House of Representatives
25 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2455

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Medical Benefits

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

That Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

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

Petitions received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1 978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government ‘s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1 976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling.

Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

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

Petitions received.

Assistance to Grape Growers

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Upper Murray Grapegrowers Association.

Petition to be presented to Federal parliament:

We the undersigned residents of the Riverland call on the Federal Government to compensate grapegrowers to leave this years surplus grapes on the vine, to stop all subsidised wine and brandy imports until the surplus grape problem is solved, to stop taxing the grapegrower out of existence, and to reduce excise on Australian brandy.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

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

  1. That surveys reveal a substantial percentage of adults over the age of 55 years in the Loftus-Engadine-Heathcote and Waterfall areas of the Hughes electorate, are in urgent need of special housing and nursing home accommodation.
  2. That many families in the area are experiencing difficulty in the placing of their aged parents in suitable nursing care; many cases having to be placed in care many kilometres from their families and consequently causing great strain on the relatives concerned.
  3. That this problem is aggravated by this area’s geographical and public transport isolation from the rest of the Sutherland Shire.
  4. That Government subsidised nursing homes in other parts of the Hughes and Cook electorate have long waitinglists and in fact, have closed their lists to further inquirers.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Houe of Representatives in Parliament assembled will:

  1. Acknowledge that there is a need for the construction of an aged persons complex in this area as already acknowledged by the Federal/State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing-Home accommodation in New South Wales.
  2. Take immediate action to provide sufficient funds in the current financial year to finance the construction and maintenance of an aged-persons complex, providing hostel and nursing bed accommodation in this area.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced.

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

Petition received.

Communism

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

That the citizens of Australia totally reject communism and call upon the Government to:

  1. ban all communist organisations, and
  2. prohibit all communists from holding office in ail industrial organisations, government departments, and in Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Television Services in Warburton Area

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

Whereas:

  1. Since the introduction of television into Australia twenty-two years ago, one half of the residents in the township of Warburton in Victoria have not been able to receive a viewable picture.
  2. The Community Television Antenna System (CTAS) could be introduced into the Warburton area to remove this inability and provide television to all those wishing to view that means of community education and entertainment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications give all directions to ensure the installation of all equipment necessary to instal CTAS or such other means to produce television viewing for the citizens of Warburton.

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

Petition received.

page 2456

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2456

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS STATION

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Did the Secretary of his Department indicate in an interview that policy areas of his Department were not aware as late as 1 1 May of proposals to change communications equipment at North West Cape? Is it a fact, as reported, that Air Vice-Marshal Jordan, one of the most senior military officers in the Department, was aware of these proposals and had had discussions on them in the United States? Does the Minister agree with the statement made by his Secretary, which clearly implies that senior military officers are not part of the policy formulation sections of his Department?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I excuse myself from saying on what date Sir Arthur Tange said that the proposal of the United States regarding modifications to the North West Cape base was brought to his notice in an official policy sense. But what I would like to invite my honourable friend to agree with is the proposition that it is very difficult for people working constantly in a technical area to make a judgment as to when that would have a clear policy effect. Judgment on this may differ. It may differ between the honourable gentleman and me; it may differ between and among all honourable members in this House. It is very difficult to lay down in advance any a priori rules that must be observed by people working in a technical area. I can only repeat what I said yesterday: I would have found it more agreeable if, once the discussion on this issue moved out of a technical consideration, we had been notified.

It is true that this matter was brought to the notice of Air Vice-Marshal Jordan in a technical briefing in the United States. I hope my honourable friend would show understanding to this extent: Unless a person is technically informed on these issues it is very difficult to make a judgment as to the significant impact they may have on policy considerations. It is no reflection on Air Vice-Marshal Jordan to say that he is not a technical communicator in that sense.

Mr Scholes:

– Was anyone else present?

Mr KILLEN:

– I could not answer that. I will make an inquiry and inform the honourable gentleman. Both the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Secretary to the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, with my knowledge and approval, have given an appropriate instruction to all officers to be, as it were, a little more critical in making a determination and an assessment as to when something may move from a technical consideration into something that has policy significance.

page 2457

QUESTION

ZAIRE

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns the recent events in Zaire. Can the Minister give any details about the Congo National Liberation Front, the group which carried out the attack on Kolwezi? Were Cuban troops involved in the attack? Were any Australians in the Kolwezi area at the time of the attack?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-May I say at the outset that the Government condemns unreservedly the senseless and brutal killings of innocent men, women and children recently in Zaire. Some of these people were apparently killed in the face of the French and Belgian rescue operation. Without that operation, however, many more most probably would have died. The background to these events is that the attack on Kolwezi was carried out by a group calling itself the Congo National Liberation Front- the group referred to in the honourable member’s question- which was apparently based on former Katangan secessionists living in Angola. Their aim appears to have been to bring down the present Mobutu Government in Zaire or to bring about the secession from Zaire of the Shaba province, which, of course, is the former Katanga, as was attempted in the early 1960s. To this extent the matter is an internal one for Zaire, although the attack clearly represents another threat to stability in an already tense and uneasy region.

So far as we can judge, no Cuban troops have been directly involved in the attack, although according to some reports Cubans and East Germans in Angola may have provided training and support. The employment of Cubans or others in an active role would be a very serious development, internationalising the conflict and constituting further blatant interference in another important African country. I have previously made it clear in the House that in the Government’s view Cuban and Soviet military interference in the affairs of countries of the region has not advanced the cause of peace one iota. The French and Belgian rescue operation was of course not primarily intended to support the Zaire Government. Its stated objective was to rescue foreign nationals, mainly French and Belgian. Finally, according to information available to my Department to date, one Australian citizen was in the Kolwezi area at the time of the attack but has been safely accounted for.

page 2457

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS STATION

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Defence noted the public comment of the Head of his Department, Sir Arthur Tange, that it is normal for technical information not to be passed up to policy level? Does he endorse Sir Arthur Tange ‘s view that the important policy decision of the United States Government to acquire satellite terminal equipment for installations at the North West Cape base and its publicly expressed intention to build a satellite ground station there are merely matters for technical information for his Government? Does he regard it, as one would expect it to be properly regarded by the Government, as a matter of the highest policy content? Has he rebuked Sir Arthur Tange for his unwise and undesirable public assessment of what information Sir Arthur Tange believes should go to the Government?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– May I say, and I feel sure that it would be virtually the unanimous view of this House, that Sir Arthur Tange is one of the most distinguished civil servants ever to serve this country. The service that he has offered to government has been to governments of all political shades. I say that not to seek to offer any bromide to the honourable gentleman. I would regard it as bordering on impertinence for me to seek to rebuke Sir Arthur Tange for anything that he has said regarding the North West Cape issue. I think the honourable gentleman is taking too hard a line of things when he says that Sir Arthur Tange has said that it is not normal for technical matters to flow into policy channels. To repeat what I said to the honourable member for Corio, it becomes a matter of hard judgment as to when there should be a movement of any issue from a strict technical area into a policy area. An appropriate instruction has been issued to all senior officers to be, as it were, a little more alert about the issue.

I ask my honourable friend to reflect upon the literally hundreds and hundreds of discussions that take place in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European countries involving Australian officers literally every day of the week. It is an extraordinarily complex Department. Surely it is not seriously suggested that every one of those discussions, which may be at a technical level, should be pushed as a matter of course instantly into a policy area and, beyond that, pushed to the Minister of the day, whoever he may be.

I would sum up by saying to the honourable gentleman that it becomes a matter of judgment, and it is very difficult to lay down clear lines to be followed. It is a matter of individual judgment, and it is inevitable that from time to time there will be errors in the exercise of that judgment. Finally, may I say that literally hundreds of judgments of that nature are exercised every day, every week, year after year. It is only very, very occasionally that there is a significant blemish, as one may describe it on this occasion.

page 2458

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORT ENTITLEMENT SCHEME

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House what action he has taken to review Australia’s beef export entitlement scheme following disclosures in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister that entitlements are being traded at 50c per lb and to refute claims being made by some cattle producers? Will the Minister table documents supporting assertions made by Mr Jones, the Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, that only one per cent of beef export entitlements are being traded?

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

– The whole function and operation of quotas and the diversification entitlements that flow from the difficulties of getting access into restricted markets seem to be completely misunderstood by most cattlemen, and unfortunately even by many leaders of industry who should be informed on such matters. Indeed, the concept of setting up a producers’ consultative group, which together with the exporters consultative group acts as an advisory body to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, was developed so that those groups could be expressly involved in developing policies in such areas, make a contribution in formulating them, question their application, and be involved hi any modifications to them.

Under section 13 of the Austraiian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act there is a requirement that when diversification schemes are being evolved information about them should be distributed to industry so that they can be considered and, if industry does not find that they meet its requirements, it can suggest alterations to them. That process in fact is under way at the moment with respect to proposed changes that the AMLC has in mind for the Japanese market. It is intended that, after consideration of recommendations of industry, a judgment be taken of whether the quota scheme to Japan should be modified. Let me stress first of all that in any changes in any application of diversification both exporters and producers have a vehicle through the consultative group and the AMLC which can ensure that their separate points of view are adequately heard.

Secondly, with respect to claims about the price paid for diversification, it needs to be realised that at the moment prices payable for Australian meat exports on most markets other than on markets that have quotas, that is, other than the United States, Canada and Japan, are unfortunately very low. The differential between the price payable on those other markets and that payable on the United States or the preferred market represents the diversification costs. Indeed some exporters sell only to those other markets and they are able to get rid of some of Australia’s surplus beef simply by selling to those markets and offsetting their cost for handling, freight, packaging, killing and so on simply because they are able to sell the diversification entitlement. Therefore the level of the price of diversification and the difference in prices between those two markets does not want to be seen as a rake-off affecting producers. However the Government and, I believe, the AMLC would hope that with higher prices prevailing in some markets we might be able to get a higher price paid to producers.

Essentially, the solution of the problem is, firstly, to get those quota markets to lift their quotas. The United States at the moment has very good reason to do that because of the extent to which beef prices affect its consumer price index: Secondly, there is a need to gain access to markets elsewhere. I see no reason for tabling documents relating to the claim of the chairman of the AMLC that only one per cent of diversification trading is taking place. If individual producers or exporters are interested in finding out those figures, they have access to them through the producers’ consultative group and the AMLC itself.

page 2458

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS STATION

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Does the Minister for Defence recall that yesterday he stated:

There comes a time when technical considerations must be characterised as having important political significance, and should be communicated through policy channels as distinct from straight technical channels.

Does he regard publicly acknowledged policy decisions of the United States of America to acquire new satellite terminal equipment for the North West Cape base and to construct a new satellite ground facility there in 1980-8 1 as going well beyond mere technical considerations and properly requiring to be treated as a matter having a very high policy content? When was this policy decision of the United States conveyed to his Department; to whom was it conveyed; what steps has he taken to establish the reasons for this important policy matter not being passed on to the Government; and what measures has he implemented to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable member has asked I think in total seven questions.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Would you like me to hand them over to you?

Mr KILLEN:

– No, not really.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You cannot remember them?

Mr KILLEN:

– Well, there was an occasion in this House when one question was asked, but the honourable gentleman has asked a series of questions and I will do him the courtesy as best I can of answering them. I have already answered a number of them, particularly the one dealing with what steps have been taken. I have no wish to demean or to debauch this debate but I invite the honourable gentleman to reflect on another matter to which I referred yesterday. I said that it was in 1972 that discussions first took place on this matter at a technical level. Therefore one may go through the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 when the honourable gentleman sat in a Government that had this matter under its control. I am not seeking to rebuke my predecessors in office one bit for this, but to the best of my knowledge it was in September 1972 that this matter at a technical level was brought to the nonce of an Australian defence force. In that case I think it was the Air Force.

Dr Klugman:

– Who was the Prime Minister then?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am bound to tell the honourable member that the honourable and learned member for Werriwa became the Prime Minister in December 1972 so if the honourable member is seeking to do any impaling or impeaching it might be better to throw a few shafts at him. Let me put this matter at rest. I have already sought to make it clear that what is in prospect would in no way change the function or the role of this base. I can but in the utmost good faith repeat that. I was minded on Sunday to put out a Press statement which would seek to settle some of the anxieties which I know some honourable members in this House hold. Rather than put it out as a Press statement, which I would regard as a discourtesy to the House, I will read five short paragraphs which will describe the continuing function of the North West Cape facility. The replacement for the obsolescent TSC54 terminal:

  1. would not have any facilities to command the positioning of satellites
  2. would not have any facilities to control the allocation of Satellite Communications capacity to users of the Defence Satellite Communication System
  3. would not have telemetry and tracking functions other than those necessary in any satellite terminals including the present TSC54 terminals to keep its own antenna pointed at the communications satellite
  4. would- as the existing terminal- be used purely for the transmission and reception of communication traffic; and
  5. this transmission and reception would be done by the MSC61 through the US Defence Satellite Communication System of which it, like the TSC54 terminal would be a pan.
Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister has not attempted to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is hedging.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, honourable members are entitled to ask questions and to get answers to those questions and not have Ministers running away from the issues.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr KILLEN:

– I have sought to give the honourable gentleman the answer to the question which he has put. If he does not have the capacity to understand, he has my sorrow.

Mr Scholes:

– I ask that the document quoted be tabled so that it may immediately be available to honourable members.

Mr KILLEN:

– I table the document.

page 2459

QUESTION

SHIPPING OF AUSTRALIAN CARGO

Mr BUNGEY:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Prime Minister received a communication from major shipping lines warning that unless industrial chaos on Australian wharves is halted, the shipping lines will no longer accept bookings for Australian cargo?

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

-A communication, I think largely as reported in some of the journals this morning, has been sent to me by Mr J. R. Davies, Chairman of the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference. It does indicate the very serious view that Conference takes of the disruptions that have occurred in recent times on the Australian waterfront. It is a matter of such importance that I would like to read part of the communication to honourable members so that they may understand how industrial stoppages within Australia affect Austraiian trade and Australia’s reputation overseas. There has been a marked improvement in industrial relations over the last two years through the policies adopted by this Government -

Opposition members- Ha, ha!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Honourable gentlemen opposite laugh again but they know quite well that during their time in office industrial disputes reached all time records and earned Australia a very bad name overseas. A number of people added that situation to their reasons for not investing in this country. People need to understand that disputes affecting the waterfront and affecting Australia’s export trade, come to the notice of investors and of markets overseas, and affect fortunes and jobs within this country. I think the views that I have on this particular matter are similar to those of the Premier of New South Wales, who has had his own problems in the export area in recent times. He has pointed out the difficulties and harm that come from industrial stoppages, quite to the contrary of the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to make the point that industrial stoppages were of no account and were a thoroughly legitimate weapon no matter how many jobs were lost in the process.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask honourable members on my left to cease their continual interjections. Such behaviour does the standing of the Parliament no good in the public eye and, after all, the Parliament serves the democratic purpose of representing the public. When members of the public hear continual interjections, their attitude to this Parliament deteriorates. That does no good to democracy; in fact, it harms it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Members of the Opposition have only one method left to them- that is by way of interjectionto counter the half truths that are being espoused here by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have already warned the honourable member for Newcastle. If he intervenes again I will have to take action to deal with him.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I claim that the Prime Minister is wilfully misrepresenting comments I have made and I seek leave to correct that situation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Hayden:

-I shall seek leave later to correct that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will be given the opportunity later.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman tries to pretend that he did not take a view diametrically opposed to that of the responsible attitude taken by the Premier of New South Wales, he will be shovelling into the wind and I do not think he will succeed. I return to the communication, which states:

I regret that I have to inform you that because of the present chaotic waterfront situation, the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference is fast approaching the situation where it will be unable to continue to accept cargo bookings for its regular shipping service between Australia and Europe, both UK and continent.

This unfortunate situation has arisen through the tactics of maritime unions, particularly the Waterside Workers’ Federation, which has adopted a policy of stoppages and goslows on the waterfront at various times since the negotiations with the waterside workers new award broke down on 31 March when settlement by arbitration was refused. The new award was due to operate from 5 May, this year.

Subsequently this attitude was reversed and the matter is now before Mr Justice Robinson, Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission where it has been since 12 April.

We have refrained from drawing this matter to your attention prior to this because we had hoped for settlement between the parties involved- the WWF and the Association of Employers’ of Waterside Labour which includes Australian Stevedoring interests responsible for all industrial matters concerning the industry. Now, however, the waterfront situation has become so chaotic that it is almost impossible to fulfill an adequate, continuing service to Australian importers and exporters.

Meantime, the ships servicing all trades, and Australia/Europe in particular, are facing massive losses through congestion caused by earlier stoppages and continued go-slows and delays in some ports. Costs to the trading community and shipping industry have been estimated to be in the order of $ I m per day.

Additionally some industry has already begun to lay-off employees as a direct result of the non-receival of essential cargoes and others are facing severe production problems.

That just goes to show how industrial stoppages in one area affect the jobs of people in other areas and affect the capacity of industry to provide work. The letter continues:

Ships have been delayed for up to 33 days above their normal time on the Australian coast and at times the rate of handling containers has fallen to as low as four to five containers per ship per hour (when operating at all) as against the normal 1 S to 20.

This matter is particularly brought to your notice in the light of the many initiatives of your Government in encouraging exports from this country and in your efforts generally to bring the national economy back to buoyant stability.

Although the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference is not a party to the present dispute its member lines, both overseas and domestically owned, have been affected to such an extent that they can no longer continue an efficient service under the restrictions that currently exist.

This indicates the very serious situation that can result from stoppages on the waterfront which affect Australia’s export trade, imports to Australia and the livelihood and jobs of tens of thousands of Australians in other industries that are dependent upon the smooth flow of trade. It is a very serious matter indeed and one which the Government looks upon in that light. We know that the matter is before Mr Justice Robinson. There is a right to expect that there shall be a speedy and proper conclusion of this matter within the wage indexation guidelines, for if there is not, the Government will have to consider what action it will take.

page 2461

QUESTION

HEALTH COSTS

Dr KLUGMAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I hope he can give me just as detailed an answer as the last one from the Prime Minister. I remind the Minister for Health that he has estimated that the extensive new changes to our health insurance scheme will save the Government $24m over a full 12-month period. Can he provide details as to the expected savings due to the reduction of refunds from 85 per cent to 75 per cent, and the expected extra expenditure due to the abolition of bulk billing?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The savings that were identified in my statement yesterday related to the savings on the payments of benefits to the extent of $24m by widening the gap from your 85 per cent to our 75 per cent. Let us have no illusions; the Australian Labor Party, when it was in government, introduced the principle that patients should receive 85 per cent of the scheduled fee.

Mr Innes:

– That is nonsense.

Mr HUNT:

-That is true. You introduced it and you supported the gap principle. The gap has existed -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to adopt the practice of the House of using the third person rather than using the second person. If he refers to Opposition members as ‘you’ he encourages interjection. I ask the Minister to speak in the third person.

Mr HUNT:

-Mr Speaker, honourable members opposite consistently supported the principle of the gap and the gap has not been increased since 1969- a period of eight years. Undoubtedly the abolition of bulk billing will add to administrative costs in the Health Insurance Commission. We anticipate that it could cost in the order of $7m in direct costs. However, we are sufficiently confident that in the longer term the changes will reduce overall costs because they will remove the open pipeline to the mint. The doctor and the patient have no responsibility where bulk billing is operating- the patient signing an assignment form and the doctor sending it off, and nobody having any real regard for the cost or the nature of the service ordered.

We are not abolishing bulk billing for the pensioners who hold pensioner health benefit cards, and their dependants. They account for 1.68 million people in Australia. But we are abolishing bulk billing for other people in the Australian community because we believe they should have some knowledge of the cost of their health services and we believe that the doctor should have some responsibility for the way health services are provided in the community.

page 2461

QUESTION

IRON ORE SALES TO CHINA

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Trade and Resources say what prospects there are for the sale of Australian iron ore to China, particularly in view of the downturn in the steel industry around the world?

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

-China is already a very important market for Australian iron ore. This year we anticipate delivering something like 4 million tonnes, which is twice as much as was delivered last year. I read in the reports of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has just recently been to China, that China is anticipating increasing its steel production to something like 60 million tonnes of crude steel by the middle of the 1980s. The expansion of the Chinese industry means that they will probably be looking for further outside sources of raw material to supplement their own.

I was made aware of the situation when I was in Japan talking to representatives of the Japanese steel industry. The Japanese will be constructing some of the new blast furnaces in China. Those representatives pointed to the fact that, with the increasing steelmaking capacity of China, Australia could be looking to that market for additional sales. I emphasise that at a time when the world market for iron ore is difficult it is very encouraging to have the opportunity of increasing our sales to the People’s Republic of China.

page 2461

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS STATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question. Firstly, I remind him of his answer to the honourable member for Corio, which I carefully noted on this occasion. The Minister will recall that he said that in relation to the proposals currently being discussed in this place about the

North West Cape and the American interest in it he would have preferred a situation whereby, when discussions had moved out of the technical area, they had been brought to the notice of the Government. I put to the Minister that, by that statement, he has agreed that someone in the Department, or the Department, has failed totally to ensure that the proper processes of policy development were followed. I ask the Ministen Who was responsible? More specifically, I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that he acknowledged yesterday, and confirmed again today, that the discussions between the United States of America and his Department commenced in 1972, how is it that after nearly six years the Australian Minister for Defence can still say that the Government had not been informed by the Department of Defence about what was happening in this matter, which has a very high policy content?

Mr Shipton:

– I take a point of order. May I refer you, Mr Speaker, to Question No. 1237 on the Notice Paper? I wonder whether that does not cover the subject that is being asked of the Minister at the present dme?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is my question. I do not think that the point of order has any relevance at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no relevance in the point of order.

Mr KILLEN:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition seeks an admission from me. I make no such admission. I say to the honourable gentleman candidly, and I trust courteously, that I would have regarded the onus for informing the Australian Government as falling clearly upon American authority. I repeat, I trust not ad nauseam, that there has been no formal proposal placed before the Australian Government. I can make nothing clearer. This is the twenty-third year that I have been in the service of this House. I have never complained about anything said to me. I have never asked for anything that has been said of me to be withdrawn. I have tried to accept those things cheerfully. I do not propose to alter that, but I want to say this: I would never consciously seek to mislead this House. I trust that, whatever meagre reputation I have, that reputation will not be assailed.

page 2462

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Following on his statement on the Government’s health scheme proposals yesterday, can the Minister assure the

House that Aboriginals will not be disadvantaged as a result of the proposal to abandon bulk billing for all but pensioners? In particular, can he say how he has ensured that non-pensioner but largely income bereft Aboriginals who are now able to use medical services will not be precluded by any lack of money to meet doctors’ accounts, and further, how this proposal will affect Aboriginal medical services?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The honourable member for Dundas has brought to my attention a matter that is of grave concern to him and to many other people in respect of the services that should be available to Aboriginal people. Of course, many Aborigines are pensioners and hold pensioner health benefit cards. They are dependent upon such pension entitlements. It is certainly not proposed to abolish bulk billing in respect of those people. The present system of ‘pay doctor’ cheques will apply to Aboriginal people on low incomes when visiting a doctor -

Dr Klugman:

– All they have to do is fill in a couple of forms.

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Speaker, would you try to restrain the honourable member?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will continue with his answer. I will look after my business if he looks after his.

Mr HUNT:

– Under the present arrangement and certainly under the future arrangement, where a person has no money or is deprived, he will go to a doctor for a service. The doctor will render the service and give an account and that person can send that account -

Mr Young:

– And there is a big sign inside the door saying ‘ Pay cash ‘.

Mr HUNT:

– No, those people do not have to pay cash.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I really do not know what is wrong with the House today. Perhaps it is the Thursday morning syndrome. This is a most important matter and I ask honourable members on my left to listen in silence to the answer to the question. I call the Minister for Health.

Mr HUNT:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I repeat that in the circumstances of an Aborigine who has no available ready cash, he goes to a doctor, the doctor renders a bill and the bill is sent to Medibank. A ‘pay doctor’ cheque is sent to the Aborigine, which then is given to the doctor. In most circumstances- I would say in 90 per cent of circumstances or more- the medical profession would accept a ‘pay doctor’ cheque as payment in full for the services rendered. I hope that the medical profession would abide by a principle to which it has adhered for many years. The medical profession naturally is in a far better position than it was prior to the introduction of universal health insurance.

In regard to Aboriginal medical services, we will look to the concept of introducing health program grants to ensure that doctors are able to service the needs of Aboriginal people through the provision of medical services in that manner. If any difficulties come to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or myself, we will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that Aboriginal people are not disadvantaged because of any changes that we have made.

page 2463

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS STATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Defence, follows upon an answer he gave me a few minutes ago in which he will recall stating that he believed that the proper channel of communication on the matter of the American proposals towards North West Cape was on a direct government to government basis. I ask the Minister whether he noted the report in the National Times for the week ending 27 May which stated:

A spokesman for the US Embassy was quoted last Wednesday as saying, ‘We deny any lack of consultation. We have consulted with the Australian Government at the appropriate levels and to the appropriate extent’.

In view of the fact that the Minister’s comments indicate clearly that he believes that the level of communication adopted by the Americans and which they believed to be proper was in his view inappropriate and improper, has he conveyed that attitude to the American Government representatives? If so, when and in what terms?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I have had discussions with His Excellency, the American Ambassador. I am sure that my honourable friend would not expect me to reveal publicly the nature of those discussions. I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: His Excellency was kind enough to write a letter to me following the emergence of this issue. He concluded his letter by saying -

Mr Innes:

– Read the rest of it.

Mr KILLEN:

– Please, this is a serious matter. The letter concluded:

Jim, feel free to use this letter as you see fit.

Mr Innes:

– You are reading the last paragraph.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will quite willingly make the letter available to the honourable gentleman and to the House to read. The American Ambassador, in referring to the statement I made in reply to a question asked in this House on 1 1 Maythat is when this matter first emerged- noted that I said that no formal proposal had been placed before the Australian Government. I went on to say in reply to the question asked by the honourable member for Corio:

I assure the honourable gentleman and the House that when a formal proposal has been received by the Australian Government it will be considered on its merits.

The American Ambassador observed of that statement:

Your statement in Parliament on Thursday, 1 1 May was both accurate and commendable. It was also complete.

It would be futile to seek to hide- not that I would have any instinct for that- that there exists a difference of opinion between the United States Government and the Australian Government as to the procedures to be observed. I can only repeat to my honourable friend that my judgmenthe may differ with it- is that the moment the matter started to move from a technical consideration into the public domain -

Mr Hayden:

– When was that?

Mr KILLEN:

– Will the honourable gentleman allow me to check on that? I have an idea that that was in 1 977, but I say that to my friend subject to correction. I will make an inquiry immediately as to when -

Mr Hayden:

– Five years without any communication from the Department to the Minister. That is incredible. The Department is at fault. That is what I am getting at.

Mr KILLEN:

– I say to the honourable gentleman that in December 1 972-

Mr Hayden:

– I acknowledge that but the Department has obviously bottled it up. There ought to be a high level inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It is customary to allow the Leader of the Opposition considerable latitude, but the Leader of the Opposition is going beyond the bounds.

