The executive government of this country represents in the main only one man, the man who sits at the head of the Cabinet table, and the situation has never been very different since Federation. It is time that the Parliament started telling the executive arm of government and the man who controls the executive arm of government that this is a democracy. We are not living in Hitler’s Germany. We ought not to be treated as though we were living in Nazi Germany. This is a country which has always passed for a parliamentary democracy, yet what do we find? We find that a Bill which alters the law of the country which has stood the test of time since the country was colonised is now to be drastically altered without notice, without an opportunity for the people’s Parliament to examine properly what the Bill provides. This has been done deliberately and with a callous, cavalier and studied disregard for the rights of the Parliament and of the people of Australia who elected this Parliament.

Why do I say so definitely and so dogmatically that this legislation has been deliberately withheld from the Parliament? I will direct the attention of honourable members to some of the straws in the wind. When the air traffic controllers ‘ strike was in progress a couple of months ago the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) made a public statement that the Government had prepared legislation which it would bring in as an urgent measure if the dispute was not settled by a certain time. So we know from what the Minister for Transport said a couple of months ago that the Bill had been prepared then. Let me remind the House of something else. Not only do we now know that the Bill was prepared a couple of months ago; we also know from the remarks made by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) that it was the Government’s intention to bring the Bill into the Parliament today. That was the Government’s intention on the very day on which the Minister told the Parliament that on Friday of this week the Government intended to start standing down people at the Redfern Mail Exchange if they had not settled the dispute. The Minister had no authority to stand down the people at the Redfern Mail Exchange in the manner that this Bill proposes when he told us on Tuesday of this week that he intended to do it. He knew then what the Bill was. He knew then that the Bill would be introduced into the Parliament today. He knew then that there was no intention on the part of the Government to allow any member of the Parliament who is not a member of the Executive Council to see what the Executive Council was going to browbeat the Parliament into letting go through the Parliament without adequate debate or consideration.

When we have a law that has remained in the present form of the Public Service Act since Federation and we alter it in the dramatic way that the Government is now proposing, the Government has a duty to the people of Australia as well as to the Public Service of Australia to allow the Parliament of Australia to know fully what it is proposing to do and to have the intricate and complex provisions of the legislation put to legal examination so that the Opposition can come back into the Parliament next week with the benefit of at least one week’s mature consideration of what the Bill proposes. I have never known any measure of this kind to be introduced into the Parliament and put through in one day. It is a tradition of the Parliament that the Government introduces Bills of this kind, which drastically alter the law as it has stood for more than 70 years, and then gives the Opposition a week in which to study the legislation and gives it the opportunity to move amendments in Committee. We know from experience that the Executive Council is not the fount of all wisdom and it is conceivable that out of 126 elected members of the Parliament one, two or 22 members might be able to suggest in the Committee stage some amendments that will remove some of the obnoxious features of the legislation. But how can the Parliament do justice to its obligation to the people of this country in the Committee stage if we are not allowed even to look at the Bill or to have a Committee or Caucus meeting to understand what is in it?

I have been asked to stand up and make this speech without any warning whatsoever. I was not told that I was to speak until 10 minutes ago. I saw nothing of the Bill until it was introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The method of its introduction raises a rather interesting quirk in the procedures of the Parliament. Whenever before has a Minister been called upon to introduce a Bill dealing with an amendment to an Act that is not under his administration? The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is the Minister in charge of the Public Service, so the Prime Minister is the one who by tradition should have introduced any amendment to the Public Service Act. Is it because the Prime Minister does not know for certain what sort of flack is going to fly around as a consequence of this legislation? He is here in the House; we know that he is here. Why then was the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations brought in here by the scruff of the neck by the Prime Minister and made to introduce the obnoxious legislation which the Prime Minister himself should have introduced if he did his job as Minister in charge of the Public Service? I suggest that it is one of the old trickslet somebody down the line do the dirty work and if it comes off the Prime Minister can come out and say ‘There you are; alone I did it’, and leak it to the Press that he was the one who proposed it at the Cabinet meeting. If it does not come out right he can leak to the Press that the thing would have been all right except that Tony Street mucked it up. This is clearly what has happened on this occasion.

From my understanding of this legislation in the few seconds I have had to look at it, it allows any statutory authority or any permanent head to issue a declaration suspending all or some employees of a department for whatever period the authority making the suspension chooses to nominate in the declaration of suspension. Nobody is given a chance to explain what happened. There is no such thing as natural justice. Nobody is charged; nobody is given the right to defend himself and to show why he should not be made the subject of a declaration. There is nothing like that. The old principle of natural justice, the proud pillar of British justice and British common law, has been trampled on. It does not mean a thing to these people in the Government when it suits them. Then, after all or some members of the Public Service have been suspended, either individually or collectively, depending on the declaration, they can be dismissed from the Public Service- full stop. There is no right of appeal.

Mr Lloyd:

– Good idea.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is a good idea, says the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), to sack a member of the Public Service without the right to be heard, without the right of appeal and without the right of protection of promotional opportunities; so that he forfeits all his furlough entitlements, all his recreational leave. The provisions of the Bill are so wide that a member of the Public Service not only is dismissed and not only loses by definition all his remuneration entitlements but also loses the right to any other payments to which he may be entitled under any award or determination. Just to make certain that that award or determination does not prevail in the face of the declaration, the Bill says that wherever there is a conflict between the declaration and the determination of the Public Service Arbitrator or of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the legislation shall prevail.

However, just in case something is left out of the Bill because of the short time we have to study it, the Bill also says that the Government may say, in effect: ‘If we have not thought of something or if there is something we have in mind, something which we have thought of but which we do not want to let the Parliament know about at this point in time, we are going to cover ourselves by putting in the Bill this provision:

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act prescribing all matters which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.

Do not think that a public servant will get any protection or solace from the fact that the regulation must not be inconsistent with the Act, because the Bill is so wide as to embrace almost every possible emergency or contingency that we can dream up. So there is nothing in the Bill that would make a regulation invalid because the Bill has an omnibus application and can be extended to cover anything at all. Therefore, regulations can be churned out to suit a situation suddenly arising, whether it be in the Postal Commission today- which, according to the Minister, is the justification for this legislation- or in any other branch of the Public Service.

If the Third or Fourth Division officers employed by the Department of Social Security, when the new scheme is introduced whereby unemployment benefits are to be paid fortnightly in arrears instead of fortnightly in advance, find that they are so inundated with work that they cannot carry out their duties and then try to make some protest against doing unreasonable amounts of overtime, they can be dealt with by this legislation in exactly the same way. If I were sitting in the chair at the table now occupied by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications I could sack the Clerk of the House because at the moment I do not like the way he is looking at me. Now he is smiling which makes it worse because not only could I suspend him but also I could immediately dismiss him for adding insult to injury. However, this is not funny. I just mention that to illustrate the enormity of the provisions of this legislation.

If the Government is concerned about a few malcontents at the Redfern Mail Exchange, why did it bring in a Bill that covers employees and officers of the whole Public Service? Why did it bring in a Bill that is wide enough to give me, as Minister for Labour and Immigration, the right to sack Brian Tregillis, the Deputy Head of the Department which, of course, I could do under this BDI? Does the Government intend to sack Al Grassby?

Mr Sullivan:

-It would be a good start.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It would be a good start, said the honourable member who defeated him for the seat of Riverina. Is that the Government ‘s intention? I notice that the Bill makes special mention of the fact that the authority has the right to declare a statutory office holder. Let us look at the political overtones of the Bill. The authority, whether it be the Public Service Board or the executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, is bound by the Bill to carry out any direction issued to that authority by the Minister administering the authority. The Prime Minister who administers the Public Service Board has the right, by virtue of the Bill, to direct the Public Service Board to sack any person he chooses by first suspending him and then dismissing him.

Mr Sullivan:

– That sort of argument is boloney.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is not boloney. That provision is in the Bill. The honourable member’s interjection illustrates the point I made at the beginning of my speech that he will vote for something of which he is obviously not aware.

Mr Sullivan:

– I am aware of it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member is not. His interjection clearly indicates that he did not know that that provision was in the Bill. He did not know that a Minister had the right to move in and direct the Public Service Board first of all to declare and then to dismiss. That provision is in the Bill. Obviously that is something that even the honourable member with all his experience in this place and intelligence did not know. He is an intelligent man or he would not have been a LieutenantColonel in the Army. Even he has not had a chance to discover that what I have just refered to is actually tucked away in the legislation. This Bill is really a ploy by the Government to bring about a confrontation with the trade union movement.

Mr Sullivan:
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, it is not. It is to bring about a confrontation, and not only with the malcontents in the Redfern Mail Exchange. Wherever anybody is employed by the Government, if it cannot bring about a confrontation by suspending and dismissing the malcontents from the Public Service with all rights and entitlements deprived then it can extend this Bill to the dismissal of somebody else until ultimately it would succeed in getting that confrontation. I warn the Government that it is treading on very dangerous ground when it deliberately courts confrontation on industrial issues. It will hurt people who normally vote for it and support it financially. They will not give the Government much thanks for what it intends to do. They will support the Government while things are going all right but the moment the confrontation leads to a situation in which the Government is seen to be the body responsible for deliberately courting the disaster that will follow from this, then the backlash to the Government will come.

I warn the Government that not only has it ignored the Parliament in a way that ill befits any Government in any democratic country, it has also ignored the will of the people. It has no mandate to do what it is doing. What it is doing will end in utter disaster not only for Australia and the Government but also -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) in his rather tendentious speech said that Government back benchers are being asked to put their heads into the noose without knowing what is in the nosebag. We know what is in the nosebag. It is the interests of the community mixed with an overwhelming measure of public support. The honourable member for Hindmarsh made a number of trivial points. He tried to say that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) was being asked to act as some sort of toady for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in introducing this legislation instead of the Prime Minister. I remind him that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is also officially the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters. It is the normal procedure for Ministers assisting other senior Ministers to take on various aspects of legislation in this chamber.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh also tried to make it appear that under the proposed legislation the Minister would have power to sack any employee for almost any reason whatsoever. Of course that is not so. If a Commonwealth employee is carrying out the normal duties for which he has been engaged, no Minister can act against him under this legislation. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), in an earlier speech, said that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations spoke very briefly in introducing the Bill and criticised him for speaking so briefly. I suggest that the Minister spoke briefly because the need for this legislation is obvious to the community and can be encapsulated in a few words.

Mr Willis:

– Well sit down.

Mr FALCONER:

– I intend to make a few points on my own behalf. The honourable member for Hindmarsh alleged that the Government was attempting to bring on a confrontation with the unions. I suggest that some Commonwealth employees have been attempting to bring on a confrontation with the community. In that sort of confrontation the Government has a duty and an obligation to take the side of the community. The community is fed up with disruption in vital services. I quote from the Minister’s second reading speech. He said:

The feature that distinguishes Government employees is their responsibility for providing the wide range of services essential to the well-being of a modern day community.

Strikes, bans and go-slows affect private industry and also the community generally. Strikes, bans and go-slows in the Public Service cause disruption throughout the community. The worst feature is not necessarily the straightforward strike when people do not turn up for work and do not perform their duties: a worse feature is the farce of people turning up for work and then refusing to carry out normal instructions to undertake normal work by the use of go-slow tactics, limitations on the type of work to be undertaken or restrictions on the people to be provided with the normal services of government.

Under these circumstances private employers have the simple ability to sack employees who do not carry out instructions. This legislation does not even go that far. It gives the Commonwealth powers to ensure that government services are provided in the way that the community expects. It fills a gap in the powers presently available to the Government to carry out its policies. We also face from time to time the farce of Commonwealth employees threatening to refuse to carry out policies of the government of the day. Those particular people say they do not agree with those policies. They are employed to carry out the policies of the government of the day in the service of the community. If they do not like those policies they can resign from the Service. They can seek a transfer or, ultimately, they can exercise their right to seek to defeat the government through the normal processes of the ballot box. They are not entitled to continually frustrate the normal services of government to the community by go-slows, bans and limitations on work. This Bill recognises that government employees have responsibilities to the community and to the government of the day.

I also underline something else which the Minister said in his second reading speech. He said:

If Government employees do not, or are not able because of the actions of others, to fulfil these responsibilities the effect reaches into the very fabric of our society.

This Bill is needed to fill a major gap in the powers of the Commonwealth to ensure that the normal services of government are supplied to the community. The Bill deserves the support of the House and of the community.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I look at this Bill as being directly related to the postal dispute. The dispute was mentioned by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in his second reading speech. I say this looking at what one would call the factual situation. But looking at the legal situation, it is clear that the Bill has been prepared some time. It is obvious that it was proposed to use the Bill against the air traffic controllers. I suggest that if it had been used at the time against the air traffic controllers there would have been a national strike for the very simple reason that the Government says in the Bill: ‘We will dictate to you where you wil work and if you will not work we will sack you and you will have not rights at all’.

This legislation must be looked at in the context of all other existing legislation. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), when moving the allotment of time- and the Bill is to be guillotined -said that because of the alleged urgency there was no other alternative but to introduce the Bill. There is an alternative. There are appropriate provisions throughout the whole structure of the Public Service, through Public Service legislation and through the arbitration provisions, for the employing authority to take action, to stand down or suspend anyone in its employ. Why is it that this Government suddenly wants to intrude as the employer? Why does it want to be the sole authority? It is proposed that the Minister himself is to have the discretion to indicate whether a person will in fact be dismissed. Is it any wonder that we say the Government is looking for trouble? Perhaps it is introducing this legislation on the basis that it thinks it might create a diversion from the economic problems. The Government should never suggest that it will solve industrial matters by legislation, particularly by legislation of this type.

Let me analyse the provisions of the Bill. First the legislation proposes that any Commonwealth authority- and that means immediately the whole of the Public Service structure and all statutory authorities- will be involved in this legislation. So the Government is looking for confrontation with all sections of the Public Service; any one of them can be the subject of this legislation. The legislation proposes that all Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action may be suspended. I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 8, which is another very interesting provision in the legislation. Assuming that suspension has taken place under clause 4 and has obviously continued for some little time, clause 8 ( 1 ) (c) states: the employing authority or a Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the powers of the employing authority . . . should be exercised in relation to the employee, the employing authority may, by instrument in writing, terminate the employment of the employee.

Not only the employing authority but also the Minister can intrude on the basis that he will have a man sacked. Is the Government looking for a complete national strike, because this is the way to get it? Does the Government really want to solve the problems of the postal dispute? Does the Government really believe the sort of nonsense that is contained in that part of the second reading speech which states:

Finally, let me emphasise that it would be the Government’s hope that it will not be necessary to use this legislation . . .

Why introduce the legislation if it is the Government’s hope that it will not have to be used or proclaimed?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) has the same duty as any other Postmaster-General. He has a duty to get out and to talk to his employees first. He has a duty to find out the issues. The current disruption is not the first strike that has taken place at the Redfern Mail Exchange. Has the Minister ever recognised the psychological problems that exist at Redfern? Does he realise that because of Liberal-Country Party Government philosophy that led to the construction of the wretched machine at Redfern, which has proved to be a monster, psychological problems have been caused. We have a situation in which 5 000 employees work in a confined space and are subject to all sons of dictates as though they are in some ghetto or some Nazi concentration camp. They are not allowed the normal freedom or the normal environment of any other employee in the Commonwealth Public Service. Has not the Minister analysed the peculiarities of the Redfern Mail Exchange? Has he not looked at the way in which strikes in the past have been settled? Has this not been achieved by the Minister going to the Exchange and attending a mass meeting of the men? What right have the Ministers on the other side of the House to run away from their responsibilities? What right has a Minister to say:

I am bringing in a piece of legislation?’ It is very handy for a Minister to say: ‘It can apply to anybody in the Commonwealth Public Service but I am aiming it at the people in the Redfern Mail Exchange’. These people are not dole bludgers; they work very hard for their living. They have families; they have dependants. The thing they can least bear is a loss of money.

It is not recognised- and Government supporters would not know about this because they have not had any affiliation with this matterthat for years a set of special industrial conditions have applied only to the Redfern Mail Exchange. This arrangement has applied with the concurrence of past Liberal-Country Party Ministers. Do not honourable members opposite realise that special arrangements exist for rosters on the basis that men and women who work at Redfern get special entitlements? Do they not know that this arrangement is part and parcel of a special award which , while perhaps unwritten, is nevertheless there. Do they not know that it was agreed that the workers would be entitled to say that their terms and conditions of employment and their hours of employment would not be altered without their consent, that they would be entitled to certain overtime penalties? Do they not know that these conditions are part and parcel of their employment contract?

How is it that the Government can introduce a piece of legislation on the basis that if it is good enough for the Redfern Mail Exchange it will be good enough for everyone else. This is not so. The Government has to have a look at its responsibilities. It has to look at the past troubles that have occurred at the Redfern Mail Exchange because the supervisors, superintendents and everybody else have tried to get into the act in respect of what is a very simple mechanical matterthe sorting of letters. If we consider the overhead, the size of the administrative staff, the problems of personalities and the persecution of the underdog in many cases we can see that a special arbitral provision had to be provided for the Redfern Mail Exchange.

The Labor Government established the Vernon Commission to achieve better industrial conditions not only for the postal sector but also for the telecommunications sector. It was on the basis of the Vernon Commission report that special arbitral provisions were provided for postal and telecommunications employees. The Government has ignored everything. The Minister has come in here with a piece of legislation which says: ‘I will show what I will do; I will penalise you; I will suspend you; I will sack you’. I predict now that the Government will have to sack everyone employed at the Redfern Mail Exchange. Even if it does, it will not achieve a result. It will find that the whole commercial world of Australia will be tied up. I would think every Commonwealth public servant would come out on strike in sympathy with the postal employees.

I have pointed out that the Redfern Mail Exchange is a special part of the Commonwealth Public Service. A previous Liberal-Country Party Government created and built the Exchange. It encouraged the formulation of special awards and industrial conditions at the Exchange. It is completely guilty. That Government was responsible for the mechanical arrangements made at the Exchange that do not exist in any other mail exchange in the world. The Redfern Mail Exchange was specially built for a machine that the former Liberal-Country Party Government decided to buy without resort to any other contracts or competitive tenders. This smells a little of the old graft and corruption bit. It is for that reason that Redfern has always had a special stigma associated with it. Its creation was novel; the solution of its problems were not easy; and its problems are great. But they are human problems.

It is not difficult to get out and talk to the people employed at the Redfern Mail Exchange. I have done it. I had to do it on the basis that unless I did so the whole mail of Sydney would not have been delivered. Before I first went to the Exchange I was warned by the establishment that had existed for years: ‘Do not dare go to the Redfern Mail Exchange; no Minister should ever go there’. The first duty of a Minister is to go to the Exchange because he has a responsibility to the Parliament and a responsibility to the nation to run that business properly. If the Ministers opposite had any wisdom they would suggest a conference with all the people involved. If a conference were held they would find that the problems relate to rosters and the fact that one person can decide whether an employee will lose his normal average weekly income. Is it any wonder there is a problem when that is the fundamental issue.

Mr Sullivan:

– What, cut out overtime?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-When they were engaged a special arrangement was made with the honourable member’s predecessors that they would get overtime on certain rates at certain times. They were engaged on that basis. That was the contract on which the then Government engaged them. But the Minister has the nonsense to come here and say: ‘I will solve this problem, I will pass a piece of legislation; I will dismiss everyone of you’. I say now that there will be a national strike over this issue. By introducing this legislation the Government will not solve any of the problems in the Post Office. The legislation is ridiculous and shortsighted. In fact, as I said earlier, it was not aimed at the Post Office- it was aimed at the air traffic controllers. We cannot forget that during the last referendum campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that he had legislation prepare which he was about to bring in to deal with the air traffic controllers ‘ strike. If he had he would have stopped every airline in Australia. How was the air traffic controllers’ strike solved? It was solved by the President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions who intervened when he did not have to.

Mr Hodgman:
Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is true. The honourable member does not want to give any credit but it was arranged on the basis that there would be further discussions and that there would be further arbitral processes. As a result of that further arbitration the air traffic controllers strike was settled

The Government is not prepared to allow the Public Service law to apply in this case. It is a law that is applicable. It is a law that the employing authority can use. The law says that the employing authority can ask the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to look at the problems of the Redfern Mail Exchange and ascertain whether certain people should be suspended or dismissed. The Commission could then make those decisions based on the facts. Not one honourable member opposite is prepared to allow that to happen. Honourable members opposite would rather rely on the political gimmick that they- the few of them- are members of the one chosen group in this community that can dictate industrial conditions and that can dictate whether the people at the Redfern Mail Exchange in particular will have a job. That is not their right and that is not their entitlement.

I listened to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications talking today about the obligations of former Postmasters-General. I admit that they were many, varied and very onerous; but it is not good enough for him to get up in this chamber today and say that because of that and because of a history of work bans or effective stoppages the Government is going to bring in legislation that will guarantee that those people will be suspended or dismissed and thereby solve the problems of mail distribution. The Government will do nothing of the sort.

The Minister has a responsibility, an obligation and a duty to discuss these matters in detail with the people responsible for the Redfern Mail Exchange. It is not a matter that should be hived off to some statutory authority on the basis that that authority obviously has done its best. In many cases the personnel of an authority are no better equipped to run an organisation than the Minister himself. That is one of the responsibilities that one has to look at when one looks at personality problems. If the Minister had at least made the effort of going to the people involved and saying: ‘Let us look at this issue on the basis of what is fair and reasonable’, he would have been so much better informed. He could not make one statement of fact here today which clearly indicated what were the problems of the people involved in this dispute.

Honourable members opposite will find that the problems relate to their take home pay and to what they regard as their contract of employment. I emphasise the point that they are not bludging on the situation. Many of them are people who have migrated from different countries. Those people have all the problems of migrants. As well as that they have been thrown in there on the basis that they have to work very hard indeed to earn their money- and they do that. There are also all the problems of lack of communication and lack of consultation. Have honourable members opposite not noticed that the problems even seem to be within their own union?

It must be of some enlightenment to honourable members opposite that those people appear to regard themselves as a separate part of the union. Of course they do. They are in a separate building. They have been isolated for yearsever since the exchange was built. They do different work from everybody else in the Post Office. On that basis they have been able to create their own structure. The matter has to be looked at on that basis. This is not the first time that there has been a stoppage at the Redfern Mail Exchange. There was a massive one in October 1973. Nobody in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, as it was at that time, could solve that problem. There was a complete stoppage. The only way in which the problem was solved was by having a word with the people concerned- the workers. That was done in the company of union officials. The strike was settled on that basis.

I notice that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is interjecting. Instead of sitting here and drawing his salary he ought to be out organising a meeting at which he might be able to solve the problem. He should not be involved in the creation of a situation as a result of which there will be a national strike on every issue in Australia involving the Commonwealth Public Service. What right does the Minister have to say that he will exercise his discretion to dismiss a man when he knows nothing about the issue involved. The Minister is to have that power under clause 8 of this Bill. I have been reminded by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that when Queensland, which is a favourite State of honourable members opposite, introduced similar industrial penalty legislation it provided in that legislation that anybody who was suspended or dismissed had a right of appeal to a magistrate against such suspension or dismissal. Such a provision is not included in this legislation. Why? Because the Government wants to wield the big stick. It wants to indicate clearly to the Packer Press or some of its other functionaries that it is going to solve the problem.

I appeal to the Government to show common sense and delay the passage of this legislation for a week, and then to get the Ministers who are so anxious to get up in this chamber and make speeches to go and meet the personnel of the Redfern Mail Exchange and report back to this Parliament on the issues as they see them there. The Government is running away from its responsibilities by bringing in legislation that is aimed not only at the Redfern Mail Exchange but also at any other Commonwealth authority or employee group. This is a most dangerous piece of legislation. It cannot be supported by legislation in any other Parliament. It has no precedent at all. If it had been used in any of the other strikes that the Government obviously had it prepared for it would not have settled any of those strikes.

The Government is not going to settle industrial disputes by the use of force or threats, particularly when a person’s livelihood is at stake, because immediately the sympathy of fellow workers is encouraged and they act in unison to protect that man’s rights or that woman’s rights. That they will act in unison can be seen from the fact that the strike which has occurred at Redfern Mail Exchange has the sympathetic support of the Adelaide Mail Exchange. The Adelaide Mail Exchange has one of the best work records in Australia from the point of view of postal distribution. It has that record because of the intelligent administration of that exchange. There are never any stoppages there. It has nothing like the industrial problems of the Redfern Mail Exchange. The Adelaide Mail Exchange has acted in sympathy on the basis of saying that it will do whatever it thinks is right for the Redfern Mail Exchange. You get there the unity of purpose. You get there the comradeship that you must expect to get when you are dealing with employees on this sort of basis.