Mr KILLEN:

– The last thing I want to say to the House is that in 1975 the agreement was renegotiated. The whole gamut of affairs was up for consideration then. If anybody should be rebuked on this occasion, I think it should be the Government of which the honourable gentleman was a member. That was the occasion for saying to the Americans at the highest policy level: ‘Has any consideration been given to changing in any shape or form the station at North West Cape?’

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the letter from which the Minister quoted and which was written by the American Ambassador be tabled in the House.

Mr KILLEN:

-I will do so.

page 2464

QUESTION

BUSINESS INVESTMENT

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce will recall indicating to the House early last week that the outlook for investment in Australian manufacturing industry was particularly promising. In the light of the statistics published towards the end of last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, will the Minister inform the House whether the rate of investment during the early part of this year is consistent with earlier expectations? Is this a good indication of future growth in employment opportunities in Australia?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his question because the Government is particularly encouraged by the figures in relation to new capital expenditure for private enterprise during the March quarter which were released towards the end of last week. In current price terms, seasonally adjusted, total new capital expenditure rose by almost 8 per cent in the March quarter of this year. Expenditure on plant and equipment increased by some -

Mr Hayden:

– How did production go?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman wants to ask about production, he ought to take the opportunity at some stage of inviting me to respond in the House to questions on matters of substance. Expenditure on plant and equipment increased by some 9 per cent in the same threemonth period. Figures in relation to the manufacturing sector, which are not seasonally adjusted, show that investment for the 12 months ending March of this year was almost 20 per cent higher than in the equivalent 12-month period ending March 1977. During this period significant increases were recorded in a number of principal manufacturing sectors. The rate of capital investment during the early part of this year does indicate the extent to which confidence has returned to the private sector as a result of the success of the Government’s overall economic policies. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be some bunching during the current period because of the transition of the 40 per cent allowance to 20 per cent on 30 June next, the Government is confident that the improved climate for investment decision-making will bring about continuing growth in capital expenditure as the year progresses.

page 2464

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS: REPORT

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘National Highways Linking Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, 1978’.

page 2464

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Pursuant to section 14 ( 1 ) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 I present the fourth supplement to the 25th report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 September 1972 dealing with progress in the final actuarial examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

page 2464

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 I present the fifth report of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Authority dealing with the general administration and working of that Act and of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948- other than part III of the Act- for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 2464

ABORIGINALS: INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY OF THE PILBARA AND KIMBERLEY REGIONS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of Mr N. M. Butcher, made on behalf of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, on the greater involvement of Aboriginals in the economy of the Pilbara and Kimberley regions.

page 2464

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the River Murray Waters Act 1915 1 present the report of the River Murray Commission for the year ended June 1977.

page 2464

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-During Question Time today the Prime Minister, in an answer to a question, said that I was not concerned about the number of industrial disputes or about how many jobs they cost. He based his statement on comments which he alleged I had made on Monday in an address to the Sydney Chamber of Commerce in Sydney. What I said, in condensed form, was this: While the Government focused a lot of attention on industrial disputes, in spite of the fact that their number was extremely low, it ignored other matters of far greater moment in terms of cost to people’s jobs and cost to lost production. I said that the cost in terms of lost production to the nation of unemployment caused by Government policies, would be running at about $6,000m in 1979. I assure honourable members that that is a grossly conservative figure. I said that welfare payments to the unemployed next year would reach some $ 1,500m. I said that there would be a total cost to the community as a direct result of Government policy of around $7.5 billion. I pointed out that by comparison the highest level of days lost through industrial disputes in the 1970s was recorded in 1 974. The estimated loss of wages was $ 128m. If that figure were doubled to allow for indirect losses and the loss of profits, the estimated loss was about $250m. In other words the cost of unemployment this coming year -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has now gone beyond a personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:

– … will be some 30 times greater than the annual cost of the worst industrial unrest in recent years. Finally, I pointed out that the cost of industrial accidents in this country -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has gone too far.

Mr HAYDEN:

– . . . runs at $2,000m a year.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Could I just conclude with one sentence?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No , the honourable gentleman is arguing the issue.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It merely illustrates that the Prime Minister is compulsively and consistently dishonest in his public office. We are sorry for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition persists in speaking after I have asked him to resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition occupies a special position in the Parliament, and I expect him to understand that position and obey the Speaker’s rulings.

page 2465

HANSARD’ REPORT

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the report of the speech of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in yesterday’s Hansard at page 2398, 2400 and 2401. The first item on page 2398 is a table headed ‘Rate of Growth of Health Costs’. No leave was granted for the inclusion of that table. On page 2400 the sub-headings ‘Medical Benefits’ and ‘Deductibles’ appear. On page 2401 the sub-heading Hospital Sector’ appears. We know that the Government is spending $750,000 to sell the new scheme to the public, but surely Hansard does not have to co-operate by providing subheadings and so on for government propaganda.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will examine the Hansard report and let the honourable member know the result.

page 2465

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- All honourable members will recognise that a great deal of most valuable work is done by committees of this Parliament. It is important that the reports of these committees, many of which reflect considerable thought, effort and often insight, receive full and careful attention by Ministers and by the Government. It is equally desirable that a procedure be established to make sure that Parliament is aware of the decisions which the Government takes in connection with such reports. In some instances, such a procedure is already in operation. As honourable members will know, Department of Finance minutes are provided to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in respect of each of its reports. Similarly, the Government has been careful to see that its decisions in relation to each of the reports of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure have been announced to this House.

The Government has now decided to apply this principle to all parliamentary committee reports.

Henceforth, within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report. If the six-month period expires during a parliamentary recess, the ministerial statement will be made at the earliest opportunity in the next parliamentary sittings. As honourable members will appreciate, there will be some committee reports which will not be appropriate to the procedure I have outlined. Among these reports are the committees relating to house management, the Joint Committee on Public Works, and the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. The present procedure relating to the Public Accounts Committee will, of course, continue to operate. There have been a number of reports tabled since the Government took office on which the Government’s attitude has not yet been announced. I have asked Ministers to inform the Cabinet of action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to them and, where appropriate, the Parliament will be informed in these cases also.

The procedure I have outlined reflects the Government’s firm intention to see that the work of parliamentary committees does not pass unheeded. We need to use to the full the talents and resources available in this House and in the Senate. One important way in which this can be achieved is the further development and enhancement of the parliamentary committee system, and I shall be making a further statement on that subject in a few days. Mr Speaker, I believe the arrangements I have announced represent a further strengthening of the role of Parliament in our system of government. I think this is the first time any government has taken steps to ensure that parliamentary committee reports are dealt with on a methodical basis. I present the following paper:

Parliamentary Committee Reports- Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1978

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It must give great encouragement to those members of the back benches on both sides of the House who for so many years have worked hard on various committees but have seen little results from their work in that period. One of the more depressing experiences in the parliamentary system has been that so much effort is put into committee work. Very helpful proposals are put forward as recommendations, thoughtful, carefully considered insights are given about problems affecting various aspects of our public responsibilities, and yet so little seems to have been done about these matters. The production of wealth of expert advice, which has been obtained at considerable cost, measured in many ways, has resulted in nought or little better than that.

It is hoped however that the committees in their various forms can now anticipate better facilities with which to work. One of the obvious facilities needed is more research staff and secretarial assistance. Furthermore, one would wish that better accommodation would be provided for the committees so that those people who have the responsibility of publicly reporting the processes of the committee system will be provided with sufficient space so that that can properly be done. I know that is difficult in this parliamentary building because it has been so badly designed. Nonetheless if the objectives implied by the Prime Minister as well as those he has explicitly stated are to be achieved, this is absolutely necessary. We welcome his statement, especially his proposal that these measures are to be undertaken for a six-month trial period. The extent to which the objectives are achieved is something yet to be measured but I would expect that in its way the proposal will help to make the Executive more accountable than it has been thus far.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hyde) adjourned.

page 2466

QUESTION

NATIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I move:

That in the opinion of this House, a Department of Economic Development should be established as a matter of urgency to prepare and administer a medium and long term national economic strategy which is essential to the resolution of the economic and social crises now facing this nation.

The Opposition is proposing this General Business motion because it is convinced that without resort to economic planning this country will never achieve more than a partial and highly unsatisfactory recovery from the economic and social crises with which it is now beset. The House needs little reminding of the nature of these crises. The Australian economy in 1 978 is characterised by high and rising unemployment, under-utilised capacity, depressed profits, a deteriorating balance of payments, growing uncertainty about the future of our manufacturing industries, increasing poverty and declining living standards for the great bulk of the population. Furthermore, these economic failures have given rise to or exacerbated various antisocial developments in our society. This is a society marked by rapidly increasing rates of crime, mental illness, suicide, drug addiction, vandalism, child bashing, and so forth. Indeed it appears that in some parts of our society such problems are so serious that they amount to signs of social disintegration. These are extraordinarily pressing problems and their resolution is of the utmost urgency. We do not suggest however that simple solutions are available. The range and complexity of issues facing governments today are enormous and it is accordingly increasingly difficult for governments to cope.

Particularly is this so when, in addition to the current crises, there is the added burden of dealing with a seemingly bewildering array of forces for future change. For instance, within our own economy governments must contend with the consequences of our changing population composition due to a declining birthrate and reduced migration. Rapid growth of the education system and reduced migration have led to changes in the skill composition of our work force. Changes in taste and technology are creating new patterns of demand and methods of supply with consequent influences on the types and amounts of labour needed for various industries. In addition, we are increasingly faced with environmental problems that must be balanced against growth objectives and, along with the rest of the world, we will need to adjust to the widespread ramifications of the coming energy crisis.

External forces are also forcing structural changes on our economy. The world recession and increasing instability of the world economy create grave problems for governments. The increasing internationalisation of production stemming from the power of highly mobile multinational corporations has further added to the instability of the economy and poses special structural difficulties for Australia, allied as they are to the industrial revolution in South East and East Asia. For instance during 1977 each of the five countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations grew by between 6 per cent and 9 per cent. As such growth is concentrated in export oriented manufacturing industries, it poses many difficulties but also some opportunities for Australia. The degree to which we are able satisfactorily to resolve this myriad of pressures and complex problems will be determined principally by the performance of the Australian Government.

It is therefore of paramount importance that this Government equips itself thoroughly to deal with that daunting responsibility and to do that it must in our view take two basic steps. Firstly, it must establish its objectives. If it is not clear in its objectives there is nothing surer than that its policy making will be grossly inadequate. Secondly, it must set about planning to achieve its objectives. Without medium and long term planning policy making will always be hopelessly inefficient as governments simply react to current pressures without being fully cognisant of the ramifications of such responses for other policy objectives. Co-ordination of policy to achieve long term objectives is impossible in these circumstances and the likelihood of their achievement is accordingly remote. It is therefore not surprising to find that most Western industrialised countries engage in some form of economic planning. Indeed Australia is the only industrialised country I know of which does not publish a national economic and social strategy of some kind.

In the rest of the world economic and social planning are now conventional tools of government. Of course it will be objected that Australia does not need economic planning because we have managed well without it before, during the Menzies era of the 1950s and 1960s. But such an objection would be wrongly based because the fact is that Australia’s economic performance in the 1950s and the 1960s, as measured by its rate of economic growth, was abysmal. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development noted in its first report on Australia in 1 972, per capita growth between 1950 and 1970 ‘was well below the OECD average and barely above that of the slowest growing country’.

The reason for this pathetic performance was that during this period industry policy was aimed at building up a fragmented and diverse manufacturing industry behind high tariff walls with a view to replacing imports. In the process however it created a low rate of economic growth and by developing one of the world’s least efficient manufacturing industries has left us a frightful legacy. So much for the decade of sound economic management under Liberal-Country Party governments.

Had it not been for the ideological objection of these conservative governments to planning, our economic performance could have been much improved. Introduction of even the mild economic planning proposed by the Vernon Committee in the mid-1960s could have facilitated structural changes in the late 1960s and early 1970s when, in an era of world-wide economic growth, our economy would have been able to absorb such changes readily. But the doctrinaire refusal to contemplate any form of planning whatever meant that the structural distortion of our economy has been cemented and entrenched and, as a consequence, medium and long term policies are now an even more necessary condition for coping with them.

Adequate policies for structural change require an array of co-ordinated measures in the areas of industry assistance, taxation, manpower policy, regional policy and careful estimation of future economic trends, all of which can be appropriately established only in the context of overall economic planning. I particularly stress the need for overall economic planning since planning in particular sectors of the economy only, though perhaps of benefit to that sector, will not necessarily be of benefit to the economy as a whole. Thus the various motor car plants that have operated for the past decade and a half have been designed to benefit the car manufacturers and the components industry, but the end result has been a highly inefficient industry producing such expensive products that they are virtually pricing themselves out of business. Had there been a national economic plan with the Government continually assessing the means by which it could achieve the most efficient allocation of resources consistent with its other objectives of full employment, low inflation, et cetera, it is highly unlikely that the automotive industry shambles that we have today would ever have occurred.

Comprehensive, integrated, medium term economic planning can therefore be of great benefit to the private sector. It reduces the risk factor by establishing a framework against which the business is far better able to assess its prospects than is the case if it has little idea of Government intentions in the years ahead. Indicative planning can therefore result in steadier and higher rates of industrial investment as a result of more confident expectations. This confidence of expectations will be further increased if there is, as we would intend, close consultation between public and private sectors during the preparation of a medium term plan.

We are not talking of a centralised authoritarian plan imposed on the economy without consultation with those involved. We would ensure that all significant sectors of the economy, including the unions, were closely consulted and involved in the planning process. Only in this way can the plan reflect the realities of the market place and be attuned to what is in fact feasible. Nor do we see such a plan as having significance only for the private sector. Indeed, it is in the planning of public expenditure that there is the most immediate scope for effective improvements. It is in the public sector that the government has complete control. It is in the public sector that the greatest scope exists for clarification of priorities and for improved definition of programs. The advantage of planning public expenditure is that the much greater resources available over, say, a three-year period, offer opportunities for tackling a greater range of tasks more thoroughly than is possible if a year by year approach is adhered to, as is presently the case.

Publication of medium term public sector programs would also directly assist the private sector in providing many of the parameters within which its future growth could be expected to occur, so particularly assisting management in industries like building and construction where a large part of demand originates in the public sector. It is clear then that potentially there are considerable benefits to be gained from medium and long-term planning so long as it is expertly and sensibly conducted. What then are the possible objections? Apart from the straight ideological refusal to have anything to do with anything that looks remotely like socialism the main objection appears to be that a plan, no matter how expertly conceived, could be quickly invalidated by unforeseen developments in a turbulent world. But the answer to this is that a plan would not be rigidly established and attempts would not be made to adhere to it regardless of changes in the economic milieu. We envisage that the medium term plan would be on a rolling basis so that it would be periodically updated and reassessed and projections for three to five years ahead would always be available. Also, in this respect it is difficult to believe that a government that had a comprehensive economic plan would not be in a better position to assess the impact on its economy of a sudden drastic event such as the oil shock of 1973 than would a government which had no plans at all. The former would surely be better placed to assess the impact of that exogenous factor on its economy and to decide how it could best adjust to it.

The case for governmental medium and longterm planning in today’s pluralistic society in order to ensure the co-ordination of decision making necessary for rigorous pursuit of governmental objectives is therefore overwhelming. In considering how to implement such planning, various options are available to governments. Some possible options are: A department that co-ordinates and plans economic policy, the establishment of a planning bureau on something along the lines of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, or an advisory council to monitor short and long-term policy issues. All three of these options are to be found in western industrial countries. A number of countries, including

France and Sweden, have powerful planning units within their finance departments. Some countries, particularly the Netherlands, have established a statutory planning authority to advise on the central co-ordination of economic policies between different institutions and over a period of time. Canada and West Germany have favoured the concept of a council of experts to act as independent judges of economic policy to assess its performance against government objectives and to report to parliament and the public. It was this type of body that the Vernon Committee recommended but which was rejected by the then government.

Of those various options the one which we believe to be most suitable to Australia’s needs in these troubled times is the establishment of a department with responsibility for planning. The establishment of a department to conduct planning would ensure that the planning body carried maximum weight in the bureaucracy and in the government. Australia has had so little experience of planning, and opposition to it is so entrenched in Treasury, that it will more than likely be sidestepped, starved of necessary information, opposed and blocked at every turn of the bureaucratic wheel unless it is a powerful organisation in its own right. A Dutch type statutory authority would in our view be likely to wither on the vine in these circumstances, whilst the council of experts simply seems too removed from the concept of comprehensive planning that we consider is required if this country is to resolve its severe economic and social problems satisfactorily. The House will recall that the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration recommended the establishment of a planning department. It saw such a department as: . . having the capacity to concern itself mainly with the medium and long-term aspects of the industrial structure of the economy, and to act as the prime source of advice bearing on these aspects of economic policy.

The Royal Commission envisaged, however, that such a department would exist in addition to the Treasury, which would retain responsibility for short-term economic policies. We are strongly of the opinion that such an arrangement would not be practicable for much the same reasons as the British Labour Government found in the mid 1960s when it established a Department of Economic Affairs in addition to the Treasury. The result was that the short-term policy proposals of Treasury were put forward without regard to the planning concept and justified as the most appropriate option at that time. Since short-term considerations were always the most pressing, and as Treasury had greater power and prestige and better sources of information than the newly formed planning department, it continually won out and the planning concept was increasingly discredited. Britain eventually opted for the concept of a council through the National Economic Development Council. Such would almost certainly be the case in this country if a planning department were established without responsibility also for short-term economic policy. We therefore propose that the new planning department, which could be called the Department of Economic Development, would have responsibility not only for medium and long-term strategy but also for short-term policy. In this way co-ordination between short and mediumterm policy would be assured, with the mediumterm strategy providing the context within which all short-term economic and social policy would be made. We propose that this new department would also take over ministerial responsibility for the three independent advisory regulatory bodies to Government, that is, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission but they would retain their present degree of independence.

However, some functions now carried on in the Industries Assistance Commission in particular would be transferred to within the new department, especially the IMPACT model which would be a highly useful econometric tool for predicting the effects of alternative policies. This model, which is designed to assess the impact of demographic and structural change on the Australian economy would, with its component forecasting and inter-industry models, be able to be utilised in association with the Treasury’s current short-term national income forecasting model to ensure greater integration of economic policy. Such a re-shaped departmental structure would have its biggest impact on Treasury as the new department would take over the major advisory functions of the present Treasury relating to economic, fiscal and monetary policy, taxation, banking and insurance, and foreign exchange responsibilities. Thus alongside the new department there would be a finance department or reduced Treasury Department which would include the present responsibilities of the Department of Finance with some other functions of the current Treasury such as bankruptcy and solvency. This finance department would, however, have the important responsibility of preparing the public expenditure plan within the context of priorities determined by Cabinet. Such a public expenditure plan would provide comprehensive and consistent guidelines for all public spending.

This re-shaping of the departmental structure of the economic departments would in our view enable a much greater co-ordination of economic and industry policy than now exists. Although it would also involve new planning functions, it would not necessitate a massive increase in the size of the bureaucracy. Planning units in other countries generally are not large. The highly respected Dutch planning bureau has a staff of only approximately 130 and the population of Holland is similar to our own. The major requirement is not that there be a great increase in the size of the public service but that those who are incorporated into the planning department have a high level of expertise. Without that the planning process will be of little benefit. Such expertise would need to include expertise and experience in various segments of economic activity, so it would be essential for such a department to recruit people from areas of business, the unions and rural organisations.

Mr Speaker, in moving this motion the Opposition has set out its intention to introduce economic planning in this country when it returns to office. We strongly believe that without it Australia will continue to flounder in a turbulent, aggressive world and that we will progressively be reduced to the status of a stagnant, irrelevant country characterised by minimal growth, chronic unemployment and relatively low incomes. However, here we are not only expressing our intentions when we return to office but also we are making a strong plea to the Government to take this type of action that we now recommend. It is probably a forlorn hope to expect anything from the Government, other than scorn for the very suggestion. If that is the case it will be tragic for this nation. For far too long we have continued with a scissors-and-paste approach to the economy which was abandoned by most comparable countries many years ago. Australia needs economic planning if it is to become a rich, developing country in this world, a country of which we can be proud.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! ls there a seconder to the motion?

Mr Hurford:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I understand and sympathise with the concern that has prompted the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) to raise this matter. There is no doubt that there has been a need to correct the past economic problems that have so affected the economic growth of this nation. There is no doubt that the experience of the years 1973, 1974 and 1975, underlined the fact that there were some very serious problems in this nation. In fact, they were being inadequately resolved during that period in particular which was the period of the Australian Labor Party Government. It was interesting, therefore, to hear the honourable member for Gellibrand talk about the need for the creation of yet another bureaucracy when, in fact, the creation of bureaucracies was the major achievement of that three years of economic disaster.

The interesting point that strikes one when listening to the honourable member for Gellibrand is his insistence that such a body, as he would recommend, would not be taking a centralised, authoritarian stance. It would not be a centralised planning body and in fact the intention would be that it would have close consultation with the private sector and government. The issue now before the House and before the nation is whether the people of Australia could trust a Labor Government with such a planning instrument in its hands. The experience of three years of Labor Government suggests that they should not, not only because of the opportunities that such a body would provide for abusing the power which would flow to a centralised body and which apparently, would have a minimum of external control but also because it would exaggerate to a substantial degree the existing tendency to concentrate economic power in Canberra.

There is no doubt that in philosophic terms, as the honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out, the Government parties take the strong view that the concentration of power in Canberra, as happened during the Whitlam years, is not in the best interests of Australia. The economic results that flowed from that concentration of power dramatised clearly that it is not in the best interests of Australia. We had, as the House is well aware, the worst inflation, the worst of almost everything, during those three years. But listening to the honourable member for Gellibrand one wondered whether he was aware of the fact that last year the Department of the Treasury was split in two, that for many of the things he was talking about there has been the effective creation of a new governmental structure and not one, I submit, that is as amenable to the concentration of power as the honourable member for Gellibrand would wish. He even wishes to add many other functions to this new centralised, socialistic body.

What happened as a result of this Government’s activities, recognising the problems that had clearly emerged during the period of Labor Government, was that the Department of the Treasury was split in two. The Department of Finance was created to deal with the more mundane financial matters, whereas the new Department of the Treasury, was allowed much greater freedom in concentrating on economic planning. I read from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he announced these new departmental arrangements. He stated:

The new departmental arrangements are designed to help make more manageable the heavy work load of economic and financial exenditure management which necessarily falls to the Treasurer and senior officials. In addition, it will be possible under the new arrangements for more concentrated attention to be given at the departmental level to the functions of financial budget management and the development of forward estimating, as well as to the anlaysis of economic issues and the formulation of economic strategy proposals for consideration by Government.

There we have this Government recognising the problem that was generated, and certainly dramatised, in the previous ten years, as the honourable member for Gellibrand quite rightly points out. But of course it was exacerbated under the disastrous three years of the Whitlam Government. This Government recognised the problem and in fact it has already done something about it. There is already an increasing scope for consultation on economic planning with the private sector. Honourable members will notice that the honourable member for Gellibrand, apart from a passing reference about the intention to co-operate with the private sector, was imposing another bureaucracy.

It is interesting that the honourable member for Gellibrand should have continually mentioned the recommendations of Sir James Vernon in that very interesting report. I must say, quite frankly, I regret that that report’s recommendations were not accepted by the then Government. I believe it was a mistake when that report was pigeonholed by the Government under the late Sir Robert Menzies. I have said that very clearly in the House and outside it. The fact is that the one vital thing that that report, which the honourable member for Gellibrand so clearly supported in part here today, clearly recommends against is the creation of another bureaucracy. It says the way to resolve the problem is not to create another Government department. It was interesting that that section of the report was not mentioned by the honourable member for Gellibrand. Instead, the Vernon Committee very clearly wanted an independent body. It is within the context of that sort of recommendation that the present Government has created these groups which have a capacity for economic input to allow forward planning of the economy, not to be done in an authoritarian and dictatorial way by the Government but in consultation with the people who will be affected by it, that is the business community and the unions. I quote from the statement setting up the economic consultative group by this Government. It stated:

An Economic Consultative Group has been formed to promote a greater degree of consultation and an improved flow of information between Government and the private sector.

The Government wishes to operate closely with the private sector and all Ministers have been asked to review the operations of existing advising bodies, so as to ensure that the Government has adequate and appropriate advice available to it.

I interpose here to stress that this Government’s attitude is that its management of the economy should be in consultation with private enterprise, that it should receive advice from and not dictate to the private sector. The statement went on:

Within that context it is important that a dialogue be instituted with leaders from industry and the trade union movement. The Economic Consultative Group will provide appropriate machinery for the purpose of economicdiscussion . . .

It states that the formation of an economic consultative group will ensure that the Government is kept informed about the state of affairs in the private sector. A statement points out that emphasis during the talks had been given to the Government strategy for economic recovery and the control of inflation. The point I am making to the honourable member for Gellibrand is that it is evident that in that kind of structure and also in the creation of the Government’s economic panel, we have already the development of consultation for long-term planning and not dictation of long-term planning, within the broad parameters of what the Vernon Committee was talking about. We have a government economic panel which has been formed as part of the Government’s arrangements for consultation on economic matters. The statement announcing its establishment reads:

The Government Economic Panel would extend further the range of consultation and dialogue on economic mutters and add to the breadth of expertise on which the Government could draw when formulating economic policy.

The Panel, which is composed of leading economists serving without remuneration, will be chaired by the Treasurer.

Senior Government economists, drawn from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and other Government departments concerned with aspects of economic policy, would be members of the Panel.

The same goes for the economic consultative group. The bureaucrats who in the Labor model were to be isolated in their powerful new structure in Canberra are in our model involved in continual dialogue and consultation with the private sector. The proposition being put forward by the Opposition for the creation of a major new structure, the creation of an even more powerful one by adding to it many other functions creates, I suggest, a monster which would be not only a threat but which in fact would be also clearly unnecessary in terms of what is going on now. As the honourable member for Gellibrand said, we have already seen that the British attempt to do this was a disaster and was cancelled. As the honourable member for Gellibrand said, that experience would be reflected in Australia.

It is interesting to look at what are the existing situations in Australia for providing input for economic planning so that we do not have the ad hoc, shoot from the hip type economics that were a feature of the Labor Party in government. As I read various reports, apparently they are a feature of the Labor Party’s policy creation bodies when in Opposition. The details on how the Labor Party decided to present its economic policy at the last election, I am assured by expert commentators, show in fact that the bulk of the Labor Party had no idea of the eccentric payroll tax, shoot from the hip suggestion that the then leader imposed upon the Party at the last minute before the Federal election. That tendency to ad hockery in economics is not one that comes from this side of the House; it is one that has been brought to a point of absurdity by the Labor Party. It may well be that because members of the Opposition do not trust their own capacity to be consistent in economic policy they feel they would like to impose some sort of discipline on themselves by creating this strong bureaucratic body. But the fact clearly remains that in philosophy their attitude is totally different from ours.