The Government might even find- let us hope so- that the air traffic controllers will take a little bit of interest in this legislation. It was aimed at them. Of course, if it had been applied to them the whole trade union movement in Australia would have come out in sympathy with them. One has to look at the arbitration processes. Let us look at this situation.

Mr Hodgman:

– You sell Tasmania down the drain every time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We exempted Tasmania. We were not going to bring in the Air Force. It would have been delightful to have seen how long Tasmania would have remained with its services if the Air Force had been brought in on that occasion. That was the threat of honourable members opposite and their Prime Minister. They want all the time to stand over people with a gun and enforce situations. Why do honourable members opposite not act as Australians? Why do they not regard their fellow Australians as being as good as them. Why do they think that they are above their fellow Australians? Why do they think that they can dictate to other Australians what they will do because they are sitting up in the padded seats of this chamber? Why do they think that they are above reproach?

Let us have an election. Honourable members opposite are looking for an election. Let us have one quickly. We will have a national strike on very soon indeed. This will be the issue for an election. Let us have an election on the basis of how much better qualified are honourable members opposite to pass judgment on their fellow men. Arbitration processes exist for the settlement of these disputes. The employing authority could have gone to the arbitration processes and said that it has problems at the Brisbane Mail Exchange and an arbitrator could have dealt with those problems. He could have suspended personnel or dismissed personnel. I am delighted to see the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), who is from England, encouraging that sort of suggestion. I understand that there are plenty of problems relating to the Redfern Mail Exchange and that they are not all related to what honourable members opposite call the Pommie shop steward. They all happen to be Australians. Unless the Government gets some common sense into it thinking on industrial arbitration matters and unless it takes into account the fact that there are laws in existence under which trained personnel can solemnly sit down in the calmness of a room and discuss both sides of the problem and then give a determination it is going to have a confrontation. The Government is denying that position here. It is placing the matter in the hands of a Minister and what it calls an employing authority, which could be one man. The Government is putting all the onus of responsibility on one or two people to say who will work at the Redfern Mail Exchange and whether people should have a job or be dismissed.

Finally, the legislation has the weakness in it that even if it is defective it can still be enforced by regulation. Nobody in his right mind would approve of such drafting. Nobody could possibly suggest that clause 14 is fair and reasonable. We say that this legislation is superfluous legislation. The existing provisions are adequate, legal and fair in that there can be arbitration processes. If the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), who is interjecting, thinks he can solve the problem he should get up and make a speech. Let him tell us where he stands. Tomorrow the Tasmanian mail exchanges and all other mail exchanges in Australia will be out in sympathy and the Government will be beholden to that situation. We will see then whether the Government has solved any of the problems of the work force in the Post Office. The Government has done nothing but wield into unity the malcontents and others by introducing this legislation. It has immediately removed the issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Employees as well as employers have rights and responsibilities. Some employees have, or should have, a greater responsibility because of the critical nature of their work to the community and/or the form of their employment which gives them greater job security or other advantages. Public servants and employees of statutory authorities have both those advantages. They are supposed to be servants of the public. In return they have security of employment and other work advantages that are not available to others in the community. They are the envy of thousands and thousands of Australians who are without that security at present.

The various postal disputes which have brought this matter to a head highlight the selfish rights only’ approach of these postal workers. They have no vision of responsibility to the community. The actions of spokesmen for the Labor Party today indicate that they also are concerned only for the selfish rights of these people. Members of the Labor Party, in taking the stance that they have taken, have forgotten their responsibility to the general community in Australia. I am sure that the Australian community will not forget this stance taken by the Labor Party today, because it shows complete disregard for the community of interest in this country. These unionists have shown disregard not only for this community of interest but also for their fellow unionists in the postal service as well as in other industries and Australians generally who suffer because of their actions. We now have an intolerable situation.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) spoke about the contempt for Parliament, as he saw it, illustrated by the way this legislation was introduced. I suggest to him that the more significant issue at present is the contempt for Australia and Australians shown by these various union people. I want to refresh the memories of honourable members about a few of the recent postal disputes. I will start by referring to disputes in Sydney. In Sydney in October last year mail sorters imposed a ban for 8 days. They defied the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union order to lift the ban. In Sydney in November 1976 postal employees refused to deliver mail to the John Fairfax newspaper group. In Sydney in February this year New South Wales postmen refused to work during a staff review.

Now we have the current dispute at Redfern, culminating today, as I understand it, in the rejection by the Redfern workers of the 7-day stand-off’ or ‘cooling down’ period which was recommended to them. That recommendation was rejected after APTU members in Melbourne and Hobart had voted in favour of this reasonable approach. So much for the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and his talk about reason, negotiation and getting down to talks. That has been going on for a very long time. If only one party or one side is prepared to be reasonable, then there comes a time when that side- meaning in this instance the Government, acting through the Postal Commission- if it has any guts in carrying out its responsibility to the people of Australia, has to say: ‘Enough’.

I remind honourable members that the Government members communications committee contacted the workers at Redfern about 12 months ago after visiting the exchange and said that it would be very pleased to discuss their problems with them. That committee has had no response to that communication. So much for the unity of purpose about which the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith was talking. What is the unity of purpose about which he talks when he says that the Adelaide people are with the Redfern people, when the Melbourne and Hoban workers took exactly the opposite stance? So much for the honourable member for KingsfordSmith and his way of solving the problems. If we want to look a little beyond the situation at Redfern,’ let us consider the situation in South Australia. In that State in April 1977 there was an overtime ban by postmen and a work to rule campaign. In Melbourne during June, July and August there was a series of disruptive tactics including walk-outs, restrictions by van drivers and 4-day fortnightly strikes. There was the whole gamut of industrial action to disrupt the mail services of this nation.

What has happened to the proud claim that the mail must go through? I believe that the Post Office is being hypocritical in accepting money from the public for stamps for the delivery of mail when it cannot guarantee that delivery. This is a completely hypocritical situation which the Government of this nation cannot tolerate in the case of an essential service. I remind honourable members that it is not just the postal workers who are acting in this way, just in case the Opposition thinks that they are being picked upon. What about some of the other people who have forgotten their responsibility to the community in the pursuit of their selfish ends? Recently Commonwealth meat inspectors were on strike and there was other industrial action in New South Wales and Queensland. There was a range of activities on the part of meat inspectors in Queensland which added to the problems already there.

There are other examples. Members of the Labor Party have mentioned the air traffic controllers. Remember their action of a few months ago and their willingness to bring this country to a halt for their selfish ends. They appealed to air traffic controllers in other countries to go out on strike in sympathy with them. They sought the support of air traffic controllers in the United States and, according to my understanding, the United States controllers said: ‘We sympathise with you, but we cannot strike. We are considered to be an essential security industry in this country, a service acting in the national interest, and therefore we cannot strike’. It would be interesting to compare the rights and responsibilities, as seen by the United States postmen and postal workers, with the attitude of some of the postal workers in Australia at present.

Returning to the air traffic controllers strike, I ask: Who solved that strike? It was not solved by Bob Hawke. The firm resolve of this Government, in saying that air communications with Tasmania would be continued by means of the use of Royal Australian Air Force aircraft, solved that strike. Mr Hawke, in a panic move to prevent the community reaction which would follow continuation of the air traffic situation, tried to do his best to calm down the people concerned and to see that the inevitable community reaction would not come about, but it was the firm resolve of this Government that ended that air traffic controllers dispute.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They are not affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Mr LLOYD:

-On the one hand the Opposition is saying that Mr Hawke solved that dispute whilst on the other hand it is saying that he has nothing to do with that industry. The Opposition should make up its mind. In presenting this legislation the Government has acted moderately on behalf of the community of interest. The confrontation has come from the other side, particularly the postal people. The action of the Redfern postal workers today confirms this confrontation approach- the demand by them for selfish rights over and above the responsibility they have to the community and to the community of interest.

I want to remind people of the moderate approach being taken by this Government by reading a few paragraphs from the second reading speech made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). He said that the purpose of this Bill was to:

  1. . suspend from duty, or in appropriate circumstances dismiss, government employees who take industrial action which disrupts the provision of services to the Australian community . . .

What is the difference between that and what is required of every other Australian worker? There is no difference. He also said that its purpose was to: . . stand down, without pay, government employees who cannot be usefully employed as a result of industrial action taken by fellow government employees or by workers in private industry, or who are engaged on functions the performance of which is seriously disrupted.

That is quite sensible and reasonable. In the final paragraph of his speech the Minister said:

Finally, let me emphasise that it would be the Government’s hope that it will not be necessary to use this legislation and it is the Government’s intention that this Bill will be passed by the Parliament but will not be proclaimed to operate unless circumstances so dictate.

I repeat: . . this Bill will be passed by the Parliament but will not be proclaimed to operate unless circumstances so dictate.

So the matter rests fairly and squarely with these unionists and their attitude to their responsibilities. I shall finish the quotation I was reading. The Minister went on to say:

Certainly it recognises that the very great majority of government employees and their unions have acted, and do act, responsibly. Indeed the legislation would not have been necessary but for the actions of a minority.

I am convinced that the great majority of Australians want this Government to take reasonable but firm action and not to back off when confrontation comes from the other side. I believe that this legislation does just that.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I am sorry that again this debate on a very important issue has polarised people so much. The real issues before the House are massive and have a fundamental effect on our country; yet the two major parties in this House seem to have polarised again and their members are trying to score points. I am sorry that this debate cannot be a little bipartisan. I have appreciated most of the speeches which have come from members of the Australian Labor Party. I also appreciated the speech of my friend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who has just sat down. But why cannot the Labor Party tear itself away for once from the tie and domination which it has from the trade union movement and at least concede that the postal workers in Australia, particularly at Redfern, are behaving outrageously? Surely it is not too much to ask the Labor Party m this place to disown those people at Refern. All their moderate trade union colleagues with whom I have spoken have told me that the people at Redfern are behaving atrociously, shockingly. They are behaving in a fashion which is detrimental to the trade union movement as a whole. This is playing into the hands of the militants, both on the extreme right and on the extreme left. We have democratically elected members of the Austraiian Labor Party in Parliament. It would be of no disadvantage to them to say for once that there is a pack of people who are behaving very badly.

Mr Young:

– Why do you not run your party and we will run ours.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide makes what I think is a rather contemptible interjection. He asks: ‘Why do you not run your party and we will run ours?

Mr Young:

– That is right.

Mr CHIPP:

– I am not talking about his party. I am talking about his conduct in the House as a democratically elected person. His party should not be championing people he knows to be misbehaving in this way.

Mr Young:

– You are a phoney.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will not make scurrilous remarks by way of interjection when another honourable member is speaking. I warn honourable members that the debate which has been going on quite intelligently, albeit heatedly, must not become a rabble.

Mr CHIPP:

– One always knows when logic deserts the honourable member for Port Adelaide because then he resorts to scurrilous interjections. The last interjection was typical of him. I am not a union basher and my record shows that. The postal workers, particularly those at Redfern, are acting in a selfish, destructive, disruptive and dog-in-the-manger way. They are showing contempt for the public, for their mates in other unions and for other essential services. They are totally irresponsible, as I have been told by other trade unionists. I want those remarks on record. If this Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill were brought into the House to cope with the people at Redfern or with the sorts of people who are at Redfern and in the postal union, it would have my total support. This Bill does not have that support because it does not deal with the postal workers. It has ramifications which are incredible.

We are now debating one of the most important pieces of legislation ever brought into this House by the Fraser Government. This legislation could be the cause of bringing Australia to a situation of industrial paralysis. It could give unilateral powers to a Minister or Ministers, the like of which as far as I know do not exist in any other piece of legislation. This legislation massively infringes the rights of tens of thousands of loyal public servants. It allows them to be stood down or sacked with the loss of all privileges by any Minister or by an authority instructed by a Minister. It gives politicians the power to stand down public servants for no fault of their own. The second reading speech of the Minister for

Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) admits that. Is the Parliament going to vote for such legislation? Is the Liberal Party going to vote for such legislation seeing that it champions the ordinary person, the worker? Are members of the Liberal Party going to vote for legislation which gives a Minister or an authority on the instruction of a Minister, power to stand down a trade unionist when his inactivity has absolutely nothing to do with himself? I have had 10 minutes to read the Bill. I do not know how long other honourable members have had. Trade unionists or any member of the Public Service can be stood down after a declaration because of industrial action. The Bill defines industrial action as:

  1. the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work.

That might sound fair. But two magical words are not in that definition. The words are ‘in Australia’. Industrial action in the port of New York, or London, or wherever, which causes trade unionists or public servants in Australia to be idle, means that they can be stood down or even dismissed because this power is given to the Minister. I think that is a monstrous provision to bring into the Parliament without consultation and without proper debate. I shall explain some more of the details in a moment. I deal now with how the Bill was introduced. I think there is common agreement that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation. It is massively important not only in itself but also in its ramifications. I am angry about the way in which the Government has treated the Parliament with such contempt. There was a notice on the daily program, the blue sheet. It simply stated:

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill- Mr Street … to present Bill. First reading. Second reading to be moved. Debate adjourned.

I have been Leader of the House and I know the procedures for printing the blue sheet. Instructions are given by the Government through its officer to the Clerks who organise the printing of the sheet. Were the words ‘debate adjourned’ used in an attempt to mislead the House? There is no indication on the blue sheet that the Bill would be declared an urgent Bill, guillotined and pushed through the House by weight of numbers by 9.30 tonight. There are only two possible conclusions to reach. Either the Government changed its mind after 9 o’clock or 9.30 this morning and decided to make this an urgent Bill or the Government deliberately misled the House; the Government, through the blue sheet, told a lie to the House when it stated that the debate would be adjourned. But I would not assume the latter to be the case. Therefore, one comes inevitably to the first conclusion. Why did the Government between 9.30 this morning and 4 o’clock this afternoon decide to guillotine the Bill? Are not any members of the Government interested in that? Is nobody interested in that sort of proposition? The legislation is vital to the nation and we are asked to steam-roll it through. With great respect to honourable members on the Government side, whose intelligence I respect, I am persuaded that most of them do not understand the ramifications of this Bill. It is so complex and complicated. It would be impossible to absorb the material in the Bill without consultation with the trade union movement in the few hours longer that members of the Government have had to look at the Bill than I and honourable members opposite have had. I came into the House and heard to my astonishment that the Bill was being declared an urgent Bill. What grieves me more and makes me angry is that the Melbourne Herald knew about this matter at 10 o’clock this morning because that is the time it goes to bed and this information was in its second edition.

Mr Cohen:

– It was on 2UE this afternoon.

Mr CHIPP:

– And it was on radio. Does not the Government have confidence in informing members of Parliament that it is going to pass this kind of legislation? It told the Melbourne Herald and radio stations. Apparently the dogs around Canberra were barking. But never does the Government inform the Parliament. Yet I am criticised privately by some of my friends whom I still have in the Liberal Party about making too much of a song in this country about Parliament being a rubber stamp. Has any member of the Liberal Party had an opportunity to object to this or to complain about -

Mr Baillieu:
Mr CHIPP:

– Where and when? I do not know about that.

Mr Birney:

-At the party meeting.

Mr CHIPP:

-Apparently it was at a hastily convened meeting at 9.30 this morning. If members of the Liberal Party are happy to be treated that way and are happy for this Parliament to be treated that way, so be it. But I believe it is an outrageous way to treat this Parliament. The second reading speech that was delivered by the Minister on this massively important subject lasted for less than two minutes. The Opposition was then expected to respond to very complicated legislation that could affect every person in this country after a two minute speech by the Minister and after being given an hour’s notice of the Bill ‘s introduction by the Government. It is now Thursday afternoon. Why is this Bill not to be presented next Tuesday? Why is it impossible for it to be left over until next Tuesday? Is there that urgency in it? If there is such urgency that it is necessary to guillotine the Bill- the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) correctly said that this is the first guillotine the Government has used since it has been in office- the Government must regard this as an incredibly urgent situation. I think that is a logical conclusion. But did the Minister tell us the reasons for the urgency? There is not a word in that second reading speech about why this Bill should be regarded and voted on by the House as an urgent Bill.

Does the Government really believe that the House understands the Bill properly? The only reason given for urgency is a vague reference by the Minister who delivered the second reading speech on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) concerning mail services. The next speaker from the Government side, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) gave us the clue. I think he delivered a fairly cogent and cohesive speech about the trouble we are having with postal services. But neither Minister gave a reason for the urgency of the Bill. We have the legislation being rushed through today. But there is an incongruity which I cannot understand. Because it is urgent, it could not be brought in on Tuesday to give us a chance to think about it. We were misled, either purposely or not on purpose, by what is printed on the blue business sheet. The Bill is to be rushed through the House by 9.30 p.m. and its passage cannot wait until Tuesday. Yet we have this incredible statement at the end of the Minister’s second reading speech. He said:

Finally, let me emphasise that it would be the Government’s hope that it would not be necessary . . . that this Bill will be passed by Parliament but not be proclaimed to operate unless circumstances so dictate.

Those statements are in absolute and direct contradiction, if I understand anything about the English language. The Government is guillotining a Bill for the first time- rushing it through the Parliament by 9.30 tonight. It cannot wait until Tuesday so that honourable members can leave this place and consult with reasonable trade unionists on the implications. We cannot ascertain whether it will lead to industrial paralysis and whether the moderates in the trade union movement will be put into a corner by the militantsthe communists and the people destined to give us trouble. We want to consult with people on this legislation. With the contacts that we have-when I say ‘we’ I mean all back benchers of this Parliament- perhaps we could have consulted the people about the impact of this Bill. But it cannot wait. We are not told why it cannot wait. After the legislation has been pushed through the Parliament, it will not be proclaimed until circumstances so dictate. Do we assume from that that circumstances are expected to arise between 9.30 p.m. tonight and 2.15 p.m. next Tuesday? Are we expected to believe that? If so, I believe that this Parliament deserves to be told just that. I believe that at least it deserves that sort of courtesy. There has been no consultation- if there has been, the Minister did not mention it- with the trade union movement on this Bill. As I understand it, there has been no consultation with the high council of the while collar workers upon whom this Bill has a fundamental effect.

I objected to the trade practices legislation. At the time of its introduction 70 odd pages of legislation plus 12 pages of amendments were brought into this House. That legislation was steamrolled through after three speakers a side had spoken on it. That is a Bill which affected every human being in this country. I say with no disrespect that there would not have been five members of this House who understood that Bill or who understood what the amendments did to it. I have said before that is is almost a joke now for us to come to this Parliament. It is a joke for the Opposition to come here because Opposition members are treated with contempt. It is almost a joke for the back bench members to come here because this Parliament is ruled by the Executive. The Executive is no longer responsible to or accountable to this Parliament. When that happens in a democracy, I believe it is a dangerous thing. It is even more dangerous when legislation of this nature is not only introduced into this House but also is guillotined through the House in a matter of a few hours.

What does the Bill do? I ask honourable members to turn to clause 6. A quick reading of the clause indicates to me that it gives the power to somebody to sack or stand-down a public servant after years of faithful service. The clause states that the employee does not have entitlement to salary, wages or other remuneration or allowances. Does that mean that an employee is not entitled to long service leave? Does it mean that he is not entitled to holiday pay? Does it apply to seniority? I do not know that it does. I would not believe for a moment that this is the case because that would be quite outrageous. But we are not told that this is the case. Can back benceh members of Parliament, particularly my friends from the National Country Party, who attempted to interject before and say that they know all about this Bill, tell me whether clause 6 means that if someone is stood down or dismissed, that person will lose his long service leave? I am afraid the thunderous silence indicates that they do not know.

If members of the National Country Party have understood this Bill do they agree with the provisions of clause 8. Do they agree that the employing authority or a Minister may terminate the employment of an employee? Do they say that a Minister now has the power to arbitrarily sack any individual trade union member?

Mr Sullivan:

– If he is asking for it, yes.

Mr CHIPP:

-‘ If he is asking for it, yes’, the honourable member for Riverina interjects. Who will be the arbiter? What rights has that public servant got to appeal against his arbitrary sacking by the Minister. Clause 12 states:

An employing authority shall comply with any directions given to the authority by a Minister -

This clause specifically gives the Minister power to instruct an authority. In conclusion, I express my concern about this legislation. If the Government had introduced something about the Redfern Mail Exchange and the monstrous conduct of the postal workers, that would have had my support. But nowhere in this Bill is mention made of postal workers. It affects every trade unionist, every worker in the Public Service in Australia.

Mr Lusher:

– What about the air traffic controllers?

Mr CHIPP:

-I would not have thought it would have been to the advantage of the honourable member for Hume or any honourable member on the Government side to be brazen or stupid enough to mention the air traffic controllers. History will show that in respect of that strike the Government persisted with the pattern it is now carrying on, namely, one of deliberate and utter confrontation with the trade union movement to try to engineer a spurious excuse for an early election. I have been saying that for about six months. It is all very well to do things for political expediency. But who suffers in circumstances like that? It is not the militants in the unions. It is not the communists in the unions. They are laughing all the way to the ballot boxes because of this sort of extreme right wing behaviour I hear from my left, lt is not the hungry trade union leaders who suffer. The people who suffer from this sort of conduct are the workers, the small businessmen of Australia and the ordinary people who could not possibly stand a national paralysis of this country at the moment brought about by political expediency.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I was interested in some of the comments made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who has just resumed his seat. Some of the points he made I agree with, but some I disagree with quite strongly. He said in the early part of his speech that he wondered why the Labor Party members were not prepared to join with other members on a bilateral basis in an attempt to solve some of the industrial problems we have at the moment. I join with him in wondering that. Why is it that we have a situation in which a few militant trade unionists are prepared to rape this country of its economic future; yet honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber are prepared to give them credence and to back them up every inch of the way?

I support the honourable member for Hotham in saying that it is about time honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber came to grips with the situation they face and decided whether they are going to represent the people of Australia or are going to be lackeys to the communist-led unions. This is what members of the Labor Party have to determine. I think this is what the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill will draw from the Labor members: Just whom do they serve- Australia or those militant trade unionists?

Mr Sullivan:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide has been very silent.

Mr BURR:

– He will not speak while I am saying those sorts of things, because he knows that they are true. Another thing the honourable member for Hotham said in his speech was that he could not understand the urgency of this Bill. I remind him that only today the members of the postal unions at the Redfern Mail Exchange voted to continue their ban indefinitely, whilst the members of the same unions in Hobart and Melbourne voted for a 7-day cooling off period. If that is the sort of unity to which the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred, I fail to accept that there is unity within those unions. There is obvious division. People are trying to stir up this section of the unions in order to pursue their own political ambitions.

I believe that it is high time the Government brought in legislation that will protect the public interest. I think the people of Australia will say: At last we have a government with enough guts to do what the people have been wanting a government to do for quite a number of years’. This is one of the things on which this Government and the parties that constitute it went to the electors at the last general election campaign. We promised the people that we would protect them from these unreasonably militant trade unionists in their greedy demands. That is what this Bill is designed to do.

Mr Innes:

– It will not save you.

Mr BURR:

-I am pleased that the honourable member for Melbourne agrees with my assertion. We in Tasmania are probably more conscious of the effect of what a few militant trade unionists can do and of how a State can be isolated by them than are some of the honourable members from mainland States. We have had the seemingly unending experience of a few people within selected trade unions being able to isolate Tasmania completely with disruptions in transport and communications between our State and the mainland. I well recall, during the air traffic controllers strike in May, a number of people phoning my office and saying: ‘For once in my life I am scared. I am scared because in this State our essential services come from the mainland and there is no way that we can communicate and obtain those essential services’. That is the situation we face in Tasmania.

It gives me pleasure to highlight again to honourable members opposite some of the things that took place in May. I can assure them that the people of Tasmania remember that strike by the air traffic controllers and others that have disrupted communications with Tasmania. I can assure the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) that they will remember them when the next election is held too. What are some of the comments that have been made about that air traffic controllers strike? The editorial in the Australian of 9 May 1 977 stated:

The air traffic controllers’ strike is irresponsible, enormously damaging- and a perfect example of the root cause of our economic troubles: self-centredness to the extent that many Australians have become so inward looking that they can see eye-to-eye only with themselves. Until we can come to grips with this national I’m-all-right-Jack syndrome, we have no hope of curing our social and financial illnesses.