I underline that already within this Government there is immense scope for economic input on what sort of direction this economy should be taking. For example, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have models which could be used for both short term and long term economic analyses. Short term recommendations and decisions are always made in the context of these longer term economic prospects and strategies. The Industries Assistance Commission, as the honourable member for Gellibrand said, has an impact study which is a long term structural model of the Australian economy and is well advanced. There are other bodies like the Bureau of Transport Economics, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Crawford study group on structural adjustment and the Commonwealth Statistician. All these are providing input on what is happening in the long term and where the long term direction should be.

The important thing is that while each of these bureaucratic structures works in a specialised way in its own area, one of the primary functions of the new Department of the Treasury which has been split off from the Department of Finance is to act as a department of economic strategy. That is its major function now. This point appears to have escaped the Opposition. As such, it is ideally placed to play the essential co-ordinating and monitoring role as it does. In addition, there are these consultative groups. The Labor Party’s proposition that we should have another bureaucracy imposing its view is totally unsound. My point is that if anything we have gone too far in that direction already. We should be going back to the Vernon Committee ‘s recommendations. In 1965 it recommended:

The paramount need as we see it is for governments, industry and the public to have access to the best assessment of what is economically possible and of the dangers that must be avoided or overcome if the economy is to achieve its maximum potential for growth with stability.

What the Vernon Committee wanted was an independent body made up of government, unions and business, and for this body to be outside the bureaucratic structure. If anything, we need greater non-bureaucratic intervention in guiding the economy, not dictating it. If anything we may well have gone too far down the Labor Party’s road. I strongly suggest to this Government that it once again look to the Vernon Committee’s recommendations. They are as potent, viable, useful and sensible now as they were in 1965.

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I second the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) urging the establishment of a department of economic development. We have just heard a most disappointing speech from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). What complacency he displays. There are thousands more unemployed now than there were in the years to which he was so fond of referring during his speech, the years 1973 to 1975. His Party is presiding over a government which seems to be complacently happy with the existing situation. I suppose it is inevitable that someone representing the troglodyte conservative views from the other side should put forward the sort of speech we have just heard. Nevertheless, it is very disappointing.

The honourable member misrepresented in a number of ways the views of the honourable member for Gellibrand as expounded by him in this debate. I shall list the ways in which he did this. Firstly, the honourable member for Macarthur talked about the split of the Treasury into the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance as being relevant. The honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out that in no way was this relevant or a substitute for having a department of economic development. The new set-up between Treasury and Finance is doing nothing more than focusing on the short term. At the most forward estimates go out to about three years for the government sector alone and these are not published in any way. So there is no value for the private sector or for the States of this nation, which have an important part in the economic development of Australia, in this work. There are no targets for which they can aim. Later in my speech I want to deal with the great importance that we place in having closer consultation with the private sector and with the States of this nation in order to be able to plan for development and for the necessary creation of jobs rather than preside, as this Fraser Government is now, over an ever increasing level of unemployment.

The second way that the honourable member for Macarthur misrepresented the honourable member for Gellibrand was when he sought to make the point, dishonestly, that we are seeking to build up another bureaucracy. The honourable member for Macarthur made the point that Treasury is being merged into our proposed department. He made the point that other countries which are managing their economies so much better than we are managing ours- he cited Holland as one example- have such a co-ordinating economic planning department with about only 130 persons in it. Holland is bringing about this greater co-ordination and is more satisfactorily organising its economy. Indeed, this is the sort of thing that we should aim for rather than put up with the conservative views to which we have just listened.

Thirdly, in no way is there at present a framework which provides a means of achieving the needed medium and long term planning.

The honourable member for Macarthur talked glibly about the Economic Consultative Council. In the opinion of the Opposition that is a joke. If honourable members on the Government benches studied the Press releases that come from that body, as members of the Opposition do, they would learn that it is having extreme difficulty in putting even one page together seeking to justify the bringing of people from all round Australia to Canberra in order to discuss these grave issues. That body has no secretariat; it is just a talkfest. Though the Opposition wants to set up its own Economic Consultative Council, as the honourable member for Gellibrand intimated, it will be a meaningful body because for secretariat it will have the Department of Economic Development. That department will apply such things as impact models and other models and various talents in the nation to set down the medium and long term targets that are so vitally needed.

The fourth point he made was that in the new division between Treasury and the Department of Finance there was some magic bringing about co-ordination. What co-ordination? There is no co-ordination between the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Industries Assistance Commission and the Trade Practices Commission of the sort that there should be. That is precisely why the Opposition is progressive in its attitudes in seeking new structures in government to bring about such co-ordination. Such co-ordination will not occur as long as the present structures remain.

I turn now to the substance of what I wanted to say rather than spend any more time answering that disappointing conservative contribution just heard by honourable members. The proposed Department of Economic Development, which members of the Opposition see as essential for the development and co-ordination of a whole series of new initiatives, is so vital in order to get Australia out of the current mess. I have referred to the thousands more unemployed since the Fraser Government took office. The Labor Party has a plan for the creation of jobs. That task is not being done by the present Government. My comments will be largely confined to the vital role that such a department could play in fostering the necessary initiatives in the industry policy area because that is where I have the main responsibility on behalf of the Opposition. Despite the immediate presence of intolerably high levels of unemployment and inflation, the most serious problem facing Australia, in my view, has to do not only with short term instability but also with the structural problems facing Australian industry. I will show that the case for indicative planning for industry in Australia is more urgent now than ever before. An essential part of it must be a real attempt to establish and co-ordinate the various policies and programs comprising such an approach- a role that the Opposition envisages for its Department of Economic Development.

Indicative planning differs a great deal, as the honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out, from imperative or command planning of the type practised in communist states. Indicative planning recognises the continuance of a market sector in the economic system, with a vital role for private enterprise, and it proposes that the Government should provide the private sector with information about the desired structure of the economy, the resources available, trends in their supply, and so on. That must be done in order to help private industry to make its own investment, employment and output decisions. In such a framework the Government would possibly set employment targets for certain industries. By its own investment the Government should determine the availability of certain kinds of economic infrastructure and set output goals for some industries. It should also undertake to facilitate the achievement of those goals and initiate action to develop and adapt the resources available to industry.

As I have already suggested, the case for indicative planning in Australia is now overwhelmingly strong. I wish to explain that in more detail. In part, the need for planning derives from unsuccessful macro-economic policy attempts in recent times, namely the stop-go policies of successive Governments. I do not excuse the Labor Party Government between 1973 and 1975 in that regard. However, it started the role of setting targets by establishing the Priorities Review Staff. That Government was always under attack from the Senate. It was in government for only 18 months at a time. It achieved much during that period but in no way did it go as far as the next Labor Government will go to introduce the necessary framework for proper planning for full employment in this nation. The need for planning derives from the present unsuccessful macro attempts to get full employment and the loss of economic growth which can be associated with all that. However, the case for planning goes even beyond that. The view of the Opposition is that a mixed economy like that of Australia relying solely on the market place, even if successfully stabilised along Keynesian lines, will not produce an optimum industry structure or the maximum possible rates of growth in either employment or real standards of living if the present framework is allowed to continue.

One of the basic attitudes of the Opposition is that the pulling and pushing of macro-economic levers, namely extra expenditures here, additions to the deficit there, lowering of interest rates somewhere else, by themselves are not going to lead to a situation of full employment with reasonable price stability and a growing standard of living. That is not to say that a more expansionary policy, as has been advocated by the Opposition over the past two or more years, involving specific stimulatory spending and an end to the attacks on real wages, is not an essential prerequisite for a return to the full employment conditions that are required. However, by themselves, these pullings and pushings of macro-economic levers will not provide the required panacea. Rather, what the Opposition believes is necessary to get the economy performing as well as it possibly can are industry and manpower policies designed to consolidate and increase the position of our manufacturing industries by facilitating the changes necessary to improve their international competitiveness.

Good reasons exist for believing that the types of industry and manpower policies needed to achieve these aims must involve conscious indicative planning aimed at improving the performance of the nation’s industries. The Opposition is convinced that the management of the change and adaption of our industries to that change, so that they are able to become more competitive internationally, requires a definite leadership role by Government in the form of indicative planning, complemented by a great deal of participation on the part of those affected. Instead, we receive aimless cries from the Government that this is socialism. The Government totally ignores the arguments put in favour of indicative planning; it totally ignores that its conservative attitudes at present are leading to thousands upon thousands more each year being thrown on the unemployment market. The Government suggests that the present sort of structure can be continued without the position becoming worse and worse. This is a reaction against the Government’s misguided reliance solely upon market forces to determine the nature and structure of our industries. For many reasons, that is just not good enough.

I have listed a number of reasons why the present situation is not good enough but I do not have time to state them. I shall summarise the reasons by saying that indicative planning is necessary as it is the only framework within which satisfactory mechanisms could be devised to ensure that the benefits of modernisation and improved competitiveness of Australian industries are maximised and shared by consumers and workers as well as the owners of capital. Indicative planning would be the only framework which would ensure that the costs of change are shared equitably across the community as a whole, as well as by future generations. The purely passive role which characterises the Government’s approach is neither desirable nor necessary.

If I had time I could list a number of prominent people in the private sector who have given support to the type of attitude that the Opposition is advancing today in this Parliament. For instance, I could quote what the director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures has said about the need for targets and the need for private industry to know where the Government seeks the nation to go. I could quote what was stated by the president elect of the Australian Institution of Engineers in respect of the same matter, but it will suffice to say that in addition to all this, our awareness that Australia is one of the last developed countries to adopt some form of indicative planning is very acute.

The honourable member for Gellibrand mentioned some countries in Europe. What about our great trading partner, Japan? It, too, has its economic planning agency. No one is suggesting that Japan is a socialist country. I believe that even conservatives should be prepared to see that the present ad hoc reliance on the market place will not create the jobs necessary to get Australia back to a position of full employment. They should be prepared, in the interests of the nation, to introduce a department such as the one that the Opposition has put forward in the motion it has moved today. They should not wait for another two years until a Labor Government is able to do so.

I want to outline briefly the value to the States of setting such medium and long-term targets. The States have important responsibilities- for instance, in the field of education. At the moment, they do not know what is the population policy of this country. The national Government has not set medium and long-term targets. How can the States plan properly for their respective education systems until they have such vital information? We would have representatives of the States also on an economic advisory council which would be related to our Department of Economic Development to bring about that cohesion which is so vitally necessary. It is our wish to implement indicative planning in the sense in which I have defined it. Unless we do so, there will not be an effective approach to co-ordination of the policies of the national Government. I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government. I hope that one day we will have a Department of Economic Development.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer initially to two of the comments made by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) which, to my mind, are quite staggering. First of all, he referred to the structural disorder of our economy. Although I hesitate to go back into those disastrous years between 1972 and 1975, it is quite staggering that the honourable member should talk about the structural disorder of the economy now when we are aware of the disorder that occurred in those three years. I am also amazed at his comment about the public sector offering the greatest scope. I challenge that statement, and I think that the majority of people in the community also disagree with it. Statements such as these have kept the Australian Labor Party in Opposition as a result of the last two elections. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) by way of interjection asked an opposition member where were the plans of the Labor Party for a Department of Economic Development in three years that it was in government. Evidently, honourable members opposite were not aware of the need for such a department then. In the time that the Fraser Government has been in power, probably honourable members opposite have educated themselves on the economy a little more. Now they are making these staggering statements.

Let us look a little deeper at what is implied in the motion moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand and seconded by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). It calls for the setting up of another government department. That is all it does. The honourable member for Adelaide said that the Opposition really did not want to increase the size of the Public Service. Then he talked about the secretariat for this so-called new department. The honourable member contradicted himself and talked about what would eventually develop into another massive department. If we look beneath the proposition, we can see that it will lead to an increase in the size of the Public Service. It will lead to the establishment of another government department, and that will mean more taxation of the Australian people. I am sure that the Australian people do not want that. That reminds me of the old story that has been told so many times and written about so much. I refer briefly to the fall of the Roman empire when the public sector grew too big for the private sector to support. I am not against public sectors. I am not against private sectors. There has to be a sensible balance maintained between both of these sectors so that it is possible for both sectors to be supported without throwing strains on to the economy.

The statistics on employment in the public sector during those three years of Labor government show that the Federal Public Service increased by almost 200,000 personnel. I do not think that was necessary, and obviously the Australian people did not think it was necessary. I wish to quote what was stated by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in a speech he delivered on 12 May to the Australian Financial Review conference. He said:

Our policy has been directed at halting and reversing the explosion of the public sector, not only to reduce both its direct and indirect inflationary effects, but also to provide the scope for an absolutely essential transfer of revenue to the private sector.

That statement is in direct contrast to the statement made by the honourable member for Gellibrand. The economy is stimulated only by a restoration of faith in the future of all Australian people, in particular the business community. It does not give a lasting effect to stimulate the economy artificially in any way or to stimulate it by increasing the size of the public sector. The best way to do something that has a lasting effect is in a controlled and natural way by the private sector.

My speaking against the motion, I should point out, does not mean that the Government is against economic planning. Long-term economic planning is essential. We are able to do this, and we are doing this, through the structure that exists at the moment. We have no desire to break the record of the Labor Government of having the largest Ministry of any Australian government since Federation. A great deal has been done in this area, and there is now a sound base for substantially more economic development to take place. This is happening right now. A great deal of hard work has been done over the last three years to establish this base. We have seen the reduction in the rate of inflation, the reduction of the deficit and the introduction of tax reforms which have saved the taxpayers $3,000m. These things would never have been possible if we had adopted a policy of saying that the public sector provided the best means for expansion. We have restored faith in the Australian dollar, and this has led to increasing investment confidence in the community. The latest economic statistics confirm that inflation, as we all know, is now running at 8.2 per cent per annum. The statistics also confirm that the consumer price index increased by only 1.3 per cent in the March quarter, the lowest March quarter increase since 1972- five years ago. That is not a bad record.

The latest economic statistics in the national accounts show that real domestic final demand, both private and government, increased at a solid annual rate of 3.6 per cent in the second half of 1977. In the December quarter, in constant price terms and seasonally adjusted, private final consumption increased strongly by 1.7 per cent, and business investment expenditure increased even more strongly by 3.5 per cent. Real exports of goods and services rose by 4.4 per cent, and real imports of goods and services declined by one per cent. I deal now with the figures in respect of capital expenditure. Capital expenditure represents faith in the future and it is tied up with forward planning. It is stated that capital expenditure by private enterprise, seasonally adjusted and at current prices, rose by 7.7 per cent. These are the sound grounds that we need to have if economic development in Australia is to continue as it will need to continue in the future. The many projects which are being developed in Australia at the moment confirm that long term planning exists and that economic development is well on the way. We have to mention only a few of the developments that will take place on the North West Shelf -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! As it is now two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Staley) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of Notices, General Business, be extended until 12.45 p.m.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– I was referring to some of the examples which show that economic development in Australia is well under way. I was talking about the potential development in places such as the North West Shelf. Only today announcements were made that a new aluminium plant costing many millions of dollars is to be established, that expansion of oil refineries throughout Australia costing hundreds of millions of dollars is to occur and that expansion of the mining industry and coal exports is to take place. While I am speaking on the subject of the mining industry and coal exports, I should indicate that recent figures show that investment in mining in the March quarter of 1978 increased by 64.4 per cent over that for the same quarter last year. That shows the potential of our mining industry.

Our fishing industry is also being developed now. The introduction of the 200-nule economic zone will mean that the fishing industry will offer tremendous development for Australia. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is doing research into the development of our territory in Antarctica. New port developments are taking place in Brisbane. I have mentioned only a few, but hundreds of developments such as these are taking place around Australia at the moment. These will give Australia a sound future. Associated with all these developments will be the creation of employment and capital expenditure. Only recently the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development made a report on the Australian economic condition. That report confirmed that the Government’s strategy is correct. We have long term policies. We are not an irresponsible government. As I have said, these long term policies which are administered by our government departments will take Australia and the Australian economy on to much better things.

In conclusion, I return to the terms of the motion. It seeks to create another government department and therefore more taxation. The Government agrees with the principle of economic development, but let us have no more government departments and no more taxation of the Australian people. Let us hope that the Government can continue with its policy of modifying the growth rate of the public sector and with its tax reforms for the Australian people. I am sure that that is best for Australia and for the Australian people.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 31

NOES: 67

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2477

QUESTION

CONTROL OF BROADBAND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

That this House is of the opinion that there is a need for maintenance of public ownership and control of all broadband communication facilities, including satellite and cable systems, to ensure equitable use in the best interests of the Australian people.

Action should be taken by the Government to prevent private enterprise moving into the lucrative markets now operated by Telecom Australia. I have indicated this time and again in speeches I have made. I believe that the Government ought to have a look at the issue. One major company is already operating what could be interpreted as an alternative telegram service. The Government ought to be using the existing regulations or, if necessary, should tighten the legislation to prevent the practice that is now emerging. Private enterprise is also moving increasingly into the Australian Postal Commission area, particularly in mail transport in the country districts.

The announcement of a record Telecom interim profit just recently started a further scramble of companies to try to enter this lucrative area. A company operating in the telegram delivery area operates a central switchboard. Drivers circulate throughout the metropolitan areas, and I ask honourable members to mark the words ‘metropolitan areas’. The drivers receive over their radios messages that are taken at the central switchboard. The drivers deliver the messages, sealed, to the recipients. At present the service is provided for business customers. It is the thin end of the wedge. The practice certainly appears to be a breach of the Postal and Telecommunications Act. I suspect lawyers could spend weeks making themselves rich arguing for and against if a test case were launched. It is necessary for the Government to reaffirm the spirit of the law. The delivery of postal and telecommunication services cannot be duplicated by private enterprise. The Government should enforce that law either through the existing Act or by amending the Act to remove any loopholes.

It is clear that a breach of the law is taking place, whichever way the Act is interpreted, but surely the delivery of postal services should be equitable. It should be available to people in the far flung areas of Australia. The people who live in these remote areas should not be prejudiced by the more lucrative areas being serviced by companies which are willing to rip off the profits. Last night I put forward to the House information that came to me regarding what might happen in this area. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) readily answered a question concerning the introduction of television viewers licences yesterday. I would like him to answer a similar question. Is it anticipated that postal service charges for letter delivery will be increased by the Government in the near future?

Mr Staley:

– I raise a point of order. I note that the comments that have been made so far by the honourable member for Melbourne seem to relate to notice given for General Business Thursday No. 5 which is a different motion from that which we are discussing today. I merely draw attention to the fact that the notice we are debating today reads:

That this House is of the opinion that there is a need for maintenance of public ownership and control of all broadband communication facilities, including satellite and cable systems, to ensure equitable use in the best interests of the Australian people.

The honourable member has not in fact addressed himself to this matter but has raised matters which relate to a different motion to be raised on another day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I will have a look carefully at the notice given for General Business Thursday No. 5. In the meantime I invite the honourable member for Melbourne to continue his remarks and to tie them in with the motion he has moved.

Mr Staley:

– I am not being aggressive.

Mr INNES:

– I understand what the Minister is saying. The point of order may be well taken. I am laying the background to what is deemed to be the movement into postal services and communication services in general. I am giving an example. I am concerned that the Government, with its myopic free enterprise bias, is attempting to hand a profit-making government enterprise over in a general way to business interests it represents rather than tighten the laws to ensure that the companies move into another field. The communication system might be a rather dramatic change from the satellite system that is proposed and currently being investigated by the task force which is looking into a national communications satellite system.

Having used that as a background for the movement of free enterprise into the postal and telecommunications area I would think that what I have said up to this point lays the basis for what I am about to say about the satellite system. The task force inquiry was set up on the basis of a report from Television Corporation Ltd which put a one-sided case for the Packer lobby. It was given a hopelessly inadequate six months to report. I am saying that the background to the inquiry relates to the motion that I have moved today. The time scale for the task force to report did not allow adequate time for information and arguments to be put forward. It seems that a communication satellite would significantly harm the economics of Telecom Australia’s operations as the common carrier. One comes to the real point when reading some of the comments that have been put before the task force. Alternatives are raised. The question was raised of the challenge to the role of the common carrier. The point I am making is that the satellite system would assist a very small number of people living in an isolated area. That is a major plank in the Government’s argument for such a satellite system. I am not necessarily against that. The fact is that the system has been developed in a terrestrial sense. Huge sums of money have been mentioned in relation to this system. It is wrong to look after the interests of an individual like Packer whose own interests, when one examines the evidence, is to build up a case that the common carrier principle ought to be broken.

I said before that the thin end of the wedge is being driven in. Developments in postal services are being raised in regard to the satellite system. A substantial subsidisation of commercial television networks may be involved as a cost to Telecom consumers. The task force appears to have pre-empted Telecom Australia’s on-going inquiry into the feasibility study of the system. It was argued that it was part of the Telecom system and that it was Telecom’s job to investigate, to do a feasibility study in respect of a satellite system. Satellite technology is changing rapidly, and in my view that is sufficient reason for adopting a wait-and-see approach and conducting a proper evaluation before proceeding. I put it to the Minister that if the task force is going to reach any decisions at all then I do not see any problem about considering the economic viability of the proposal and ensuring that it will not raise problems for the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country or for the consumers of Telecom. As I indicated earlier, the distribution of package mail is the only area in the postal service that showed a loss, and the people who receive mail in either country or local areas are going to bear the brunt of that. I think the Minister will see how I have tied those two arguments together.

On the question of the satellite system, it seems to me that the moment of truth is here. If the task force got to the point of considering that a satellite system was essential and that in the foreseeable future the technology that is now embodied in the design and manufacture of the satellites would be of benefit, then the use of the satellite becomes the next question. Surely the task force should not be permitted to bring down a report on which the Government will act without consulting every section of the community. The investigation should not be based on the narrow confines of the terms of reference under which this task force was set up. It should be broadened so that interest groups have an opportunity to put their views before the task force.

If the task force is to be the vehicle for making a decision, then it ought to be revamped completely to enable discussion on issues such as economic employment, social considerations, and electronic media ownership and control. The fundamental philosophy behind it should be that the common carrier should be under the control of the appropriate body in this country. At this stage the Opposition believes that that body should be Telecom Australia, or an appropriate body that would have vested in it the control of the communications system to ensure that the service given to the consumers is an equitable one and that people in far-flung areas do not suffer. It could ensure that Packer’s activities in regard to cricket, for example, are not subsidised and that the system is not used for the purpose of networking by particular interest groups. The interests of the whole of the community must be considered, and that philosophy ought to flow through the decisions taken by this Parliament as a result of the report of the task force. I understand that the Minister is going to bring to the Parliament a request for an extension of time to enable the task force to take further evidence, with a view to reporting some time in the near future. I put it to him that the terms of reference should not go as far as allowing the task force to make final decisions on which the Government would act.

Mr Staley:

-The Government makes decisions.

Mr INNES:

– That is fair enough but the Nimmo report included some 74 recommendations and the Government acted on two of them. It ignored the major recommendation relating to the control of tax evasion schemes on Norfolk Island. Whilst I think the principle is good, and the terms of reference and the extent to which evidence is to be taken are good enough, if the Parliament is going to use the report as the basis of its considerations then it ought to have further evidence available to it in a broader sense. The role of interested individuals and groups should be the subject of close scrutiny, and in that respect I refer to Packer and Bond. Incidentally, Bond was the author of the Packer submission and is an employee of RCA Alascom, which played host to the task force during part of its North American trip. I refer also to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, an unqualified satellite supporter whose general manager is the task force chairman. It seems to me that the membership of the task force is fairly heavily weighted towards that area.

As I have said, the then Minister for Posts and Telecommunications (Mr Robinson) announced the establishment of the task force on 22 September last year, following a report to the Government prepared for Australian Consolidated Press Ltd by Donald Bond, an RCA employee. The task force advertised for written submissions in late November, inviting interested bodies to make written submissions not later than 13 January 1978. That advertisement appeared in the Melbourne Age on 29 November. The period was later extended until 13 February and the task force was required to report to the Minister in May, although the Opposition would like to know the position on the extension of that time.

Mr Staley:

– They have asked for an extension of one month and I have said -

Mr INNES:

– If you are going to reply to this debate you can tell me later.

Mr Staley:

– I am replying now. Mr Jull will be speaking next.

Mr INNES:

-The report will be made to the Minister and not to the Parliament, as I have indicated. There were similar overtones to the Green report on Australian broadcasting in November 1976. The Government made apparently pre-determined changes, in consultation with commercial broadcasters, and then released the report. I hope sincerely that that is not done on this occasion.

The Packer-RCA link cannot be over-stressed. Packer assigned Bond, one of the foremost establishment authorities and apologists on this issue, to prepare a case fitting his own interests. On the basis of that case, the Government established a task force, under a most restrictive time limit which may change the very structure of the telecommunications industry in this country. The effects of that do not stop at that industry as such but move out into other areas. Unless the ramifications of a decision of this nature are considered, the Opposition is apprehensive that this would be yet another move to hand over a public service to private enterprise. The benefits argued by Packer are all questionable. He has said that there would be an ability to relay simultaneous television programs throughout Australia, which is an example of national networking, but that seems to be a small benefit for such a massive cost. The general standard is so puerile that the only benefactors would be the networks. There are also technical doubts about this claim. It seems unlikely that the Packer system could serve all the isolated areas referred to in the submission. However, if one concedes the technical point, the cost of projecting simultaneous pictures around the country is astronomical, and does not stop at the cost of installation of the satellite. Surely other technical aspects are involved in the signal reaching the intended destination. Huge costs would be involved in that, and once again this relates to the design and the technical possibilities of the satellite. The cost must always be considered- not only the capital investment of $300m plus, and running costs and amortisation of about $60m a year for the satellite system, but also the massive cost of dismantling and underutilising a perfectly adequate terrestrial system. I ask the Minister to note that point.

Telecom Australia supported that contention in its submission to the task force, having regard to the capabilities of the existing network and to Telecom’s responsibility to keep prices as low as practicable. I should have thought that that would not be a bad idea at this point of time, when the tightening of the belt concept seems to be such a fetish with the Government and the Ministers concerned. The point I am making is that, as the proposition outlines, in the telecommunications area there has been an infiltration into the public service area for some years. We never hear of the Packers of this world wanting to take over the Victorian railways. We never hear of any of the private enterprise people trying to take over -

Mr Scholes:

– Transport to Tasmania, for instance.

Mr INNES:

– Yes, transport to Tasmania. They avoid that like the plague, lt is only the cream runs in the postal service that they are taking over. This whole proposition is directed towards that end. So the Opposition is of the opinion that there is a need for the maintenance of public ownership and control of all broadband communication facilities, including satellite and cable systems, to ensure equitable use in the best interests of the Australian people.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– They want to capitalise profits and socialise losses.