Debate interrupted.

page 450

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1976-77, together with the Auditor-General’s reports thereon. This action is required of me pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Copies are being released to the media by the Bank.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 450

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BURR:

– Before the dinner break I was commenting on some of the disruptions that had been caused to our community by the militant minority section of the air traffic controllers. During his speech the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) mentioned that all sections of society have both rights and responsinilities The air traffic controllers’ strike, and perhaps the mail strike at the Redfern exchange, are illustrations of the way in which a minority section within the trade union movement is prepared to demand its rights within society, while failing to respond to its responsibilities to the rest of the people in the community. That point was made graphically in an editorial in the Sunday Telegraph on 8 May this year dealing with the air traffic controllers’ strike. The article stated:

Air traffic controllers, by the nature of their work, are in a powerful position. But today they are wielding that power without any sense of responsibility towards their fellow Australians.

In short, they are being greedy. Not only do they want a 36 per cent pay increase- a senior controller already earns $ 1 6,500 a year- but they want to set their own rules.

That is the situation we have at the moment in industrial relations in this country. A militant minority within the trade union movement is trying to set its own rules. In the case of the air traffic controllers, the matter had been to the Public Service Arbitrator but they were not prepared to accept the umpire’s ruling. They were prepared to inconvenience all of Australia because they were greedy and wanted more. Not only did they inconvenience people in Tasmania and isolate those people in the island State, but they left Australian citizens stranded all over the world. In fact, some 5 000 people in other parts of the world simply could not get home. That fact was pointed out in an article in the Sydney Sun which said that Australian citizens in other parts of the world were absolutely destitute because they had run out of money and could not get home because people here in Australia- a militant minority- were too jolly greedy.

Mr Groom:

– Disgraceful!

Mr BURR:

-As the honourable member for Braddon says, it was disgraceful. I believe that there is a fundamental question which must be asked not just by honourable members in this Parliament but by the people of Australia. Are we as Australian citizens prepared to bow to the overbearing demands of a militant minority in the trade union movement? In my opinion, it is high dme that Australia, this Government and the people of this country stood up to the trade unions and said: ‘We are not prepared to tolerate any more. You are part of this community and you will accept your responsibilities in the way that the Austraiian public demands.’ Too often we hear, particularly from honourable members opposite, that because we stand up and say that the militant unions are nothing more than industrial gangsters we are union bashing. I ask the question: Who is trying to bash Australia? It is these same trade unionists, who are too greedy, and because they know that they are in a powerful position they want to grind the last cent out of the community, regardless of the consequences.

I pose this fundamental question to honourable members opposite and to the House: Do we. have essential services in this country which must * be maintained? Do we have postal services, telephone services, communications and transport services which must be maintained? I believe that those public services are essential to the proper maintenance and order of this country. If we allow a militant minority of greedy trade unionists to get jobs in a mail exchange or as air traffic controllers or in some other essential area and simply hold Australia to ransom, then I believe that this country is headed for chaos. I am not prepared to accept that. The Government is not prepared to accept it, and that is the reason why the Government sees this Bill as a matter of urgency. It is time that not only governments but all the people of Austrafia who have a sense of responsibility, who want to establish a solid and sound economic base, not just for this generation but for our children and our grandchildren, stood up to this militant minority and said: ‘We have had enough. We are not going to tolerate you any more. We are going to build Australia as we want it built’.

I compliment the Minister upon bringing this Bill into the House. I urge all honourable members in this place who have a responsibility to Australia and want to see Australia developed in the way that most Australians want, without being subjected to this -

Mr Baillieu:

– Blackmail.

Mr BURR:

– This blackmail, as the honourable member for La Trobe says, by these trade unionists- I urge them to support the Government in what it is doing in this Bill, and put these militant ratbags, these militant gangsters among the trade unionists, back in the place where Australia demands that they should be.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-We have just heard the ravings of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), who has claimed that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who sits on his right, is a grouper. The definition of a grouper is a treacherous individual who undermines the trade union movement. That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If ever I have seen two individuals who are like peas in a pod, it is those two honourable members. The back benchers in particular have claimed clearly that there might not be much in the Bill but there is 8 per cent in it in an election campaign, and that is the whole resolve of the individual who has just sat down and of his grouper mates on the back bench. In my time in this Parliament I have never heard such a collection of illogical speeches from members on the Government side. Even the two Ministers who have spoken failed to get their lines straight.

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister with the responsibility for the Public Service, did not see fit to introduce the Bill. That was done by the angry ant, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), in a speech so short that one could only draw the conclusion that either he did not know what he was talking about or he was quite deliberately taking a debating point and trying to leave this side of the House floundering because it was unable to see copies of the Bill. Our principal spokesman had only one hour to look at the legislation. Our other speakers had two minutes to comb the fine print and two minutes to decide their attitudes. If that is the standard of this Government, if we are to be treated to a display of schoolboy tricks, then the community will judge the sort of people with whom we are dealing. At the time when the Government goes to the people, they will judge it in its true perspective.

From the somewhat pathetic displays of the Government side, it has become quite apparent that this Bill was prepared at the time of the strike by the air traffic controllers. On that occasion we heard grave threats from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) about what the Government might do. Now we have heard from two Ministers that at present there is no intention to use the legislation. They are hopeful, they say, that it will be unnecessary. What nonsense. They are simply spoiling for a fight, and they will get it. As the Minister for Kingsford-Smith nas pointed out, if ever there was going to be -

Mr Howard:

-The Minister for KingsfordSmith?

Mr INNES:

-He will be shortly. If ever there was a confrontation situation this is it and the honourable member wherever he comes from who is now one of the Ministers on the front bench and who sold his soul -

Mr Howard:

-He is the honourable member for Balaclava; a great electorate.

Mr INNES:

– He knows as well as I know that industrial relations in this country have been built up over a long period of time. He knows that the late Commissioner Chambers enunciated the philosophy of looking at both parts of the legislation. He knows that there has never been one dispute or strike resolved by using the back of the axe, and if he had any guts he would stand up and say so. All the pathetic displays we have heard today have been based on the same concept. If the two Ministers who have spoken in this debate had been in contact with the real world they would have learnt the simple lesson that whoever goes looking for a fight will always find one and will generally lose. Those of us who have watched the political process over the years have a sense of regret at the way in which this Government acts. What is missing is the professional approach and technique of a person whom I politically despise but who at least had a bit of finesse about him- Sir Robert Menzies. He introduced terrible legislation but always with a flair and he never gave a terrible performance such as we have seen today. Over the years penal provisions were introduced with some sort of sophistication. But this back of the axe method we are now seeing is indicative only of the dictatorship of the individual who controls, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said today, the puppets on the other side of the House. He is also the individual who controls the executive government of this country and he dictates the pace. All this rabble, all the puppets and the Charlie McCarthys -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne rephrase some of his sentences and restrict his comments.

Mr INNES:

-I will do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Right from the start the job has been botched. There was a hurried Party meeting this morning, a deliberately false statement was placed on the Blue Paper by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), there was the leaking of the news to the Melbourne Herald before 10 a.m., the leaking of the news to the radio stations, and suddenly the matter has become one of urgency. The guillotine is applied with a cut-off point for debate of 9 p.m., on one of the most crucial issues to come before the House. The Government says that the time will be 9.30 p.m., but to get this matter finalised by 9.30 p.m., surely the gag will have to be applied around 9 p.m. I can say little more than that about the tactics of the Government. I have said before that those tactics resemble schoolboy tactics. Instead of the approaches of the past we are to have this juvenile approach.

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in mealy-mouthed terms failed to mention in his second reading speech that the whole purpose of the Bill was to deal with the postal dispute. He talked about Commonwealth employees. But what has this wizard of industrial relations done? He has dusted off the legislation prepared months ago and suddenly presented it in the Parliament. It is a pity he did not take the trouble to tell the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) that the ploy was to claim that this Bill was to apply to all Federal workers. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications then blew the gaff. He put in the usual painful bit about hoping that the legislation would not be used and then admitted that it was aimed directly at the postal workers.

What is the theme of the Government’s approach? It is that honourable members in this House should turn their face against the principles of the conciliation and arbitration legislation. No honourable member should reject the standards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and I already have indicated what has happened in the past to the detriment of governments who have endeavoured to destroy the conciliation and arbitration process in this country and in the United Kingdom. They suffered the same fate. There was the Bruce-Page Government in this country and the Heath Government in the United Kingdom, and this Government will suffer the same consequences. Honourable members opposite, who are here like Charlie McCarthys, have a nerve in supporting this Bill, and the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) ought to hang his head in shame. I am sure that his father would have dissociated himself from this sort of legislation and the honourable member should stand up and have the guts to do so too. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, provided that he knows himself, should tell the Minister for Post and Telecommunications what conciliation is all about.

This Bill is just a back door method of reintroducing penal clauses into the Conciliation and

Arbitration Act as they were during the 1960s. At least during the 1960s penal clauses were inserted in a more sophisticated way but they led to the same disastrous consequences as this confrontation will have. This legislation will not resolve the postal dispute. It wil not resolve any dispute just as it did not resolve disputation during the 1960s. Mr Speaker, who was an advocate in the industrial court at the same time as I was, knows that the sophisticated introduction of union bashing and using the back of the axe in industrial relations just does not pay off. The honourable member for Balaclava who is the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) hangs his head and so he should. The penal clauses m 1960s resulted in the gaoling of a union official. Mr Clarrie O’Shea from the Tramway Workers Union went to gaol but after that no more fines were paid following litigation in the industrial court. If honourable members think by any stretch of their imagination that these provisions before us will have any more impression on people who have a different concept of industrial relations to the industrial amateurs opposite it seems to me that they are heading for a confrontation which they will lose.

So far as the Opposition is concerned the Minister for Post and Telecommunications should not be blamed. He is so busy on other activities such as closing down the Australian Broadcasting Commission, dealing with the citizen band radio, helping commercial television to reduce Australian content and other things that go to turn the toil of Australian workers into profits for the cartels and other individuals. Recently we had the brave words of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), the champion of the rule of law against all unfettered administrative decisions. He introduced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the ombudsman institution. He is even prouder of his Act called the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act which is a final cornerstone in preventing unfettered administrative decisions. Unfortunately that Act will never be proclaimed. This Government will continue to bring in Bills like this giving total discretion to anyone and if Government supporters doubt how far the enormous powers contained within this legislation go they should look at clause 13 of the Bill. This power can be delegated down to the foreman on the shop floor who would have total unfettered discretion to suspend and dismiss regardless of any conciliation or arbitration practice. This power can be placed in the hands of anyone.

I turn now to some clauses of the Bill. In clause 3 wc find definitions. There is a definition of

Commonwealth authority as one which, incorporated or not, is established for a public purpose under the law of the Commonwealth or a Territory. This legislation can go as far as embracing bodies like the Canberra Showground Trust, and the Government might be inclined to change even its method of working sometimes. Worse still, the legislation could cover the employee of any company in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest and, although this Bill does not tell us what is a controlling interest, I would not be surprised if that expression meant the same as it does under company law, that is, a lot less than 5 1 per cent of the shareholding. Even a notional shareholding will do. So any company which has any government interest in its shareholding will need to be careful and so will its employees. Its operations could be brought to a halt by the simplest action of any delegate. Then we have the delegation of authority in a most fascist way as well as a definition of ‘industrial action’ for which three categories are given. The first refers to when work is performed in a way different from that in which it is customarily performed. The safety issue comes up if the work method changes to increase productivity and if one of the bright suggestions is put into operation. In any of these cases there can be suspensions and dismissals. Here, the true intent comes through. It is back to the 19th century attitude towards work in the mines- ‘do what you are told regardless of the consequences’. Safety is now at the mercy of any delegate of this power.

The next provision relates to any ban on accepting or offering for work. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that if someone fails to accept work when he is offered it, the whole of the organisation is to be suspended or dismissed? Finally there is the unauthorised failure to attend for work. The Government cannot congratulate itself on abolishing what might be regarded as a legitimate absence from work if the individual is sick.

It will now have the power to dismiss anyone at all.

Mr Lusher:

– You are an anarchist.

Mr Sullivan:

– And a rabbit.

Mr INNES:

– You are the filthiest fascist I have ever struck in my life.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!

Mr INNES:

-I withdraw that statement. Clause 4 is even wider. If I am reading it correctly, if a single Commonwealth employee engages in some industrial action everyone who has taken part will suffer the same fate. Unionists who vote for action and those who fail to vote will all be caught in the net. This is the sort of thing to which this Bill leads in order to take control of all union activities.

Clause 10 seems to be even wider than ever. It will be possible to retain non-unionists and lay off unionists. If ever we have seen an illustration of supporting scabs, this legislation goes to the very heart of it. That is what the Government, and those individuals who sit on its benches, especially the cow cockies in the corner, is all about. Clause 5 is all about standing people down. As the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has pointed out, a strike on the waterfront in London or at an airport in New York which delays the mails will enable the standing down of employees in Australia. All that is needed is for the delegate to declare that they cannot be usefully employed or that there is a serious disruption of the functions of the employing authority and the suspensions can take place. That provision is not aimed at striking workers; it is a direct step in the process of union bashing. Anyone stood down receives no pay or, if the delegate is so minded, some amount of pay which is set out in the notice.

For what purpose has this concept been developed? The Opposition and the Parliament have been deprived of all these questions which should have been asked in an intelligent sense in this Parliament. What dictatorship can anyone point to that would be worse than that? Once again the honourable member for Balaclava hangs his head. So he should. He is a phoney and a traitor to the cause he once believed in.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne withdraw that remark and restrain himself.

Mr INNES:

-I withdraw it. It cuts me to the quick. All these questions are involved in this legislation. It was given to our principal spokesmen one hour before it was introduced. How do honourable members opposite consider it? No individual in the backwoods has the intelligence to read the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, let alone a Bill which is in his hands one hour before the Parliament deals with the legislation?

I have still not been able to work out what clause 7 is all about. My reading of it seems to say that it allows retrospective action.

Mr Lusher:

– I am not surprised by your lack of intelligence.

Mr INNES:

– I wish some of the contraceptives had been retrospective. We would have got rid of a few people like the honourable member. Clause 7 (2) seems to allow the original determination to be varied. That is a nice bargaining weapon to hand to any employer. Whatever is decided any employer may vary it. We might decide something in useful discussions which would be traditionally regarded as the conciliatory section of the Act. That has been destroyed. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is the dictator in this situation because the angry ant is really only the Charlie McCarthy who does the Prime Minister’s bidding. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Prime Minister are conspicuous by their absence. They are not even interested in the debate on the Bill. The legislation that is now being thrust through this House with indecent haste could act retrospectively in the Court of Disputed Returns.

Clause 8 allows either the authority or the Minister to dismiss employees. Why the Minister? Why does the employing authority not handle this matter? That comes out in clause 12. No matter what the Postal Commission might think, if the Minister- presumably that is the Prime Minister who is the only one with any authority in the whole exercise under the present administrative arrangements- thinks differently his decision will prevail. Given the history of industrial relations in this country, which nave stood the test of time, how could they be thrown out into the open in this sense? I say to honourable members from my long history in the labour movement that the workers of this country will not accept this legislation. I repeat that no industrial dispute has ever been resolved with the back of the axe. Nowhere in this Bill do we find any reference to the rights which an employee might have on dismissal. It only goes to show that it is a piece of legislation hastily drafted for the air traffic controllers’ strike, put away and forgotten and now dredged up in an entirely different situation to lay the base for an election campaign that will take place in the near future. This great hoodlum the Prime Minister who is now entering the House is going to dictate the pace.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that remark.

Mr INNES:

– I withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Melbourne that he restrain himself even in an important matter in this House with which he is closely associated.

Mr INNES:

– I am prepared to restrain myself but when the Prime Minister walks in and turns his back on people it seems to me that that indicates the measure of his regard for the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That bears no relation to the remark that the honourable member made.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-The people of Australia have heard a speech in the last 20 minutes which must convince them that there is need for this legislation. The sort of buffoonery and ratbaggery that goes on in this place and by representatives of what were unions is quite beyond me.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that those remarks be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-My understanding of what the honourable member for Canberra said was a comment on a speech. If he made a personal reflection against the honourable member for Melbourne I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr HASLEM:

– I do not feel that I reflected on the honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I accept what the honourable member for Canberra has said.

Mr HASLEM:

– For over three weeks during the parliamentary recess I had the privilege of travelling in the outback of Australia. There was only one thing that the people in the outback wanted this Government to do. That was to get the country running and to stand up to unions. Therefore, there is no doubt that the sort of legislation which is being put forward is the right legislation. If anybody wants to complain about this legislation it should be those militant unionists who are bringing this country to its knees. We are being forced into this action; it is not something we are doing of our own choice.

I shall now convince honourable members opposite about something to do with liberalism and the party I stand for. We have been told by Opposition speakers that the Liberal Party is a dictatorship run by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). They say that we just do as we are told. I would like to raise a serious question in relation to this legislation, namely, that there appears to be absolutely no right of appeal for a unionist who has been dismissed under clause 8. Senator John Knight and I have taken this matter up with the Minister and at this point of time, while I am on my feet, Senator Knight is trying to clear it up. I indicate to honourable members opposite, to show how the Liberal Party works, that unless a right of appeal is brought into this legislation I will not support it.

I represent in my electorate more than 25,000 public servants. I have to say that if I were still in the Public Service and legislation that did not contain a right of appeal were introduced by the Australian Labor Party, if it were in government, I would be very alarmed. I think that is an absolutely proper way to feel. I do not feel that public servants should be put in any situation where they would be open to political victimisation by any party. So I am saying that if there is no right of appeal for a person dismissed under this legislation I will not support the Government on the legislation- for that reason, and for that reason only. Generally, I support the legislation and I support the reasoning behind it. However, I cannot support legislation which does not contain a right of appeal.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. I think that the honourable member raises a very serious question. I wonder whether the Government could indicate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member knows-

Mr Young:

-But this is a very serious point of order- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member knows that it is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Young:

-But this -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable members knows that it is not a point of order.

Mr Young:

– Is there an appeal?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No. The honourable member has been in this House long enough to know that. I suggest that the honourable member not try to disrupt the debate. It has been said on many occasions that this is a very important piece of legislation. I think the honourable member should realise that.

Mr Young:

-But what -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will cease his comment.

Mr HASLEM:

– The honourable member who raised that point of order appeared on television tonight. I watched the program and he was trying to appear to be very knowledgeable. I would have thought that, if I- a relatively new back bencher in this Parliament, with very little industrial relations experience- had worked that out at 4.30 p.m. today, he might have worked it out too.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am a little astounded that someone who seemed to have a vested interest in this whole matter spoke for only five minutes of the 20 minutes allotted to him.

Mr Howard:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, is this a point of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No. The honourable member is speaking on the legislation.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am taking part in the debate. If the Minister had cared to follow the debate he would have known that I was to be the next speaker. Someone told me that shortly after the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) came to this illustrious House in 1975 he had his name painted in water paint on the front window of his office because the sign would be easy to remove. Judging by the speech he made tonight, the time to do that is not too far off. The honourable member raised the question whether there was an appeal against any decision arbitrarily taken by any person who cared to issue the order or a Minister- and I think that is important. He said that if there was not provision in the Bill for an appeal he would vote against it. For the information of the honourable member let me say that the Bill does not contain provision for an appeal. So we look forward to seeing the honourable member sitting on the reverse side of the chamber of where he normally sits.

The important issue about this legislation is that it was introduced in haste. It was not prepared in haste; it was prepared some time ago. A red herring has been drawn across the path of this chamber tonight in the form of the postal workers dispute at the Redfern Mail Exchange. No member on the Government side really believes that this measure has anything to do with the postal dispute at Redfern. It just happens that that is a current industrial dispute.

Mr Lusher:

– Current?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes. This measure was drafted when the air traffic controllers, who are not affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, took industrial action in order to have their position resolved. I want to make some points about that matter. Honourable members opposite told us before the election in 1975, and they have told us since, that an industrial dispute should take place not by direction of the elected officials of a union but after a poll or ballot has been taken among those who are affected by the dispute. That happened in the case of the air traffic controllers. They did conduct a ballot.

Mr Lusher:

– Do you support that proposal.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes, I do support it. I supported it then and I support it now. For the information of the honourable member for Hume, who is probably the most ignorant member in this House on industrial matters, that proposition has always been in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. So we shall no more be put off by that sort of stupid talk from the most ignorant member in this chamber on industrial matters.

Mr Lusher:

– Do you support secret ballot legislation?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The dispute was determined by the members of the air traffic controllers organisation by way of secret postal ballot. These are words that I have heard used in this chamber before. They decided that they would stop work.

Mr Wallis:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-They did stop work and on the next occasion -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Grey wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Wallis:

– Yes. Is the honourable member for Hume allowed to interject in the manner he has been doing for the last five minutes? Is he immune.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order. I remind the honourable member for Hume that interjections are out of order. I also remind the honourable member that a great number of members from both sides have not been observing that rule since the suspension of the sitting. It might help the debate and the House if all members reminded themselves of that Standing Order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be the wisest person to ever occupy the chair, with the exception of the Speaker from time to time, and I acknowledge your views on these matters. I was making the point that the rules which members of the Liberal Party thought should apply in respect of industrial disputes were obeyed in the air traffic controllers dispute which prompted this piece of legislation. The air traffic controllers held a ballot to decide whether they would go on strike. They decided by way of secret ballot, at all airports in Australia, that they would go on strike.

Mr Lusher:

– Will you support legislation to introduce secret ballots for strikes.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Look, if that ignoramus from Hume -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Hume to order. I suggest that the honourable member for Burke might withdraw the remark he has made.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-But, sir -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the House, as I pointed out previously, that this debate is not being helped by interjections which admittedly are being replied to because of the element of human nature. I suggest that the debate proceed without further interjection. The honourable member for Burke might just withdraw the remark he made.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, Sir, I do not intend to withdraw the remark. I called the honourable member for Hume an ignoramus. I did this because when I tried to make the point that provision exists for the holding of secret ballots in respect of industrial disputes the honourable member for Hume denied that such legislation exists. If he denies that such legislation exists he is an ignoramus and, sir, I have every right to call him so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Burke use a different term. I think we might leave out the word ‘ignoramus’. There are other ways of expressing oneself.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes, sir. He is a blockhead.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I could advise the honourable member for Burke of many words that he might be able to use, but the Chair can intervene in debate only in an endeavour to keep debate proceeding smoothly. There are some comments that I would like to make to honourable members but it may not help if I were to do so. I think it might help, irrespective of what justification the honourable member for Burke my feel he has for using certain words, if he were to withdraw those words and continue his comments on another aspect.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-AU right. I withdrew the description of the honourable member as an ignoramus and blockhead and say that, being a member of the National Country Party, he wil understand what I mean when I say that he has a head as thick as a butt of beef. Let me get on with the measure before the House. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) made the point earlier today in this House that provided a public servant or employee- I think it is very important to stress this point-of the Aus.tralian Government carries out the duties for which he is engaged no Minister can sack him.

Mr Hodgman:

– Quite right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-‘ Quite right’, says the honourable member for Denison, who is as ignorant in these matters as the honourable member for Casey. Let us go to the Bill and see what it has to say about this matter. Clause 5 of this BUI reads:

Where, by reason of the existence of any industrial action (including industrial action in which Commonwealth employees are not engaged) -

persons who are Commonwealth employees in relation to an employing authority cannot be usefully employed; or

there is serious disruption to the performance of a function by an employing authority, being a function in connection with the performance of which persons who are Commonwealth employees in relation to the employing authority are employed, the employing authority may, by instrument in writing, declare that Commonweal 1th employees specified in the declaration, being all or some of the Commonwealth employees referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) but not being Commonwealth employees engaged in the industrial action, are stood down during the period commencing at such time as is specified in the declaration (not being a time earlier than the time at which the declaration is made) and ending at the time at which the declaration ceases, or is deemed to have ceased, to have effect.

Anybody who has a simple understanding of the English language Will understand what that means when taken into account with the clause about which we are talking- clause 11- which reads:

A declaration or determination has effect according to its tenor, and so has effect notwithstanding any law, or any award, that is inconsistent with the declaration or determination.

It should be patently clear to the most thickheaded member of the National Country Party or Liberal Party in this House that in fact the Minister or the authority has the right to dismiss any public servant for any reason. Public servants and employees of the Australian Government come in many categories and are of many colours and shades of opinion. That applies from the permanent head of a department down to the person who drives a mail truck. Let us forget this usiness about the Redfern Mail Exchange. It has nothing to do with this matter. It is a red herring that has been introduced into this debate by honourable members opposite. The real reason for the preparation of this Bill, as I pointed out earlier, was the air traffic controllers dispute. Somebody- I think it was the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp)mentioned that their co-workers in the United States of America cannot go on strike. That is true. What he did not say is that the salary received by a fellow worker in America is round about twice the salary paid to an air traffic controller in Australia. So the American controllers have an incentive for not going on strike.