Mr INNES:

– That is correct, and of course that is being done all the time. The scream will be that this move is towards socialising the industry. What a facade! The Constitution prevents any socialisation in this country, and some of the individuals who scream about it ought to have another look at it. The real question concerns whether we are going to socialise losses and capitalise gains, as the honourable member for Lalor pointed out. The Government is obligated to provide a service. The service that is to be provided ought to be equitable, because firms such as Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, Ansett Airlines of Australia and others will not service the backblocks of Australia delivering mail, parcels or anything else. They will service the cream runs of the metropolitan areas, just as Packer will try to get a stranglehold over the communications system of this country. I think the motion speaks for itself, and if the Government were acting in the best interests of the Australian people it would support the motion.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I second the motion.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-The motion moved by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) states:

That this House is of the opinion that there is a need for maintenance of public ownership and control of all broadband communication facilities, including satellite and cable systems, to ensure equitable use in the best interests of the Australian people.

Quite frankly, I am not quite sure how far down the road he got on that motion. He started off talking about letter deliveries and finished talking about letter deliveries. We heard the usual selfsame boring attack on the Packer organisation. I hold no brief for the Packer organisation, but I would think that it has contributed one thing to this debate on communication satellites today. The proposition of the Packer organisation sparked action from the Government in November last year in setting up a task force to examine the whole area of satellite communications for Australia. For that I think we all should be very thankful. It was the vision of the previous Minister for Post and Telecommunications that started this investigation which could well get Australia into the 21st century in the area of communications. Today I would particularly like to talk about some aspects of the electronic media and its adaptability to the satellite system.

I think a couple of statements that have been made today by the honourable member for Melbourne should be cleared up. Firstly, it is true that the task force was required to report at the end of May. It asked for a month’s extension, which indeed has been granted. We heard the honourable member say that the public did not really have any input into this inquiry. I made a few investigations and found that in fact 156 submissions were forwarded from computer organisations, industry, community groups, the general public, academics, the Government and trade union groups. To say that there is any sense of secretive arrangement about this investigation is patently just not true, because the submissions are completely open to everyone. There has been quite an extensive coverage of the inquiry by the media over recent months.

I read with interest a letter that was sent by the honourable member for Melbourne to the Melbourne Age just a few weeks ago in reply to an article in that same publication that had been put together by Mr Myles Wright on 2 May headed Doubtful view of a satellite TV system’. I suppose the honourable member for Melbourne today has quoted from statements made by Mr Myles Wright in that article. From my 15 years’ experience in the electronic media, I felt that

Myles Wright was a highly conservative man. I am afraid that he was not ever terribly innovative, and I think that this article and some of the excuses put up in it were in fact fairly typical of the opinion that he expresses in his boring publication in that newspaper week by week.

It is difficult to see the motive behind the motion put forward by the honourable member for Melbourne today. I think it is significant that we look at some of the ramifications of the introduction of a communications satellite to Australia. It is all very well to talk about private enterprise coming into this area, but the facts are that the geographical nature of Australia, I would think, would almost preclude private enterprise from being even remotely interested in it. The population is concentrated around the seaboard. Telecom Australia with an investment of about $6,000m receives a return of 3 per cent or 4 per cent. I am not sure whether private enterprise would be interested in going into an arrangement that would return 3 per cent to 4 per cent. It is hardly a brillant return on an investment of that magnitude. I do not know what this inquiry will bring out, but I would imagine that the responsibility would certainly remain with the Government.

I was sorry that some of the members from the country electorates were not in this House to hear the honourable member’s speech. I refer particularly to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) who time and time again in the House press for television and better telephone communications for their electorates. This is exactly the potential that a communications satellite can provide. Even with today’s technology it is possible to increase greatly the effectiveness of a television signal to these remote parts of Australia. A communications satellite can deliver pictures to everyone scattered throughout Australia. It is possible to provide telephone services to these people in these far flung, remote areas of the nation. It is possible to make other means of communication available to them as well, including telex services.

The honourable member for Melbourne spoke about the networking of television programs. If the situation did evolve where a communications satellite were available almost instantaneously it would cause some problems within the television industry. I think we should be a little broader in our outlook on this aspect. I know that one of the aspirations of this Government is one day, when it is feasible, to establish an educational television network. I think that is something for which we should all be pressing and for which we should all be striving in this Parliament. Imagine the tremendous ramifications that that sort of prospect could mean to the people of the outback and to those children doing correspondence lessons at the moment. What a tremendous facility this would be for them if they could tune into their school programs on these different frequencies every day. It is all very well for Myles Wright to talk about a series of cassette programs around the country being a much better system but I believe that is just not a feasible or an economic proposition at this stage. It is certainly not an efficient means of providing true educational facilities to the people of the outback. If we can pick up a schoolroom atmosphere, convey it through a satellite and feed it into homes I think we would really be achieving something because television is a great educator if it is nothing else. That has been proved. Let us look at the work that is being done by the British Broadcasting Corporation in Britain at the moment with its tremendous University of the Air series which has proved so beneficial to that country. I think that is even more reason why we should be striving for a situation where we can use this type of facility in providing education to the people of the far flung areas of Australia and, indeed, to the people of the major capital cities and the major provincial towns scattered around the coastline as well.

The other aspect to which Myles Wright alluded in his article concerned having medical services relayed by satellite. This in itself is probably technically feasible. I am not personally convinced of just how effective it would be, but it is another area of satellite communications that could well be opened up and one that could well be used to very great advantage. It is an aspect that I am sure would be of very great appeal to the people who live in those areas. Certainly the Royal Flying Doctor Service does a marvellous job, but if that service can be added to by this form of communication, when a government of this nature is concerned with the welfare and the health of the people of the outback areas, so be it. There should be further investigations into this area. I am not privy to any information that might be contained in the task force report. I understand from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) that that report will be tabled in this Parliament, and that in itself stops any talk of secrecy that might surround the investigation at the moment. I am sure that all honourable members will look forward with interest to some of the recommendations that will come from that report.

If the honourable member for Melbourne is in fact talking about opening up this area to the private sector of industry, I do not think we should have completely closed minds about it at the moment. I sometimes think that one of the problems of government is that we do not do enough subcontracting out to private industry. The electronics industry of Australia is undergoing considerable difficulty at present and subcontracting in this area could play a major part in providing work opportunities in that industry. This could lead to a greater influx of technical knowledge so that we can get the most efficient contribution in this scientific area in developing the best system available for the people of Australia. That, after all, is all we are worried about- what is in the best interests of the people of Australia as a whole. If this means combining the facilities of Telecom and other government departments with some of the brains and the knowledge of private industry, so be it. Let us make the most efficient use of that combination.

Sometimes in government we are stifled too much by our practice of not relying more on the contribution that private industry can sometimes make to building Australia into a far better place in which to live. The Government has a sense of prime interest in the use of all available resources to the best advantage. Obviously it must combine both capital and physical resources as well. I repeat that I am sure that all honourable members are looking forward to receiving that report. It is, of course, a way of bringing Australia towards the 2 1st century. In relation to costs, I understand that there could already be some satellite facilities available to us. This report could well say that maybe Australia is not ready just now for its own satellite; but maybe we can reach a stage where we can subcontract present satellite facility space to introduce for the benefit of the nation as a whole some of these initiatives in communications. I understand that a communications satellite could cost $80m to get into position, but if we could subcontract something for Sim or $2m per annum for a while until it becomes economically feasible to go into our own venture, let us examine that aspect.

Let us not close our minds on this matter. Let us make sure that we investigate every possibility. As I have said, $80m is the present charge but it has been rumoured that maybe Australia can get into the satellite communication business for $lm or $2m a year. One would hope that all of us in this Parliament would be making the best possible input into this question in the coming months and the coming weeks to make sure that the people of Australia get the best service that is available. I hope that the honourable member for Melbourne will consider some of these aspects that we have put up today. Certainly the industry is most interested in continuing investigation into the possible use of satellite services. Let us hope that the Opposition, and especially the honourable member for Melbourne, exhibits a broader outlook on this matter than the honourable member has indicated today, and that he does not continue to be a wart on the backside of progress in the communications industry.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I want to take up one of the last points made by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull). He seemed to be suggesting: ‘Let us get the technology right first and when we have worked out the technology we will work out the philosophy on which the technology ought to be implemented’. I think that is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. It is absolutely essential that we work out now, before we are committed and locked into some technological exercise, precisely what it is that we intend to do. We have to work out our philosophy of public broadcasting, our philosophy of usage of communication facilities throughout the nation, and then plug the technology into that. I think that in the past there have been too many examples of enormous commitments to technological marvels. The Sydney Opera House, the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop and the West Gate Bridge are three examples that come to mind. It is only subsequently, after there have been commitments to the technology, that the Government says: ‘Let us sit down for a minute and work out what it is that we are trying to do ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The time allotted for precedence of general business has expired. The resumption of this debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

page 2483

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA: NEGOTIATIONS ON MARITIME BOUNDARIES AND ON OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO TORRES STRAIT

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave- In my statement to Parliament on 1 1 May 1978 I informed honourable members that, in recent negotiations with the Papua New Guinea Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Ebia Olewale, we agreed upon the principal basic elements which are to be included in the treaty to be concluded on maritime boundaries between our two countries and on other matters relating to Torres Strait. In that statement I indicated that Mr Olewale and I would be presenting to our respective Parliaments a fuller outline of those elements and that I would make available to honourable members illustrative maps which would indicate the results of these important negotiations. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, concerning the principal basic elements which are to be included in the treaty and my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has also conferred with the Torres Strait Islander Chairmen.

In this statement I wish to present to honourable members an account of the principal basic elements which the Australian and Papua New Guinea Foreign Ministers have agreed will be included in the treaty. The Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea is presenting a similar account to his Parliament. Before proceeding to speak about the treaty elements, I wish to recall that Australia and Papua New Guinea have been engaged in these negotiations over a period of years, beginning before Papua New Guinea moved to independence. Both our governments have been determined to arrive at a permanent and equitable settlement which will meet the need to delimit our territorial seas and the seabed and fishing zones between the two countries. The settlement must also take account of intricate historical, cultural, social and economic factors of great significance to our peoples, including notably the people of the Torres Strait area. Both our governments have accordingly approached the negotiations with great care and concern in order to arrive at a solution which is equitable in human terms and lasting and beneficial in its consequences. We have sought an agreement which will stand the test of time both legally and functionally. We have been determined to achieve a treaty settlement which would strengthen the fabric of the relationship between the two countries and their peoples, which we both regard as of high importance.

It is against this background that I now present for the information of honourable members a paper containing an outline of the principal basic elements which Mr Olewale and I have agreed will be included in the treaty, together with two illustrative maps which will indicate these elements graphically. At the conclusion of this statement I shall seek leave to have the text of the paper incorporated in Hansard. I commend this paper and the supporting maps to the attention of honourable members. It is of necessity a long and somewhat technical document. I should therefore like to state some general points and then to summarise the main treaty elements on which agreement has been reached. Firstly, it should be kept in mind that certain outstanding points of substance are to be the subject of further negotiations. These points arise mainly from the principal basic elements which now represent common ground. Secondly, the package of elements which is now emerging provides for a fair and equitable division of sea and seabed resources between Papua New Guinea and Australia across the whole area traversed by the proposed lines of delimitation. This is what both Governments have been seeking to achieve.

Thirdly, the basic elements provide for access from both sides to the sea and seabed resources of the Torres Strait area on terms which will foster the development of the economies of the immediate areas in and on both sides of the Strait.

Fourthly, arrangements will be established in the Torres Strait area which are designed to meet fully the particular needs of the people of the area, including the people of the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea, with regard to traditional movements and traditional fishing. In putting these arrangements into effect, the wishes of the people of the area will be taken into account by the two Governments. There will be machinery to ensure that representatives of these people will be consulted about decisions that affect them.

Fifthly, there will be appropriate guarantees for freedom of movement ibr ships and aircraft in the area. In particular, these will ensure that internal sea and air services of the two countries will take place without delay, interference or inconvenience. There will also be provision for the passage of vessels using the Strait to go to other destinations along routes normally used for international navigation. The main treaty elements, briefly stated in non-technical and nonlegal language, are as follows:

  1. 1 ) There will be a seabed resources delimitation line running through the whole area between the two countries and located as indicated on the two maps.
  2. There will similarly be a line delimiting the swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction between the two countries. In the central Torres Strait area, it will run to the north of the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai as shown on the two maps. To the east and the west of that area it will coincide with the seabed line.
  3. In the treaty, Australia will recognise Papua New Guinea sovereignty over the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa; Papua New Guinea will recognise Australian sovereignty over all the Australian islands in the Torres Strait shown on map 1 1 as lying north of the seabed line.
  4. As shown on the maps, the territorial seas of the Australian islands north of the seabed line, and of Papua New Guinea in the area between Boigu and Dauan will be a maximum of three nautical miles, and a territorial sea boundary will be delimited between Boigu, Dauan and Saibai and Papua New Guinea. Neither country will in future extend its territorial seas across the seabed line.
  5. A Protected Zone will be established in the Torres Strait in the area shown on the maps. Within this zone the Torres Strait Islanders and the Papua New Guineans who live in the adjacent coastal area will be able to continue their traditional activities and to move freely about the zone for this purpose.
  6. There will be an embargo on mining and oil drilling of the seabed throughout the Protected Zone for 10 years from the date of entry into force of the treaty. This might be renewed thereafter by agreement.
  7. The treaty will include further provisions relating to the Protected Zone which will cover agreed principles, parallel measures to be taken by, and co-operation between the two Governments to provide for the following matters: (a) the protection and preservation of the marine environment; (b) the management and conservation of fisheries resources; (c) the protection of plant and animal life; and (d) the prevention and control of pollution.
  8. The treaty will make provision for detailed bilateral arrangements covering joint conservation, management and sharing of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries. Both Governments will consult and co-operate in the issue and endorsement of licences. The licensing arrangements will have regard to the desirability of promoting economic development and employment opportunities in the Torres Strait area including the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea and the people of the area will be consulted about these arrangements.

Subject to the phasing arrangements specified in the paper I have tabled, the sharing of the commercial protected zone fisheries will be on the basis that Australia will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the commercial fisheries in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction; Papua New Guinea will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the commercial fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction. The share in the territorial seas of the Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line other than Turnagain, however, will be on a 50/50 basis and Papua New Guinea will have 100 per cent of the commercial barramundi fishery near the Papua New Guinea coast, excluding the territorial seas of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu. Each country will have preference against third countries to take up any surplus of the other country’s share of the commercial protected zone fisheries. Third State operators will not normally be licensed to exploit those fisheries unless agreed by Australia and Papua New Guinea.

  1. In relation to the protected zone provisions permitting freedom of movement by the local people in the carrying on of traditional activities, the treaty will provide for co-operation on immigration, customs, health and quarantine arrangements. However, each country will retain the right to implement national controls to prevent abuses or other possible adverse effects of those protected zone provisions.
  2. There will be liaison arrangements to ensure the effective working of the protected zone provisions of the treaty. These will include a body, which might be called the Torres Strait Inter-Governmental Advisory and Consultative Committee, that will be responsible to the two Foreign Ministers. On the Committee, State and provincial governments and the local people will be represented. In addition, senior national Government officials will be nominated to facilitate, at the local level, the implementation of the protected zone arrangements.
  3. The treaty will contain provisions covering appropriate guarantees of freedon of navigation, passage and overflight.

What I have set out in this statement, and in the paper I have tabled, is an outline of the principal basic elements which Mr Olewale and I have agreed are to be included in the treaty. This outline is in summary form and not in formal treaty language. Certain consequential points of substance remain for discussion between the two Foreign Ministers and considerably more work remains to be done on the development of detailed treaty articles. The technical descriptions of the various points and lines referred to in this statement, and in the accompanying paper and illustrative maps, require further careful checking and calculation before being finally agreed upon for inclusion in the treaty. It is planned that Mr Olewale and I will consult again in a few weeks’ time in order to maintain momentum towards the completion of full treaty documentation.

Meanwhile, I am confident that honourable members will agree with Mr Olewale and me that the agreement we have now reached upon the principal basic elements to be included in the treaty text is an historic one. We and our ministerial colleagues believe that a treaty incorporating these elements will represent a mutuallyacceptable and equitable settlement which will meet the genuine concerns and interests of the Governments and peoples of our two countries. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the text of the paper to which I have referred containing an outline of the principal basic elements.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Outline of principal basic elements agreed upon on 5 May 1978 between the Foreign Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea to be included in the treaty to be concluded on maritime boundaries between their two countries and on other matters relating to Torres Strait.

Notes:

This outline is a summary, not in formal treaty language, and does not include all the detail that will be necessary in the treaty.

Certain consequential points of substance are to be the subject of further negotiations.

The two illustrative maps are indicative only.

Subject to minor adjustment for reasons of technical computation and survey, there will be an agreed seabed resources delimitation line running through the whole area between the two countries and located as indicated on the two maps.

Similarly there will be a line delimiting the swimming fisheries resources jurisdiction between the two countries, located as indicated on the two maps. The run of that line will coincide with that of the seabed delimitation line except that, between the meridians 142° 03’ 30” East and 142° 5 1 ‘ 00” East, it will run to the north of the three inhabited Australian islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai

Australia will recognise Papua New Guinea sovereignty over the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa and the smaller islands appurtenant to those islands and over their territorial seas, subject to delimitation as necessary to be specified in the treaty. Papua New Guinea will recognise Australian sovereignty over the inhabited islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai and the smaller islands appurtenant to these, islands, including Aubusi, Moimi and Kaumag and over the nine Australian uninhabited islands lying north of the seabed delimitation line, that is Turu Cay, Kerr Islet, Deliverance Island, Turnagain Island, Pearce Cay, Black

Rocks, Bramble Cay, Anchor Cay and East Cay, and over the three-mile territorial seas of those islands, subject to an agreed description of the delimitation thereof which will appear in the treaty.

The territorial seas of Australia and Papua New Guinea between Boigu and Papua New Guinea, and between Dauan and Saibai and Papua New Guinea, will be delimited along two agreed lines as broadly indicated on the maps.

The breadth of the territorial seas of the Australian islands indicated on the map as lying north of the seabed delimitation line will be a maximum of three miles. No other Australian territorial sea will lie to the north of the line. The breadth of the territorial sea of Papua New Guinea along its southern coastline between the meridians 142° 03’ 30” East and 1 42 ° 5 1 ‘ 00 “ East will be a maximum of three miles and will not extend south of the two territorial sea delimitation lines or the straight line linking them as indicated on the maps. The extent of Papua New Guinea territorial sea, which will not in any event extend into the area south of the agreed seabed line, agreed areas of Australian territorial sea to the north of the seabed line, or the agreed area of Australian fisheries jurisdiction north of the seabed line, will depend on the base lines or archipelagic lines adopted by Papua New Guinea in accordance with international law.

Australia and Papua New Guinea will not in future extend their territorial seas across the seabed delimitation line.

A Protected Zone will be established in the Torres Strait within the area indicated on the maps. The treaty will contain provisions which safeguard traditional activities, including in particular traditional fishing, by the people of the Torres Strait area, that is the Torres Strait Islanders and Papua New Guineans who live in the adjacent coastal area, and which provide for continued freedom of movement about the zone in pursuit of these traditional activities.

There will be an embargo on mining and oil drilling of the seabed throughout the Protected Zone for 10 years commencing from the date of entry into force of the treaty. The embargo may, by agreement between the two countries, be extended beyond the end of the 10 year period. The treaty will provide for equitable arrangements to be made by Papua New Guinea in respect of the holders of the Australian petroleum permit Q/10P in those parts of the permit area that will fall on the Papua New Guinea side of the seabed delimitation line. The treaty will also contain a provision along the following lines’.

If any single accumulation of liquid hydrocarbons or natural gas, or if any other mineral deposit beneath the seabed, extends across a boundary line so as to come within the jurisdiction of both countries, and the pan of such accumulation or deposit that is situated on one side of the line is recoverable in fluid form wholly or in pan from the other side of the line, the two Governments will seek to reach agreement on the manner in which the accumulation or deposit shall be most effectively exploited and on the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from such exploitation.

The treaty will incorporate further provisions relating to the Protected Zone which will cover agreed principles, parallel measures to be taken by, and cooperation between, the two Governments, to ensure: protection and preservation of the marine environment; management and conservation of fisheries resources; protection of indigenous flora and fauna (including endangered species, notably the dugong and certain species of turtle); prevention and control of pollution.

10) The treaty will also contain detailed provisions on agreed arrangements in respect of commercial fisheries within the Protected Zone, including those fish of stocks belonging substantially to the area of the Protected Zone which occur outside but near the Zone within limits to be agreed between the two Governments. In respect of such commercial Protected Zone fisheries the treaty will contain provisions covering the following points:

The conduct of commercial Protected Zone fisheries will be subject to the provisions that will be made in the treaty for the people of the area to continue to engage in traditional fishing. This will mean that traditional fishing will have precedence over commercial fishing.

In the context of conservation, management and sharing-of-take ‘ arrangements in respect of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries, the fisheries authorities of both countries will consult and cooperate in the issue and endorsement of licences.

In the administrative process of issuing licences, the relevant authorities of the two countries will have regard to the desirability of promoting economic development in the Torres Strait area including the adjacent coastal area of Papua New Guinea and employment opportunities for the people of the area.

There will be periodic consultation with the people of the area on the licensing arrangements.

The responsible authorities of each country will issue licences to their own nationals and endorse when necessary the licences of nationals of the other country.

In allocating licences, and in deciding upon other jointly-agreed management and access arrangements in respect of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries, regard will be had to existing levels of ‘take’ by each country prior to the date of entry into force of the treaty but subject to sub-paragraph (g) below. Provided these levels remain within the optimum sustainable yield of the fishery concerned, they will not be reduced for five years from the date of entry into force of the treaty but, over the subsequent five years, levels of ‘take’ may be adjusted progressively so that Papua New Guinea will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the ‘take’ of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries in waters under Australian jurisdiction and Australia will have an overall share of 25 per cent of the ‘take’ of the commercial Protected Zone fisheries in waters under Papua New Guinea jurisdiction, subject to the following:

In the territorial seas of the Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line, other than Turnagain, the ‘sharing-of-take’ formula will be 50 per cent Australia/50 per cent Papua New Guinea.

Papua New Guinea will have 100 per cent of the take’ in the commercial barramundi fishery near the Papua New Guinea coast, excluding the territorial seas of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu, and this ‘take’ will not be included in calculating the overall percentage share of ‘take’ in the commercial Protected Zone fisheries under the agreed ‘sharing-of-take’ formula mentioned above.

The ‘take ‘ by each country in individual fisheries will be a matter for agreement between the two countries in accordance with the abovementioned principles and in the context of subsidiary joint conservation, management, access and licensing arrangements negotiated in respect of individual fisheries and will not necessarily, in any single fishery, be the same as the overall percentage shares of the ‘take ‘ mentioned above.

In the event of the optimum yield not being taken up in a Protected Zone fishery or part thereof under the jurisdiction of one country because that country in any year or season after the entry into force of the treaty does not propose itself fully to exploit its share of that fishery, the other country will be given preference as against third countries to take up all or any portion of the surplus in that fishery or part.

Vessels of third State operators will not normally be licensed to exploit the commercial Protected Zone fisheries unless agreed by the two countries.

For the purpose of fisheries jurisdiction and the sharing provisions and subject to conservation, management and protection provisions, the following categories of living resources will be recognised:

swimming fisheries resources (all living marine resources with the exception of sedentary organisms within the meaning of the 19S8 Convention on the Continental Shelf);

seabed fisheries (most sedentary organisms as so defined);

other living resources of the seabed (corals, seaweed etc., and, outside the territorial seas of Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line (except Turnagain), pearl shell).

Fisheries jurisdiction will apply to (a), the seabed jurisdiction to (b) and (c). As a general rule, the fisheries conservation management and sharing arrangements will apply to (a) and (b). The position of (c) from the latter point of view will need to be further considered, except for pearl shell in the areas indicated.

In relation to the Protected Zone provisions which will permit the continued performance of traditional activities by the local peoples and continued freedom of movement about the Zone for that purpose, there will be cooperation on immigration, customs, health and quarantine arrangements, although each country will retain the right to implement national controls to prevent abuses or other possible adverse effects of the Protected Zone provisions.

There will be liaison arrangements between the two countries to ensure that the Protected Zone arrangements work effectively. These will include both a high-level Torres Strait Inter-Governmental Advisory and Consultative Committee responsible to the two Foreign Ministers, on which State and Provincial governments and the people of the area will be represented, and also the nomination of senior national Government officials to facilitate, at the local level, the implementation of the Protected Zone arrangements.

The treaty will contain appropriate guarantees of freedom of navigation, passage and overflight in the Torres Strait area.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I present the following paper:

Australia and Papua New Guinea- Negotiations on Maritime Boundaries and on other Matters Relating to Torres Strait-Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1978.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Before the suspension of the sitting the

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) had delivered a statement relating to negotiations on maritime boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea, particularly as they apply to the Torres Strait. We welcome the Minister’s further statement on this matter. I say at the outset that we want to encourage the Minister, congratulate him on the work that has already been done and express our appreciation of what has happened. Of course, as has been said, it is a complex matter. We are anxious that all related matters should be discussed in the Parliament, in the interests of reaching a proper settlement. The Minister made a statement on this matter on 1 1 May. On that occasion we replied indicating that we could understand the development and the progress that was being made towards settlement. We also note that there could be people seeking wider discussions and details in respect of the difficulties of settling boundaries the details of which were the subject of discussions.

I note that in this latest statement the Minister obtained leave to incorporate in Hansard the elements of the basic agreements which were reached on 5 May between the Foreign Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea. They clearly show the matters to which we should now address our minds. I also note that the Minister has sought the concurrence of other people vitally interested in this matter, not the least of whom would be the Torres Strait Islanders. Let us make it clear that the Torres Strait Islanders are Australian citizens and we have a national responsibility to represent them. In regard to this issue we can well understand the Minister’s concern to guarantee that those citizens are able to maintain the rights which by custom and usage they have had for many years.

The matter of law involves the questions of sovereignty and access. When we talk about boundaries we have to look at the realities of the situation which might not have been clearly espoused over the centuries. When discussing this matter last on 1 1 May we were given information as to what the letters patent clearly showed in relation to the islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa. We recognise that there could have been confusion and misunderstanding as to where the boundaries ought to have applied. I understand that there is some suggestion that there is evidence in the British Foreign Office to indicate that perhaps the boundaries are not drawn in the way that the letters patent produced on 1 1 May showed them to be. These are some of the problems. There are always different points of view put on the question. The letters patent were furnished here but it is suggested- I put it no higher than that- that there is other evidence. Despite that, as the Minister has accurately predicted, we are making great progress towards a settlement. That is what it is all about.

The Minister has said that it is a technical matter, which it is. It requires equitable understanding of the arrangements of” people, which we fully understand. The difficulty is to get that accepted at all levels. I am pleased to say that we find Papua New Guinea a most welcome neighbour indeed. As a former colonial responsibility Papua New Guinea has now developed into a strong, resilient political group very well disposed towards us. I think that has been helped by the fact that the Opposition when in power was anxious to promote the independence of that country. Even in those days we were anxious to promote a settlement of all the border issues. We applaud the efforts of the Minister and his dedication in getting as far as he has at present. We note that we will be getting further information as to how progress is proceeding.