What are honourable members opposite about? I will tell the House what they are about and I will tell the people of Australia who are listening to the broadcast of this debate what they are all about. The economy of this country is in a mess. The unemployment rate will rise to 8 per cent of the work force- half a million peoplecome Christmas of next year, when 250 000 people will be leaving schools and universities and looking for their first job and will not be able to find it. The Government cannot control the rate of inflation. It was over 13 per cent last year. It is going to be higher this year. The Government cannot control the Budget deficit. It cannot deliver the promises that it made to the Australian people in 1975. The Government wants to have a House of Representatives election before 30 June 1978. The reason for that is patently clear. If it has only a half Senate election, which it is bound to have before 30 June, it will get the daylights licked out of it. If the Government had the daylights licked out of it then, as is going to happen in South Austrafia on 17 September, it would destroy the morale of honourable members opposite.

Let us look at the people now sitting in this chamber who are from the Liberal and National Country parties. Apart from my old friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who is presently sitting on the other side of the chamber, nobody on the other side of the chamber would come back after such an election. I could name them if I wished. Not one of them would come back. Perhaps the Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony) would come back. I think he has some claims to the seat of Richmond. Honourable members opposite are worried and frightened. They would not be able to win an election on the promises that they made in 1975 when they confused the Australian people. They would not be able to win one on that score. I am sorry for omitting to mention my old friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham). He will be back as he also has a rather secure seat. Honourable members opposite cannot win on that score. So what do they have to do? They have to manufacture one. They think that they have done so. But they have misunderstood the situation. They have read the gallup polls, the public opinion polls, and have found that round about 60 per cent of the people of

Australia say that the Government should bash the unions; but they have forgotten that we have in Australia a work force of 6 million people, most of whom belong to unions and most of whom have wives and children.

Mr Baillieu:

– And most of whom you put out of work.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-They are out of work because of the policies of this anti-worker Government. But honourable members opposite have misread the polls. They knew that they could not win an election on economic issues so they thought that they would give the unions a bit of a roughing up and a bash. They have failed miserably with the legislation that the Government has brought into this place. Again I refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Casey, who is a most esteemed member of the Liberal and National Country Party coalition. Honourable members opposite may not invite the honourable member for Hotham to their party meetings but they at least invite the honourable member for Casey. He said earlier today that the policies of the Government of the day are to be carried out. I wrote after that the notation ‘whether they are good or not’. Nobody in this chamber is young enough not to remember the Germany of the 1930s, the rise of fascism in Germany, the rise of the National Socialist Party, the rise of Hitler and the bashing down of the unions.

Mr Groom:

-The Socialist Party.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I said the National Socialists. There is a bit of a difference. The National Socialist Party is the sort of party to which the honourable member would belong. Honourable members will all recall that occasion. The people of Germany, who were being led out of the wild oppression of the allied forces of the 1914-18 War, all sat down on their derrieres and said one after the other ‘The law is the law and it must be obeyed’. What has been said to us in this House today? The Government said that no person in Australia, be he a member of parliament or a member of the union, will ever have the right to question the divinity of this Government and its right to take decisions and impose them on the people of Australia.

While walking up the back stairs of this building today my very good friend the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) happened to bump into Mr George Polites, whose name is known to all honourable members opposite. Mr George Polites said to my friend Mr Willis: Have you seen it yet?’ My friend, Mr Willis, is a most honourable man. He does not have the devious sort of mind that I have. He said: ‘What am I supposed to have seen?’ Mr George Polites said: ‘The Bill’. Ralph Willis said: ‘What Bill?’ Mr George Polites said: ‘Oh, the one that is going to knock hell out of the union blokes. ‘ This happened this morning. Since that time by friend Ralph Willis has been busily poking around the Minister’s office. It is a pity that he is not here because he would tell us that this is so.

Mr Hodgman:

– He is there.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Where is he? Why does he not stand up so that I can see him? No, I am sorry, I am speaking about the Minister. It is the Minister whom I cannot see when he is standing up. However, my friend Ralph Willis, the honourable member for Gellibrand, has been busy all day trying to find out what he should have seen.

Mr Hodgman:

– He has been flat out.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes. Mr Polites told him. My friend the honourable member for Gellibrand wanted to know what he should have seen. He should have gone and spoken to Mr Peter Costigan of the Melbourne Herald because he knew last night. Nobody bothered to tell any member of the Australian Labor Party, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, what was going on. You told Mr Polites and you told Mr Costigan of the Melbourne Herald. You probably told everybody around the town who was not a friend of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will cease addressing honourable members across the chamber and address all his remarks through me.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Sir, I would be delighted to do so. It is a real delight to see you back in the chair. It has made my night. The Government, Sir, never provided the Opposition with that information. My friend the honourable member for Gellibrand is the accredited spokesman for the Labor Party on these issues and he was given five minutes notice about this Bill. He was given five minutes to read it before coming into this chamber and replying to it in the debate on its second reading. How long has the Liberal Party had this Bill on ice? I do not expect you to tell me that, Sir, but the Liberal Party should tell us. The Minister for employment and disruption stood in this place for one minute- 60 clear seconds- explaining this Bill which has ramifications which I do not think anybody on the Government side of the House really understands. They really do not understand its ramifications. I spoke with a member of the Liberal Party tonight. I am not going to name him because I think he is intelligent. He made it quite clear to me, as did the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) tonight, that if this Bill contained no provisions for appeal by any public servant or employee of the Commonwealth Government who can be sacked at the whim of an authority or a Minister- and there is no appeal -

Mr Hodgman:

– Hogwash!

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-One honourable member says: ‘Hogwash’. Let him show me the grounds of appeal. There are none. The present law contains nothing more or nothing less. This Bill provides no right of appeal. People can be arbitrarily dismissed and lose all their rights.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

-This is a clear and concise Bill which will help to answer a clear and concise question: Who is running this country, the elected government of the people or arrogant trade union bosses? These arrogant trade union bosses think only of power. They are concerned only with manipulating their members. In many cases their members do not know what is occurring at meetings. The number of members who attend to vote at many meetings often is far below the reasonable percentage that one ought to expect. These men are supported in this Parliament by the pawns they send here as Labor members. The last honourable member who spoke, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), aspires to be a Minister of the Crown in a Labor Government. I leave it to the Australian people to judge the content of the speech he just made.

The plain fact of the matter is that this Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill has been introduced because public servants being paid by the public are refusing to serve the public. If they want the right to strike, something which I support, they have to understand that there is an equally valid principle that applies in our society and that is ‘no work, no pay’. When people go on strike they are subject to the normal law of the land that says that they do not get paid. That is all that a stand down means. These stand-down provisions that have developed in the law have not been there for as many years as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) would say. They developed subject to pressure after pressure that the trade union movement applied. They were unnecessary in many cases. They breach the ordinary common law principle of ‘no work, no f>ay ‘ and they have given public servants particularly a privileged position in the community and an easy free ride. Some honourable members on the Opposition side have been talking tonight about dire threats, blackmail, national strikes and the like. They have talked about the 0 ‘Shea days. This country took a very serious turn for the worse about the dme of the O’Shea case and the absorption case. The trade unions got on top in those two cases. It would have been much better if the employers’ side had been able to stick to their guns. Then we would not have had this slide into industrial anarchy that has come about.

Most honourable members on this side have been going around their electorates for months and knocking on doors. They have been continually asked by the public ‘When are you going to do something about the unions?’ The loss of morale among ordinary decent working people who see what the trade union bosses are doing to this country is serious. This Bill will get us back to reasonable and proper principles.

Members of the Labor Party have complained about the way this Bill was introduced and I want to say something about that matter. They have had plenty of notice. They were told by this Government some time ago that measures might have to be taken. They know full well that in our community tremendous pressure is building up for action to be taken to interfere with the right to strike. I do not agree with that idea but community pressures are building up. Members of the Labor Party know what the country went through during the air traffic controllers’ strike. They have known full well that this matter could have come to a head at any time. They know full well when they talk about technicalities associated with the forms of the House that matters listed on the blue paper are listed subject to change. Even supposing that the Bill was brought in in a hurry, members of the Opposition have had six or seven hours to debate it and that is a long time when compared with the time devoted to many other Bills. Members of the Opposition wasted an hour or more today by indulging in stupid abuses of the parliamentary proceedings.

We are concerned with two main principles. One is the right to strike and the other is the right to hire and fire. Other concepts also come into this debate. Security of employment is important but security to the employer is important as well. How in this day and age, in times of rising costs and rising inflation, can employers handle some of these strikes, even those that last only a relatively short time? Strikes can cripple companies or small businesses. The unions say that they will treat the Government as a bottomless pit. They say: ‘We will cut off the service to the public; we Will reduce the profits of Qantas, of TransAustralia Airlines, of the Post Office and we will give this Government a hard time. We will give it economic trouble’. This is all part of the overall plan of some extreme union leaders who are trying to bring this country into very serious economic stress. The employers are entitled to the ordinary and reasonable protection of the law.

It is regrettable that this legislation had to be introduced but the Labor Party has produced no constructive solutions to the problem. All that will happen for most practical purposes is that this legislation will bring the Government situation into line with that of the private employers who have the right of stand down. Admittedly they have to get an order. Normally they get the order and there is no appeal from it. One of the reasons that it is important to introduce this type of legislation is that the trade unions have made a mockery of the present stand-down provisions in the law. Employers will say that in some cases you can get a stand down order but in other cases there is a strike on Thursday or Friday and they have to seek an order from the court. They have to employ lawyers at great expense. They have to have a hearing before a commissioner or judge and this takes time. All this time the unionists are laughing up their sleeves because the money that is drained out of the employers’ pocket is affecting his business. The issue gets to the court. The employer find there is an adjournment of the case, All the technical and devious devices of which unionists can think are used. Then the lawyers get to work.

Mr Willis:

– That is using the law.

Mr NEIL:

-I would say that that is legitimate and in accordance with the law. They use every legitimate, technical advantage to get for their members or their clients the best deal they can. The result is that often it is impossible to get a stand down provision in any reasonable circumstances. Then the unions suddenly decide in the usual classic tradition of some of their ilk- it is one step back or two forward and one back- that they will take a step backwards. They say: ‘We have given them a neil of a hard time for a couple of weeks. All right, we will call it off. We will go back to work for a while’. This happens at about the time that the stand down order might ordinarily be made. These people have abused the Act. They have made a farce of it.

When the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) talks about the provisions in the Act which presently apply, I remind him of the abuse which certain people have made of the Act and of the fact that once private employers have their right, there is no appeal. The whole problem has arisen because the unions are getting too strong comparative to other sections of the community. People are sick and tired of this situation. They want to know whether the elected government is going to protect them. People talk about union bashing. The unions have spent so much time Austrafia bashing that they are deliberately assisting in bringing this country to its knees. We ought to talk about unions which indulge in public bashing and Australia bashing. I am talking about the leaders of those unions, not the ordinary worker. It is time- we are bringing in legislation to produce this situation- that the unions were democratised from within. Some of these organisations are dictatorial within their own ranks.

The Bill has to be supported. It is based princi- !>ally on the ordinary principles of the common aw. This is spelt out in clause 5. There is no right to stand down a person unless he cannot be usefully employed or, as we normally call it, gainfuly employed. Can any honourable member opposite tell me why any employer should have to keep on a man who is doing no work? Why should the employer not be entitled to say: I am not going to pay you today because you are producing no work*? We do not realise that the only salvation for the economic ills of this country is for increases in wages and costs to be financed out of an increase in productivity. There is absolutely no other way in which our economic problems can be solved.

If we want to have the luxury of either going on strike or of having stand downs because people are not being gainfully employed, then we have to face the consequences. In my view the consequences of this will be very simple. Firstly the Government has said that only in very grave circumstances will the Act be invoked. So we know that sensible discretion will be exercised. Secondly, the facts of life are that when the average, good, honest, decent trade unionist realises that he can be stood down because of the actions of a few who will not throw a few switches somewhere or who will not handle some machinerythese few in the specialist areas- and that they have stopped him working for the day and that he has to go home without pay, he and his wife will sit down at night and the real effect of these dictatorial actions of the trade union bosses will come home to him. He will say to himself: ‘I will have to take more interest in my union’s affairs’. I hazard a guess that he and his friends will walk across to the union disruptionists and say: ‘Listen, fellows. You lot had better call this strike off or we want you to answer to us. We will use the power the Government has given in relation to compulsory secret ballots. It is now law. We will get rid of you’. One thing which will beat this country into the ground is apathy. Until the average trade unionist realises the effect of the actions of his leaders, until he has this brought home to him and decides that he will do something within the union to democratise it, we will continue to go backwards. This legislation is by no means as strong as comparable legislation in the United States.

I shall deal with a couple of points raised by honourable members on the other side of the chamber. They talked about the need for the Minister to be involved. Of course the Minister in circumstances like this must take his proper ministerial responsibility. That is very important. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) talked about the involvement of the Public Service Arbitrator. As I understand the situation, it is a conciliation and arbitration matter. The honourable member does not fully understand what he is talking about. He made a flamboyant speech on the wrong legislation.

There is no way in a democratic community that a democratically elected government can bring about confrontation which is a much vaunted word used by members of the Labor Party. They use it to scare people. Confrontation cannot be initiated by a government. The factual situation is that confrontation arises because of actions taken by trade union leaders. There is no confrontation, no dispute until there is a strike. How can we have confrontation until something is initiated in fact. The situation arises because of the actions of these people. So far not one honourable member opposite has condemned what is happening at Redfern. Not one honourable member whom I have heard in recent times has condemned in any outright terms the strike by the air traffic controllers. This legislation is designed to ensure that the ordinary rights of employers and the law are applied. This is good legislation. It will have the support of the vast majority of Australians.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I speak against the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill and support the honourable members for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), Melbourne (Mr Innes), and Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) from this side of the House. I answer a question asked by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) in relation to the Redfern Mail Exchange dispute. There was a recommendation from the officials of that union. Rightly so, the rank and file members have rejected the recommendation. I hope that information is handy to the House. It should go on record that members do control their unions. Members have the right if they are financial and at the meeting to say yea or nay. It was said that no honourable member on this side of the House had mentioned the Redfern Mail Exchange dispute. I think that not one honourable member m the Liberal and Country Parties has had a chance to peruse the Bdi.

Mr Baillieu:
Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If they have had time someone has had the Bill half a day before we got it. We received a copy of the Bill this afternoon at 3 o’clock. We have been trying to go through it in order to put up an argument about what the Government is doing to the country. If the Government carries out the provisions in the Bill there will be head-on confrontation. It does not know what it is doing. My interpretation after listening to the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) is that on principle he has to walk over here tonight and vote against the Government. Otherwise, he said, he would lose his seat. Not only will he lose his seat but also 20 or 25 honourable members on the Government side could lose their seats without the Labor Party going out into the streets to get the people’s vote if the election is held in December this year. From the way things are going I suggest that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and I would say the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) have connived with the inner sanctum of the Liberal and Country parties. If they want an election they should say so and not hum and haw. They should take us on now.

After next week we will know about the redistribution. We will know what will happen to our seats. If the Government wants to take us on with the moderates and the other people in the trade union movement, then we will go. I am not worried about an election, nor is anybody on this side of the House. The Government is taking us on. It is conniving. It brought down this Bill. I do not think honourable members have even read the Bill. I had to read it between 6 o’clock and 7 o’clock tonight. No one even knows, at this stage, that this is a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to certain matters concerning Commonwealth employees. Clause 4 on page 3 states:

Where persons who are Commonwealth employees in relation to an employing authority are engaged in industrial action, the employing authority may, by instrument in writing, declare that Commonwealth employees specified in the declaration -

The main part follows.

The main part states that Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action may be suspended. Clause 5 on page 3 of the Bill states:

Where, by reason of the existence of any industrial action (including industrial action in which Commonwealth employees are not engaged):

persons who are Commonwealth employees in relation to an employing authority cannot be usefully employed; or

there is serious disruption to the performance of a function by an employing authority, being a function in connexion with the performance of which persons who are Commonwealth employees in relation to the employing authority are employed-

The clause goes on to state that Commonwealth employees affected by the industrial action of other persons may be stood down. Clause 6 deals with salaries, et cetera, not being payable during a period when Commonwealth employees are suspended or stood down. In other words, Commonwealth employees receive no pay at all; they are suspended. Then, we go back to the main part, which is clause 8. It states that the Minister may dismiss when:

  1. a Commonwealth employee has been suspended by virtue of a declaration by an employing authority under section 4;
  2. the declaration has not been cancelled or otherwise ceased to be in force; and
  3. the employing authority or a Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the powers of the employing authority under this sub-section should be exercised in relation to the employee-

In other words, a Minister can dismiss any employee. But this is not the case only at the Redfern Mail Exchange, where 5 000 employees and their families are involved. I ask: Who wants to go on strike? Which honourable members opposite are members of a trade union? Do they know what it is like to be a union official, to go somewhere at 6 o’clock in the morning and find that employees have taken direct action because they have been forced to do so by the employers, because of the conniving that takes place? I have gone through this. Who wants to call a strike when a chap is broke and his family- the wife and the mother-do not have any money? They come down to the union office pleading for some money. Who wants that? But who is causing this situation? Who does not understand it? It is the honourable members from the Liberal and National Country parties who have talked in the debate tonight. Would they understand what the union is about? The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) stated that we have legal advisers. We do not have legal advisers. The honourable member was arguing that we have to be looked after and that we have a trade union training school. The average trade union official comes from the ranks. He needs help. We need conciliation and arbitration.

What will happen in the future in regard to conciliation and arbitration? The Government, through the introduction of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill today, has thrown conciliation and arbitration out the door. It is completely gone; it is finished. Why should not the unions unite? If this legislation goes through the Parliament, I will be down there at the mail exchange to lead the men on a principle. The men who have done all the work as union officials over the years, as I, the average trade union delegate, the average rank and file member and the average person who loves Australia have done, will take sides if this legislation is passed. The Government would not have a clue about what it is doing. If it wants this legislation as an election gimmick, it should say so. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), for some reason or other, has a death wish. He will sacrifice many young Liberals and members of the National Country party-mostly young Liberals. We know that.

Mr Yates:

– You look after your own party. We will manage.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very pleased to be able to say that the Government will sacrifice tonight the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) who stated that he has to cross the floor on this issue. He has been sacrificed with the introduction of this Bill. He did not know what was going on. Let me give a quotation from just one newspaper. The early edition of the Mirror carried an article, under the headline Mail Strike Truce May Clear up Backlog’ and written by Ray Turner, which stated:

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Robinson, told Federal Parliament yesterday the Postal Commission would begin stand-downs tomorrow, but this was before the arbitration conference yesterday.

Has the Minister forgotten about the arbitration system? What has happened? In other words, he has taken the matter out of the hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I will quote another point made by Ray Turner:

The New South Wales secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Union, Mr Merv Hawkins, said the union was trying to get the rosters re-arranged so its members did not lose any money.

He said the new rosters proposed by Australia Post would result in the employees losing substantial shift penalty payments.

Why would not the employees be upset? Why should they be sacrificed? Sometimes there is more support from the National Country Party and the Liberal Party for animals than for people. Truly, honourable members opposite worry so much about their flocks and their stocks. What about the young people and the family people? Honourable members opposite do not even worry about them. They have forgotten what it is all about. I point out that the conference of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 3 weeks time will be discussing this matter. I think it will be on the agenda.

Mr Baillieu:

-Ha ha!

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Honourable members opposite are laughing. They do not understand the seriousness of this matter. It will be on the agenda and a motion of support for government employees will be adopted unanimously. It is not just the postal workers about whom the Council has to worry. What about government employees in the railways and on the docks? Do we bring in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? Do we sack all the people in Canberra? Perhaps the Government will do so, and that is what Wil happen if this legislation is passed. Do honourable members opposite know what they are doing? They are not taking on just the postal workers; they are taking on all Commonwealth employees. We will all be out of a job and that will be good because the average Australian says Sack all the politicians. They are doing nothing’. I say to honourable members opposite that they should watch what they do. The honourable members who have been attempting to interject during my speech are the oncers. I would be worried, too, if I was a oncer. At this stage, I hope that I have a little more time here. I hope that I have more time to educate people in the Parliament.

Mr Scholes:

– They think they can get 10 per cent extra votes out of this if they can cause a confrontation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will remain silent.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member is so right. But honourable members opposite will not receive an extra vote if they take on the trade union movement. There are responsible people in the trade union movement. The point I am trying to convey on the Bill, which has just been introduced in this House- it is a serious one- is that the Government will sacrifice many of its members. In 3 weeks dme the ACTU conference will be endorsing the stand that will be taken by all Commonwealth employees. The Commonwealth employees will be united. It will be the first dme they have been united in 50 years. Good luck to them, because we are united over the issue. It is a moral principle. We in the Labor movement have differences of opinion about how to do things and how not to do them; but, if somebody takes on the trade union movement, he takes on the whole Labor Party side because we are all brothers. The trade union movement is made up of the small people. The Australian Labor Party was formed by the trade union movement in Balmain back in the 1880s, in particular in 1889. It was formed there because there will always be a base for such a movement. Honourable members opposite should watch what they are doing. I am very upset and sorry that today the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in one minute introduced legislation that will change industrial relations in Australia. In one minute he threw the second reading speech on the table and said: ‘I have the numbers. Take it or leave it ‘.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

– I rise to speak on behalf of all country people and to put forward a number of points which I believe are critical in this debate. Before I start to do that, I must say that I have been totally depressed by the contributions, or the lack of contributions, from members of the Opposition. They have used bluster, emotion, invective, threat and the greatest pack of red herrings ever dragged into this House in speaking to a very important issue. Almost every Opposition speaker has said that they have not had sufficient time to prepare for this debate. That is absolutely nonsense. Honourable members opposite have had 18 months to prepare for this issue. They know it and they also know that they are in the greatest bind of all time. They were caught and they were surprised. They were hoping that this Bill- the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill- would be tabled in the Parliament, and that then the issue would be taken to the streets so that they could get some support before they stood up in the House to advance the arguments on behalf of the Opposition. Tonight, they are not quite certain what to say. So they have put forward some of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) make one of the worst speeches he has ever made in this House. His opinion of public servants, and they are important in this issue, was expressed quite clearly on 26 April 1977 when he said in the House:

If the Australian Public Service is prepared to pay the extra taxes needed to extend the superannuation benefits to everybody else, I am all for a generous superannuation scheme for every Australian man and woman in the work force. If they are not prepared to do that, I will oppose any proposal that is put forward by public servants to put them in a better position than the public they are supposed to serve.

That was the hypocritical statement made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh this year.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. You missed the contribution made by the honourable gentleman in which he stated that I had made a hypocritical statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I accept the words of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I was approached by the honourable member for Denison and did not hear what the honourable member for Riverina said. If he did say those words I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-I withdraw the word ‘hypocritical’, Mr Speaker. Let us look at the facts relating to the Redfern Mail Exchange. We have heard the members of the Bleeding Hearts Club in the Opposition trying to describe the inadequate and terrible working conditions of those who work at that mail exchange. According to the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics figures just printed, the average weekly earnings were $198.70 a week. These workers in the Redfern Mail Exchange have imposed bans because they cannot earn on average an extra $20 a week with overtime. They are prepared to put the whole community at ransom for $20 a week. I represent eople whose incomes this year will average 199 a family a week. The difference is that the employees at the Redfern Mail Exchange are expected to work fewer than 40 hours a week for $198 plus $20 overtime, which is an average of $218, whilst the fellow in the country is expected to work 90 hours a week, or even more, for less. Also, from the money that they earn for working those 90 hours a week they have to pay the taxes which pay the wages of those people in the mail exchange at Redfern. Yet the Opposition expects the average person in this country to stand up and support it in this case. I suggest that everyone in the country and every member of the National Country Party, would like the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill.

Mr Lusher:

– To a man.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-Yes, to a man. The National Country Party members represent not just the rural community, but the total community in the country, including trade unionists. The whole community is totally in favour of this legislation. That is why the Opposition members are worried. They have read the results of the opinion polls and know full well that the great majority of people are sick and tired of the type of industrial strife that is being caused by a minority. These people intend to stand this situation no longer. Those causing the industrial strife are communists and left-wingers. Again, this is why certain individuals from the Opposition have chosen not to speak in this debate. They are not quite certain of what to say. They do not want to offend those people back in their electorates from whom they need support in the next election. The following appeared in a newspaper recently:

A working-class hero is something to be.