For a few moments I shall address myself to the matters that the Minister mentioned in detail in his statement. We note that the maps produced deal with a number of areas, namely, the seabed resources delimitation line; the swimming fisheries resources delimitation line; the protected zone; the limit of the Australian territorial sea north of the seabed line; territorial sea delimitation lines between Papua New Guinea and Boigu, Dauan and Saibai; and the basic extent of the Papua New Guinea territorial sea. They are set out in detail on maps that have been produced. But in relation to the details we ask a couple of questions. They relate to the fact that we say that the settlement would depend on acceptance by the people who are known as Torres Strait Islanders. I think that goes without any other argument. We also await the reaction of the Papua New Guinea Parliament to this report. We understand that that will be forthcoming.

I want to make a point about the zones themselves. Some particular issues are involved. I raise the question of commercial protected zone fisheries. As I understand the situation, swimming fisheries resources is a particular category and another category is deemed to be commercial protected zone fisheries. There is a share allocation which is dealt with in paragraph 9 on page 5 of the Minister’s statement. It sets out how those commercial fisheries shall be shared by both Papua New Guinea and the Australian nation. The statement reads:

The share in the territorial seas of the Australian uninhabited islands north of the seabed line other than Turnagain …

I invite the Minister to explain why there is an exception in respect of the uninhabited island of Turnagain. It has been said- I think it is rightthat the Torres Strait Islanders have always enjoyed access to the three islands, the sovereignty of which has been predicted as suitable to be recognised as belonging to Papua New Guinea. Those islands are Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa. It has been suggested- I think it is probably not disputed- that the Torres Strait Islanders as a matter of custom, usage and existing rights have access to those islands for their resources. This would be not just in relation to swimming fish; it applies to crustaceans. The Torres Strait Islanders need access to those islands. I hope that that point can be clarified by the Minister. I hope that these people in no way will be affected. I understand that this point has been of some concern to those people who have been making a study of these matters. That is the particular area I wanted to mention.

We note all the other matters that are the subject of further negotiations, and we note that there will be further consultation between the Minister and his counterpart Mr Olewale in a few weeks in order to maintain the momentum towards settlement. The Opposition is understandably pleased at the progress that has been made by both governments. We welcome the fact that the national Government has been able to do this. As I said on 1 1 May, we do not want to see any unnecessary political interference on the basis that somebody else has any rights in this matter. The High Court clearly said that the Federal Government has the right, the jurisdiction and the duty. Let us proceed on that basis. With those sentiments we welcome the statement and look forward to further information being made available to this Parliament as and when progress is reported.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I am grateful to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) for giving me an opportunity to speak on this matter. I share with the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), his sentiments on this matter. I compliment the Minister and his officers on the excellent job that has been done. I want to address myself briefly to the matter that the Minister raised on 1 1 May dealing with the question of sovereignty over the three islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa. At the outset I should say that a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence presented a report to this Parliament in December 1 976. It was an all-party sub-committee. I furnished a minority report which differed from the opinions of the other 20 members. I seek leave to have the minority report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows-

STATEMENT OF RESERVATIONS BY MR JACOBI

Whilst I endorse a number of findings in the ‘SubCommittee’s Report’, I have found it necessary to express my own views in a separate report. I would summarise these views in the following way:

negotiation is preferable to arbitration, and is in the best interests of both countries.

Australia should acknowledge that the existing border is a legitimate grievance to Papua New Guinea, and that a delineation of the seabed boundary south of the existing boundary is a realignment that Papua New Guinea can reasonably expect.

The resolution of such a question should not be allowed to be impeded by purely domestic constitutional difficulties in Australia, which have nothing to do with Papua New Guinea and which Papua New Guinea can legitimately claim should not adversely affect her interest.

The Australian Government should make every effort to ensure that the inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands are kept fully informed and are consulted in any settlement that is negotiated with the Government of Papua New Guinea.

REASONS

Under the Australian Constitution the National Government is responsible for the conduct of Australia’s foreign relations including negotiations of any settlement with the Government of Papua New Guinea in regard to the boundary separating our two countries.

To acknowledge this undoubted fact however, is not to deny the very real need on the part of the Australian Government to consult with and keep fully informed the inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands.

As long as Australia exercised external responsibilities for peace, order and good government’ on behalf of the people of Papua New Guinea, the border issue was very largely academic.

However, New Guinea, prior to independence, was a Trust Territory and as such was subject to scrutiny and report by a visiting UN Mission in 1971, which declared the desirability of a border change. In the run up to independence this matter was in fact raised in the Australian Parliament in 1971 and the Papua New Guinea Parliament in 1969 and 1971.

Because of the very general nature of the description of the 1 879 line, it is almost impossible to use it to construct the border with the precision required for an international boundary.

Since initial annexation in 1879, the border between both nations has been the subject of a number of exchanges, resulting in a number of recommended border realignments, but no change to the 1879 line has been made. The very fact that the 1879 line lacks the essential attribute of precision, and that this line lies only a few hundred metres from the coast of Papua New Guinea must necessarily be a source of grievance, if not even offence. That this is so was acknowledged long before Papua New Guinea became independent. Speaking in 1903, a former Premier of Queensland, Sir Samual Griffiths, first Chief Justice of the High Court, said:

With regard to the boundary when it was fixed in 1 878, it was not unreasonable for Queensland to require to get all she could. She could not get New Guinea, but managed to get as near as possible. We followed round as close as we could get between the Islands and the coast of New Guinea, taking in practically everything at that time and those parts were equally unknown and unsettled; but later when New Guinea had what was after all a civilised Government . . ., it became extremely absurd that some of the islands should be governed by Queensland.

In the words of a noted academic authority on the subject, the present maritime boundary between Queensland and Papua is an anachronism and contains the seeds of future conflict’. (Mr P. W. van der Veur ‘Search for New Guinea Boundary’, p. 35(1966)).

At independence, Papua New Guinea assumed the rights and obligations conferred upon it as a sovereign state. Of necessity, it had to assess the limits of its territory and territorial jurisdiction, the rights of freedom of movement of its people, their freedom of access for the purposes of trade and commerce, its requirements for defence, both national and international, and its freedom of access to the seas adjacent to its mainland for the purpose of exploiting the natural resources on or beneath the seabed.

The evidence indicates an intention on the part of the government of Australia and Papua New Guinea to reach an acceptable settlement involving a re-alignment of present boundary. Because of certain Australian Constitutional difficulties (see clause 7) Australia may be restricted to a delineation of the maritime and seabed boundary.

The proposed Une involves a delineation of the seabed boundary and would be drawn to the south of the present line subject to the following conditions:

The three inhabited islands of Boigu, Saibai and Dauan (which may be left north of the new seabed boundary) remaining Australian and their people Australian citizens.

Uninhabited islands remaining Australian territory.

Such islands generating a three (3) mile territorial sea.

The establishment of a protective zone in the Torres Strait to preserve the traditional way of life and livelihood of the islanders and the people of Papua New Guinea, to be administered by a Commission having representation from all parties.

The resolution of outstanding issues: in particular, the need to define the geographical limits of both the ‘protected zone’ and the ‘seabed boundary’ and the matter of drilling within the protected zone.

The failure to concede to Papua New Guinea the rights proposed by the two Governments could well lead to the following consequences:

Papua New Guinea may pass its ‘National Seas Bill’. This would create overlapping and conflict of claims between the Australian Government and the Papua New Guinea Government as to respective areas of influence and jurisdiction, both national and international.

The issue may well then be referred to the International Court of Justice or some other international arbitral institution, as being used, for instance, to resolve the dispute between France and the United Kingdom over certain islands in the English Channel.

This might result in a decision adverse to Australia, so we face the real dilemma of a conflict between ‘international law’ and Australian ‘municipal law’, with all the attendant difficulties of compliance with, and implementation of, the international decision.

Strategic and Defence Considerations- The evidence indicates that in so far as our strategic interests are concerned the transfer of any other of the islands and islets north of 10°S would not affect Australia’s strategic interest in unimpeded navigation of the Strait. Naturally, it remains true that the more islands that might be occupied the more options for military exploitation would be available to the occupant, whoever that might be. However, the desirability of this option could be countervailed if transfer of the islands could guarantee a comprehensive and permanent resolution of differences with Papua New Guinea in the area. The Defence Department made quite clear in its submission to the Sub-Committee that the over-riding defence consideration in Torres Strait was to prevent an unresolved boundaries dispute becoming a source of friction in a general sense between Papua New Guinea and Australia. The two countries presently enjoy an unusually close identity of defence interests, and co-operate effectively in safeguarding those interests. Any final settlement of the boundaries issue must be made with reference to the wider concern of maintaining this commonality of interests and high level of co-operation.

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION

Finally it is necessary to discuss the legal and constitutional issues involved in the changes that are proposed regarding Australia ‘s boundary with Papua New Guinea.

Three possible courses of action require discussion:

Islands

  1. The first such possible course of action would entail the transfer to Papua New Guinea of some or any of the islands themselves. This possibility would undoubtedly give rise to serious human problems. It would also give rise to difficult legal problems stemming from the scope and operation of Section 1 23 of the Australian Constitution.
  2. Section 123 empowers the Australian Parliament to alter the limits of a State but only if the alteration takes place:

    1. with the consent of the State Parliament concerned, and also
    2. with the approval of the electors of the State concerned.

These requirements are intended to safeguard the territorial integrity of a State. They are reinforced by the further requirements that were written into the procedure for amending the Constitution in the last paragraph of Section 128.

  1. v) There are other legal powers that may perhaps be used to alter State boundaries. However, the existence of the special power contained in Section 123 has given rise to the difficult legal question whether these other powers are capable of being exercised at all or alternatively exercised without also complying with the special requirements created by Section 123.

The other powers include the following:

  1. the power of the Queen to alter Australia’s boundaries by Order-in-Council or by Letters Patent with the consent of the Commonwealth under the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895 (IMP).
  2. the power of the Australian Parliament to legislate with respect to external affairs in Section 5 1 (XXXIX) (in conjunction with the executive power enjoyed by the Australian Government by virtue of Section 61 of the Constitution).
  3. the power of a State to surrender any part of its territory to the Commonwealth under Section 111. (This section could in fact provide a vehicle for co-operative federalism in that State territory could be transferred to the Commonwealth, which Commonwealth could then cede if so desired.)

The question of whether these powers could be used to avoid the need to act with the consent of the Parliament and people of any affected State has given rise to serious differences of legal opinion.

In the absence of any judicial authority on the matter, the question must remain unresolved and subject to considerable doubt.

  1. The existence of this doubt poses grave internal legal problems in the way of transferring any territory that forms part of the State of Queensland without the approval of the Government of that State. It would appear that the Torres Strait Islands fall into that category.

The Waters

  1. The second possible course of action would only involve the delineation of a maritime boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea, i.e., determining the waters in the Torres Strait over which both countries would exercise international rights of sovereignty.
  2. Despite some confusion in the past, the better view today would appear to be that the 1879 line did not have the effect of making the waters surrounding the Islands part of the State of Queensland. Moreover it is clear since the offshore sovereignty case (NSW v the Commonwealth 1 976 ) (50 A.L.J.R. 218) that the territorial waters adjacent to a State do not form part of that State.
  3. Accordingly, there can be no possibility of Section 123 applying to the delineation of the maritime boundary, to require the consent and approval of the Parliament and people of Queensland to that delineation.

The Continental Shelf

  1. The third possible course of action would involve the delineation of Australia ‘s seabed boundary, i.e., defining the areas of the continental shelf over which both countries would exercise international rights of sovereignty. Similar considerations apply because the shelf does not form part of the State of Queensland. This would appear to be so especially in the light of the off-shore sovereignty case. Likewise, the special requirements of Section 123 can have no application to any proposals designed to alter or delineate the seabed boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea.
  2. In conclusion, any changes that are made to Australia’s maritime and seabed boundaries, will not, as a matter of law, require the consent and approval of the Queensland Government, however desirable it might be to obtain such consent and approval for other reasons. The proposals at present under consideration between the two Governments which are referred to in this report, would only involve a delineation of Australia’s seabed boundary. (Signed) (RALPH JACOBI), MP 26 November 1976
Mr JACOBI:

– I support what the Minister said in relation to the three islets on 1 1 May for the reasons that I shall give. The matter was dealt with by the sub-committee. The question turns on the definition of Talbot Islands. Sir Samuel Griffiths, Premier of Queensland, decided in 1879 that Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa were part of the group known as the Talbot Islands and were therefore included within the boundaries of Queensland by the Queensland Coastal Islands Act 1 879. However, Sir Samuel Griffiths’ decision was at variance with the British Admiralty definition of the Talbot Islands. The official

Admiralty chart was drawn in 1873 by Navigating Lieutenant Connor who, in that year, surveyed the Talbot Islands while under the command of Captain Moresby. The Admiralty chart referred to by the law officers who drafted the 1878 Letters Patent was drawn by Navigating Lieutenant Connor to show Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa as lying outside the Talbot Islands which included only Boigu, Moimi and Aubusi.

Frederick James Evans, the Admiralty hydrographer referred to the Talbot Islands in a letter dated 16 September 1875 as being two to three miles from the New Guinea mainland. Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa are separated by only a few hundred yards from the mainland, whereas Boigu, Moimi and Aubusi are a little less than three miles from it. From the documents and correspondence relating to the alteration of the maritime boundary in Queensland in 1879 to incorporate certain islands in the Torres Strait it would appear that the Queensland Coastal Islands Act of 1879 was not drafted to include the three islets of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa. Proof of this is contained in the documents printed on pages 1 16, 133 and 143 of the report on the Torres Strait Boundary by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Subcommittee on Territorial Boundaries, 1976. 1 am amazed that some of my colleagues did not take the time to study the appendices to that report. I have the sneaking feeling that the Minister’s Department might have had reference to that fact when it studied the matter.

I shall take a few minutes to address myself to my attitude because I feel that I owe it to the House to do so. I furnished my report which disagreed with that of the Joint Committee for the reasons which appear on page 91 of the report. They are:

  1. negotiation is preferable to arbitration, and is in the best interests of both countries.
  2. Australia should acknowledge that the existing border is a legitimate grievance to Papua New Guinea, and that a delineation of the seabed boundary south of the existing boundary is a realignment that Papua New Guinea can reasonably expect.
  3. The resolution of such a question should not be allowed to be impeded by purely domestic constitutional difficulties in Australia, which have nothing to do with Papua New Guinea and which Papua New Guinea can legitimately claim should not adversely affect her interest.
  4. The Australian Government should make every effort to ensure that the inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands are kept fully informed and are consulted in any settlement that is negotiated with the Government of Papua New Guinea.

My reasons for doing so were as follows:

  1. Under the Australian Constitution the National Government is responsible for the conduct of Australia’s foreign relations including negotiations of any settlement with the Government of Papua New Guinea in regard to the boundary separating our two countries.

The second and important reason was:

  1. Because of the very general nature of the description of the 1 879 line, it is almost impossible to use it to construct the border with the precision required for an international boundary.

I took that view for the reasons that I shall give. I think that it is a sound view, though my colleagues on both sides on the sub-committee disagreed. The reason is that the 1879 line is not a true boundary in either Australian or international law. The sole purpose of the line was to indicate which islands were to be annexed to the then colony of Queensland without in any way altering the status of the waters surrounding the island and the submerged land lying beneath the water. Those waters and the submerged land did not, in consequence, form part of Queensland. They did not then and they do not now. The other observation I made was:

  1. The failure to concede to Papua New Guinea the rights proposed by the two Governments could well lead to the following consequences:

Papua New Guinea may pass its ‘National Seas Bill’. This would create overlapping and conflict of claims between the Australian Government and the Papua New Guinea Government as to respective areas of influence and jurisdiction, both national and international.

That took place. That observation continued:

The issue may well then be referred to the International Court of Justice or some other international arbitral institution, as being used, for instance, to resolve the dispute between France and the UK over certain islands in the English Channel.

On a negotiated basis at least, that possibility has in fact been avoided. Coming to the details of the accord, for obvious reasons one assumes that Australia has forsworn its right for a 12 -mile territorial waters area around its islands for obvious reasons. Equally, one assumes, reference to the map, that Papua New Guinea has exercised its right with the exception of the area encompassing the fishery resources delimitation zone.

The other point is that undoubtedly Australia has not foregone any of its land territory or islands in the Torres Strait. To that extent it does not impinge at all upon the Australian Government’s constitutional responsibility, it does not contravene Queensland’s constitutional entitlement under the Constitution or under the Queensland Coastal Islands Act. I assume from the map that the seabed boundary is slightly north of the Ellicott Line. It serves as a seabed boundary and sea delimitation for the question of exploitation of resources. As I understand it the three islands of Saibai, Boigu and Dauan generate their own three-mile territorial waters, which gives Australia exclusive jurisdiction within those waters, I take it that waters north of the seabed boundaries, that is both for crustaceans and other fishing resources or exploitation generally, will be on a basis north of the Line in the ratio of 25 per cent to 75 per cent against Australia and, south of that Line, on the basis of 75 per cent to 25 per cent in Australia ‘s favour.

The other important factor is the question of the protected zone. It seems that that will have to be administered by an intergovernmental committee of both governments to preserve resources, both living and non-living. That preserves the integrity of those who are now Australian citizens on its inhabited islands, giving them a full entitlement to the three miles of territorial waters. Another question I raise with the Minister, as did the shadow Minister is that of Turnagain and also the administration of the navigation of the Great North East Channel. The evidence received by the sub-committee was to the effect that for strategic and defence purposes there would be no problem, as it lies within the protected zone and therefore would be subject to joint administration. As I understand the situation, it is a matter of both countries paying regard to international criteria laid down for the free movement of shipping and for navigational purposes. I understand that it is Australia’s responsibility to maintain the navigational aids sited along the channel.

My summary of a very brief and cursory examination of both the Minister’s statement and the maps affixed to it shows that this is a very reasonable and satisfactory accord. I again compliment the Minister and his officers. But there is one point I wish to make: This accord represents a vindication of the initiatives taken by the Labor Government. Those initiatives led to the independence of Papua New Guinea and the laying of the foundation for this agreement which I trust will be a lasting and very sound agreement between both countries. As anybody who has studied international boundary disputes will know, they are difficult and very complex. Regrettably they sometimes lead to protracted litigation. That could have happened in this case had it not been for a sense of understanding and balance on the part of both countries. One of the biggest problems facing the Greek Government and the Turkish Government is not Cyprus but the seabed boundaries in the Agean Sea because of the oil rights involved.

I make this observation: As it would appear that to some degree there has been a bi-partisan approach on this matter, as there has been on the question of Antarctica, I would hope that in the intervening period between now and the drafting of the treaty- the period when discussions will take place- the Minister will at least extend to the Opposition the courtesy of keeping us informed of any changes to the material substance of the agreements tabled in the Parliament today. I hope, above all, that the Minister, between the present time and the time of the signing of the treaty, will do two things: I hope that he will keep the Torres Strait Islanders completely informed of all the negotiations and will explain to them the ramifications and meaning of what takes place. Equally, there is an obligation, constitutional at least, on the Minister to keep the Queensland Government fully informed of what may occur ultimately in this matter.

Could the Minister clarify for me the question of fishing exploitation by Australians- Torres Strait Islanders or anybody else- within the 3-mile territorial waters adjacent to the inhabited islands within the delimited swimming fish resources zone? Is that to be an exclusive right for Australian fishing, both subsistence and commercial, or is it exclusive in terms of subsistence fishing for Australian inhabitants? Is fishing within that 3-mile territory limit on a commercial basis subject to the ratio of 75 per cent for Australia and 25 per cent for Papua New Guinea?

Mr THOMSON:
Leichhardt

– I am told that I have only a few minutes in which to speak on this very important subject. It is very important to me because the Torres Strait Islands are entirely within my electorate. I would like to compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on a very sensible and practical solution. This has been a very difficult problem for a number of years. To have reached such a satisfactory solution reflects great credit on all concerned. I would also like to compliment the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) for a very balanced and reasonable speech. He knows a lot about the subject and he has put the position very well indeed. It is very good to see such a bi-partisan approach to such a complex national and international problem.

I wish to make one or two points about it: The chairmen of the Island groups have been kept informed of what has been going on. I was in the Torres Strait area last Thursday with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). The Island chairmen were briefed, in confidence, on this whole detailed proposal. They were shown the maps and they asked many questions. The briefing continued for a number of hours and they expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the agreement. The night before, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) had briefed the

Premier of Queensland and the members of the Queensland Government. They also expressed, both in private and in public, satisfaction with the agreement. I think that this is a very good result in what could have been an extremely difficult problem.

We have achieved all we wanted to achieve to protect the Islanders, the Islands and the Islanders’ traditional way of life. We have also protected the traditional use by the coastal Papuans of that area. The people have been protected and the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he visited the Torres Strait Islands in November 1976 has been kept. The protected zone is unique hi international agreements. It is a splendid way of solving a very difficult problem, a way which I have been recommending, along with many other people, for some time. It will work well because the Papuans, the Islanders, the national governments and the provincial governments concerned agree on that problem.

There was a very great problem in my mind and in the minds of a number of other people about the sea-bed line. The fear was expressed that a sea-bed line would cause the three nothern islands of Saibai, Dauan, and Boigu to be in an enclave in Papua New Guinea waters. As the chairman of the Torres Strait Islands Advisory Council, Mr Getano Lui, said in very pithy language, he was frightened that the sea-bed line would rise to the surface of the water and become a defacto border. Because the Australian fisheries jurisdiction has been extended around the three northern islands and the waters around those islands are Australian fisheries waters, it is not possible for that line to rise to the surface and to become a de facto border. That is one of the most significant objectives obtained by the negotiators.

The word ‘window’ has been used to indicate the protection that has been given to those three northern islands. It gives them a window on to the rest of the Torres Strait. They are not cut off. They remain part of the Torres Strait, as they always have been. I wish to deal very briefly with the three islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa. I am satisfied that they were not originally proclaimed to be part of Queensland. The Islanders have always shared those islands with the Papuans. They are uninhabited and have very limited resources. The fart that they are within the protected zone answers many of the worries expressed by previous speakers in the debate. Because they are in the protected zone, the Torres Strait Islanders can use them as they have always done traditionally. That is of very great importance. They are not important islands. I do not believe that we have any claim to them. The fact that the Torres Strait Islanders can continue to use them in the traditional way is very important.

Finally I would like to compliment the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Ebia Olewale. He and I are in a unique position in that we share an electoral boundary in the Torres Strait. He, like myself, has been very concerned with this problem. But I am delighted to say that he has taken a national approach to the problem and not a parochial approach, although I imagine that he has been under as much pressure from his constituents in the area as I have been from mine. So I would like to thank him publicly in the House for his statesmanlike part in these negotiations. I believe that a very good solution has been reached. I hope that at a later time we will have more time to debate this very important problem. I believe that this is the first time a member of this Parliament can say that this problem is in his electorate. This does not happen very often. I would be very grateful for the chance to speak at greater length on it at another time. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his officials, one of whom is sitting in the chamber, for the excellent job they have done under very difficult conditions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I was about to call the honourable member for Higgins, but I notice that both he and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are on their feet.

Mr Shipton:

– I thought that I had a few minutes in which to speak. I also thought that the debate would be continued on another day. I think in the circumstances that I should move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Higgins to resume bis seat if he does not intend to speak in the debate.

Mr Bryant:

– I take it that the debate will be resumed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member raising a point of order?

Mr Bryant:

– I want to ask a question about the resumption of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister. I hope he will clear up the situation.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– I understand that it is the case that the debate will be resumed, although arrangements seem to have been chopped about a bit. I will do my best to ensure that that is the case. Because I am going overseas on the weekend I would like to answer the questions which were posed. I am not closing the debate, of course, because the motion was moved by my colleague the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom). I thank honourable members who have expressed appreciation and support in relation to this matter and for the references to the officials who assisted me during the period of negotiation. I concur in those views. They worked extraordinarily hard.

I shall deal, first of all, with the questions raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). Turnagain Island is excluded from the 50/50 sharing because it is within- that is, is south of- the fisheries line where it runs north of Boigu, Duaun and Saibai and therefore is within the Australian fisheries jurisdiction. The question the honourable gentleman posed regarding Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa is answered by saying that the Islanders will be able to visit them for traditional purposes. That means that they will have access for their traditional fishing- not merely for swimming fish but also, for example, for mud crabs.

I turn to the observations and questions of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), particularly those in regard to the Great North Eastern Channel. There will be the usual freedoms of navigation through this strait and the channel, and Australia will maintain navigational aids for the channel. The honourable member’s final question referred to the share of the take of commercial fish in the three mile territorial seas around Australian islands north of the sea-bed line but, as I recall it, south of the fisheries delimitation Une. This will be 75 per cent Australian, 25 per cent Papua New Guinean in regard to the commercial take, but both Islanders and Papua New Guineans will be free to fish traditionally.

I will not take much more of the time of the House. Without engaging in any politics, I simply wish to answer one other observation- it was not a question- made by the honourable member for Hawker. He observed that this situation had come about as a consequence of the initiative of the Labor Government. Without detracting from what the Labor Government did so far as Papua New Guinea is concerned, I point out that the first interdepartmental committee which was established on this question was set up in 1972 when I was Minister for External Territories. The report of that committee was made available to the incoming Minister at the time of the change of government. I will keep the Opposition informed as we move towards the negotiation of the treaty and naturally, as was put, I will keep the Torres Strait Islanders and the Queensland Government informed, as they have been so informed.

The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) has participated extensively because his constituents have been involved in this matter. I greatly appreciate not only his remarks today but also his ready co-operation throughout. When his primary interest had to be his own constituents, he was at least prepared at all times to listen to my viewpoint. For that reason, I express great appreciation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned.

page 2494

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the House of Representatives agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament participate with the Parliaments of the States in the continuing work of the Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves:

    1. That, for the purposes of the Convention-
    1. a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament consisting of 16 members of the Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, of whom 6 shall be members of the Senate and 10 shall be members of the House of Representatives;
    2. the 10 members of the House of Representatives comprise 3 members of the Liberal Party of Australia, 2 members of the National Country Party of Australia and 5 members of the Australian Labor Party:

    3. That-
    1. the Prime Minister and 4 other members of the House of Representatives, 2 being members of the Liberal Party of Australia and 2 being members of the National Country Party of Australia, nominated by him; and
    2. the Leader of the Opposition and 4 other members of that House, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by him, be members of the Delegation.

    3. That the Prime Minister be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition be the Deputy Leader:
    4. That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if-
    1. he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;
    2. the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or (in) he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires:

    3. That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is a member) and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or that part of that meeting:
    4. That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member:
    5. That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report.
  2. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives.