That referred to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I heard the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) speak about the ‘little people’. This concerns one representative of the ‘little people’. The article reads:

But he has now moved to an expensive architect designed house on the edge of the only lake in Adelaide, just as Keating lives on the only hill in Bankstown (“the new Labor materialists,” they’re called). He’s a bit of a gourmet and wine buff; at a famous party he got three dozen vintage reds up from his wine cellar, got some casks of prawns from the fishermen at Port Adelaide-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s comments are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– I was just trying to reconcile the statement made by the honourable member for Sydney to the effect that they were the representatives of the ‘little people’ with that article about one representative of the ‘little people’, namely, the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I could go on and give further illustrations of the fact that the Opposition has quite clearly lost contact with the ‘little people’ of this country. Clearly, this legislation will be adopted readily by this House. It will be heralded as the greatest thing the Government has done since it came to office. My only major criticism of this Bill is that it comes 1 8 months too late; it should have been the first Bill tabled in the House after we came to office.

It is important that I mention that this evening on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news broadcast this matter was reported in an interview with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). That news item was followed by no fewer than six people speaking against the Minister for Employment and

Industrial Relations and the purposes of this Bill. That was the Austraiian Broadcasting Commission’s fairhanded treatment of this issue on the night this Bill was tabled in the Parliament! How can we expect the people of this country to gain some understanding of the contents of this Bill if the matter is treated in that way?

It was interesting to note also that Mr Slater, when commenting on the actions taken by this Government, lost all track of union matters and quickly got onto a political description of the economy. Do not let it be said that there are no political overtones in the work bans imposed at the Redfern Mail Exchange. Those people are well aware of what they are about. They seek to impose industrial anarchy upon this country because they are controlled by the extremists in the union movement. They Will stop at nothing to make the better union members in any union kotow to their desires. Unfortunately, not one member of the Opposition has stood in this House tonight and condemned the action of these employees at the Redfern Mail Exchange or members of any other union where the left wing or the communists are in control. The Australian electorate will clearly see this for what it is.

I return now to the subject of the country people and why they are so upset. They expect their public servants to provide a service, for which they are employed. This Bill seeks to give no more power to the employer- in this case the Minister- than to any other employer in industry. It seeks to give the Minister the right to say to a particular employee if he is not providing the service that is required for his pay that he will be stood down or will receive no pay. The Opposition can say nothing against that principle. However it will not support it. Yet that is exactly what this Bill proposes. If we extended the argument of the Opposition the Opposition would be against any provision in any Bill that provided a sanction against the law breaker. Why are unionists to be outside the law? The Opposition spokesmen have not answered that. It is a simple matter of a principle that has been established since the work ethic came into being; that is, if one does not work one should not get paid.

Mr Armitage:

– It is about time you did some work.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-It is about time the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) did us all a favour and swallowed himself. I have asked him to do that on a number of occasions. He has the mouth to perform the feat. If we do not accept this principle in industrial relations there will be no end to industrial disputes in this country. This Bill does no more than provide the Minister with the power to say to a particular unionist who is not in the Public Service providing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay: ‘I am prepared to stand you down because of the action you have taken. ‘

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The time allocated for all stages of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 80

NOES: 32

Majority…… 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Question put:

That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

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

AYES: 80

NOES: 32

Majority…… 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 467

WOOL INDUSTRY AMENDENT BILL

(No. 2) 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR (New England-Minister for

Primary Industry) (9.44)- I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purposes of this Bill are twofold. One is to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972 to give effect to the Government’s decision to continue to contribute in conjunction with the wool industry to programs of wool research and promotion. It also contains provisions designed to enable the Australian Wool Corporation to act more effectively in the negotiation of freight rates for the carriage of wool overseas. Honourable members will recall that in introducing the Wool Industry Amendent Bill 1977 on 26 May last I stated the intention of the Government to introduce this further amending legislation during the Budget Session.

The Industries Assistance Commission has reported on the results of its enquiries into the funding of rural research and rural promotion and its reports and recommendations have been published. These have been taken fully into account in deciding on future Government funding arrangements for wool research and for wool promotion.

The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission that some 60 per cent of the programs of continuing wool research now supported in the CSIRO and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics by expenditure from the Wool Research Trust Fund be funded in future from Consolidated Revenue. There are sound reasons for direct and complete Government funding of this core research, which has potential benefits for many industries, including some outside the rural sphere.

The intention is that this transition take place during this financial year. Government contributions to wool research, totalling $1 1.5m, will be appropriated in part to the Wool Research Trust Fund and in part will increase the appropriations for CSIRO and BAE to meet the cost of certain projects previously supported from the Wool Research Trust Fund.

Total funding of wool promotion will continue to be shared by woolgrowers and the Government. In a period where inflationary tendencies have been rampant the old triennial funding arrangement has proved unsatisfactory. Future government financing of wool promotion will be reviewed annually. The review will decide on the level of support for the following financial year and, to assist in the forward planning of promotional programs, will provide an indicative level of support for the following two years.

Clauses 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill I am now presenting provide for the new arrangements for the funding of wool research and promotion. The actual amounts of Government grant for wool research and promotion will in future be provided by annual Parliamentary appropriation. Honourable members will recall that the Budget provides $3 1.4m as the Government’s contribution for the current fiscal year for wool research and promotion. This is an increase of some $ 1 0m over 1976-77. Latest estimates are that the component of the tax on shorn wool representing woolgrowers’ contributions for research and promotion will bring in a similar sum to that provided by the Government.

I should point out that the programs of wool research and promotion which the new arrangements will fund will continue to be subject to close consultation between the various research organisations, the International Wool Secretariat and the Australian Wool Corporation. As in the past, there will continue to be consultation between the Australian Wool Industry Conference and the Minsiter for Primary Industry on the detailed annual funding arrangements.

Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Corporation authority to set conditions for the carnage and handling of wool for export by sea. The powers are designed to improve the Corporation’s strength in the negotiation of freight rates and to promote commercial economies in the movement of Australia ‘s wool exports.

The Government is determined to achieve close co-ordination over a range of cargoes in the negotiation of freight rates so that Australia may maintain the best possible bargaining position. To this end, and in consultation with the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), I will be informing the Austraiian Wool Corporation of the principles and policies which the Government regards as appropriate to be applied and followed in any freight negotiations the Corporation undertakes. These will be designed to ensure that marine freight rates and services for all commodities are determined to the best advantage of Australia’s rural industries and, of course, Australia’s producers.

There is no need for any concern in the trade that the use of the Corporation’s powers might upset existing Conference arrangements without offsetting advantages emerging. Let me assure honourable members that arrangements established between the Minister for Transport and me will ensure that the new powers being given to the Wool Corporation are exercised in a manner which will be to the advantage of the Australian wool trade and to exporters generally. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 468

AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Nixon, and read a first dme.

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

The Convention on International Civil Aviation drawn at Chicago in 1944 provides for the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, known as ICAO, which came into being in 1947. It is a specialised agency of the United Nations. The permanent governing body of ICAO is the Council, which has contributed in a very important way to the development and adoption of international standards and recommended practices for civil aviation. These assist considerably towards making international air travel a safe and reliable mode of transport.

Members of the Council are elected by the Assembly of the Organisation, at which all contracting states are entitled to be present. The Council, of which Australia has been an elected member since ICAO came into being, meets in almost continuous session throughout each year. The size of the Council was increased from 21 members to 27 members in 1962 and from 27 members to 30 members in 1971. The 21st Session of the Assembly held at Montreal in 1974 adopted a Protocol amending Article 50 (a) of the Convention to increase the number of members of the Council from 30 to 33. This amendment requires ratification by 86 contracting states before it comes into force. Fifty-two ratifications had been received from states at 1 July 1977. More ratifications from other states are expected before the 22nd Assembly convenes in Montreal on 13 September 1977.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to ratify the Protocol. Parliament approved the ratification of the Chicago Convention in 1947 by an amendment to the Air Navigation Act 1920 and authorised the making of regulations for carrying out and giving effect to the Convention. Subsequent protocols amending the original Chicago Convention were approved in amendments to the Air Navigation Act in 1960, 1961, 1963 and 1971. This Bill continues the practice and proposes the insertion of the Protocol as the Ninth Schedule to the Air Navigation Act 1 920.

An increase of three in the size of Council is appropriate. Total membership of ICAO grew from 84 states in 1961 to 129 member states in October 1974 and is now 140 states. Proportionate increases have been made over the years in the size of the executive bodies of other specialised agencies of the United Nations. It was the clear wish of the majority of member states at the last Session of the Assembly that Council membership should be increased to 33 members. The Australian Delegation to that Assembly supported the proposal.

The increase in the ICAO Council is expected to add little, if any, to the secretarial costs of the Organisation. Any costs for such services should be absorbed in the normal provisions of this service and would be offset by the rentals which would be paid by the new members for the use of delegation office space in the ICAO Headquarters Building. The present Australian Government contribution to the International Civil Aviation Organisation would be only fractionally increased, if at all, by the addition of three members to the Council. I commend the Bdi.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 469

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first dme.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

Prior to the establishment of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions, it was agreed with unions and staff associations that officers of the then Postmaster-General’s Department should not suffer reduced promotional opportunities as a consequence of being allocated to the service of one or other of the commissions. The arrangement agreed to was that, for the five years after the establishment of the commissions, either commission should be able to promote to a position in its service an officer in the service of the other commission; and any officer in the service of either commission should be able to appeal against any promotion to a position in the service of either of the commissions.

The Promotions Appeal Boards of the two commissions have acted on the basis that section 20 of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Act 1975 gives effect to the agreed arrangements. Recent legal advice is that the section is more limiting in application and denies the right of appeal in certain circumstances. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act to accord with the original intention and to validate action taken by the Promotion Appeal Boards on appeals and promotions based on that intention. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 469

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

As announced in the Budget, licence fees payable by commercial broadcasters are to be increased by 20 per cent. This Bill gives effect to that decision. The Bill extends the range of the present scale upwards so that the impact is upon commercial broadcasters with gross earnings exceeding $4m per annum.

The variation of the scale of fees in this manner means that the new scale of fees will affect only a very small number of commercial radio broadcasting stations. The effect on licensees is quite minimal, but the Government decided to retain parity between the scales of licence fees payable by both radio and television licensees. The new scale effective from 1 September 1977 is estimated to increase 1977-78 radio broadcasting station licence fee revenue to approximately $1.4m.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr Crean:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr Crean:

– I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications why the increase is 20 per cent.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Cabinet decided it ought to be.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The question before the House is:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I gathered that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports had a point to raise, but it is not normal to call a member to address himself to the Bill at this stage. I think the inquiry might be better settled with the Minister in private; otherwise the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is using his time in addressing the House. I call the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr Crean:

– I am simply asking why the increase is 20 per cent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Newcastle.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 469

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

As announced in the Budget, licence fees payable by commercial television licensees are to be increased by 20 per cent. This Bill gives effect to that decision. The Bill extends the range of the present scale upwards so that the impact is upon commercial licensees with gross earnings exceeding $4m per annum. The variation of the scale of fees in this manner means that in the main only metropolitan commercial television station licensees with high gross earnings will be affected. The new scale, effective from 1 September 1977, is estimated to increase 1977-78 television station licence fee revenue by $1.7m to $9.3m. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 470

DIESEL FUEL TAX (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Diesel Fuel Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions Will of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-These Bills give legislative effect to measures announced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in his Budget Speech on Tuesday evening last. Basically the Bills increase the duty on refined petroleum products, diesel fuel and liquid petroleum gas. In the case of diesel fuel, the increase in excise duty will be in the order of a quarter of a cent per litre or about 1 . 1 3c per gallon and with liquid petroleum gas the increase in excise is of the order of one-eighth of a cent per litre or .56c per gallon. This seems inconsequential though these measures will raise substantial amounts of additional revenue this financial year. This approach by the Government will not in any significant way change the pattern of energy consumption by industries that use these fuels. Rather, the measure is designed more as a revenue raiser for the Government than it is an integral part of any comprehensive energy policy.

Since taking office the Government has had a number of reports from the Royal Commission on Petroleum presented to it. The Sixth Report on the use of liquefied petroleum gas in Australia has not yet been acted upon and these measures in no way give effect to the recommendations of the Commission in respect of liquefied petroleum gas usage. It is a tragic fact that Australia’s quite large production of liquefied petroleum gas is not being used domestically to conserve indigenous crude oil particularly the light end fractions. There is no real domestic market for liquefied petroleum gas in Australia and this has been caused basically by the fact that discriminate pricing policies have been a disincentive to producers as an inducement to create a domestic market. The Budget does nothing about correcting this problem yet the Treasurer attempted to argue that this increase in excise wil be a mitigating factor against the profligate use of these fuels.

Rather than discourage the use of liquefied petroleum gas in Australia the Government should be encouraging it and it should be attempting to make liquefied petroleum gas more attractive to the consumer as a substitute for refined motor spirit. While this will necessitate the increase in the price to producers aU the increase in excise can do is act as an inhibitant to the growing proportion of liquefied petroleum gas usage. It is because these measures are unrelated and not part of a broader domestic energy policy but rather as a simple revenue raising device that the Opposition must oppose these three Bills

Higher energy costs, which can act as a conservation measure, can only do so if other energy options are available to consumers, or in the case of transport, if other transport facilities are avail.able as an alternative to excessive consumption of motor spirit by motor cars and trucks. As well as that, at this time I believe one can argue that there should be no additional inflationary burden levied upon the Australian public. And of course, to add insult to injury the Government Will probably argue before the Arbitration Commission that the Commission should disregard increases in indirect taxes in its wage determinations as it did with the Medibank levy and as it wil do with the effects of these three pieces of legislation.

Already excise duty accounts for a large proportion of total Commonwealth receipts. In the last financial year excise duty, as distinct from sales tax and customs duty, amounted to $2,485 billion in the total receipt picture for the Commonwealth of $21,384 billion. In fact last year excise duty collections equalled just on 30 per cent of net personal income tax pay-as-you-earn collections, lt should not be the Government’s role to increase the indirect tax burden but rather to reduce it. These measures are no more than tax raising devices sold under the guise of energy policy. In the absence of any comprehensive approach to energy matters the Government’s explanation in support of the measures cannot be accepted.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I would like briefly to enter this debate and say that I took the opportunity to visit the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria at Dandenong and examine with some interest the future of our gas and petrol problems. I would have thought that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), in dealing with the subject of liquid gas, would have drawn attention to the need for the nation to consider most carefully a fuel policy which advocates the basic gas reduction process which is at present untapped. The use of fuel gas in cars and in other forms of transport is obviously advantageous on 3 grounds. First, there would be less pollution; secondly, we have an abundant quantity of this resource; and, thirdly, it is a better material for us to use in terms of any policy we have concerning the conservation of our fossil fuels.

Although I accept the Government’s reasons for the need to increase the tax on diesel fuel I would have thought there would have been no doubt at all that in future the Government should give very serious consideration to utilising our reserves of gas fuel which could be used in cars. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that in the next Budget every form of encouragement should be given to people who convert their vehicles from fuel oil or petrol propulsion to gas fuel propulsion. Australia has sufficient reserves of fuel gas that could be used for this purpose. Therefore, it would seem to me that it is not necessary to increase the tax on fuel gas at this time. The Government may have reasons for doing so. But I would suggest, as a long term policy, that it is essential that every industrialist, every person concerned with the motor industry and, above all, the Government, should give immediate consideration to what we are doing with the reserves we possess. Therefore, even though the legislation may be valuable, though it may be desired and though it may be needed to raise revenue, I would suggest that this nation should pay very careful attention to what is happening in the world fuel economy and ensure that we use the resources we have. Therefore, the more we transfer to the use of liquid gas and fuel gas the better.

I do not want to take the time of the House. I have made a point which is well understood by all those who work in the Austraiian Gas Association; it is well understood by anyone who has any basis of strategy in this area. Therefore, the sooner we use fuel gas in place of diesel oil the better. I support the Government. However, I am just saying that this is a serious subject which should not be discussed at this time of night but should be a point of major debate on the conservation and preservation of our fuel resources.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I shall be very brief in my remarks. I am concerned about the proposed increase in the tax on the liquefied gas used for propelling road vehicles. I admit that it is only a very small increase. It is unfortunate that in the world today there is a very severe and serious pollution problem. Man has had to attach to his motor vehicle new gadgets which cost a lot of money to buy and are expensive to install. A lot of money has been spent on experimentation on these gadgets. The cost of that experimentation and the cost of the manufacture of these gadgets is now being passed on to the motorist. These gadgets are necessary to overcome the serious pollution problems that exist in the central business districts of our cities. We know that in certain parts of Sydney, for example, a carbon monoxide level of about five times that which the World Health Organisation regards as a safe level can be found. Yet here we find the Government is continuing to levy a tax on this fuel, which is one of the few fuels that are almost completely and totally free of pollution. Instead of increasing the tax levied the Government should have been looking at how it could be eliminated completely.

I have noted that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) and other members of the Ministry have been stating recently that we should be looking towards conserving our petrol by removing the gadgets that have been attached to cars to break down the level of pollution. What we should be doing is providing money to enable further experimentation to be carried out into the uses of liquefied gas and into the use of alternative means of propelling a motor vehicle. Maybe some form of electric car, steam driven car or some other mode of transport can be experimented with, developed and devised by the scientists in the motor vehicle industry today. A lot of garbage has been dished out by the Government in the Budget about how the price of fuel has had to be increased by a little over 1 lc a gallon, and how it will go on increasing year by year by an ever-increasing amount, to protect our fossil fuels. What we should be doing is engaging in greater experimentation in the use of this form of fuel and the others to which I have referred. In this way we would protect the very rapidly diminishing source of fuel and at the same time overcome the problem of pollution in the cities.

If I were a country voter I would be greatly concerned about the fact that I have to buy a motor vehicle that has these gadgets attached to it to overcome the problems of the cities. But how would it be possible to build two types of motor vehicle, one with an engine that has the attachments and one with an engine without the attachments and say that car A can be driven only in certain areas and car B can be driven anywhere. That would mean that the buyer of a motor car in a country area would not be able to drive to, say, Sydney; if he were coming south to Sydney from the northern section of New South Wales he would not be able to come into the area south of the Hawkesbury River or east of the Blue Mountains or north of Port Hacking. To become involved in such a scheme would be too complicated. The fact of the matter, as I have just said, is that we should not have had to get ourselves into the present situation. Much more work should have been done on the provision of an alternative means of public transport or the use of other means of propelling a motor car. It really disappoints me to see this happening.

It is difficult to follow the Government’s reasoning in relation to the increase in the price of fossil fuel. We have before us a Budget that allegedly has been put together to curtail inflation or to cut back on the rate of inflation. Hell has been belted out of the people of this country by this Government over the last 20 months with its phoney policy of curtailing inflation and its creation of the largest pool of unemployment to which this country has ever been subjected. Show me one industry that will not be affected by this Government’s decision to increase the price of crude oil to the consumer. No matter what industry one likes to refer to one will find that transport is involved in it. The transport industry will be expected carry this additional burden. I have noted in the Press that the airlines are saying that the increase in the price of crude oil will bring about an increase in the price of air travel. I have also noted that the Government is not doing anything about air navigation charges. That is unfortunate because that is an area at which it should be having a real look. There is an under-payment by the industry. The Government is to increase the lighthouse dues charged to the maritime industry but not to increase the charges to the airlines. Sir Reginald Ansett certainly wields a great influence in the Cabinet of this country. I come back to the point that, as far as inflation is concerned, the tragedy is that the Government is not sincere in what it is doing and in the policies it is pursuing. The increased cost to the transport industry must be passed right through the economy. It does not matter what form of transport is involved. By increasing the cost of fuel the Government is automatically increasing the cost of freight which in turn is passed on to the consumer. In conclusion, I regret that the Government has not had sufficient foresight to deal in a practical way with liquefied gas and that it has not actually reduced the tax on it instead of increasing it.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the three measures before the House, namely, the Diesel Fuel Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill, the Diesel Fuel Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Amendment Bill. The purpose of the two diesel fuel Bills is to increase by one-quarter of a cent per litre- from 4.905c to 5.15c per litre- the tax imposed on diesel fuel under the Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 1 ) 1957 and the Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 2) 1957. The new rates are to apply from 17 August. Customs and excise duties are not payable on diesel fuel if it is used othewise than in propelling road vehicles for use on a public road. However, the Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 1 ) 1 957 provides that where such diesel fuel is sold or otherwise disposed of to a person who is not the holder of a certificate from the Minister certifying that the holder requires the fuel for use other than in propelling a vehicle on a public road a tax is imposed. That is referred to in sections 3 and 6 of the Act. The Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 2) 1957 makes similar provisions if the diesel fuel is used by a certificate holder for propelling a road vehicle on a public road. That is provided for in sections 3 and 5.

Because diesel fuel purchased by certificate holders and subsequently used for propelling road vehicles has been cleared from customs and excise and is therefore outside the ambit of the Customs Tariff Act and the Excise Tariff Act, these Acts are necessary to ensure that all diesel fuel eventually used for propelling road vehicles on public roads is taxed at the same rate as the relevant customs and excise duties. The duties under the Customs Tariff Act 1966 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921 are to be increased by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 24 (1977 and Excise Tariffproposals No. 2 ( 1 977), which were introduced in the House of Representatives on 16 August by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). The Bills provide for consequential increases in the rates of tax imposed by the Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 1 ) and the Diesel Fuel Tax Act (No. 2) of 1957.

The Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Amendment Bill provides for an increase of oneeighth of a cent per litre in the present tax of 2c per litre on liquefied gas used for propelling road vehicles. The increase will apply on and from 17 August 1977. Turning to the background to this BUI, item 1 7c in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921 provides for a duty of 1.26c per litre on most liquefied petroleum gas obtained from unstabilised crude petroleum oU or from naturally occurring petroleum gas. However, there are no customs or excise duties on liquefied gas which is the end product of a refinery process.

After taking into account a number of factors, including environmental considerations, the then Treasurer, the Hon. Frank Crean, announced in his 1974-75 Budget Speech that a tax on liquefied petroleum gas used in propelling road vehicles but not for other purposes was to be subject to tax. A tax was imposed on liquefied gas used in propelling road vehicles by the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Act of 1974 rather than an excise duty, presumably because excise duties are imposed on the production rather than on the use of a product and because it was administratively easier. A report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘Liquid Petroleum Gas as a Motor Vehicle Fuel’ in April 1974 and the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum entitled ‘The Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas in Australia 1974’ discussed the relevant considerations for this tax.

The rate of tax was set initially at 2c per litre which was 40.7 per cent of the rate of duty on motor spirit at that time. However, when the then Treaurer announced the tax at that time he announced that for at least five years the tax on liquefied petroleum gas would be increased by an amount equivalent to one half of any increase in the rate of duty on motor spirit. In line with this commitment this BUI increases the tax on liquefied gas for road use by half the amount by which customs and excise duties on motor spirit have been increased, as foreshadowed in the 1977-78 Budget Speech and contained in Customs Tariffproposals No 24, 1977, and Excise Tariffproposals No. 2 introduced in the House of Representatives on 16 August 1977 by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife).

Liquefied petroleum gas in Australia must be of tremendous advantage to this country because we are rapidly running out of gasoline supplies. When one travels overseas, particularly in America, one sees the use of liquid petroleum gas in farm tractors and road vehicles. 1 think it has a future in this country. Estimated Australian reserves of liquid petroleum gas are sufficient for 80 years’ supply at the present rate of extraction. If used within Australia this would permit approximately 14 per cent of motor vehicles to be converted to liquid petroleum gas. Increased use in Australia ought to be in high form value applications such as the replacement of the light end fractions produced from crude oil. Fuel oil replacement by LPG merely substitutes a surplus in one product for another.

As the Royal Commission on Petroleum Products indicated in its earlier reports, because of the increase of imported crude oU as refinery feed stock it is the light end products which are going to be expensive and in short supply. The use of substantially increased quantities of LPG Wil require the creation of new markets and this in turn will take time. Even if the Australian Government felt disposed to turn a large part of the Bass Strait production of LPG into the domestic market there is at the moment no demand for greatly increased supply. Such demand wil take time to generate and needs positive policies for its creation. Indeed, it may be too late to divert large parts of Bass Strait reserves away from the export market. But as already indicated, new reserves of LPG wil be coming on stream in the short and medium term. Now is the time when policies must be formulated for the most beneficial exploitation of these wonderful resources.

The Royal Commission suggested with regard to both LPG and natural gas that a major objective of policy should aim to ensure the maximum usable consumption of the resources for the benefit of Australian industry, using exports as an initial base load and gradually trading off exports against domestic consumption as internal demand builds up. With respect to indigenous crude oU, Australia has pursued a strong and definite if sometimes inappropriate policy. At the centre of this policy lies the implicit dedication of crude oil hydrocarbons to the national hydrocarbons needs. Australian crude is refined in Australia and its products are consumed by the Australian public. An essential rationale behind such a policy recognised that Australian transportation must have security of supply of petroleum products. Few nations are so overwhelmingly dependent upon long and short distance transportation. Our major centres are separated by hundreds if not thousands of miles. Our domestic shipping is notably expensive.

Even our cities are sprawling aggregations. All these things place a high premium on transportation hydrocarbons. Only LPG is a feasible substitute for motor spirit between now and 1990. Granting all the dedication that successive governments have applied to the national retention of indigenous crude oil no part of any similar dedication seems to have been applied to LPG. A large part of the nation’s crude oil reserves have year after year been exported as if they were self renewing. Liquefied petroleum gas could be the saviour of this country. It could take the place of liquid petroleum in the years ahead. There are a lot of problems to be solved in this field but we are very fortunate to have it here. It is good to see that the Government is taking these measures in preparation for when it becomes a highly usable product in our transportation system.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 474

DIESEL FUEL TAX (No. 2)

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 474

LIQUEFIED GAS (ROAD VEHICLE USE) TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 474

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Mr Speaker has received advice from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) that he has nominated Senator Devitt to be a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Georges.

page 474

ADJOURNMENT

Pacific Conference Games: Accommodation Charges -Graves of Former Australian Leaders-Quarantine Services- Amalgamation of Trade Unions-Death of Elvis Presley

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I briefly bring to the attention of the House the fact that on 3 and 4 December in Canberra there will be a very important athletics contest known as the Pacific Conference Games. At these Games there will be 35 athletes from each of five countries, namely, Canada, the United States of America, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. These games will be held at the new Bruce athletics stadium. It is anticipated that about 20 000 spectators will view the Games. At the present time the organising committee is selling tickets all over Australia. A considerable number of people will be coming to Canberra not only to participate as members of the teams but also as friends and people who normally follow athletics teams such as these. People will come from all over the world. What concerns me is an article I read in the Canberra Times on 16 August headed:

Hotel tariffs up for games.

Rather than read that, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The article read as follows-

page 474

HOTEL TARIFFS UP FOR GAMES

Some Canberra hotels and motels intend to raise their tariffs by as much as $11.50 for double room accommodation during the Pacific Conference Games which will be held in Canberra on December 3 and 4.

The Belconnen Way Hotel tariff for double room accommodation for a night would rise from $23.50 to $35 while the Games were on, a spokesman for the hotel said yesterday.

The extra housemaids, receptionists, and bar-staff needed to handle the large number of people expected at the hotel during the Games was the reason for the tariff increase.

Canberra motels in the Flag Inns chain, the Banjo Patterson Motor Inn, Forrest Lodge Motor Inn and the Lyneham Motor Inn, would also increase their tariffs.

The group’s bookings officer in Canberra, Mrs Angela Beckett, said yesterday that during the Games, there would be a minimum tariff of $30 on every room, single or double.

Flag Inns’ travel directory gives the normal rate for single rooms in Canberra Flag Inn Motels as between S21 and $22.50, and for double rooms, between $22 and $26.

Mrs Beckett said that where the tariff exceeded $30 for a room during the Games, the normal rates would apply.

Tariffs at the Lakeside International Hotel, the Canberra Rex Hotel and Travelodge motels would not rise because of the Games, spokesmen from the hotels said yesterday.

Bookings were almost full at each of these hotels.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I thank the House. I refer briefly to the contents of this Press statement. It states:

The Belconnen Way Hotel tariff for double room accommodation for a night would rise from $23.50 to $35 while the Games were on, a spokesman for the hotel said yesterday.

It goes on to say that there will be a minimum tariff of $30 a night for either a single or double room. That means that in some hotels which at the present time are charging $2 1 the tariff will increase to $22.50. I did not believe that that article could be true; so I checked it out. Much to my horror I found that it was true. The organisers of the Games are concerned about the situation. This, to me, is a clear case of exploitation. We have a captive audience. People are coming to Canberra from overseas. They will come here and be slugged- that is the only way I can describe it- by some of the hotels in this city. The thing which amused me was the statement:

The extra housemaids, receptionists and bar-staff needed to handle the large number of people expected at the hotel during the Games was the reason for the tariff increase.

My knowledge of business is just the reverse. Freddie Laker says that if we will allow him to put on cheap flights he will stuff the aircraft full of people and then cut the fares in half. Qantas Airways Ltd and a number of other airlines, by following the self same policy of cramming the people in and reducing the fares, have obtained economies of scale and have been able to cut air fares severely. So the opposite should be the situation.

I checked the matter out with the Prices Commissioner. He told me that hotel and motel accommodation is not controlled under the prices regulations 1949. But all it requires is for the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) to make a declaration and the prices controller is then in a position to investigate the prices being charged. If they are found to be unreasonable he can, I believe, direct that they be reduced io a more reasonable level. I call on the Minister for the Capital Territory, between now and the time these people will come here, to conduct a full and detailed inquiry into the matter and to determine what the tariffs should be. This country is trying to expand its tourist trade. One of the major causes for the falling off of tourists to this country has been the exorbitant increases in hotel accommodation tariffs. People will not come here if they are being exploited as these people will be. They will come here, but they will say: ‘Before we came here the tariff was $20 a night. They slugged us $30 a night. For God’s sake, keep away from that place’. I am afraid that that will be the attitude of people who come here, once they get stung by this exorbitant increase in tariffs. I call upon the two Ministers concernedthe Minister for the Capital Territory and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton)- who is an another place and who is responsible for tourism, to do something positive. At this stage they should investigate the matter and do the right thing by the people. The Minister for the Capital Territory should bring down a declaration broadening the scope of the prices commissioner -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– During the recess a woman in Sydney wrote to me drawing my attention to the state of the grave of Australia ‘s first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton. As a result of that I paid a visit to that grave in the South Head Cemetary. I found it to be in a very neglected condition, with all the lettering- not just the paint- worn off. The passage of time had worn away the lettering. It was simply a stone which showed his name. One could decipher on the second line reference to the fact that he had been Australia’s first Prime Minister. Beyond that one could not read anything else. As a result of this my interest was aroused. Over the following weeks I set about investigating the condition of the graves of the other 14 Prime Ministers who have died. I have here a summary of my findings. The honourable member ibr Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who has just spoken, gave me permission to incorporate the summary in Hansard. That would save a lot of time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thank the House. As a matter of interest, I refer to the fact that this afternoon I released a Press statement in which I highlighted the neglect which these former giants presently suffer. In some cases there is not even mention of the fact that they were Prime Ministers. I telephoned a crematorium and it was surprised to learn that Sir Joseph Cook was in fact interred in that crematorium. The people did not even know he was there. Another sad case is the grave of Ben Chifley. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know who maintains that grave? No, you do not. It is maintained by the Bathurst branch of the Australian Labor Party. I do not believe that a party organisation should have to bear the responsibility of caring for die remains of a former Prime Minister. The costs and the responsibility of caring for these graves surely should be the responsibility of the Federal Government.

I am pleased to advise the House that in some cases because of the original quality of the stones over the graves those graves have withstood neglect My friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) very kindly, following my request, visited the grave of Billy Hughes. The honourable member was very happy to report to me not only that the gravestone contamed a reference to the fact that Billy Hughes was a Prime Minister but also that the grave was in very good condition. But regrettably that grave is not typical of all. Some graves bear no reference to the fact that these people were Prime Ministers. Some are forgotten and neglected. There are two in England, namely, that of Andrew Fisher, a Labor Party Prime Minister, and that of Sir George Reid. I have already spoken to the daughter of Andrew Fisher -

Mr James:

– What about Stanley Melbourne Bruce?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will come to that in a moment. I spoke to the daughter of Andrew fisher with a request that she check with her family to see whether it was the wish of Andrew Fisher that he be interred in England. He died SO years ago. It may well be appropriate to return his remains to Australia, the land which he led. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) interjected and asked: ‘What about Stanley Melbourne Bruce?’. I claim that I am probably one of the few Australians who know that his final wish was for his remains to be spread over Lake Burley Griffin. That is where they are. His remains are closer to Canberra than those of any of our former Prime Ministers. His remains, figuratively speaking, are just down the street. I dunk it is an appalling shame that there is not even a plaque on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin to commemorate the fact that the remains of one of Australia’s controversial and most able Prime Ministers were spread over the Lake. In a nut shell, so far as I am concerned, it does not matter whether a Prime Minister was a good or bad Prime Minister. He was Prime Minister and deserves proper recognition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I raise a matter tonight about which I think every member of the Parliament would be concerned. Those honourable members who take an interest in the Notice Paper will have noted that at the moment there are a number of questions on notice in the name of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) relating to matters concerning the Public Service in Western Australia and a Mr Toomer, a quarantine officer. The matter is currently the subject of, I think, a second or third investigation, in this case a Public Service inquiry. The Coombs Royal Commission into Australian Public Service m fact recommended an independent inquiry. As the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) said in this House during the last session, there are no means by which such an inquiry can be established. But some of the facts surrounding this case need even further investigation. I think that they would place in the minds of honourable members, if they applied themselves to the matter, serious doubts about the whole of the operations of the Australia ‘s quarantine services.

The Toomer case is a classic example of clashes of personalities. The end result was that during an actual inquiry into this gentleman’s activities, a situation arose in which the department against which he has appealed on a number of occasions and into whose activities, relative to himself and his activities, the inquiry is being conducted, has seen fit to call the gentleman concerned on duty during days when hearings were held and on which he was required to give evidence. The evidence suggests harassment. Yesterday, as a result of a public statement he made in which he disclosed that certain articles which had entered Australia in postal form without having been opened or examined were found to be infested, he was charged with making statements about these products and was fined a couple of hundred dollars. The recommendation of the department is that he be dismissed. But I make the point that these charges were laid while the gentleman concerned was the subject of an inquiry into the whole of the affair. The inquiry was established by a Minister of this Parliament and was announced in this Parliament.

I do not want to concentrate on the rights or wrongs of that case or the activities of the department. The matter I want to deal with is, I think, far more serious-the quarantine service itself. I believe that there is sufficient evidence at least to suggest that that service should be given an independent statutory role or should be attached to a department other than the Department of Health which would seem to me to have primary functions which have little relevance to quarantine or the type of work which customs officers carry out. Certainly, any breakdown in the quarantine services in Australia would be total disastrous for substantial sections of primary industry, especially in the livestock areas.

The Government has this year failed to fund the National Animal Health Research Laboratories. This means that any breakdown in quarantine would lead to an immediate closing off of markets to Australia for Australian exports of meat or whatever other product was involved. It would also mean that until eradication was proven, we could not export our products. We have no facilities for proving eradication in Australia at the moment. We would have to depend on overseas facilities- possibly European facilities- to do so. That is very difficult to do with live animals or even carcasses. The cost to primary industry in Australia could be up to SOm a month while eradication was proven. I make a plea to the Government to reconsider this problem, especially as I think the Government has allocated far more money to the off-shore quarantine station than it can spend in this financial year. I say this particularly as I doubt that the Government has yet even negotiated for a site with Mr Clunies Ross. I put it to the Government that it should be looking closely at that problem. The National Animal Health Laboratories design team will be disbanded because there is no money to carry on their work. The quarantine services in Australia are in serious jeopardy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I merely want to bring one small matter to the attention of the House and make comment on the events that occurred this week. Their significance will be projected forward both politically and industrially. I refer to the amalgamation of the Australian Workers Union and the Building Workers Industrial Union within the New South Wales jurisdiction. That amalgamation was effectively consummated last Monday night when, by a vote of eight to four on the executive, it was decided that the amalgamation should occur. The amalgamation was proposed by a vote on the executive in terms of the New South Wales Act which allows such an amalgamation to occur without any reference whatsoever to the rank and file members of either union. This does concern Australia and it will certainly concern New South Wales in the period immediately ahead.

Within the Federal jurisdiction, we know that there has to be a reference of such a matter to the rank and file members of unions and there has to be a vote of 50 per cent of the members of the union. Half of them at least have to agree for the amalgamation to occur. The tragedy is that there has been no such reference in this case. Those who speak about amalgamations of unions so glibly without reference to the rank and file membership will have cause to ponder the significance of their suggestions and their proposals in the years ahead. Certainly, that will be the case in New South Wales. I suggest that some parts of this amalgamation will be very important for Australia because through it attempts will be made to change the federal structure of the Australian Workers Union. The Australian Workers Union has had great respect in Australia. But it is also strategically placed in that its members are concerned vitally with many of Australia’s export industries, including many of Australia’s great bulk export industries. I am referring to coal, iron ore, sugar and so on. Consequently, there will have to be a very close watch to see that this amalgamation does not become a method whereby the new New South Wales State union does not have the opportunity of an inflated membership to dominate the federal structure of the Australian Workers Union.

There will be other effects not only within the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Some BWIU men Will subsequently be part of an AWU delegation to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There will be changes within the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. That is its problem. But the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party over the years has built a great respect in Australia because of the balance it has had. I fear both for it and for Australia. I say this quite sincerely lest that balance be upset. I put it no higher than that.

Mr Armitage:

– Even after the amalgamation, it Will still be a very balanced union, and you know it. This wil be in the best interests of the union members.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-A number of people Will have an opportunity to be part of that delegation from New South Wales under the banner of the AWU. They previously would not have been part of the delegation sheltering under that very respected name of the Australian Workers Union. But I do not want to get into a fight concerning the position of the Australian Labor Party. I merely say that the industrial movement in that State and the ACTU will both be altered by a change in the balance that has occurred with respect to this union. I merely quote the words of the State Secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association in New South Wales, Mr O’Neill, who, in protesting about the manner in which that amalgamation was accepted, said to the packed meeting at the Sydney Trades Hall last night:

You are the union. You pay our wages. You should have a say.

Of course, the men did not have a say in what occurred. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because what is predicted to happen will effect this country in the days ahead. Above aU, without retreating from the proposition for one second we say that when amalgamations in unions occur the men in the unions which are amalgamated should have a say. In the amalgamation of unions into a body which subsequently wil have assets of $5m and an income of $ 1.5m there was no rank or file say whatsoever.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It seems to me that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the best of both worlds in this instance. Incessantly Government supporters talk about the fragmentation of the union movement, yet when some effort is made to consolidate it in a contemporary way, as is being done in other parts of the world, they adopt this reactionary attitude. They raise any kind of opposition at all that will cast some slur over the trade union movement. The legislation applying in New South Wales enables amalgamation to be facilitated rather than handicapped. That is a good thing. If the honourable gentleman can wheel in anybody who can put up some kind of opposition to delay the consolidation of unions, he certainly will take that course whilst, on the other hand, he wil go on complaining that the trade union movement is fragmented to the disadvantage of the Australian people.

It Will be a good thing when there are fewer unions in Australia. The position is well known. The statistics have been mentioned in this Parliament on many occasions. In countries like West Germany, where the population is in excess of 50 million people, there are fewer than 20 unions, whilst in this country we have in excess of 300 unions. There is a good case to be made out for industry unions. That is what the New South Wales Government is facilitating by its legislation.

The honourable gentleman talked about giving everybody a vote. I suppose that if they had it he would get among some kind of ribald mob with the intention of diverting them from the desirable objective of consolidating fragmented unions. We are sick and tired of this humbug. It is time we had some support for governments which put up progressive legislation which facilitates the amalgamation of unions, as the Wran Government is doing in New South Wales.

I rose to mention a matter which is of considerable concern to many constituents in my electorate and probably in the electorate of the honourable gentleman who preceded me in this debate. The Government has announced its intention to withdraw the payment of fees and living allowances to students who attend non-profit tertiary institutions. The institutions to which I refer are the local business colleges, such as the Metropolitan Business Colleges, of which there is a counterpart in every city of Australia. These colleges offer training facilities predominantly for people who want to start a commercial career. In my electorate- I think the situation there is similar to that which prevails in many other electorates- a young girl goes along to take a shorthand-typing course at the local technical college. There is a great queue of people wanting to get into that place. Unless she has a certain accomplishment in speed as a result of her high school education she cannot get in. The only way she can go forward to tertiary education is by going into a private college. Until now she has been assisted by way of the tertiary allowances which were introduced by the Labor Government in 1974. The announcement has now been made that these allowances will be curtailed as from January 1978. This is of very great concern to many families, especially low income families which are unable to sustain young people- not just girls but young men as well- who want to start that kind of career.

I am told by the people who are lobbying Federal members of Parliament- I am sure all honourable members have received correspondence from these people- that something like 10 000 students could be thrown out of these colleges to join the dole queue. I regard this as a very undesirable decision to be made by this Government. I want to protest as vigorously as I can. This decision would seem to me to be the height of stupidity. It would seem to me to be of the utmost callousness for the Government to adopt such an attitude at this time when young people are representing such a high proportion of the unemployed -

Mr Cohen:

– At any time.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-But especially now because persons under 2 1 years of age at present represent only 12 per cent of the work force but 39 per cent of the unemployed. These figures are going to become significantly worse unless the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) alters this decision. I ask honourable gentlemen opposite to use their influence in the party room because it will not be long before the chickens will be coming home to roost and complaining parents will be on the doorstep of their electorate offices.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Cohen:

-Will this be about apples and pears?

Mr GOODLUCK:

-It will not be about apples and pears tonight.

Mr Scholes:

– Is it about the Melbourne Herald?

Mr GOODLUCK:

-No, it is not about that either. It might seem rather unusual for me to bring into the Parliament a matter that probably does not pertain to national issues, but many young people in Australia tonight and quite a few people in America, of course, are lamenting the fact that Elvis Presley passed away. One could not help but note the words that were said about Elvis Presley by President Carter. I think his words indicated what the people of America thought of Elvis Presley because I think he was symbolic of the American life style and of the changes that have taken place over the past 20 years. I raise this matter as a mark of respect for a person who brought a lot of enjoyment not only to the people of America but also to many people in Australia. Many young people as well as many older people liked Elvis Presley as a singer and are very sorry that he passed away under sad and sorry circumstances. I thought we ought to stop and think about this at this time of stress. There seem to be problems all around us. The President of the United States was reported to have said this about Elvis Presley:

He was a symbol of the vitality, rebelliousness and good humour of the United States. His death deprives our country of a part of itself.

The newspaper article went on to state:

The White House, however, did not declare a day of national mourning, as suggested by thousands of phone callers.

Mr Carter was reported to have stated further:

Elvis Presley was unique and irreplaceable. More than 20 years ago, he burst on the scene with an impact that was unprecedented, and will probably never be equalled.

As a mark of respect I, as a Federal politician, say that I am sorry that Elvis Presley passed away. I sympathise with many Americans in this matter. Elvis Presley was symbolic of a stage in their difficult times. I hope that we can always remember him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

page 481

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Land Purchases (Question No. 654)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the (a) size, (b) price, (c) type and (d) State location of the various properties purchased by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission since its inception.
  1. Where these properties have an agricultural purpose (a) what additional capital has since been invested and (b) what additional finance has been required to either support the income of the farmers or of agricultural contractors or advisers.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Because of the nature of the payments, the totals shown for part (b) above include not only amounts provided to support the income of farmers and for agricultural contractors or advisers but also other items of operating expenditure for the properties, including components for training and community development activities. Expenditure shown for Bartsch Farm and Barden ‘s Farm in South Australia covered not only these properties but also existing reserve farmlands to which these properties were added. Expenditure under item (b) above in many cases leads to the generation or improvement of capital items but such expenditure cannot be readily separated from the total provided.

Environmental Education: United Nations Program (Question No. 831)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will he indicate how, when and where the Federal Government has participated in the UNESCO/UNEP international program in environmental education.
  2. Does the Government intend to participate in the forthcoming inter-governmental conference which forms an essential part of this program; if not, why not.
  3. 3 ) If so, who will be representing the Government.
  4. Can he say whether any of the several State governments will be participating in this conference; if so, which government.
Mr Newman:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

Responsibility for matters relating to environmental education is shared between my department and the agencies responsible to the Minister for Education. Participation in the Unesco/UNEP International Program in Environmental Education is co-ordinated by the Department of Education through the Australian National Commission for Unesco.

The Commonwealth Government has participated in the Unesco/UNEP International Program in Environmental Education as follows:

In 1975 the Curriculum Development Centre supported financially the participation of Prof. P. Fensham, Faculty of Education, Monash University, in the Belgrade Workshop on Environmental Education, the first in a series of meetings forming part of the International Program. The Centre has published Prof. Fensham ‘s report on the workshop and a copy of the Belgrade Charter on Environmental Education has been circulated to secondary schools throughout Australia.

In 1976, my Department was’ represented at the Asian Region Meeting on Environmental Education, at the invitation and expense of Unesco and on the nomination of the Australian National Commission for Unesco. This meeting held in Bangkok, Thailand, was one of a series of regional meetings of experts in environmental education which reviewed the recommendations of the Belgrade Workshop in the light of regional and local needs. The report of the officer who attended this meeting has been circulated to the Australian National Commission for Unesco, the Curriculum Development Centre and other interested agencies.

The forthcoming Unesco/UNEP Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education will assist in promoting recognition of environmental education activities in both formal and non-formal education, and establishing an effective environmental education program with national and international dimensions. Consideration is being given to the form of Australia’s, participation in the Intergovernmental Conference and I shall keep the honourable member informed of the Government’s action on this matter.

See (2) above.

See (2) above.

Environmental Education (Question No. 832)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government taken any action to encourage the development of environmental education in Australian schools; if not, why not.
  2. If so, what actions have been taken and, in particular, what emphasis has been placed on the development of appropriate curricula and educational resource materials and the development of pre-service and in-service education programs for teachers.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Both the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Curriculum Development Centre have been actively encouraging the development of environmental education in Australian schools.
  2. My department is supporting financially a national conference on environmental education which will be considering the development of environmental education programs at the local and regional levels. The conference will bring together education and environmental specialists and community groups from all over Australia.

In collaboration with the Curriculum Development Centre and the South Australian Council for Educational Planning and Research my Department is supporting financially a major educational materials development project in the field of environmental education. These materials are being designed to create in students a greater awareness and understanding of Australia’s natural and built environments and the way in which decision making influences the nature of the environment in which we live.

The Curriculum Development Centre established a study group, of which my department was a member, to report on action it should take to stimulate the development of environmental education in Australian schools. The study group report covers aspects of educational materials development and teacher development programs. Its recommendations will be considered in drawing up the Curriculum Development Centre ‘s budget for the 1 977-79 triennium.

In addition to these specific activities my department undertakes regular liaison with State education authorities, teachers subject associations and individual teachers on the development of environmental education curricula in schools. Where appropriate it stimulates or assists with teacher training programs in the field of environmental education. A number of the films dealing with environmental issues produced by my department are widely used in Australian schools for teaching purposes.

Environmental Education (Question No. 833)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What measures has the Government taken to evaluate the public awareness of environmental, urban and community development issues.
  2. What programs or plans exist to increase the awareness of the public of these issues.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My department has developed a range of mechanisms to assess attitudes on environmental, urban and community development issues. These include monitoring metropolitan, regional and local media and face to face contact through the Department’s State offices. My Department also arranges community forums such as the recent ‘National Housing Conference- Housing and the Community’, and the proposed national conference on environmental education which provide an opportunity for the exchange of ideas on such issues.
  2. My department has a variety of programs covering contact with the media, publication and distribution of information, film production, education activities and conferences which contribute to public awareness of environmental, urban and community development issues.

My department will continue to issue regular publications, such as Environs and the Building Industry Quarterly, which are distributed widely throughout the community and assist in maintaining public awareness.

Environment (Field) Study Centres (Question No. 834)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. Did both the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation and the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate recommend that the Australian Government, in conjunction with the relevant State Authorities, provide financial assistance for the establishment of Environment ( Field ) Study Centres.
  2. If so, has his Department examined these recommendations.
  3. If his Department has done so, has it made recommendations to the Minister and the Government.
  4. What were these recommendations.
  5. If the Government does not propose to take action on these recommendations in the immediate future, will he state (a) the number and distribution of environment study centres in Australia, (b) the present level and source of staffing and funding for these centres, (c) the type of groups using the centres, including the level of use, and (d) the nature of the services and assistance offered by these centres.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation supported the concept of establishing field study centres, and recommended that detailed proposals for Commonwealth involvement in a scheme for field study centres should be prepared. The Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate recommended that discussions be held with appropriate Commonwealth and State government authorities on the possibility of providing financial help to the field study centre movement.
  2. , (3) and (4) I am aware of these recommendations and have examined them in the light of community needs and submissions put to me. At this time I have made no recommendation for the provision of a specific Commonwealth program of assistance.
  3. My department continues to monitor the development of environment (field) study centres, and liaise with State government agencies and community groups responsible for such centres. However, since the matter is one for which State governments are primarily responsible I do not have the details which would enable me to give a specific answer to parts (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this question.