The next plenary session of the Australian Constitutional Convention is scheduled to be held at Parliament House in Perth over the three-day period 26-28 July 1978. The terms of the motion which I have just moved are identical with those appointing the Commonwealth parliamentary delegation to the last plenary session of the Convention at Hobart in 1976. This parliament will again have a delegation of 16- comprising eight from the Government and eight from the Opposition.

The Government’s representation will remain unchanged from 1976, namely myself, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), the Minister for Home Affairs and the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has informed me of the names of the Opposition’s representatives in the delegation, and I shall be writing to the Chairman of the Convention, Sir Charles Court, in the near future, informing him of the composition of this Parliament’s delegation.

I understand that the details of the agenda for the plenary session, which contains some 18 items, will be publicly announced by Sir Charles in the near future. The Government ‘s view is that it is desirable that at least one more plenary session of the Constitutional Convention is held so that the continuing work of the Convention in reviewing the operation of the Australian Constitution may proceed further. Honourable members will recall that the original impetus for the Constitutional Convention came from Sir Henry Bolte ‘s Liberal Government in Victoria; and, particularly at the Hobart session in 1976, valuable work has already been performed by the Convention.

I believe we can all recall with some satisfaction the overwhelming approval given by the Australian electorate in May last year to the three referendum proposals, each of which had first been approved in principal at the Constitutional Convention. The plenary sessions of the Convention provide a rare opportunity for delegates from the legislatures of the Commonwealth, each of the States and the Northern Territory, together with representatives of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory and of local government, to meet together and exchange views. The Convention provides a unique forum for discussion of fundamental constitutional issues. I commend to the House this motion which seeks to ratify the continued participation of this Parliament in the endeavours of the Australian Constitutional Convention.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– In responding to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), I wish to advise that the delegates from the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party to the Australian Constitutional Convention to be held at Perth in July will be, apart from myself, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), and, from the Senate, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Button, and Senator James McClelland and Senator Ted Robertson. I wish it to be noted on the record also that it is my wish to nominate at appropriate times proxies, particularly from some of the senators who will be arriving after 1 July next and who were not eligible for election under our Caucus rules to this delegation to the Convention, as they would not be, up to the point of 1 July, members of the Caucus.

I note that although there have been a number of conferences of the Convention, it is largely as an outsider, as it were, that I have been reviewing the procedures and the results. The results do not seem all that inspiring. I think it incontestable, following the report of the 1 958 Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, that there are serious, and extensively serious, deficiencies in the Australian Constitution.

So far the product of the 1976 Convention has been referenda on four items- simultaneous elections of the Houses of this Parliament, voting rights for the Territories, retiring ages forjudges, and the procedure for making appointments to casual vacancies which arise in the Senate. The last three of those questions were carried. The first, which in my view was the most important of all those four items, was defeated. I do not regard, although it is not unimportant, the imposition of a retiring age forjudges as important as many other matters which need attention, if there is to be effective reconstruction of the Australian Constitution and if it is to become a neutral document which does not impede but in fact facilitates the social, economic and cultural development of this country. I regret that in the view of so many people in Australia today the Constitution in fact is not seen as neutral; rather it is seen as a device for frustration, one that causes deceptive practices. It certainly does not guarantee the fundamental rights of the citizens of this community, and where it does guarantee rights it tends to guarantee them as a conservative instrument would- that is, it fails to protect broadly rights in the community, but rather entrenches privileged position.

I mention, for instance, that it encourages deceptive practices. I recollect clearly during the period when I was Minister for Social Security noting an advising from the Attorney-General’s Department that long-standing legislation providing for the Australian Government’s involvement in the provision of accommodation for the aged was unconstitutional. Now a succession of governments have understood that. What has happened is that quite unconstitutionally a much earlier conservative government legislated to provide programs under the particular Act. It is properly the province of State governments. State governments, for reasons which I think are fairly obvious, have not been terribly keen to challenge this intrusion of the Federal Government. They prefer the Federal Government to bear the significant costs which are involved in sustaining this program. The point I am making without labouring the unconstitutionality of this matter and the fact that the unconstitutionality is tolerated is that it is quite wrong that these sorts of deceptive practices should be resorted to in an effort to have implemented programs which are necessary in the community, which are sought by the community but which are not being properly provided by the responsible level of authority.

The need to clarify the powers within the Constitution worries the Opposition. I refer, for instance, to the powers of the national Parliament. One area in which I have a great and consistent interest is economic management and economic development. Within out federal system enormous impediments can be thrown up by a difficult State government should there be a national government which seeks quite consciously to undertake a program of economic development. If, for instance, it, as it must by necessity, be part of such a program that there should be regional development plans it is quite compatible for a State to subvert those intentions in a whole range of ways.

This country has matured a great deal since 1901 when it federated. I believe that the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in its 1958 report made the point not once but many times that the inter-relationship of a national economy had developed far beyond what was conceived in 1901. We now have a mature single national economy not the sort of loose congregation of several separate economies as was believed to have existed at the time of Federation. It would be more beneficially helpful to the national interest if more authority were available for the national government in economic mangement. It is quite undesirable that important long term objectives in economic management can be so easily subverted by a hostile State government more interested in short term political advantages than in the long term health of the nation.

Similarly in social development it is quite clear that if the national Government had had more authority in this area many more important social welfare programs would have been developed on a national basis. I am talking about social development in its broadest context, not just social welfare programs. Again, in industrial relations, various devices are resorted to in an effort to establish what I suspect is a rather fragile authority in many ways to enable the national government through industrial arbitration and conciliation agencies to attend effectively to industrial disputes.

But probably the most important authority which has to be clarified and clarified beyond any doubt, is that of the head of state. The head of state who is an appointee should not have the authority to frustrate or dismiss a government, as we experienced in 1975. The head of state of this country is an appointee. He is not reckonable in the way in which the Government is reckonable to the people. On assuming his position he becomes very largely reckonable only to himself. There is no accounting system which can be effectively brought to bear against the incumbent of that office as we discovered- we the community; not just the Labor Party- in 1975. The powers of that office bearer are enormous. The Governor-General can veto, at his discretion, laws which are passed by this Parliament. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services. A whole range of other authorities are available to him. These authorities were defined upon the assumption that they would be exercised responsibly and on the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. That had always been the assumption until 1975 when the incumbent of the office of the head of state made it clear that that was a convention which could be destroyed effectively overnight.

What happens if we have in the office of Governor-General a person whose ethical standards, unknown to the people who have appointed him, are questionable, who is not prepared to maintain neutrality in his office and who is even prepared to go so far as to do a deal with a political party so that it is advantaged to the disadvantage of government? In that situation we would need some sort of accounting procedure to make sure that the checks and balances are working all the way along the line. The only way in which I can see that being done is for a clear definition of the authority of the office of the head of state and its limitations being written into the Constitution. The limitations of the head of state are obvious. He acts on the advice of and with the consent of the Ministers of the Crown.

In case it is felt that I make too much of the point and that the Opposition is querulous in continuing with this matter because of its experiences in 1 975, 1 draw the attention of honourable members to an article which appeared on page 9 of the Age newspaper of 24 May. It is a potted version of Mr Don Chipp ‘s book Don Chipp, The Third Man in which Mr Chipp relevantly says of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser):

His relationship with Sir John Kerr was unusual. Kerr had a Labor background and was appointed by Whitlam as Governor-General. During the weeks up to our decision to block Supply, Fraser saw Kerr on several occasions.

He never informed us of the nature of those conversations, and to my knowledge he did not break confidence to any of his shadow Cabinet colleagues. But at each shadow Cabinet meeting he showed an unbending confidence that Kerr was on side’.

That is an account of a thoroughly undesirable situation. It must rock the confidence of the people of this community. Mr Chipp is saying very clearly that in his view an arrangement had been arrived at that the Governor-General made it clear that he would accommodate the quite improper objectives of the then Opposition Leader in his desire to grasp government in whatever way he could. The then Opposition Leader could not have done that unless he was facilitated by the former Governor-General.

For me it was quite a disillusioning experience earlier this year to note the way in which the former Governor-General obtained an appointment to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the circumstances associated with that, especially the Prime Minister’s outrageously cynical and contriving behaviour. The Governor-General had been wrong, in my assessment, in terminating the period of the Labor Government although it was a difficult time to handle for him. The Labor Government still had six or seven weeks or a little longer of Supply to go and some members of the Liberal Party in the Senate were making it clear that they were not prepared to continue the frustrating exercise that had been undertaken in the Senate to prevent the passage of the Budget. I thought it was inappropriate for the then GovernorGeneral to have terminated the office of the Government.

I confessed then and I confess again that I had always hoped that the widespread suspicions and hard assertions which were made from many quarters that an arrangement had been arrived at between the present Prime Minister and the then Governor-General were wrong. I had that hope very simply because our system cannot function successfully unless we have people of integrity who are prepared to uphold the conventions which are necessary to make the system work. Not every standard that is required in our society, socially or in its institutional forms, to make it function properly can be legislated upon. Simply stated, unless those standards are upheld there cannot be requisite public confidence in our system to ensure its best functioning. Proper standards of conduct- selfrestraint, dedication, self-discipline, a range of qualities- are required to make the system work. Yet here we have the clear evidence, once again restated, that the system was corrupted. I again remind the House that until early this year, when the Kerr affair broke out, there was no record of me condemning the man personally, except that I made an observation about the premature way in which he dismissed the Government when it still had several weeks of Supply left to it. But I can no longer hold that sort of restrained view, especially when an insider, a man close to the Prime Minister, Don Chipp- and whatever faults he may have in the view of the Government, it must admit he has always been a direct and candid man- says that the present Prime Minister returned constantly to shadow Cabinet meetings and reported regularly that Kerr was on side’. The man sold himself out, it would appear, body and soul. He allowed himself to be bound hand and foot by the then Leader of the Opposition.

It is absolutely necessary that the enormous range of powers that are available to the viceregal representative in this country are clearly denned and adequately circumscribed not only so that the democratic system can function but so that the confidence of the people in this community can be re-established. That is one of the most important tasks that ought to be undertaken. There are other matters, such as the question of the electoral laws. We do not have an inalienable right to vote. We have no guarantee that the electoral boundaries will not be rigged to favour a government in office that is worried about its future. The powers of the Upper House must be clearly defined and its position as a house of review and not of frustration must be clearly established. Those are some of the things that are required. Most of all, we need a text not only that laymen can understand but, even more, that judges cannot misunderstand and misinterpret. It is my wish that the attention of the Convention be directed towards those things. From what I have seen as an outsider, in the sense that I have not been a delegate thus far, I am afraid that that is not very likely.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2498

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Australia has adopted a distinctive approach to trade union training. It has three elements: Firstly, public funding of union training; secondly, the planning, development and provision of training by an independent authority set up by Act of Parliament, which is, I believe, unique; and thirdly, the establishment of a National Trade Union Training College and trade union training centres in each State. The approach recognises that trained trade unionists, no less than trained management, are of critical importance to the community and that without public support for trade union training little progress is likely.

I wish, on behalf of the Government, to pay tribute to the architect of all this, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). It is particularly fitting that he should be permanently remembered in the name of the National Trade Union Training College, the Clyde Cameron College. Honourable members will recall that the legislation providing for a Trade Union Training Authority passed through this Parliament some three years ago. It received the support of all parties, and I trust that this bipartisan support is maintained as the present amendments progress through both Houses.

The Government has consistently expressed its support for the concept of trade union training. However, in 1976-77 it found itself faced with a number of important policy issues regarding its future development in Australia. These issues included:

Should trade union training be part of a wider industrial relations training or continue to be separate? What was in the best interests of all concerned?

Was the organisational structure of the Authority, with an Australian Council, six State councils and directors of the National College and State centres, all with some executive authority, the most efficient and effective?

What were the training needs of trade unionists? The Australian Council for Union Training had adopted an annual training objective of one per cent of trade unionists, but this did not have any established basis.

Should trade union training provided by the Authority be solely public funded or should there be some commitment on the part of the trade union movement itself, in line with the arrangements overseas?

The Government felt that it needed a fresh examination, and a more detailed one than was possible by the Australian Council for Union Training. As honourable members will be aware, in 1977 it established a tripartite Committee of Inquiry into Trade Union Training. The Committee of Inquiry examined over 400 submissions and had discussions with approximately 100 persons throughout the country. The Committee completed its report in August last and it was tabled in this Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to express my public appreciation of the work of the Committee and the assistance which it has been to the Government.

Detailed comments on the recommendations of the inquiry were invited from the Australian Council for Union Training and from the employer and union peak councils represented on the National Labour Consultative Council. There were further discussions in the NLCC and the Australian Council and a top level deputation from the peak union councils put additional views. All the comments have been carefully considered and have helped considerably in determining the future development of the Authority. On the key issues, the Committee recommended:

Trade union training should not be integrated into a general system of industrial relations training.

There should be a complete evaluation to determine the specific extent of training required, both as to numbers and course content.

Trade union training should continue to be funded by Government, with funds to be provided commensurate with the Authority’s training program.

The Trade Union Training Authority should be retained as an independent statutory body, an independent training institution. However, technical and further education has the potential to provide training and offers scope for the rationalisation of training resources.

The Government has accepted the general thrust of these conclusions. The report also proposed some changes in the composition of the Australian and State Councils for Union Training while at the same time retaining the basic structure. The Government considers that it is necessary to go further than the Committee recommends to provide for more efficient and effective management of the Authority. As I have indicated, currently there is an Australian Council of sixteen members and six State councils each with specific powers, as well as a Director responsible for the affairs of the National College and six State directors responsible for the State centres.

Following detailed consideration, including the consultations which I have previously mentioned, the Government has decided to establish a small Executive Board of eight members. The Executive Board will be part time and will be responsible for the formulation of the policy of the Authority. Complementary to this, a new position of National Director will be created. He will be responsible for the conduct of its affairs in accordance with policy determined by the Executive Board and any policy directions it gives but, as a member of the board, will participate fully in the formulation of that policy. The Government also proposes to expand the responsibilities of the present position of Director of the Clyde Cameron College. The position will be retitled Director of Studies. As the name implies he will, under the National Director, be responsible for the management and provision of all training by the Authority, not only at the College but in each of the State trade union training centres. These changes will provide for more effective policy formulation and management of the Authority.

Honourable members will appreciate that streamlining of the executive and management responsibilities will naturally change the present role of the Australian and State Councils for Union Training. The Government sees advantage in maintaining these bodies to advise on trade union training programs and their effectiveness. The importance of the advisory role, particularly of the Australian Council, is underlined by the direct link which the legislation provides between the Council and the Executive Board. Not only will all members of the Executive Board be drawn from the Australian Council, but the Board’ will reflect the different interests represented on the Australian Council. Thus the Board will comprise a chairman, who will be the Chairman of the Australian Council, the National Director of the Authority, the employer and departmental members of the Council, and four union members drawn from the union members of the Council.

I should like to refer to the proposed involvement of employers on the Executive Board and the councils of the Authority. Honourable members who have had the opportunity of reading the report of the Committee of Inquiry will be aware of its emphasis on greater employer involvement in training activity. The Authority has already provided for employer input to some extent at the College and the State centres, and participation of employers at all levels will further facilitate this. Perhaps even more important, however, employer representation at both the policy and advisory levels will bring a broader insight and perspective to trade union training. This is important, bearing in mind that industrial relations involves both employers and unions. Added to this, such areas as paid educational leave concern the employers no less than the unions. The amendments also provide for the Authority’s closer involvement with technical and further education. As honourable members will see from the Bill, under the new arrangements the Tertiary Education Commission will be represented on the Australian Council and the appropriate TAFE bodies will be represented on the State Councils. This is in line with the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry.

In making the changes proposed in the legislation the Government has been particularly conscious of their possible impact on the staff of the Authority. The legislation protects all present officers and employees of the Authority. They will be able to continue in the service of the Authority under the terms and conditions they currently have. The Government is conscious of the need to maintain a proper balance of interests in relation to trade union training. On the one hand it is important that the trade unions are able to participate effectively in the formulation of policy and programs and have confidence in the Authority’s activities. Thus union interests remain in the majority on the Australian Council and each of the six State Councils for Union Training. Equally, trade union training, provided through a statutory authority and funded by the taxpayer, must have regard to community interests, and the Government believes that the balanced membership of the Executive Board recognises that need. The changed structure within the organisation will make for a more effective pursuit of the objectives of the Authority, namely, the planning, provision and oversight of trade union training in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2500

LOAN AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Garland (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I mo ve:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Loan Act 1977 to increase by $300m the amount which may be borrowed for defence purposes to meet a prospective increase in the Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit for 1977-78. In the second reading speech on the Loan Bill 1977 the relationship between the overall Budget deficit and a potential deficit in the Consolidated Revenue fund was explained in some detail. Honourable members were informed that a Loan Bill is the simplest and the traditional means of providing appropriate legislative authority for avoiding a Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit, by enabling defence expenditure to be reallocated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund. Such a method has been adopted for many years by successive governments.

At the time of the Loan Bill 1977 the Budget estimates envisaged a prospective deficit in the

Consolidated Revenue Fund of $90 lm. The Loan Bill sought authority for borrowings for the purpose of financing defence expenditures to a limit of $ 1,100m, to provide a relatively small margin over the estimated Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit. At the same time, it was explained that the estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit was inevitably a qualified one and that the actual figure would be affected by unforeseen developments during the year which would cause departures from the Budget estimates of receipts and expenditure of the Fund. Because of a number of unforeseen developments it now appears possible that the earlier authority could prove to be insufficient, given the inherent uncertainties which still surround many of the estimates. Even at this stage, we cannot be certain of the extent to which it will be necessary to use the additional authority now sought. There is always some uncertainty about a figure which is, in effect, the residual of the receipts and expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, both of which are now, of course, very large aggregates. Minor variations in such aggregates can produce relatively very large changes in the residual.

This Bill seeks Parliament’s authority to charge up to an additional $300m of defence expenditure in 1977-78 to the Loan Fund, bringing the total to $ 1,400m, and to endorse the necessary increase in borrowing authority. I emphasise that the effect of the Bill is simply to permit the reallocation of defence expenditure between two of the funds which record the Commonwealth ‘s financial transactions. The Bill does not authorise any defence expenditure over and above that approved and appropriated by the Parliament in the Appropriation Bills. Borrowings under this Bill, as with previous similar legislation, will be for the purpose of financing defence expenditure and will not, therefore, require approval from the Australian Loan Council. On present indications it is our belief that the existing authority, which enables defence expenditure to be reallocated to the Loan Fund, will be fully availed of by the end of this month. It is therefore essential that an additional authority, in the form proposed in this Bill, be approved quickly. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2500

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Garland (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The Bill which is before the House has two main parts. The first concerns the alterations to the International Monetary Agreements Act which are necessitated by the second amendment of the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement, and certain minor alterations to that Act which need to be made for other reasons. The second part of the Bill will empower the Government to consent to the increase in Australia’s quota subscription to the Fund proposed under the IMF’s sixth general review of quotas, and to take up an increase in Australia’s subscription to the authorised capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In March 1976 the Board of Governors of the IMF adopted a resolution approving increases in quotas of member countries of the Fund, and in April 1976 the Board of Governors adopted a resolution approving wide-ranging amendments to the Fund’s Articles of Agreement, which was called the second amendment since an earlier scheme of amendments, related to establishment of the special drawing right, was adopted in 1969. Following approval by the Board of Governors both resolutions have been put to member countries for their individual consent, with members being required to give or withhold consent to the second amendment as a whole, and to give or withhold consent to the quota increase proposed for their own country by the sixth general review of quotas.

The second amendment entered into force on 1 April 1978, when it had been assented to by the majority of members specified under the Fund’s Articles of Agreement. Since then the amended Articles of Agreement have governed the Fund in its dealings with all members, including those members which had not by that time given their assent to them. It remains, of course, for member countries such as Australia to pass legislation giving the Fund’s amended Articles effect under their own law, and that purpose will be fulfilled by the present Bill. The majority required to give effect to the sixth general review of quotas was reached at the same time as that for the second amendment. This has meant that those members that have consented and paid the additional subscription involved may now operate on the basis of an increased quota while the quotas of other members including Australia remain unchanged. With the passage of this Bill, the Government will be able both to consent to the increased quota for Australia and to make the consequent payment.

Following the approval of the sixth general review of quotas by the IMF Board of Governors, the Board of Governors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development approved a resolution entitling most member countries, including Australia, to take up specified increases in their subscription to the capital stock of the Bank so as to maintain approximately the long-standing relativities between IMF quotas and IBRD subscriptions. The purchase by the Bank’s members of additional capital stock requires the making of agreements between each member and the Bank, under the normal terms of which 10 per cent of the additional subscription is paid in and the balance remains on call. This Bill will provide authority for the Treasurer to make an agreement under which Australia will purchase an additional 779 shares in the capital stock at the Bank under those terms.

I wish now to comment on the second amendment of the Fund’s Articles. The task of updating the Fund’s Articles of Agreement commenced in 1974, following completion of the study of reform of the international monetary system by the Fund’s committee of twenty. When, after a two-year process of consideration and negotiation in which Australia participated actively, the amendments to the Articles were settled within the Fund’s Executive Board and presented to the Governors of the Fund for consideration, the Treasurer of that time cast Australia’s votes in favour of approving them. The final outcome, while inevitably reflecting compromise between the differing interests and views of members, involves a comprehensive revision of the Fund ‘s operating arrangements, in the light of the substantial changes in the international monetary system which have occurred over the past decade. Among its more important features, the second amendment introduces new and flexible provisions dealing with international exchange arrangements, a gradual reduction in the role of gold in the international monetary system, changes in the characteristics and expansion of the uses of the special drawing right that are intended to enhance its status as an international reserve asset, and the simplification and expansion of the Fund’s financial operations and transactions.

The changes relating to international exchange arrangements involve a recognition that the international monetary system has been transformed from the par value system, defined at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 and embodied in the Fund’s original Articles, to a looser system of floating exchange rates for the major countries. The essence of amended Article IV, which deals with exchange rates, is to abandon requirements as to the exchange arrangements adopted by member countries and instead to define principles which members are committed to follow in their exchange rate policy. It sets out the general principles for the orderly operation of the international monetary system and for surveillance by the Fund of the exchange rate and external policies of individual member countries. Article IV recognises that stability in exchange markets is largely dependent on the adoption of appropriate domestic economic policies by member countries. Agreement on the principles involved was reached last year following discussions in the Fund’s Executive Board and Interim Committee. It is, of course, in the interest of all countries that members of the IMF avoid the adoption of disruptive exchange rate practices, such as competitive devaluations or other manipulations of exchange rates, that are mutually self-defeating and adversely affect levels of economic activity in the world. The Government strongly supports the principles on which this amended Article is based.

A second set of changes to the Fund’s Articles concerns the role of gold. The second amendment will reduce the role of gold in the international monetary system at large and in the operations of the Fund. Gold will no longer be the Fund ‘s numeraire or unit of account for expressing the values of currencies used in Fund transactions and of the Fund’s special drawing rights. The amendments provide, among other things, for the abolition of an official gold price and for the avoidance of fixing of gold prices by official authorities. They will also end all obligatory payments in gold within the Fund. The amendments provide also for the disposal of 50 million ouncesequivalent to one third- of the Fund’s gold, and for the possible disposal of the remainder of the Fund’s gold. The disposal of gold by the Fund has already begun, under arrangements agreed to in August 1975 and January 1976 by the Interim Committee. Over a four year period, 25 million fine ounces of gold will be restituted by the Fund to members in proportion to their quotas, at the official gold price of 35 SDR per ounce, which is of course only a fraction of the current market price for gold. Australia has so far had 284,600 ounces of gold restored to it, through transactions which took place in January 1977 and January 1978. Under the same arrangements, another 25 million fine ounces of the Fund’s gold are being sold for the benefit of developing countries.

A third set of changes made through the amended Articles is a concomitant of these changes concerning gold. The special drawing right -or SDR- was created in 1969 with the aim of establishing a controlled supplement to the global supply of reserve assets. Through the second amendment to the Articles members have subscribed to the principle of making the Fund ‘s SDR the principal reserve asset of the international monetary system. It is well understood, however, that this will be an evolutionary process; the second amendment explicitly requires that special drawing rights may only be allocated if there is a global need to supplement the existing stock of reserve assets, and in such a manner as will avoid exacerbating excess demand and world inflation.

The main provisions concerning SDR in the amended Articles are a liberalisation of the conditions governing transactions in SDR among members of the Fund, a broadening of the range of operations within the Fund for which SDR may be used, and greater flexibility in the determination of the rate of interest on SDR holdings. The Australian government has consistently held the view that a necessary condition if the status of the SDR as a reserve asset is to be enhanced is an increase in the yield accruing to holders visavis the yield on established reserve assets such as the United States Dollar. In this context it is interesting to note that a decision was made at the recent meeting of the Interim Committee in Mexico City to raise the interest yield on SDR. The remaining changes involved in the second amendment to the Fund’s articles, provide among other things, for the simplification and expansion of the Fund ‘s financial transactions, in particular those conducted through the General Resources Department of the Fund, and for the possible establishment of a twenty-member council as a new organ of decision making in the Fund.

I now turn to the alterations to the International Monetary Agreements Act which are incorporated in this Bill insofar as they relate to the amended articles. With only one exception, they are alterations required to make the Act consistent with the amended articles of agreement of the Fund and to facilitate operations which are provided for in the amended articles, particularly those involving SDR. The exception is that this Bill provides for amending the Act so as to empower the Treasurer to issue securities in connection with payments required to be made by Australia to the Fund and Bank. Under the present Act this power is conferred on the Governor-General and not on the Treasurer. The change is proposed on the ground of administrative efficiency. There is no question of constitutional or legal principle involved, since the change will make practice in this matter consistent with that in other situations where the Treasurer is empowered to authorise the issue of securities.

The second amendment of the Fund ‘s articles of agreement does not alter in any significant way the IMF’S basic functions of assisting member countries in balance of payments difficulties by the provision of short to mediumterm finance and by the provision of guidance to members in formulating appropriate corrective policies. The fundamental policy commitment which members make through their membership of the Fund is to overcome their balance of payments difficulties without resort to restrictions on current international transactions, and thus to avoid damaging an open and prosperous world economic system. This basic function which the IMF performs is a valuable contribution to the functioning of a stable international monetary system, and I commend to the House the amendments of the Fund’s articles which strengthen the fund and improve its efficiency. The Bill also concerns the important matters of additional Australian subscriptions to the IMF and the IBRD. Both the former and the amended articles provide for general reviews of quotas to be conducted, at intervals of not more than five years, to enable the size of the Fund to be expanded periodically if necessary, to keep step with the growth of international payments and the calls on the Fund’s resources. The quota increases proposed for each member in the resolution in March 1976 to which I referred earlier would raise the total of present quotas, amounting to 29.2 billion SDR, to 39 billion SDR.

The sixth general review of quotas provides for an increase in Australia’s quota from 665 million SDR to a quota of 790 million SDR. The size of quota increases proposed for particular members is determined partly by reference to movements in such variables as trade, GDP, and reserves, and partly by a discretionary process through negotiation. The increase in Australia ‘s quota is somewhat less than adequate, having regard to the increases proposed for some other member countries of the Fund whose growth in income and trade has been no greater and in some cases less than Australia’s. For this reason the Treasurer, at the time this was decided, abstained from voting on the resolution on quota increases put before the Fund’s board of governors. But, having registered our point, it is now appropriate for Australia to take up the increase which has been proposed.