Australian Housing Corporation Report (Question No. 839)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment,

Housing and Community Development, upon notice on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he, when he was the Minister responsible for the administration of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975, receive the annual report of that Corporation in accordance with sub-section 48 ( 1 ) of the Act.
  2. If so, did he receive it from his predecessor, the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs who acted as Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development for several months, or did he receive it from the Corporation.
  3. If he received the report, on what date was it received.
  4. Did he comply with sub-section 48 (4) of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975 and cause it to be laid before each House of Parliament within the prescribed 15 sitting days; if not, why not.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. ) I did receive from the Australian Housing Corporation an interim report of operations in the year 1 975-76. This was not an annual report in accordance with sub-section 48 ( 1 ) of the Act in that:

    1. The Treasurer had not at that time approved the form of the financial statements, as required by the legislation;
    2. As the form of the financial statements had not been approved by the Treasurer they had not been formally submitted to the Auditor-General for him to report on, as required by the legislation.
  2. The interim report was submitted to me by the Corporation.
  3. It is not possible at this time to determine precisely the date on which the interim report was received in my office.
  4. As indicated above since no annual report in the form required by the legislation was submitted to me there was no report to which sub-section 48 (4) of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975 could be applied.

Defence: S2E and S2G Tracker Aircraft (Question No. 861)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What is the airframe and engine cost of (a) S2E and (b) S2G Tracker Aircraft.
  2. What is the cost of associated electronics and avionics installed on (a) S2E and (b) S2G Tracker Aircraft.
  3. What are the differences in avionics and other equipment between S2E and S2G aircraft.
  4. What spares and other support equipment will have to be purchased to support (a) S2E and (b) S2G aircraft to the end of their operational lives.
  5. What is the presently estimated life-of-type for (a) S2E and (b)S2G aircraft.
  6. What is the cost of providing spares and other support equipment for (a) S2E and (b) S2G aircraft.
  7. 7) Is there any equipment either in, or to be fitted to, the S2G aircraft to be purchased by Australia, which has not been previously used by the Australian Defence Forces. If so, what is this equipment, what is its cost, what additional support is required to operate the equipment through its lifeoftype and at what cost.
  8. What is the extent and cost of training required to allow RAN personnel to operate and maintain any equipment referred to in part (7).
  9. Has the United States offer (Ser 633c/744745) of 14 July 1 976 for six S2E aircraft at $US93,000 each now lapsed.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The basic cost of S2G aircraft was effectively unchanged from that of the S2E, and was estimated at $US93,000.
  2. The cost of installed electronics and avionics in the S2G was included in the basic aircraft price and the same would have applied to S2E aircraft had they been bought on the same ‘as-is, where-is’ basis. Additional avionics are being bought for the S2G aircraft to replace systems previously removed by the USN. Provision of $US2.5m has been included in the Replacement Tracker Project to cover procurement of these items.
  3. The differences in avionics and other equipment between S2E and S2G aircraft are as follows:
  1. Commonality in the range of spares and support equipment for S2E and S2G aircraft is assessed at 85 per cent Requirements in excess of current assets held in stock or on order will be purchased as and when necessary to meet life-of-type requirements. Items peculiar to the S2G are basically avionics test equipment and spares and provision of $US2.6m has been made for their procurement in the Replacement Tracker Project cost.
  2. The estimated life-of-type for S2E and S2G aircraft is 1985.
  3. As stated in the reply to question 4 provision has been made in the Replacement Tracker Project for procurement of spares and other support equipment for S2G’s at an estimated cost of $US2.6m.

The cost of life-of-type spares for the items common to both the S2E and S2G is estimated at $A3.1m. This is an ongoing requirement and separate from the Replacement Tracker Project.

  1. There is some avionics equipment in the S2G which has not previously been used by the Australian Defence Forces. The equipment, costs, and additional support required to operate it are as follows:

    1. Equipment fitted in the replacement Tracker the cost of which is included in the aircraft purchase price:

AN/ARC-52 UHF radio-Support equipment and publications will be required.

AN/ASQ-149 data transfer system- The set is essentially the same as equipment currently supported.

One additional test set and publications are required for support.

Sonobuoy pneumatic ejection device- There is no intention to use and support this equipment at present.

  1. Equipment to be fitted in the replacement Trackers the cost of which was provided for separately in the Replacement Tracker Project:

AN/AQA-7( V)3 Sonar computer recorder group- Prime cost is estimated at $US 1 52,500 for each of the 14 sets.

AN/ARR-75 Sonobuoy receivers- Prime cost is estimated at $US25,000 for each of the 14 sets.

Test equipment and publications are required for both these equipments. It has not yet been possible to assess the lifeoftype support requirements for this equipment as RAN usage rates cannot be assessed until the equipment has been in service for some time. However, $US2.6m have been allocated within the Replacement Tracker Project for the initial procurement of test equipment, spares and other support equipment for the S2G. The answer to question 4 and 6 are also relevant

  1. The following personnel, listed by numbers and trade, will form the nucleus of S2G trained operators and maintainors of equipment not previously used by the Australian Defence Forces:

    1. Two Sub-Lieutenant Observers for AQA-7 (sonar computer-recorder system) operator training with the USN.
    2. Two Petty Officers Air Technical Communications (POATC), one Able Seaman Air Technical Communications (ABATC) and one Senior Naval Systems Technical Officer Grade One (SNSTOl) for AQA-7 and ARR-7S (sonobuoy receivers) maintenance training with the USN.

This nucleus of S2G trained personnel will then be responsible for further operator and maintainer training, all of which will be conducted in Australia. Such further training will be an ongoing commitment during the operational life of the S2G. The personnel listed below, by rank and trade, represent the first group to be trained for equipment not previously used by the Australian Defence Forces, as part of this ongoing commitment:

  1. Fifteen Sub-Lieutenant Observers as AQA-7 operators.
  2. Two Chief Petty Officers, six Petty Officers, six Leading Seamen, and 11 Able Seamen Air Technical Communications, as AQA-7 and ARR-7S maintainers

All personnel listed above for S2G training will come from S2F squadrons and workshops. No additional personnel are involved.

Until the formal Letter of Offer is received the cost of initial training in the United States of America will not be known, but $US50,000 have been allocated in the project for this purpose.

  1. The Utter of Offer (Ser 633c/744745) of 14 July 1976 for six S2E aircraft has been amended by Letter of Offer (Ser 633c256392) of 4 March 1977 for six S2G aircraft.

Mr Vincent Teresa (Question No. 866)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

What were the dates, nature and purpose of Commonwealth Police contacts with Mr James Phillip McCrudden, the Sydney solicitor who brought Mr Vincent Teresa, the former Boston Mafioso, to Sydney, where the Commonwealth Police met him at the airport and helped him with Customs procedures (Hansard, 5 May 1977, page 1683).

Mr Street:
LP

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

It is not the practice of Commonwealth Police to disclose the nature and purpose of communications they have with members of the public or solictiors acting for clients on official matters. To do so would impair confidence in the Commonwealth Police Force.

Teresa was subject to normal Customs entry procedures administered by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

Federal Government Employees (Question No. 933)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

  1. What is the total number of Federal Government employees.
  2. How many, and what proportion of the total, come under the ambit of the Public Service Act.
Mr Street:
LP

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

I have been advised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Public Service Board that:

1 ) At 3 1 May 1 977 there were 394 935 Federal Government employees. This figure does not include the 70 400 members ofthe Defence Force.

157 626 employees, or 39.91 per cent, came under the ambit of the Public Service Act.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 934)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

  1. How many interdepartmental committees are presently in existence.
  2. 2 ) What topics are they investigating.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It has been the practice of successive governments not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in answering questions, such as this, which seek generalised information on interdepartmental committees. As I indicated in my answer to Senate Question No. 472 (Hansard, 4 June 1976, page 2474), I do not intend to depart from that practice. However, if the honourable member wishes to seek information concerning any particular interdepartmental committee, 1 shall be happy to see if he can be provided with the necessary information.

Anti-pollution Legislation: Effect on Fuel Consumption (Question No. 937)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has any study been carried out on the effects of Australian anti-pollution legislation on motor vehicle fuel consumption.
  2. If so, what were the results of these studies.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There has been no large scale study carried out into the effects of Australian anti-pollution legislation on motor vehicle fuel consumption. However I understand that the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission has recently published the results of a survey in which 1 89 vehicles were tested using the standard Australian Design Rule 27A driving cycle.
  2. The results of their tests indicate that vehicle weight is the principal determining factor in fuel consumption. The larger heavier vehicles incurred a fuel consumption penalty of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent, while many vehicles below 1200 kg mass showed only a marginal change, or in a few cases, a marginal improvement. I understand that this pattern is in accord with United States experience with similar regulations.

Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance: Prosecutions (Question No. 945)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1 977:

  1. How many persons have been prosecuted for offences under Sub-division D of Division 4 of Part X of the Com- panies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory in the last 5 years.
  2. How many of these persons were convicted of the offences, and what penalties were imposed.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Five persons have been prosecuted since 1973 for offences under Sub-division D of Division 4 of Part X of the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Three persons were convicted for a total of eight offences and fined a total of $700 plus costs.

Coffee Imports (Question No. 965)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. What percentage of coffee used in the Australian coffee industry is imported from (a) Brazil and (b) Papua New Guinea.
  2. What are the prices charged to Australian importers by exporters from (a) Brazil and (b) Papua New Guinea.
  3. 3 ) What are the prices charged by importers to the manufacturers for each type of coffee.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. No precise statistics are available on the origin of coffee used in the Australian coffee industry. However, figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in 1973-76 3.1 per cent of the total quantity of coffee imported into Australia came from Brazil and 37.2 per cent came from Papua New Guinea. In 1974-75 the corresponding figures were 5.7 per cent and 38.5 per cent. These statistics include coffee imported for sale to wholesalers and retailers in addition to that for use in manufacturing industry.
  2. and (3) Prices charged to Australian importers by overseas exporters are shown on Customs invoices but this information is treated in commercial confidence by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and is not made publicly available.

Companies that are required to notify the Prices Justification Tribunal of proposed increases in coffee prices are, I am advised, direct importers. Although the Tribunal, when examining price notifications from these companies, has access to the prices at which they import coffee, this information is likewise regarded as confidential.

The Austraiian Bureau of Statistics has advised that it collects a small number of price series relating to imported coffee for incorporation in the Price Index of Materials Used in Manufacturing Industry. The prices relate to selected specifications for use in the aggregate index and are not considered by the Bureau to be sufficiently representative to be used as an official measure of price levels or price changes for imported coffee.

Environmental Protection and Inquiries (Question No. 971)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. Has the Commonwealth Government recently transferred its powers on environmental protection and environmental inquiries to the West Australian Government.
  2. If so, are agreements of a similar nature to be signed with other State Governments.
  3. ) On what basis has the Commonwealth transferred this power to the States.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to Dr Mosley’s comments on these transfers which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 24 May 1977.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Not applicable in view ot the answer to ( 1 ).
  3. I have read the press statement from the Australian Conservation Foundation on which the item in the Australian Financial Review is based. I should point out that an agreement has been reached between the Western Australian Minister for Conservation and Environment and myself, not between the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments. This agreement is to rationalise procedural arrangements so that each Minister might fulfil his respective environmental responsibilities without duplication and in full co-operation with the other Minister. I am discussing and progressively making similar arrangements with other State environment Ministers.

Private Health Funds: Bulk Billing for Pathology Services (Question No. 973)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

Does he have any information from private medical funds regarding claims for pathology services, which supports the proposed abolition of bulk billing for all but eligible pensioners and their dependants, because of the alleged abuse of bulk billing.

Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

The Department has received some information of benefits claims paid by private funds for the December 1976 and March 1977 Quarters, but this information is still outstanding for several major funds. Until sufficient information is available, meaningful analyses cannot be prepared.

Even then, there is no guarantee that a crude comparison of the relative drawing patterns of members of private funds and of Medibank Standard would in itself provide complete information on alleged abuse of bulk billing. For the reasons as to why the Government decided to limit bulk billing for pathology services to eligible pensioners and their dependants, I refer the honourable member to the report of the Pathology Services Working Party which I tabled in Parliament on 25 May 1977.

Geelong Commission Act of Victoria (Question No. 979)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. Does the Geelong Commission Act of Victoria meet the criteria set out by him in his letter of 27 April 1977 to the Victorian Minister for State Development and Decentralisation, Mr Crazier, for Commonwealth consideration of funding.
  2. If not, has he informed the Victorian Minister.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The remarks attributed to me on the financial viability of Geelong as a growth centre were made with regard to the assumptions which formed the basis of the early feasibility studies of Geelong undertaken by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments.
  2. The Victorian Minister for Decentralisation and Development has recently forwarded me a copy of the revised Geelong Regional Commission Bill and sought my comments on the Bill. I will be responding to the Minister’s invitation, but I should point out that this is not primarily a matter for the Commonwealth but for the Victorian Parliament.

National Dairy Plan (Question No. 984)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What issues still have to be resolved before Stage II of the national dairy plan can be implemented.
  2. When is it anticipated that these issues will be settled.
  3. What Federal and/or State legislation will be required.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The main unresolved issues are:

    1. Whether market milk should be taken into account in determining the National Aggregate Entitlement (NAE) and in the allocation of the NAE among States;
    2. The size of the NAE in the first year of operation of the entitlement scheme.
  2. At its meeting on 1 and 2 August 1977 the Australian Agricultural Council referred both matters to a Working Party for further examination and report to the October meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture with a view to firm decisions being taken by the Council at it next meeting.
  3. Some amendments will be required to the legislation passed by the Parliament during its last sittings for the implementation of Stage I of the new dairy industry marketing arrangements. Some supplementary State legislation may also be required in respect of the administration of the State Aggregate Entitlements.

Reports of Royal Commission on Petroleum: Interdepartmental Committee (Question 990)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

  1. When did the interdepartmental committee begin its examination of (a) the Sth and (b) the 6th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum.
  2. When does he expect that the committee will report to the Government.
  3. Which departments are represented on the committee and to which Minister or Ministers will it report.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) 5th Report, December 1976 and (b) 6th Report, May 1977.
  2. and (3) The interdepartmental committee’s report on the 5th Report has now been completed; and its report on the 6th Report is expected to be completed in the near future.

The Departments represented on the committee are as follows: Prime Minister and Cabinet; National Resources; Treasury; Finance; Industry and Commerce; Transport; Business and Consumer Affairs; Northern Territory; and Environment, Housing and Community Development.

The interdepartmental committee will submit its reports to the Minister for National Resources and then, as appropriate, the reports will be considered by the Government.

Coal Export Duty (Question No. 991)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which companies paid coal export duty in the periods (a) 20 August 1975 to 31 December 1975, (b) 1 January 1976 to 17 August 1976, (c) 18 August 1976 to 31 December 1976 and (d) 1 January 1977 to date.
  2. What was the tonnage of coal exported by each company during each period referred to in pan ( 1 ), what rate of duty was applicable in each case, and what was the total sum paid in coal export duty.
  3. How much did these companies pay in income tax in the last three financial years.
  4. In view of the present healthy financial position of coal exporters, does the Government still have a firm commitment to phase out the coal levy or is this matter open for consideration in the Government s budget deliberations.
  5. What action does the Government intend to take to ensure that coal exporters will not reduce coal exports prior to the 1977 Budget and then increase exports after the Budget, in an endeavour to evade coal duty.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Statistician does not compile statistics of the kind sought. However, in his 1976 Budget Speech the Treasurer indicated that the total amount collected in the year 1975-76 was $1 1 1,639,834 and that the estimate for 1 976-77 was $ 1 1 2m.
  2. 3 ) I do not have access to this information.
  3. At this stage I am unable to elaborate on the Treasurer’s statement in his 1976 Budget Speech when he said that the reduction being effected then was regarded by the Government as a first step towards completely phasing out this particular tax within three years.
  4. 1 would expect that coal exporters contractual commitments to pre-determined shipping schedules would provide little scope, if any, to evade this duty.

Ball Bearing Imports (Question No. 995)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What (a) quantity, (b) value and (c) sizes of (i) complete and (ii) the various parts of ball bearings, have been imported by which companies during each year from 1 97 1 to 1 976 and during the period 1 January to 3 1 March 1 977.
  2. What is the tariff for each category of bearing in each of the sizes.
  3. What is the estimated import percentage to local production or total supplies of ball bearings for each of the years and the period referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Statistician has provided the statistics shown in the attached table, or total imports of complete ball bearings and parts for ball bearings in each of the years 1 97 1 to 1976 and during the period 1 January to 31 March 1977. Information on individual companies’ imports is not available.
  2. Precision ground steel ball bearings and parts thereof (excluding steel balls) are dutiable at 28 per cent ad valorem General Tariff and Developing Countries, 2 1 per cent ad valorem Preferential Tariff and Free from New Zealand and Papua/New Guinea.

The other goods included in the attached table are dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem General Tariff and Free from all other sources. The bearings which are normally accorded duty free admission under Customs By-laws are shown in the attached Consolidated By-law References.

  1. Information on the estimated import percentage to local production or total supplies of ball bearings is not available because the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not compile separate statistics on local production of ball bearings

Profit Share (Question No. 999)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What definition of the profit share was he using when, in answer to a question on 26 May 1977, he said that the profit share stood at 14.7 per cent in the December quarter 976.
  2. On this definition, what has been the profit share in each quarter, and in each year, during the 10 years prior to December 1976.
  3. Is this data published regularly. If not, will it be published automatically with the quarterly national income figures.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The definition of the profit share used in my answer to Mr Hayden ‘s question was the ratio of the gross operating surplus of companies to gross non-farm product at factor cost. The figure of 14.7 per cent that I gave for the December quarter of 1976 was based on the preliminary December quarter National Accounts; the final estimates for the December quarter imply a profit share of 1 4.6 per cent.
  2. I refer to my answer to the honourable member’s question upon notice No. 538, in which this information was provided for a similar period using the same definition.
  3. The series for both the gross operating surplus of companies and gross non-farm product at factor cost are now published in the quarterly National Accounts. The latter series was first published in the December quarter of 1 976.

Department of Administrative Services: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1008)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. What is the name and classification of each officer of the Department of Administrative Services who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by the Minister, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose.
  2. What charges were made against the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs.
  3. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered.
  4. Were funds set aside in the Department’s estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature. If so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers.
  5. If funds were not set aside in the Department’s estimates from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers.
  6. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister’s Department, received and when.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) Refer to the information provided by the Acting Prime Minister in answer to House of Representatives question No. 1003 which appears on page 253 1 of the House of Representatives Weekly Hansard i June 1977.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1024)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. What is the name and classification of each officer of his Department who travelled overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by him, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose.
  2. What charges were made against his Department’s estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs.
  3. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered.
  4. Were funds set aside in the Department’s estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature. If so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers.
  5. If funds were not set aside in the Department’s estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers.
  6. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister’s Department, received and when.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to parliamentary question No. 1003.

Department of Science: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1025)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. What is the name and classification of each officer of the Department of Science who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) II November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by the Minister, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose.
  2. What charges were made against the estimates for the Department of Science in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in pan ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs.
  3. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered.
  4. Were funds set aside in the Department’s estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature. If so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers.
  5. If funds were not set aside in the Department’s estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers.
  6. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister’s Department, received and when.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the Acting Prime Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 1003 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, p. 2531).

Relocation Assistance Scheme (Question No. 1033)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. How many (a) males and (b) females have been assisted under the Relocation Assistance Scheme since its inception on 1 October 1976 in each Commonwealth Employment Service district in New South Wales up to the latest date for which figures have been compiled.
  2. What is the total amount of relocation allowances paid to these persons.
  3. How many relocated persons remained in their jobs following payment of these allowances (Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 967).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No separate statistics are maintained for males and females who are assisted under the Relocation Assistance Scheme. However, the total number of persons assisted in New South Wales under the scheme from 1.10.76 to 30.6.77 was 1 12 with the break up according to each Commonwealth Employment Service district being a s follows:
  1. The total amount of relocation allowances paid to these persons to 30.6.77 was $72,833.
  2. The Department does not have complete information on this matter. However, as part of an overall review of the scheme it is following up, three months after their moving, all persons relocated to determine whether they are still working in the job to which they were relocated. So far information has been obtained on 34 persons assisted in New South Wales between 1.10.76 and 28.2.77. Of these, 27 were still in the jobs to which they had relocated.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly: Transfer of Executive Power (Question No. 1036)

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

am asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. Which departments are members of the interdepartmental committee set up to advise on the time-table for further transfers of executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory.
  2. What are its terms of reference.
  3. When was it established.
  4. When is it expected or required to report.
Mr ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975; NPA from Oct. 1982

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

  1. 1) to (4) See my answer to question on notice No. 808 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2528).

Antarctic Expeditions: Transport Arrangements (Question No. 1037)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which persons, departments and organisations belong to the committee set up to examine Australia’s options for transport to Antarctica.
  2. 2 ) What are the committee ‘s terms of reference.
  3. When was it established.
  4. When is it expected or required to report.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Future transport arrangements for Australia ‘s Antarctic expeditions are being examined by the Transport and Rebuilding Working Group of the Interdepartmental Committee on Antarctica. The Working Group comprises representatives of the following departments:

Science (Convenor)

Foreign Affairs

Transport

Defence

Finance

Environment, Housing and Community Development.

  1. ) The terms of reference of the Working Group are:

To report on the long-term transport arrangements for Australian Antarctic expeditions and on the rebuilding requirements at Australia ‘s Antarctic stations. ‘

  1. The Working Group was established by the Interdepartmental Committee on 7 October 1976.
  2. The Working Group’s report was lodged with the Interdepartmental Committee on 24 June 1977.

Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry: Expenditure (Question No. 1067)

Dr Richardson:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

What has been the total cost to the Australian taxpayer for the Commission which has conducted the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry?

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Expenditure to 30 June 1977 in respect of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry is expected to he $1,110,000.

Undischarged commitments associated with the finalisation of the Inquiry are estimated at $60,000.

I should point out that the expenditure figures provided reflect only those costs which it has been possible for my Department to record. Several Commonwealth and State government departments as well as local government instrumentalities have provided assistance or contributed to the operations of the Inquiry since the commencement of the public hearings on 9 September 1975. Such costs have not been recorded.

ABC Program Talking Point

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr O’Keefe asked me the following question, without notice, on 30 May 1977:

Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s radio stations 2NA and 2UH, on their program Talking Point from 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, 22 May 1977, broadcast an interview by a woman with two lesbians that was filthy and degenerate, with the interviewer appearing deliberately to lead the conversation on to what they said? Was this a disgusting episode? Is it a fact that this program is described as a current affairs program for 10 to 16 year olds? Who were the producer and director and interviewer in this degrading episode? Will the Minister call for the tape recording of this program and take the necessary action to stop such filth being broadcast to the Australian people?

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

Following my preliminary answer to the honourable member, I asked the ABC for details about the program and received the following information:

Talking Point is designed for young adults and since its introduction has directed attention to a wide range of subjects of concern to them.

As to the content of the program broadcast on Sunday, 22 May from 2NA and 2UH, the ABC has advised me that the language used in the program was seen as a breach of ABC guidelines and appropriate action was immediately taken by ABC Management in respect of those responsible for the program.

The Executive Producer of the program was a member of the staff of the ABC’s Young People ‘s Program Department.

The ABC have informed me that action has been taken to avoid a recurrence of a lapse of the type to which attention has been drawn.

Gosford-Newcastle Electrification Project (Question No. 724)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he undertaken to consider the funding of urban and non-urban public transport projects, where they are properly supported by evaluations.
  2. Has a benefit/cost analysis been carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics in conjunction with the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales on the GosfordNewcastle electrification project.
  3. If so, were the results favourable.
  4. Did the New South Wales Minister for Transport and Highways write to him in December 1976 regarding the prospect of Federal funding for this and other projects; if so, what has been his response.
  5. What prospect is there of Federal two-thirds grant being made available for this work.
Mr Nixon:
LP

– This is a replacement answer to that which appeared in the weekly Hansard of 2 June 1977 (page 25 78):

  1. Yes.
  2. ) and ( 3 ) The New South Wales Government submitted a proposal for electrification work between Gosford and Newcastle in 1975/76 estimated to cost $32.22m. An economic evaluation was provided and when reviewed by the Bureau of Transport Economics produced a benefit/cost ratio of 1.03 at 7 per cent discounting and 0.79 when discounted at 10 per cent. No provision was made by the previous Government in its 1 975-76 Budget for new projects.
  3. and (5) Yes. The Budget provides $5.0m for new projects under the Urban Public Transport Agreement. The New South Wales Minister for Transport and Highways had advised that in the circumstances allocations to his State should be directed to the acquisition of suburban doubledeck rail cars. I am also of the view that this project should be accorded highest priority within New South Wales.

Australian Indonesian Telecommunications Aid Agreement (Question No. 788)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign

Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1 977:

  1. Was an agreement signed in Jakarta on 14 March 1977 by the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr R. Woolcott, and the Indonesian Minister for Communications, Dr Emil Salim, covering aid arrangements in the telecommunications sector.
  2. If so, what, in broad terms, were the details of the agreement.
  3. How much is expected to be provided in aid towards the project, and over what period.
  4. What criteria did the Australian Government apply in deciding to support the project.
  5. In particular, is the project expected to make any direct contribution towards the elimination of problems of (a) unemployment or ( b) poverty in Indonesia.
  6. Has the Australian Government arranged for any economic analysis of the project to be carried out which has investigated the social and economic effects of the project; if so will he provide details.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Australia has been assisting the Indonesian Government in the telecommunications sphere since 1968, commencing with a study by an Australian Mission of Indonesia’s domestic and international telecommunications requirements. The study made recommendations on the feasibility, economic suitability and priority of telecommunications projects in Repelita 1 (the first Indonesian five-year plan concluded in 1974). An outline study for overall development of the Indonesian telecommunications system was also prepared, followed by the drafting of detailed plans, designs and specifications, and provision of associated consultancy services established to advise on the construction of a trans-Sumatra microwave radio system. This system included the building with World Bank finance of a network of nearly 50 microwave repeater stations in Sumatra.

Further specific planning was later undertaken for the development of a telephone and junction network for Jakarta telephone subscribers, and the design of local and trunk exchanges and allied cable works for nine provincial centres in Sumatra, to establish and link the Sumatran subscriber network with the microwave system.

The agreement formally signed in Jakarta on 14 March 1977 represents the fifth phase of this continuing activity and covers the two year period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1978. The Australian contribuuon will be concerned with three fields as follows:

  1. an advisory service to Perum Telekomunikasi and supervision of telecommunications projects which are being supported by Australian development assistance funds;
  2. the supply of agreed material and equipment appropriate to the provision of local and trunk exchanges plus cable work at major centres in Sumatra;
  3. provision of a general advisory service to Perum Telekomunikasi.

    1. Phase five involves an Australian contribution of approximately $2.3m over the period1 July 1976 to 30 June 1978. Of the $15m allocated to Indonesia for Australian telecommunications assistance over the period 1969 to 1978, approximately $13. 18m was expended by the end of the 1976-77 financial year.
    2. Proposals drawn up by aid-receiving countries for donor support would normally be examined in some detail by officers of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and its technical advisers to determine their feasibility and economic viability before being accepted as an aid commitment. In this instance, the whole scheme for the construction and installation of a telecommunications system to service the needs of Sumatra and its linkage with Jakarta were developed conceptually and carried through all planning and design stages by the Australian Telecommunications Mission established under the aid program for that purpose at the request of the Indonesian Government.

The Mission staff were provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission and its predecessors. Criteria used both in the selection of a microwave communications system from among a number of available communications options, and in the planning and design of local and trunk exchange installations, were identical with those used by the ATC in planning similar projects in Australia to meet our domestic requirements. Planning by the Mission staff necessarily took account of Sumatra’s geophysical structure, location of main population centres, population densities, immediate and projected consumer usage, revenue potential, maintenance needs, operational costs, availability of operational staff, linkage terminal facilities, inter-working with existing equipment, capital costs and many other factors. The plans and specifications were subjected to searching economic and technical scrutiny by the world Bank before its loan to the Indonesian Government for the major element of the project i.e., equipment and construction costs for the microwave repeater stations, was approved.

  1. The building of access roads to nearly 50 hill-top or mountain-top repeater station sites, actual construction of these stations and installation of radio equipment, all of which were funded by Indonesia, together with cable and exchange installations directly related to the supporting Australian aid input of exchange equipment and materials, provided employment for a substantial Indonesian workforce over a period of several years. In parallel with improvements in road, rail, and other communications systems, infrastructure projects such as this lay an essential framework for subsequent development, much of which is employment producing.
  2. The World Bank analysis mentioned in (4) above is relevant. The Project has proceeded basically according to the original plans and progress under Australia’s commitment is monitored continuously. No fresh surveys to assess the economic and social impact of the operation have been undertaken by the Australian Government since the project commenced. The need for a final evaluation study will be considered when the installations have been completed.

New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (Question No. 985)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What procedures are adopted by the Department of Industry and Commerce to determine whether or not an industry will be affected by the inclusion of a commodity in Schedule A of NAFTA.
  2. Is the industry organisation always contacted; if not, why not.
  3. If so, was the Australian Mushroom Growers’ Association contacted prior to New Zealand being notified that there were no Australian objections to fresh mushrooms being included in Schedlue A; if not, why not.
Mr Howard:
LP

-The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1) In relation to matters falling within the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the inclusion of a comodity in Schedule A of NAFTA is considered initially by the Department, after consultation with the relevant industry, prior to reference to the Department of Overseas Trade.
  2. Within this context it is standard practice for the industry to be contacted by the Department of Industry and Commerce and the opinions of industry are taken fully into consideration.
  3. Fresh mushrooms do not fall within the responsibilities of the Depanment of Industry and Commerce. Iam advised however that following strong objections from local industry to fresh mushrooms being included in Schedule A the Minister for Overseas Trade has deemed that the question warrants reference to the Industries Assistance Commission.

Air Traffic Controllers (Question No. 986)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Air Traffic Controllers are employed and at which Australian airports.
  2. What annual salaries are received by controllers at each of these airports and how many are in receipt of each salary.
  3. What are the details of hours of work, overtime, annual holidays, long service leave, superannuation, free transport, and other terms of employment.
  4. How do the salaries, terms of employment, right to strike or to be sacked compare with their counterparts in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Details contained in Table 1.
  2. Hours of Duty

Rostered hours of duty for Air Traffic Controllers, Air Traffic Controllers-in-training and Trainee Air Traffic Controllers engaged on shift work are 72 hours per fortnight. Such hours are rostered on the basis of 10 shifts of 7 hours each with provision where required for up to 12 minutes additional per shift for handover duties as part of and within the ordinary fortnightly 72 hours.

Overtime

  1. Shiftworkers

Public Service rates of time and a half and double time on hourly rates of salary up to a maximum salary of $15,163 a year apply. Payment at this maximum hourly rate may be made to officers receiving salary in excess of $15,163 a year provided that the minimum salary of their office does not exceed $16,785. Payment is made at the time and a half rate for the first three hours and at double time rates thereafter. Double time and double time and a half rates apply to overtime on Sundays and public holidays.

  1. Others

The rate of time and a half hourly rates of salary up to a maximum salary of $1 1,633 a year applies, provided the minimum salary of the occupied office does not exceed $16,785. Double time and double time and a half rates apply to overtime on Sundays and public holidays.

Leave

Recreation Leave- 5 weeks per annum for shift workers and 4 weeks for all other staff. Staff in designated remote localities receive up to 10 days extra leave a year.

Long Service Leave- 3 months after 10 years plus 3/10 month for each year of service thereafter.

Sick Leave-2 weeks on full pay and 2 weeks on half pay a year. Any leave which is not taken accumulates.

Special Leave- Up to 3 days a year may be granted upon sufficient cause being shown. Leave without pay may also be granted at the discretion of the Chief Officer.

Study Leave- Up to 5 hours a week may be granted to attend lectures and tutorials for approved courses of study.

Maternity/Paternity Leave- Up to 52 weeks maternity leave may be taken before and after the binh of a child, with 12 weeks paid leave. Recreation leave, sick leave and long service leave credits may be used, and leave without pay may be taken. Paternity leave of 5 days may be taken at the time of the birth of a child.

Superannuation Provisions are laid down in the Superannuation Act 1976.

Free Transport

Where an officer or employee is stationed at a locality designated by the Public Service Board as ‘isolated’ he may be paid an allowance for the use of his private vehicle to and from the place of employment

  1. Because of differences in such things as traffic flow, location of airports, legislation and civil service practices, it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between terms and conditions of employment of Australian Air Traffic Controllers and their counterparts in the United Kingdom and the United States of Amenca.

Payments to States (Question No. 1002)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. What amount was paid, or is expected to be paid, to each of the States under the provisions of:

    1. the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974;
    2. the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974; and
    3. the Urban Public Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974 during the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  2. What is the remainder expected to be of each appropriation under each of those Acts by State and in total as at 30 June 1977.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974 and the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974 do not specifically relate to projects but appropriate funds for the purposes of the Urban Public Transport Agreement. These two Acts and the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1976 provided $ 158.02m for that purpose. As at 30 June 1977 the following advances had been made to the States:

Australian Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 1052)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

What would be the estimated reduction in receipts by the Australian Telecommunications Commission in a full financial year, if current installation charges for the provision of a telephone subscriber over 12 km from an exchange were removed.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

If the current installation charges were removed demand could be expected to rise substantially. As many of these potential subscribers reside at considerable distances from exchanges a precise estimate of reduction in receipts would be difficult. Telecom Australia advises that, based on the installation rate achieved in the last financial year, a reduction in receipts of about $500,000 could be expected in a full financial year.

Australian Ships: Manning Scales (Question No. 1053)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. Who determines the manning scales of Australian ships and what are the detailed procedures followed in assessing the size of the crew.
  2. Is he required to approve the manning scale for each vessel.
  3. Is he able to provide any detailed information on manning scales for vessels of comparable trading nations.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Scales for the different categories of crew members on Australian ships are set out in the Schedules to the Navigation Act 1912. The scales cover most crew categories. They may be varied (or categories not covered may be prescribed ) in respect of a particular ship by the Minister after taking into consideration the advice of a Manning Committee. In practice, most ships have at least part of their manning complement determined by the Minister following the deliberations of a Manning Committee. A Manning Committee is a committee of advice constituted under the provisions of section 424 of the Navigation Act and comprises representatives of the owners of the ship, and the relevant maritime union, and is chaired by an officer of the Department of Transport. The members of the committee frequently make an inspection of the vessel, and occasionally call witnesses, before making their recommendation on the appropriate manning.
  2. No-only in those cases where the numbers for a particular crew category to be carried on a ship are to vary from the Schedules to the Act or, in the case of crew categories not set out in the Schedules, where there is a dispute between the parties concerned. The Minister does, however, have the power to detain any ship that is considered to be unseaworthy through a deficiency in the numbers or qualifications of the crew.
  3. See answer in part (3) of question No. 1055.

Flag of Convenience’ Ships (Question No. 1054)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

Do some ‘flag of convenience’ ships traversing Australian waters operate at times on an unmanned bridge basis during (a) daylight and (b) night hours; if so, is he able to say what steps are taken to ensure that safe operating procedures are followed.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

There is no evidence available to suggest that ships registered in so called ‘flag of convenience countries operate on an unmanned bridge basis in Australian waters, either by day or by night.

Flag of Convenience’ Ships (Question No. 1 OSS)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say of the number of qualified personnel required to serve on ‘flag of convenience vessels operating to Australia is the same as that required on Australian registered vessels.
  2. What are the crewing requirements and qualifications necessary for Australian National Line vessels carrying ore from north west Australian ports to (a) overseas destinations and ( b ) domestic ports.
  3. What are the comparable crewing requirements and qualifications necessary on overseas vessels operating in the same trade where applicable.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Traditional maritime practice is that the manning of any vessel is a matter for determination by the flag State. In some cases, it appears that vessels registered in so called ‘flag of convenience countries do have a lesser number of qualified personnel than that on comparable Australian vessels.

However, internationally acceptable minimum standards of marine training and qualifications are currently being developed within the framework of the Intergovernmental Maritme Consultative Organization (IMCO) and the work will culminate in an international conference next year. Australia is actively participating in the work of IMCO to ensure that the standards adopted are adequate to ensure safety at sea and are uniformly applied by maritime countries.

  1. Crew manning and qualifications for Australian National Line (ANL) vessels, wherever they trade, are in conformity with the provisions of the Navigation Act, 1912. There is no difference in the prescribed number, or qualifications, of the crews on ANL vessels carrying ore from north west Australian ports to (a) overseas destinations and (b) domestic ports.
  2. The only records available in respect of crews of overseas vessels are the crew lists which are submitted primarily for customs and immigration purposes and which lists all persons on board. The crew list does not show the crew requirements for the vessel, or the qualifications held by the officers.

The following table shows the total crew numbers carried by ANL vessels and by a number of comparable overseas registered vessels in the overseas ore trade from north west Australian pons.

Shipping Accidents and Incidents (Question No. 1056)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many incidents or accidents at sea involving (a) Australian, (b) ‘flag of convenience’ and (c) other overseas vessels have occurred in each of the years 1970 to 1976 inclusive.
  2. What information is he able to provide on the nature of each of the incidents or accidents.
  3. 3 ) What action was taken by his Department in respect of each incident or accident.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Number of accidents, or incidents, involving ships in the categories requested, are set out in the table below for the period 1970 to 1976. The nature of the accident or incidents, and the subsequent action taken by me or my Department, is also indicated.

The information is derived from the reports which shipmasters are required to make under section 268 of the Navigation Act. This covers ships registered in Australia (wherever they are operating) and other ships whilst making a voyage to a port in Australia or whilst within Australian territorial waters or limits.

Aircraft Operated by Department of Transport (Question No. 1057)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. What is the type and registered number of each aircraft operated by his Department.
  2. For what purpose is each aircraft used.
  3. What was the number of operational hours accrued by each aircraft for the periods (a) 1 January 1975 to 11 November 1975 and (b) 1 1 November 1975 to date.
  4. Where is each aircraft normally based.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) See attached table and notes.

Aviation Industry Review Committee (Question No. 1058)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. Did he tell me in answer to Question No. 1702 (Hansard,15 February 1977, page 87) that he does not consider it appropriate to table the reports of the Aviation Industry Review Committee.
  2. If so, will he explain why he considers it inappropriate to table the reports.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No- but it remains inappropriate.

Aviation Industry Review Committee: Recommendations (Question No. 1059)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he completed his examination of the recommendations of the Aviation Industry Review Committee.
  2. If so, did the Committee recommend that (a) the existing regional boundaries for civil aviation operations in his Department be redrawn, (b) the regional organisations concentrate simply on minor day to day matters with all major problems being handled by the central administration and

    1. a separate Civil Aviation unit, headed by a DirectorGeneral reporting to the Minister, be established in his Department.
  3. If so, what action does the Government propose to take to implement the recommendations.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. In conformity with my answer to question 1058 I do not intend to identify individual recommendations.
  3. The Government considers that the present departmental organisational arrangements should stand.

Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (Question No. 1060)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) What sum was paid, or is expected to be paid, under each category of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme during (a) April 1977, (b) May 1977 and (c) June 1977.
  2. Will he provide details of the total amount paid or expected to be paid, under each category of this scheme during 1976-77.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a), (b), (c) Details of expenditure by item code for the month of April, May and June 1977 and for the year 1976-77 are set out below.

Port of Darwin: Bureau of Transport Economics Investigation (Question No. 1061)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did his predecessor in December 1 974 arrange for the Bureau of Transport Economics to investigate the facilities existing at the Port of Darwin.
  2. Did the Bureau make its report in October 1975.
  3. Did he table the report on 26 May 1976.
  4. When does he expect that decisions on the report will be (a) made and (b) announced.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In October 1975 the Bureau’s report was forwarded to the Australian Government Publishing Service for printing prior to tabling.
  3. Yes.
  4. This question is one which falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Northern Territory.

Department of Transport: Officers’ Refusal to Transfer to Canberra (Question No. 1063)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

  1. What are the classifications and salaries of the 23 officers who refused transfers to Canberra from the Central Office of his Department from 1 January 1976 to 19 April 1977.
  2. What are the classifications and salaries of the 11 officers who transferred to alternative positions within the Department’s Melbourne offices rather than accept transfers to Canberra.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

CD-

Australian Advisory Transport Committee: Draft Regulations (Question No. 1064)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:

What consultations have taken place between the Federal Government and the State governments to ensure adoption of the Draft Regulations of the Australian Advisory Transport Committee.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Draft Regulations are, in effect, recommendations to State governments from the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The extent to which State Governments choose to adopt these recommendations is entirely a matter of State Government policy.

The preparation of the draft regulations and the manner and extent of their incorporation into State legislation is the subject of continual review and discussion through the various committees nl’ Commonwealth and State officials supporting thu Australian Transport Advisory Council.

Official Development Assistance: Aid Target (Question No. 1124)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1 977:

  1. Does the Government expect to achieve the United Nations target figure of 0.7 per cent of gross national product directed to official development assistance in its present term of office.
  2. If not, when does the Government anticipate that official development assistance will reach the target figure.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government remains committed to achieving the target of disbursing 0.7 per cent of gross national product as official development assistance. In fact this commitment was recently reaffirmed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London.

While it has not been possible to set a definite time-table for the achievement of the target the Government is maintaining overseas aid at the highest level consistent with the overall budgetary situation. Australia’s performance of 0.46 per cent for 1976-77 compares more than favourably with the average of 0.33 per cent ( 1976) for member countries of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

It is estimated that, for 1977-78, 0.47 per cent of GNP will be given as official development assistance.

World Water Resources (Question No. 765)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recommendations made at the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference with regard to the world’s use of water resources and the disposal of waste.
  2. ls he able to say whether it was widely accepted at that Conference that the problem must be approached at a world level to be resolved.
  3. Is he also able to say whether, while the world’s arms bill is $A225,000m, the $A 1,800m needed to provide clean water to the world is barely available.
  4. If so, does this mean that if 1 per cent of the world’s arms bill was spent each year for the next 1 0 years on providing fresh water, the entire world’s population would be catered for by 1990.
  5. Is the Government concerned that there is a lack of resource material on the water-borne and related diseases of typhoid, cholera, water snail and dysentery.
  6. What is the Government’s attitude toward the fact that in the Third World alone 25000 persons die from water-borne diseases daily, and half of every average family suffers from the energy sapping disease of water snail, i.e. 30 million people in all.
  7. Can he say whether for 1220 million people in the Third World uncontaminated water is a financial impossibility.
  8. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the Australian branch of the University International Foundation is so concerned about this matter that they want hint to raise it at the Prime Minister’s Conference in London next month.
  9. If so, will he undertake li> du so.
  10. What is the Government’s general attitude to both the clean water problem and the apparent misuse of world resources, if one considers arms spending.
  11. What plans does the Australian Government have to execute its responsibilities to the Third World on this matter.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 understand that there was general agreement at that Conference, and at the United Nations Water Conference in March 1977, that the provision of safe water and basic sanitary facilities to all people by 1990 could be achieved only by concerted international action.
  3. The most widely accepted estimates suggest that current annual international expenditure on armaments amounts to roughly SUS300 billion. U.N. Water Conference documents gave an estimate of SUS8.9 billion per year at current prices until 1990 to provide safe drinking water and adequate sanitation to all people of the world.
  4. These figures would indicate that the amount required for safe water supplies and sanitation could be in the order of 3 percent of international armaments expenditure.
  5. The. Government understands that the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Development Program have jointly sponsored a Special Program for research and training in tropical diseases to equip health services in tropical countries with new effective and low-cost tools for the control of tropical diseases. The major goals of the new Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases are to obtain effective new vaccines, diagnostic tests, drugs and measures for vector control. The Program will in the beginning deal with malaria, schistosomiasis, filariasis, typarosomiasis, leishmaniasis and leprosy.
  6. The Government is concerned at this situation and supports the programs referred to in ( 5 ) above.
  7. Estimates prepared by the United Nations for its Water Conference indicate that of the population of developing countries in 1975 (excluding the population of China), 38 per cent had reasonably adequate community water supplies and 33 per cent had reasonably adequate sanitation. To maintain these ratios by 1990, when population will have grown by approximately 2300 million, annual investment rates of twice and four times the current rates will be required for urban and rural areas respectively.
  8. Yes.
  9. The question of water resources did not arise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London injune.
  10. As I indicated in my speech at the opening of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Canberra last April, the Government considers that deficiencies in water supplies loom as one of the great issues in economic and social development over the next 25 years. The Government has reiterated on many occasions its concern that international spending on armaments should be reduced.
  11. The Australian Government actively participated in the recent United Nations Water Conference, and has made a prominent and positive contribution to international deliberations on disarmament.

Unauthorised Disclosure of Official Documents (Question No. 869)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Foreign Affairs give him or the Foreign Minister a report on how the Press was able to obtain (a) the record of the conversation between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Chinese government in Peking and (b) the cable from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta reporting on the conversation between the Foreign Ministers of Canada and Indonesia.
  2. ) Will he table these reports, as he tabled on 3 May 1977 (Hansard, page 1442) the Department’s report on the cable from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta published by the Canberra Times and incorporated in Hansard (page 1446) that day.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)(a)Yes. (b)No.

  1. No. I do not see that it would serve any useful purpose to table the report referred to in 1 (a), above.

Handbook on Employment for Women (Question No. 921)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

When does his Department expect to publish the handbook dealing with aspects of employment for women (Hansard, 8 September 1976, page 789 and 24 May 1977, page 1774).

Mr Street:
LP

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

Because of the many and varied changes involving women in employment in Australia in recent times, and the consequential rapid outdaring of draft material prepared for inclusion in the proposed ‘Handbook For Women Workers’, my Department has found it necessary to develop a revised approach to that which was originally envisaged when I advised the honourable member on 8 September 1976 that it was in the course of preparation (Hansard page 789).

It is, therefore, not possible for me, at this stage, to indicate when this Handbook will be published.

Directory of Support Services for Women (Question No. 923)

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

am asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

Which departments reviewed the material which had been prepared for a Directory of Support Services for Women (Hansard, 8 September 1976, page 789, 6 October 1976, page 1613 and 24 May 1977, page 1774, and Senate Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 2985).

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of Education

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

Department of Health

Department of Social Security

Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs.

Working Women’s Group, Adelaide (Question No. 939)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

With reference to his answer on 24 May 1977 (Hansard, page 1774) that a working women’s centre has not yet been established in Adelaide and the answer of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 9 December 1976 (Hansard, page 3702) that Adelaide is among the cities where there are Working Women’s Centres or Groups, what is the reason for the difference in the answers.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

The answer of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 9 December (Hansard, page 3702) to the honourable member’s previous question stated that there are Working Women’s Centres or Groups in a number of cities, including Adelaide.

There is no Working Women’s Centre as yet in Adelaide. However, a group called the Working Women’s Charter Campaign Group has plans to set up a centre.

Hospitals Development Program (Question No. 1114)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Have limitations on staff appointments and replacements caused considerable delays in the Hospitals Development Program.
  2. Has there been a delay in the provision of information specifically requested by the States.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. Requests for information are made by the States and private consultants to the Health Facilities Information and Planning System developed conjointly by my Department and the Department of Construction. Responses to these requests can often take up to two or three weeks to complete. This is not considered to be abnormal, because of the often complex nature of the information requested.

Mr Justice Fox ;Correspondence

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– On 16 August, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) asked me if I would table cables and a letter of 8 November 1976 from Mr Justice Fox allegedly concerning media and stock exchange speculation on the Reports of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. I said I would see what information I could give the honourable gentleman.

I have examined the correspondence I have received from Mr Justice Fox. As the Judge has requested that it be kept confidential it would not be appropriate for me to table it. Also it would be unusual for the Government to make public the advice that it receives from its confidential advisers.

I should like to take this opportunity to announce that Mr Justice Fox, with my concurrence, has accepted an invitation to participate in the initial meeting of an International Consultative Group on Nuclear Energy which has been established by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Royal Institute of International Affairs. His participation in the Group will be purely in a personal capacity. The Group is conceived as a small, informal and unofficial body of highly qualified people convened to assess the current and prospective patterns of nuclear development in the light of pressures imposed not only by energy demand but also by environmental and security factors.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 August 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770818_reps_30_hor106/>.