The increase in Australia ‘s quota involves enlargement of Australia’s potential drawing rights from the Fund which are available for use at a time of balance of payments need. It also involves a corresponding increase in the amount of foreign exchange Australia may be required to provide to finance drawings from the Fund by other members when Australia is in a strong balance of payments position. Any such calls on Australia’s holdings of foreign exchange would, however, be offset by an increase in Australia’s reserve position in the fund and no change in the level of Australia’s international reserves would therefore be involved, although there would, of course, be an alteration in the composition of reserves. The increase in Australia’s quota will also bring a corresponding increase in the number of votes Australia has in decision making within the Fund, although since our proposed quota increase under the sixth general review is less than proportional to the overall increase, Australia ‘s relative voting strength will be marginally reduced. The desirability of preserving our voting strength makes it the more necessary to consent to the quota increase proposed.

I point out that the quota increase will have no effect on the Budget or on the level of Australia ‘s reserves. In accordance with the amended articles, the payment of the additional quota subscription will take the form of transferring to the Fund an amount of Australian currency equivalent to 125 million SDR, in the form of a non-negotiable non-interest-bearing promissory note. I conclude with a brief mention of the proposed increased Australian subscription to the capital stock of the IBRD. As I have already mentioned, the decision by the board of governors of the Bank, to approve an increase in the Bank’s authorised capital stock, was taken so as to approximately maintain the long-standing relativities between IMF quotas and IBRD subscriptions. As a consequence, the increased subscription entitlements of member countries approximate to their relative quota increases in the IMF. The increases authorised for individual countries are shown in the attached table, which I ask leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr GARLAND:

– Many of the countries listed in this table have already taken up the additional shares to which they have become entitled. As I mentioned earlier, Australia is entitled to take up an additional 779 shares in the capital stock of the IBRD. The total commitment involved is about $US94m. However, 90 per cent of this amount will remain on call as security for the IBRD’s own borrowing operations on world capital markets, and only 10 per cent, that is $US9.4m is actually payable. Of the latter sum, $US940,000 is payable in cash while the balance, $US8.46m, will be paid in the form of a promissory note which will be encashed in approximately equal instalments over four financial years commencing 1978-79. The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and it plays an important role in our region. This has been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the establishment of the Bank in 1947 by the consistent support Australia has given the Bank’s activities. The proposed increase in the capital stock of the IBRD will assist the Bank in continuing its operations at an effective level and Australia’s proposed subscription will serve to confirm our support of it.

I commend this Bill to the House and draw the attention of honourable members to the desirability of early approval of the Bill in order to enable the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to exercise the proposed increased voting rights for Australia at the next regular elections of executive directors of the Fund and the Bank in September.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2505

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Garland (on behalf of Mr Howard), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to provide some new exemptions and to change some existing exemptions for imported goods. The Bill has four main features: Firstly, it will give effect to the joint announcement by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 30 March 1978 that sunscreen preparations that provide effective protection from damaging ultra-violet rays would be exempted from sales tax. Drugs and medicines are already exempt and it is proposed that these sunscreen preparations should also be exempted because of their importance as a preventative health measure in the field of skin cancer, sunburn and general skin damage.

To qualify for the new exemption, a preparation will need to meet two requirements. It will have to be put up and sold for use as a substance to be applied to the skin for the purpose of screening out solar ultra-violet rays. Also, there must be in force in respect of the preparation a certificate given by the Director-General of Health, or his appointee, certifying that the product is a preparation that provides an acceptable level of protection from solar ultra-violet rays. The efficiency of sunscreen preparations in filtering out damaging rays has already been the subject of regular testing arranged by the Australian Government Analyst. The results of these tests will provide useful data for the classification of products already tested.

The second of the Bill’s main features is the restoration of several sales tax exemptions relating to imported goods. Certain sales tax exemptions which are complementary to customs exemptions refer expressly to the relevant customs tariff provisions. Due to changes in the tarin’ some of the sales tax exemptions have become inoperative and it is proposed that they be restored. The exemptions relate mainly to printed matter such as imported travel literature designed to promote travel overseas and certain imported catalogues, price lists and comparable printed matter which is not designed to advertise the sale of goods or services by persons in Australia. The Bill will also bring certain sales tax exemptions relating to goods imported by persons arriving in Australia into line with corresponding customs exemptions. These sales tax and customs provisions are normally kept in harmony to facilitate the clearance of travellers through Customs. The sales tax amendments now proposed arise because of changes that have been made to the complementary customs provisions.

Both sales tax and customs duty exemptions apply where a passenger imports a vehicle or boat which has been owned and used overseas by the passenger for a period of 1 5 months before leaving for Australia. The customs law provides also that where a vehicle or boat has not been owned for 1 5 months, full duty is not payable unless the shortfall is more than 14 days. Where the shortfall is 14 days or less, duty is payable on a sliding scale which increases as the shortfall increases. A similiar cushioning period is now to be provided for sales tax purposes. At present the sales tax exemption for goods imported by persons arriving in Australia is limited to goods imported by passengers. Under the complementary customs exemption members of the crew of ships or aircraft, who are of Australian domicile, are entitled on a once-a-year basis to duty-free concessions similar to those available to passengers. A comparable sales tax exemption is now to be given. In the interests of economic administration, the law provides that sales tax and duty are not to be collected on imported goods where only small amounts of revenue are involved. The sales tax provision is to be altered to keep in step with the changes that have been made to the levels applicable for customs purposes.

Finally, it is proposed by the Bill to give servicemen of Papua New Guinea, and certain civilians accompanying them, limited sales tax concessions for importation of personal effects, furniture, household goods and motor vehicles. The concessions, which are a little more liberal than those available to ordinary passengers arriving in Australia, are required in fulfilment of Australia’s obligations under the Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The Bill also contains some amendments of a drafting nature. They are mainly concerned with bringing references to customs tariff provisions in sales tax exemptions into line with the current terms of the tariff. It is customary for sales tax changes to come into operation on the day following the introduction of the amending Bills and the Bill provides that the amendments now proposed are to be effective from tomorrow, 26 May 1978. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill in detail is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2506

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Garland (on behalf of Mr Viner), and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The Ombudsman Act 1976 empowered the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate grievances by members of the public about administrative actions of officials and staff of Commonwealth departments, statutory authorities and other government agencies. Because of the responsibilities of the Commonwealth in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory it was necessary for the

Ombudsman Act to ensure that residents of those Territories also had access to the Ombudsman in respect of matters that in the States would be directed to State ombudsmen. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s jurisdiction therefore currently extends to the actions of the Northern Territory Public Service.

As part of the Northern Territory devolution package the Government approved the exclusion of the Northern Territory Public Service from the Ombudsman Act. This Bill excludes the Northern Territory Public Service from the Ombudsman Act with regard to transferred functions and facilitates the commencement of the Northern Territory Ombudsman. An Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Ordinance was passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 30 November 1977 and it is intended that the commencement of the Ordinance be co-ordinated with the amendment of the Ombudsman Act. In line with the transfer of powers from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory a smooth transition of responsibilities from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Ombudsman is most desirable and to this end the Bill contains appropriate transitional provisions to ensure, for example, the completion of investigations begun by the Commonwealth Ombudsman prior to the date of transition. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in respect of administrative actions undertaken by Commonwealth officials in the Northern Territory will be maintained as it currently is in relation to the States. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2506

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 31 December 1978 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 13 and 14 (1978) introduced into the Parliament on 24 May and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 now before the Parliament. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the Collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, anticipated for the Budget sittings, to enact the changes contained in the Proposals.

The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to the report by the Industries Assistance Commission on metal working machine tools and additions to Schedule A of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. Full details of the changes concerned were supplied to honourable members at the time the relevant tariffproposals were introduced. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2507

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

May I first remind honourable members of the important place the defence service homes scheme holds in the array of Commonwealth programs of assistance to various sections of the community. It is one of the longest standing programs; it originated from legislation passed in 1918, 60 years ago. Since its inception, approximately 340,000 people have been assisted to own their own home. The loans granted include more than 180,000 that are still being repaid. The gross outlays on assistance since the inception of the scheme exceed $2,000m.

The principal purpose of the Bill now before the House is to amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to implement decisions taken by the Government in the context of its deliberations on the 1977-78 Budget and as a result of a more recent review of certain aspects of the scheme. One of the decisions announced at the time of the 1977-78 Budget was the extension of the qualifying period to be served by members of the Regular Defence Force in order to be eligible for a defence service homes loan. Persons who commence full-time service in the Defence Force on or after 17 August 1977 will become eligible for a loan on the completion of six years’ continuous full-time service, subject to a commitment to render further full-time service.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for amendment of the definition of ‘regular serviceman’ so that the new eligibility conditions may be applied to those whose service begins on or after 1 7 August 1977 without affecting the eligibility conditions that apply to those who were serving before 1 7 August 1977. 1 emphasise that persons who commenced their full-time service before 17 August 1977 will continue to qualify for a defence service homes loan on the completion of three years’ continuous full-time service.

The proposed amendment will extend the qualifying service to a period more commensurate with the benefits offered through defence service homes loans, and it will be consistent with, and will strengthen, the prevailing conditions of service for the Defence Forces that are designed to encourage longer service. By the proposed insertion of a new section 27B in the principal Act, the Bill will permit the Defence Service Homes Corporation to give a measure of preference in the allocation of loans to those whose eligibility is based on war service.

As a result of the review of the scheme during the deliberations on the Budget, the Government decided that there would be no change in the existing highly-concessional interest rates on loans or in the maximum repayment period. I remind the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the interest rates on loans are 3.75 per cent on the first $12,000 and 7.25 per cent on the amount above $ 12,000. The maximum repayment period is 32 years. However, the practice of other lending institutions in charging a fee on loan applications will be introduced. Authority for this action and, where considered appropriate, refund of the whole or part of the fee, is incorporated in clause 6 of the Bill which provides for the insertion of a new section 27A in the principal Act.

In addition to the changes which have already been announced the Bill makes two other major amendments to the existing defence service homes arrangements. Since the commencement of the scheme in 1919, insurance cover has been provided under the Act in respect of dwellings in which the Corporation has an interest. Over the years, amendments have been made to the insurance cover and conditions from time to time to conditions cover for beneficiaries in accordance with that generally available from other insurers of dwellings. The terms and conditions of the cover are all contained in the Defence Service Homes Act and Regulations, with the result that amending legislation is required before even a minor change may be made. The Government believes that this necessity to amend the legislation has handicapped the proper functioning of the insurance scheme in the past.

In order to provide operational flexibility to maintain insurance cover and conditions that are no less attractive than those available elsewhere, the Bill amends the Act to authorise the Corporation to provide insurance cover under terms set out in a Statement of Conditions. This will enable the terms and conditions to be amended by administrative, rather than legislative, process, thus allowing adequate flexibility to adjust quickly to industry changes. The Statement of Conditions is subject to the approval of the Minister and must be tabled in the Parliament when introduced and whenever varied. Clauses 1 1 and 15 of the Bill contain the proposed amendments affecting the defence service homes insurance scheme and are to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed.

The second of the further amendments to which I referred is the recognition, for the purposes of the Defence Service Homes Act, of de facto relationships. This will bring the Act into line with other Commonwealth legislation and the practice of lending institutions. Consistent with the requirements of other Commonwealth legislation, to ensure that there is a substantial degree of permanency in the relationship before benefits are granted, the Bill requires the de facto association to have been in existence for a continuous period of not less than three years before it will be recognised.

The amendment will place a de facto spouse or widow of an eligible person in the same position as a de jure spouse or widow. It will enable a de facto spouse to be joined with the eligible person in the security, make a de facto widow eligible for a loan in her own right, and enable certain de facto widows to be granted relief in respect of commitments on their property under the same conditions as those applicable to de jure widows. Proposed amendments relating to the recognition of de facto relationships are contained in clauses 3, 8 and 10 of the Bill.

The amendment proposed in clause 9 is intended to overcome a problem whereby the Corporation, in the absence of a court order, is unable to distribute the balance of proceeds arising from the sale of a property as mortgagee in possession in joint tenancy cases where the joint tenancy has not been severed and one or more of the joint tenants cannot be located. The amendment is concerned only with joint tenancy cases and authorises payment, after the Minister has determined in accordance with section 36 (2) the persons appearing to him to be entitled to receive the balance, or such part of the balance as he considers proper to the available joint tenant or tenants. The restrictions imposed by the current legislation have caused hardship in some cases by delaying the payment of a share of the proceeds to persons in necessitous circumstances.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a financial nature and are required either to overcome procedural problems and technical omissions or, consequential upon the Defence Service Homes Amendment Act 1977, to facilitate the operation of the financial arrangements applicable to the Corporation as from 1 July 1977. The latter amendments include authority for the transfer from the defence service homes trust account to Consolidated Revenue of fees and other moneys of a non-capital nature. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 2508

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Lionel Bowen had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not opposing the Bill, the House calls upon the Government to ensure that the guidelines determined by the Australian Fisheries Council in January 1977, to control foreign participation and give first priority to the local industry, are strictly observed ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Before the debate is resumed on this Bill and on the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill and the Whaling Amendment Bill. I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– -It is really a great pleasure for me to speak in the debate on the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the associated Bills because the fishing industry has become of tremendous importance in my electorate in the past few years. For that reason I am very pleased that at last the fishing industry is being looked at critically and sensibly by the Federal Government. In saying that, I am not being critical in any way of any other governments. There is one thing that needs to be remembered about fishermen; they are not a whingeing lot of people. They have their problems. They have had to take things into their own hands at times. I instance the events that occurred within my electorate when fishermen at Ulladulla decided to dump fish rather than sell them. They are not whingeing people in the sense that they believe in looking after themselves if that is possible.

We now have before us the Fisheries Amendment Bill which provides a new challenge to the fishing industry and through which the Government must play a very active part. Government back benchers set up a committee that has operated for quite some months to look into the fisheries situation. I am very pleased to know that a number of members of Parliament, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, are quite well informed about fisheries and are taking the time on a continuing basis to contact fishermen and those people involved in other parts of the fishing industry throughout Australia. As the chairman of that back bench committee and, as I said, as a member of Parliament who represents an area in which fishing is important, where the industry employs many people and where it still has a tremendous potential, I am very pleased to be speaking in the debate on this Bill.

I would like to emphasise that the Bill is only a vehicle for later regulation. I think that probably that is a sensible approach. There are many matters with respect to the 200-mile Australian fishing zone that must be worked out, hopefully in very close consultation with the industry. The Fisheries Amendment Bill follows some very good work done by a working group set up by Australian Fisheries Council. The report has been well read throughout the fishing industry in Australia and criticised in some areas. In fact, there is one point I should make which relates to the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party to the Fisheries Amendment Bill. The amendment calls on the House to accept all the provisions contained in the report of that working party. That would not be acceptable to the industry. There are a number of recommendations in that working group report which are put up as proposals for critical review by the industry. Obviously, the industry would not want all those recommendations accepted on face value. For instance, the report contains a proposal for the setting up of an Australian fishing zone committee. It is proposed that that committee should have amongst its members two representatives from the industry.

Quite a number of fishermen have stated to our government back bench committee that they would like a lot more industry representation on that Australian fishing zone committee. We see that as being very important because whereas the Australian fishing zone committee will make recommendations when it is set up, it will not have the final say. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in general will have the final say. It is important if those recommendations are to have the full support of the industry that fishermen themselves can play an important part on this committee. I am saying that the amendment proposed by the Australian Labor Party is inappropriate in this instance because not all the recommendations of the working group, meticulous as it was in looking at the problems of the fishing industry as they will arise within the 200-mile fishing zone, are acceptable at face value. That is the reason I could not accept the amendment.

Fishermen in Australia at the present time are taking very strong views on this 200-mile Australian fishing zone. There is a strong feeling within the industry that we must not sell out the Australian fishermen to overseas interests. There is also a strong fear, because of many Press reports in the past few months, that we may be about to sell out to foreign interests. I am assured by the Minister that that will not be the case. That does not mean to say that I will not continue to press the Minister continuously to remember that the Australian fishing industry is just waking up to some of its potential. Many parts of the industry have functioned efficiently and on an ever-increasing scope in recent years. I instance the southern blue-fin tuna industry, the northern prawn industry and the western and Tasmanian cray industries. Those industries have earned a tremendous amount of money in exports for Australia and technically they are very advanced.

However, some other parts of the industry have not advanced. I instance the Bight fisheries. It has been known for many years that there are great many fish in the Great Australian Bight that have not been harvested to anywhere near the extent they could be harvested. It is only now that boats are being built and leased from overseas in order to harvest the fish in these areas. The fishermen do not want to be sold out. They are beginning to see potential in areas that probably had not been considered properly in past times. They want the Government to give the local fishermen as much scope as possible to expand their capacity to take up the tremendous challenge that is being offered. A number of joint venture proposals have been advanced and are well known to the public at this time. From what the Minister has said, it would appear that a large number of joint venture proposals from a number of countries have come across his desk. Some of those proposals are to carry out what is known as feasibility fishing. The working group report to which I have referred suggests that feasibility fishing is one area in which joint ventures should be encouraged.

I would like to sound a very strong warning to the industry. I suspect that some of the proposals put up as feasibility fishing proposals are not really feasibility fishing proposals. They are proposals under which the fishermen would like to come in and perhaps get some information, some of which might flow across to Australia if we are lucky, but, in the meantime, do a lot of fishing and take a lot of fish out of some of these waters. Without meaning this to be an attack on a particular proposal, I suspect very much the present joint venture proposal which involves the Russians and which is based on Portland. It was the subject of quite a strong report in the newspapers a few weeks ago. There was a great amount of agitation in the fishing industry aimed at ensuring that the Government does not allow that proposal to go ahead. This suggestion is thrown up as a feasibility fishing proposal. If one happens to read the proposal, one sees that the terms are very close to those suggested as a draft set of terms in the working group report. I suspect that proposal a great deal. I do not think that our fishermen want to be sold out to a two dollar company anyway.

On the other hand other ventures- I instance the Taiwanese-Australian venture on the North West Shelf which is also in front of the Minister at the present time- are probably more in line with what the Australian fishermen would like to see occur. At the present time Australians are not fishing the North West Shelf except for close inshore. In fact, the large number of Taiwanese boats there are the only boats working that area at present. The proposal which the Taiwanese have suggested, with their Australian partners, envisages two phases. Eventually it would mean that the fish would be caught by Australian fishermen on the basis that perhaps the fish would mainly be sent back to Taiwan. That is the country which is prepared to consume the fish caught in that area, most of which are not suitable for Australian palates at this stage.

There are quite a number of things that I would like to talk about in this debate but, unfortunately, there is very little time. So I return to this proposal for the establishment of an Australian fishing zone committee which should occur under the regulations set up by the amendments contained in this Bill. I see that committee as being the basic committee to recommend, from time to time, policies on fisheries based in different areas around Australia; to recommend fee structures; and to recommend the number of licences to be issued to overseas vessels and to local vessels if overseas vessels are appropriate in the area. For instance, I note, with respect to fee structures, that it is quite likely that in some areas fees would need to be fairly low. In other areas, such as the southern bluefin fishing area, where for the time being there will probably still be some Japanese longliners, the fee could probably be quite stiff-maybe $5,000 or $10,000 a year. I understand that the Japanese would be happy to pay that sort of amount. I see the Australian fishing zone committee making recommendations in relation to equipment to be used in these areas. I see the committee as being a very important part of the regulation of the fisheries around Australia. I hope that there will be a great deal of debate amongst fishermen in Australia on this matter because it is a very important cog that should be brought into operation.

Another thing I wish to say in the very strongest terms- it needs to be said- is that I deplore any trade offs in our trading relations between the fishing industry and the beef industry. Within my electorate there is a very big beef industry. There is also a very big fishing industry. I do not like the idea of saying to another country: We will not sell fish to you unless you buy our beef, or ‘we will not let you into our fishing grounds unless you buy our beef. I see the potential for trade offs but only within the fishing industry. Perhaps we should be saying to the Japanese: ‘We will not let you into our 200-mile zone to fish for bluefin tuna unless you let us into your sashimi markets in Japan’. We do not have access to those markets. I do not see why we should not have access to those markets because that is an area of the tuna fishery where our fishermen could get good returns, and that would benefit the people of Australia.

The implications of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone are absolutely massive. We are talking about surveillance problems, about new methods of fishing, about new problems of finance- I hope that the Rural Bank can play a very big part in that regard- and about new approaches to research, which I hope will be a lot more pragmatic than purely theoretical in coming times. We are talking about new initiatives for the boat building industry and for the importation of boats. The new initiatives on allowing the limited importation of second-hand boats can only help to reduce costs to the Australian fishing industry and therefore make our industry, in terms of exports, far more competitive.

We have a tremendous challenge. The 200-mile Australian fishing zone will almost double the area of Australian sovereignty. From that point of view it has to be massive. I emphasise again that generally fishermen do not complain. We have a tremendous responsibility in government right now to see that we do not sell out the Australian industry, that we hasten very slowly in licensing foreign vessels, and that we do not get too carried away in the belief that there are enough fish in our waters for an unlimited number of foreign vessels to come into even those areas not being fished at present. We need to exercise caution. If we do so our own Australian fishermen will benefit to the ultimate.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– With the indulgence of the House, I seek leave to amend my amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978 by omitting 1 977 ‘ and substituting ‘1978’.

Leave granted.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-The main purpose of the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978 is to extend Australian jurisdiction over fishing to cover the 200-mile zone beyond the low water mark. This legislation is of relevance to the electorate of Grey as the major fishing port of Port Lincoln is within that electorate, along with a number of smaller fishing centres along the southern coast of South Australia and along the shores of Spencer Gulf where tuna, prawns and crayfish are the main catches, with other species available. So I assume that any alteration to the Australian jurisdiction would be of some importance to these particular areas. Whilst the Law of the Sea Conference is not moving with any great haste, a substantial measure of agreement has been reached on the question of the 200-mile economic zones, and this Bill will bring us into line with the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and the European Economic Community countries.

If Australia is to take full advantage of the extended zone, we will have to make a full and comprehensive survey of our present fishing industry which is, at the present time, only small when compared with the industries of most of the nations that I have just mentioned. From the information that is available, our existing inshore fisheries, which cover the majority of our fisheries, are almost fully exploited and there is apparently substantial opportunity for the expansion of the fisheries along the Continental

Shelf. But this can come about only if we are prepared to expand greatly our fishing activities in an effort to exploit them.

As we have a vast coastline and a small population by world standards, doubts exist as to whether we have the necessary resources to carry this out. In the past, I have always been of the opinion that we have known very little of what our resources are and I suspected that other nations’ knowledge of the fishing potential was very much greater than our own. With this in mind, it was very interesting to read the report of the working party, established by the Australian Fisheries Council, on the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. That publication was released a short time ago. The report refers not only to the fisheries and to the species that we are exploiting at the present time- basically inshore fisheriesbut also to those currently being exploited or likely to be developed by Australian fishermen, and, finally, those not being exploited by Australian fishermen on a commercial basis. Of the latter, the report contains information and maps showing the types of fish that it may be possible to exploit in the future. I refer to bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna, northern bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, various types of sharks, jack mackeral and various other types of fish. However, as pointed out in the report, the potential of these fisheries is unknown and would require considerable research by ourselves, or from information already gained by other nations which have fished these waters.

Because of our limited resources, it would appear that to allow the initial exploration of the demersal fisheries on the wider continental shelf we would have to permit the participation of other nations in the exploitation of the areas in conjunction with our own ability to exploit them. Any participation by other nations would, of course, have to be under full Australian control, not only in the areas in which they would be allowed to exploit but also in limits on the quantity of the catch. I understand that a number of the nations that fish long distances from their own shores have been disadvantaged by the 200-mile economic zone proclamations and, if excluded, would face a considerable drop in their catch. The two nations that would be most affected would be Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

If we are to join in joint ventures with other nations, we must ensure that we are careful in choosing the most suitable partners. On selection of those partners, we would have to lay down guidelines that would secure the long-term interests of Australia. We would have prior claim to our resources which we could exploit, but in areas where we did not have the full capacity to exploit, we would allow the entry of suitable partners. If we permit other nations to fish in our 200-mile zone, we will have to ensure that we have proper management of our resources. We would also have to ensure that our joint operations would be in our economic interest and provide assistance to our industry to allow us to develop our own ability to utilise these resources in the future. As other nations have greater expertise in deeper water fishing, we could expect assistance from them in developing our own expertise. We would have to provide for a greater number of specialists in the field to obtain the maximum scientific information.

We would also have to provide a greater number of properly equipped research vessels. Perhaps arrangements could be made with our partners to hire such vessels, vessels that would be capable of operating in deep water or, better still, we could build our own by making use of the facilities that now exist at Whyalla. In any joint venture with a foreign partner, it would be essential that there be a considerable financial involvement by the Government, as the present structure of our fishing industry would not allow the extent of financial involvement required. A fair and just agreement with a suitable foreign partner would bring some considerable benefit to Australia in economic terms generally, would increase both on-shore and off-shore employment around our coastline, would provide better and more advanced port facilities, improved technology and equipment and a trade-off position for some of our other primary products.

A further need for full Federal Government involvement in any joint ventures is absolutely necessary, as any potential partners would most probably have their own government handling all the negotiations. In referring to our own Government, it would be essential that the closest consultation with the States takes place, bearing in mind the dual jurisdiction that applies between the States and the Commonwealth under the constitutional rights in this field. My own State, South Australia, has probably the best management policy of all the States, and I am sure that any South Australian Minister would require full consultation to ensure that the management policies are well protected.

Problems will arise as a result of this legislation in the delineation of the boundaries of the 200-mile zone of a number of countries, the two most obvious being Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. If we declare the zones around our island Territories we will have overlapping claims with New Zealand and France. It would be interesting to know just what the Government intends to do to overcome these particular problems. In this context I am not referring to the statement that was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) today on the agreement with Papua New Guinea. We should also take into account the needs of the developing countries and the position of countries which have been operating in the increased 200-mile zone for many years. We do not want to appear that we are adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude by denying access where we are not in a situation where we can exploit the resources, but we would want to ensure that we still maintain our control of the areas.

Although, the Minister makes reference to the severe penalties that will apply under this Act for breaches, one wonders how these penalties will be enforced when one considers the length of our coastline, and the difficulties this will bring. Stationing of Australian inspectors on foreign fishing vessels would be one way to police the catches, et cetera, but I feel we would require a large number of these inspectors. At a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference I attended in Canada last year, concern was expressed by the small island nations of the Pacific at the difficulties they were experiencing in policing their waters, but I understand that Western Samoa is canvassing the possibility of a multi-national force to police the waters of the South Pacific. I understand that we have had some discussions along the same lines with some of our immediate neighbours. This may assist in overcoming part of the problem, but I feel that it would not be sufficient to provide us with the surveillance we would require.

The report on the 200-mile Australian fishing zone carried out by a working party of the Australian Fisheries Council has provided a considerable amount of very worthwhile information relating to the Bill. It classifies the three types of Australian fisheries as, firstly, fisheries already developed; secondly, the fisheries currently being or likely to be developed by Australian fishermen on a commercial basis; and, thirdly, fisheries not being currently exploited by Australian fishermen on a commercial basis. Of these three categories, the working group ‘considers that under no circumstances should foreign participation be considered in the first category of fisheries’. The group ‘considers that there may be some scope for foreign participation, at least in the short term, in relation to some species in the second category of fisheries’.

In the case of the third category, there is scope for foreign participation at present.

The Opposition has moved an amendment to the Bill, which seeks to add these words:

Whilst not opposing the Bill, the House calls upon the Government to ensure that the guidelines determined by the Australian Fisheries Council in January 1977, to control foreign participation and give first priority to the local industry, be strictly observed.

The Opposition feels that the questions of strict guidelines are not sufficiently set out in the Bill, and it is for this reason that we urge support for the amendment.

We are also debating two other Bills that relate to the extension of the fishing zone. We are also moving an amendment to the Whaling Amendment Bill and, whilst we are not opposing the Bill, we will call on the Government to alter the Frost inquiry terms of reference requiring the Commission to submit positive proposals to guarantee increased maximum resources employment in the Albany region, prior to declaring a moratorium on whaling. We urge that both these amendments secure the support of the House. I trust that the legislation will result in a growth in our fishing industry around the Australian coastline and, from a personal point of view, I hope we will see an expansion of fishing activities in the fishing communities around the waters adjacent to the Grey electorate.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-I join briefly in this cognate debate in which two of the Bills might be regarded as having some substantial historical significance. On this occasion I shall more particularly address myself to the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978. This Bill, of course, will amend the Fisheries Act 1952 and extend Australian fishing jurisdiction over foreign fishermen out to 200 miles beyond the low water mark by the creation of a 200-mile Australian fishing zone. It is the outcome of lengthy, laborious and sometimes tedious negotiations in the international forum. The relief occasioned by its implementation should not be allowed to flow into those essential activities necessary to justify Australia’s claim to a water surface area approximately equivalent to the land mass of the Australian continent.

I mention in passing that it seems slightly ironic that Australia, having been induced to adopt metrication on the score of universality, should now be considering a Bill of international ramifications couched in statute miles rather than in kilometres. One wonders whether the allegedly universal urgency for metrication was in fact more of a myth than a reality. Australia, with the second longest coastline of any country, ranks only fiftieth in terms of world annual catch. This clearly demonstrates the relatively minimal exploitation of the water resources in Australia ‘s history. This has occurred for a number of reasons of course, not the least of them being that the waters surrounding Australia are not as prolific in fish life as might generally be imagined. Of course the Australian fishing industry has not fully exploited the resources that exist. Australian vessels are small and Australian fishing techniques are unsophisticated. Indeed, with the exception of the introduction of the sonar location of fish shoals and mechanisation of net handling tactics, essentially Australian fishermen are using the same fishing techniques as their forebears used at the time of Australia ‘s establishment. Many other countries, particularly Taiwan, have a much greater knowledge of Australia’s fishing resources. Indeed, their knowledge is so vastly superior to ours as to give them a decided advantage. There are 360 Japanese tuna boats in Australian waters and more than 160 Taiwanese trawlers operating off the north-west coast, which gives some idea of the extent of the involvement of overseas countries. The problem of high operating costs besets the Australian fishing industry, and the difficulty of market access is also a problem that will be difficult to remove.

Nevertheless, under the new arrangement we will have to expand quickly or surrender exploitation to other countries. The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea requires a member to give other nations access to the surplus of its allowable catch. I believe that that requirement is rather significant and stands as a very serious reminder to those people who have a somewhat insular attitude towards the development of Australia ‘s natural resources, both in the sea and on the land mass. It rather suggests that world opinion is fast moving towards an attitude that inevitably will declare that what is in the world belongs to the world and that if we cannot establish our capacity to develop our resources we will not be able to continue to guard them jealously as exclusive to our nation’s personal wellbeing.

Under that requirement, of course, Australia is at liberty to negotiate for some advantageous position by way of trading fishing rights within the 200-mile zone. But trading presupposes that a country has something to sell, and because we have demonstrated historically our lack of capacity to develop those resources, I am not convinced that we can persuade foreign nations to advance a consideration to us for fishing rights within the area described when they know full well that, if we persist with our present inefficient and ineffective measures, in some brief time international opinion will direct Australia to make available to foreign nations those waters within the 200-mile zone. At that stage no value might attach to the surrendering of any entitlement Australia may have.

It is interesting to note that it is estimated that only 40 per cent of edible fish at present imported each year into Australia- that is frozen packaged fish, canned herrings, sardines and smoked fish- could be supplied by local fishermen. A value of $20m per annum to the Australian market, which has grown at a constant rate of 2.3 per cent over the last 15 years, gives some indication of the value of the ocean resources on present operating levels. In all cases where measures such as this are introduced there is an incidental spin-off which would afford some bounty to our economy. Larger catches, if they are established by the enterprise of the Australian fishing industry, would lead to more modern processing. That in turn will demand increased freezing capacity, storage and equipment, and the transport and shipbuilding industries also will benefit. Whilst we look initially at the sea and what is contained therein, there is a great opportunity for expansion if we are alert and seize the opportunity to develop our Australian fishing industry. In that area, electronic equipment suppliers and manufacturers should also benefit.

Having established entitlements within the declared zone, the practices must be policed. There must be some surveillance to ensure that the regulations and arrangements are being observed and adhered to. Many propositions can be canvassed as to how the surveillance should be implemented. Whether by expansion of our defence forces we could ensure that sufficient surveillance is maintained or whether we should establish a coastguard or fishing patrol are questions that could be properly investigated. Quite clearly, Australia with its limited resources must inevitably have considerable difficulty in maintaining continuing effective surveillance. I should imagine that, as in the past, there will be illegal intrusions into Australian fishing zones. The Australian Fisheries Council will have a very heavy responsibility in determining the conditions that will apply to the exploitation of these ocean resources. It is alert, of course, to the interests of Australian fishermen and to the conditions that must necessarily apply.

One could not for a moment deny the validity of the claim that to the greatest extent possible the resources should be preserved for Australian fishermen and Australia as a whole. Whilst it can be understood that in some cases Australian fishermen have an instinctive resentment of possible intrusions of foreign fishermen, it seems inevitable that a compromise must prevail. The declaration of a 200-mile zone is possibly the simplest step for a nation to take to vindicate its actions on the international scene. It will call for good judgment, acument, and a realisation that insular national attitudes in a shrinking world can be counter-productive. I support the Bill.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-In this debate I want to address some remarks to the Whaling Amendment Bill, and in doing so I indicate, as the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) remarked, that the Opposition intends to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading. The amendment is in the following terms:

Whilst not opposing the second reading, the House calls upon the Government to alter the Frost Royal Commission terms of reference, requiring the Commission to submit positive proposals to guarantee increased marine resources employment in the Albany region, prior to declaring a moratorium on whaling.

As the House will know, the Government has established an inquiry into the whaling industry. One of the terms of reference of the inquiry states:

The Inquiry shall in particular examine:

whether Australian whaling should continue or cease;

Yet at the same time as it requires the Commission to examine that question, it pays little regard to the consequences of a decision to cease whaling in Australia. For instance, the only reference to the employment aspect is included in term of reference No. 3 (f) which states that the inquiry shall examine ‘any consequences for Australian employment and industrial development, particularly in Albany’. However, there is no requirement for the inquiry to examine the question of alternative employment for the people now engaged in the industry. It is the Opposition ‘s view that it would be quite wrong simply to wipe out an industry without making adequate arrangements for those who are employed in that industry. In Albany at the moment the whaling industry sustains employment sufficient to support about 100 families. This is not a question that can be taken lightly. In a town the size of Albany the employment of those families is indeed an important question. It may be true, as you, Mr Drummond, said the other day, that the people of Albany are opposed to the closing down of the whaling industry. I was in Albany in mid- 1977 at the time of the demonstrations that were mounted against the whaling industry and I attended a public meeting which considered the question of whaling in Albany. Whilst I think it is true that the people of Albany want to retain the jobs that are concerned with the whaling industry, I am not convinced that they necessarily want to see a continuation of the killing of whales.

In fact the whale is almost the trademark of Albany. When one drives down the approach road to Albany one sees everywhere whales smiling at passers by. They are always portrayed as being friendly, happy and harmless, so I do not think that the portrayal of whales as such means that the people of Albany are intent on destroying them. I am sure that they would favour the retention of the jobs without the killing of the whales. This question I think therefore presents us with an excellent chance to engage in an exercise of applied conservation. It seems to me that conservation issues are all too often portrayed as being a conflict between narrow minded antiprogress fanatics and development maniacs who are interested only in jobs regardless of the consequences. In most issues it is not easy for these opponents to reach agreement. However, it is my belief that we will never effectively be able to encourage sensible conservation policies unless those policies have the total support of the community. They will never succeed over the objections of workers or others who see themselves or their livelihoods being threatened by them. It is hardly necessary to add that this sort of problem, the problem between conservation policies and the perceived threat seen by workers, is a greater problem in times of high unemployment and /or when the conservation policies in question involve the taking away of existing jobs rather than the prevention of the opening up of new ones.

In Albany, however, I believe it should be possible to avoid this sort of conflict. Not only do I believe that the people of Albany are not antiwhale but also I believe that it would be possible to find other jobs to replace those jobs in the whaling industry. For instance, it was recently reported by Mr Mullins, the Director of the Southern Ocean Fish Processors Pty Ltd, that his company intended to provide employment for 150 people before the end of the year. The company currently employs about 30 people and it will be increasing employment in its plant in order to process more fish. Mr Mullins went on to say that the company had decided to expand because of the potential of the fishing industry in the area. He also said that this expansion was just a first phase and that the company saw a possibility of doubling its trawling fleet in the future.

There may indeed be other opportunities for increasing the fishing industry in Albany.

As well I think another method in which employment could be created in Albany would be by way of promotion of research into whales and other sea mammals. The amount of research into these creatures has been far from adequate and the results are extremely dubious. Therefore I think Australia could make a real contribution to international debate on this question by encouraging research, and there seems to be no better place for it than Albany. It may also be possible at certain times of the year to arrange for tourists to see the whales in their natural surroundings. I have noticed that many people take a rather bizarre interest in seeing whales being cut up at the Cheynes Beach whaling station and perhaps they or other people would be prepared to pay someone to take them out to sea to look at live whales.

I want to make it perfectly clear that my preference is for the closing down of the Cheynes Beach whaling station, once the interests of the current employees have been appropriately safeguarded. The reasons that I say this are fourfold: Firstly, I am not satisfied that enough is known about the ecological effects of killing whales in Australian waters or in other parts of the world; secondly, I do not believe that the International Whaling Commission is effectively pursuing a POliCY of conservation of whales, despite its protestations to the contrary; thirdly, I believe that Australia cannot encourage, as it pretends to do, a stronger line by the IWC in the conservation of whales whilst it permits whaling off its own shores; and, fourthly, I believe that most, if not all, of the products which are now obtained from whales can be obtained from substitute products.

Of course it goes without saying that the current level of whaling is not nearly as disastrous as it was more than 100 years ago. For instance, between 1820 and 1860 when the Americans particularly were dominating the industry about 900 whaling vessels were operating in the world. The United States industry itself employed about 70,000 people. It is not easy to say what the consequences of that massive operation were; in fact most scientists maintain that it is very difficult indeed to obtain reliable estimates of whale populations throughout the world but reasonably reliable estimates suggest that, of a whale population of about four million before whaling started in earnest, it has been reduced to about half in 1975. Many people claim that this population- at approximately two million whales now existing- is probably optimistic.

However, it is certainly true that the figures are almost certainly deceptive.

The selectivity of the whaling industry has caused a proportionately much greater reduction in the population of certain species, especially the much larger baleen species. For example, while the worldwide population of whales has been reduced by nearly 50 per cent, some baleen species in the Antarctic have been reduced by as much as 96 per cent. The figures showing population reduction do not reflect the reduction in the whale biomass. Selective depletion of blue and fin whales has caused an 85 per cent reduction in the total baleen biomass in the Antarctic, from an estimated 43 million tons to 6.6 million tons.

Mr Graham:

– Whose figures are those?

Mr DAWKINS:

– They are reliable, I assure you. Of course the argument of the International Whaling Commission is that a whaling industry is able to be sustained by having regard to a concept known as the ‘maximum sustainable yield’. This concept tries to take account of the mortality rates of the whale population and by comparing that with the recruitment rate, is able to establish the yield which allows whales to be taken without drastically reducing their numbers or at least without threatening the survival of the species. However, I think it is fair to say that there is a great deal of contention about this concept and its applicability, particularly to certain species. As I have already said, it is very difficult indeed to substantiate the total whale population. It is also difficult to substantiate what is the mortality rate and the recruitment rate. Most of the methods which are used in determining these factors are based on sitings, taggings and data such as the catch per unit effort, which effectively measures how long it takes the whale chasers to sustain a kill. There seem to be serious limitations in the theory which was enunciated by the International Whaling Commission. I think it is a very dubious concept indeed for us to rely on if we are concerned, as the Australian Government says it is, and as the Whaling Commission says it is, to avoid the extinction of all whale species that are left.

Another point to which I want to refer is the question of the behaviour of the IWC. The argument goes that it is better to have some sort of conservation enforced by the IWC rather than no conservation which apparently would lead to the wholesale slaughter of whales throughout the world, particularly by Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, I think if we critically examine the behaviour of the IWC it would cast a great doubt on its ability to sustain a proper conservation policy. For instance, we saw that the IWC met in June last year and at that time recommended a quota of 763 sperm whales for the northern hemisphere. Yet a few months later the same IWC lifted the quota for sperm whales in the northern hemisphere to 6,444. In a few months we saw an increase of 745 per cent simply on the basis of what Japan pretended was new data being presented to the IWC. Several of the delegates who were opposed to this increase in the quota poured scorn on the new data that was presented by Japan, alleging that scientists had falsified information and made wild generalisations about the reduced juvenile mortality without the slightest evidence to support their case. I think therefore that we have to be very circumspect about any temptation to embrace the policies of the IWC or to support the notion that the IWC and only the IWC can protect whale species.

The third point I want to make is that if the IWC is not adequately ensuring the conservation of whales throughout the world it seems to me important that Australia take on for itself a role in this process. I think we can follow the lead of the United States of America which in 1972 passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act which, among other things, makes it a crime for United States citizens to disturb or harass marine mammals anywhere in the world. The Act also prohibits any material harvesting of any species of these creatures without the approval of a special scientific committee. The United States also forbids the importation of whale products into the country and bans such products from interstate commerce. The United States, by the way, has been urging upon the world a 10-year global moratorium simply to allow for improved and increased research to justify any further killing of whales.

This suggestion of the United States is opposed by Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the two major whaling nations which account for something like 85 per cent of the world catch. Whilst it is true that Australia is a small whaling nation by comparison and indeed, Cheynes Beach often has difficulty in fulfilling the relatively small quota which it is given, it seems to me that Australia cannot raise its voice in protest against whaling or support the notion of conservation of whales while still allowing a whaling station to be maintained on its shores. I think therefore that whatever the consequences for Australia might be, we have an obligation to support the campaign for the preservation of whale species throughout the world and a necessary precondition for that is the closing down of our own station.

The fourth point that I want to make is that I believe that most if not all of the products which are now gained from whales can be replaced by substitutes. I suppose this is particularly relevant in the case of the whale which Australia is killing, the sperm whale. We find that the baleen whale is worth approximately $190 a ton compared with only $75 a ton for the sperm whale. It is further relevant, I suppose, that the baleen whales, the products of which are more highly priced, constitute approximately 77 per cent of the value of the world catch. The most important product which is derived from sperm whales, that is the whales Australia hunts and kills, is sperm oil. Unlike whale oil which is also gained from these and other whales, sperm oil is inedible and is more like a liquid wax. Sperm oil was widely used as an illuminating fuel in the 19th century because it did not smoke. Sperm whale meat has a very strong taste and is generally not eaten except in some local areas of Japan. Almost all parts of sperm whales are made into by-products, two of the better known being the teeth and the ambergris. It is estimated that the total value of whale products in 1972 was of the order of $ 100m. But approximately 95 per cent of the whales caught in recent years were caught by ships from developed countries and the products were almost entirely consumed by developed countries.

The sperm oil and related substances come mainly from the sperm whale’s head. Indeed, it is an amazing substance. It can be added to lubricants for everything from automatic transmissions to machine tools and it will perform superbly, even under conditions of high heat and pressure. Apparently this unique substance, the sperm oil, is the one which is most difficult to replace and whilst I know that you, Mr Drummond, have referred to the prospects of the jojoba plant, I think that you dismissed it rather too quickly. There is a substantial amount of research being carried out even in Australia on this plant. It is important because the oil which comes from the seed is very similar and has many of the properties of the sperm oil of the sperm whale. Whilst it is not yet a commercial proposition to go into the manufacture of oil from the jojoba plant, I think it is something which is well worth studying to a greater extent than we are doing at the moment. If it were proved to be an economically viable substitute for sperm oil it seems to me that it would remove one of the remaining obstacles which stand in the way of the closing down of the industry in Australia. Whilst I support the question of Australia taking a firmer stand on the preservation of whales and encouraging other nations to stop or reduce drastically their whale kill, I want to make it perfectly clear that in my opinion the most important factor to be taken into account so far as Australia is concerned is the future of the employees who are now employed at Cheynes Beach.

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

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I wish to reply on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and speak shortly in regard to each of the amendments, the amendment to the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the foreshadowed amendment to the Whaling Amendment Bill. The amendment proposed to the Fisheries Amendment Bill is quite unnecessary for it adds nothing to the Bill. As the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) said in his contribution to this debate, the matter has already been covered by the Minister in his second reading speech where he said:

In establishing the Australian fishing zone it is the Government ‘s intention to ensure that fisheries of this zone are developed and managed in the long term interests of Australia and Australians. Australian fishermen and fishing enterprises will be encouraged to develop the resources of the zone.

The Minister also referred to the obligation which Australia accepts when extending its fishing jurisdiction to 200 miles. That is an obligation to permit foreigners to take surplus fisheries resources which Australians cannot or do not wish to take. I emphasise that so far as Australia is concerned, foreign participation will be on terms and conditions determined by Australia and in the long term interests of Australia and Australians. I think it can be clearly seen that the matters which the Opposition canvasses in its proposed amendment are already very much in the forefront of the mind of the Government and have been covered quite adequately by the Minister in his second reading speech. With regard to the foreshadowed amendment to the Whaling Amendment Bill, I can say on behalf of the Minister that we are pleased to know that the Opposition supports the independent inquiry into whales and whaling instituted by the Government. I think the fact that we have instituted that inquiry shows the seriousness with which the Government has approached the opposition by the Australian and international community to excessive whaling. So it can be seen that there is no need for the Opposition’s amendment.

The terms of reference of the inquiry are very wide. I point out to the Opposition that those terms have been welcomed by Project Jonah and also other environmental groups. It also ought to be observed that the inquiry has already begun. It will not be waiting until August as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) suggested. With regard to the particular matter referred to in the foreshadowed amendment relating to employment in the Albany region, I remind the Opposition that the terms of reference already require the judge to report on economic, employment and other effects on the Albany region should a cessation of whaling be recommended. I am quite sure that those terms of reference are adequate for the judge and that he will be able to direct his attention to the implications for employment of any cessation of whaling, if that should be recommended. I also add that the purpose of the Bill currently before the House is not to canvass the whaling issue or the pre-empt the inquiry. That is a separate issue. Its purpose is to extend Australian jurisdiction to 200 miles and to that extent, although the remarks of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and also the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) may be of some interest, they are totally irrelevant to the substance of the Bill. It is for that reason that the Government does not accept either the amendment to the Fisheries Amendment Bill or to the Whaling Amendment Bill, as proposed by the Opposition.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I just make the point, without delaying the House and rather than take it to the Committee stage, that reference was made in the course of the debate to our jurisdiction and to the fact that the Privy Council in relation to the Oteri case virtually said that we could have had jurisdiction. I think the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) raised that matter. I put on record that the Privy Council said that we would never have jurisdiction.

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

-I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is moving a little bit beyond making his point.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I wanted to make that point.

Amendment negatived.

Original 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 Viner) read a third time.

page 2518

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

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 Viner) read a third time.

page 2518

WHALING AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

Leave out all words after ‘That’ with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not opposing the second reading, the House calls upon the Government to alter the Frost Royal Commission terms of reference, requiring the Commission to submit positive proposals to guarantee increased marine resources employment in the Albany region, prior to declaring a moratorium on whaling. ‘

Whilst the Opposition is opposing the Whaling Amendment Bill it does not propose to call for a division.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Cass:

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) was anxious to talk about the pronunciation of the word Albany. May I say that if you are in the east you pronounce Albany as you pronounce Albury, and if you are in the west you pronounce it the other way. I just make that clear.

Amendment negatived.

Original 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 Viner) read a third time.

page 2519

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · 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 should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the motion to take note of papers relating to the Australian Science and Technology Council, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the measures at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the two orders of the day to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Thirteen years ago the 26th Commonwealth Conference of the Australian Labor Party incorporated in its platform a proposal to establish an Australian science council. That was the first commitment made by a political party in Australia to constitute such a council. The introduction of the Australian Science and Technology Council Bill into the House marks a significant stage in the fulfilment of our initiative. During the intervening period, we in the Labor Party have contributed substantially towards this stage and we have witnessed the pleasing change of attitude on the part of members of the present Government. We welcome, for example, the change of heart of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on this matter. In March 1 969 when he was Minister for Education and Science he addressed the Science and Industry Forum of the Australian Academy of Science. He criticised the idea of a science council and concluded:

We may then be wisest to continue our pragmatic, evolutionary approach seeking advice from different people as different problems arise. In this way we can establish a network of informal and ad hoc relationships.

To many, this would appear to be an inappropriate arrangement for seeking advice on matters of public policy involving science and technology. What is more, it is an inadequate way of providing opportunities for both expert and public comment on the social aspects of science. So we note that the Prime Minister has radically changed his mind on the value of a science council. We support this Bill in principle. Our support is based not only on a long history of interest but also on our active history in this matter. In March 1974 Mr Morrison the then Minister for Science, tabled a Green Paper entitled ‘Towards an Australian Science Council’. The same year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development made a thorough study of science and technology at the request of the Labor Government. Following consideration of the report of the OECD examiners and following public discussion of the Green Paper, Mr Morrison in January 1975 issued the White Paper ‘Science and Technology in the Service of Society’. This document was, therefore, the result of a wider ranging discussion, and it outlined a framework for an Australian Science and Technology Council. The membership of the Interim ASTEC was announced in May 1975 and only the events of November 1975 prevented the establishment by statute of an independent body responsible for providing the Government with advice on science and technology.

The Bill before the House will accomplish this objective. It represents the culmination of a process begun 1 3 years ago by Labor and stimulated 4 years ago under Labor. We therefore support the BDI. Liberal-Country Party governments have always sought science policy advice from two sources- the established elite of the Australian academic scientific community and big business. This was the case when the Australian Academy of Science provided information and advice on an informal and ad hoc basis, as described by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in 1969. It was the case with the hastily devised Advisory Committee on Science and Technology; it is the case now with the existing interim ASTEC.

The Government’s understanding of the kind of advice needed on science and technology is very narrow. The limits to its understanding emerge clearly from the composition of the Council, and the terms of reference detailed in the Bill. We shall therefore move a number of amendments. ASTEC ‘s role, apparently, is to ensure the promotion of basic science and the industrial innovation of technologies. That is a view which is certainly outdated and is quite undesirable. The Opposition comprehends science not only as an economic activity and as an intellectual activity, but also as an activity with broader social demands and consequences. New scientific developments can assist in promoting better information on the natural environment and its conservation, and informed health care. Equally, technological changes can damage the environment, can threaten health or can result in reduced employment opportunities.

On these broader aspects of science and technologyaspects central to the advice needed by government- distinguished senior academic researchers and directors of large private companies cannot be regarded as experts. If one of ASTEC’s tasks is to keep the Government, Parliament and community informed on latest scientific and technological developments it should include active scientists. If, however, ASTEC has as its major task the providing of advice on public policy matters involving science and technology, as well as priorities for support, it needs intelligent, critical citizens, as well as experts with varied backgrounds, including active scientists, technologists and social scientists. They should be selected from academia, industry and the public sector, as both the White Paper and the report of the interim ASTEC proposed.

The Government is not likely to receive constructive criticism, a touch of responsible scepticism, on the social value of science and even the economic value of technological innovation from the scientific elite. What is likely to be provided is advice which is superficially very profound but deep down very superficial. Scientific specialists, it must be remembered, are not experts outside their own fields. They are, by virtue of their background, narrowly trained. Equally, senior industrialists are necessarily narrowly interested. The public should be able to be confident that members of ASTEC do not represent a vested disciplinary or commercial interest. This confidence cannot be maintained with the Government’s decision to select a council dominated by big business and senior academic scientists.

The Interim Council appointed by the Labor Government was significantly more broadly based, both in terms of the disciplinary backgrounds of its members and in their institutional affiliations. In particular, we ensured that the social sciences were represented to a greater extent. We did so because we take seriously the socio-economic aspects of science, and because we recognise that this is a major area of science policy advice. In fact, science policy which fails to take such matters into account is little more than a research and industrial development policy. Our decision to include the broader implications of developments of science and technology within the terms of reference of ASTEC was supported by the OECD examiners, and the Australian and New Zealand Association for the

Advancement of Science Policy Commission. It was also subsequently supported by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, commonly known as the Coombs commission. The terms of reference proposed for ASTEC in this Bill are deficient in this respect.

Science and technology are major components of social change, natural resource use, education and the changing nature of work- to give just some examples. These matters should be recognised in the Council’s terms of reference and as I said earlier the Opposition will propose amendments to the Bill to provide specifically for their inclusion. We shall also propose an amendment which would ensure the participation of social scientists, active researchers and laymen in the Council’s deliberations. Bodies already exist whose function is to promote science; ASTEC’s function should be to assess science, to criticise, to evaluate, to promote public discussion of the issues raised by science and /or technology. The Opposition will also seek to amend the Bill to enable ASTEC to exercise its own initiative to a greater extent in undertaking investigations, and to ensure that when ASTEC reports are withheld, either wholly or partially from the Parliament, the Minister shall inform the Parliament that this has been done. ASTEC must not be a tool of the Minister.

The Bill establishes ASTEC as an independent statutory body. We support that decision. If the Minister rejects or ignores its advice, it should not be possible for the Minister to hide that fact. This Government and succeeding governments should welcome public interest and public involvement in science policy. ASTEC can function to provide for these, by being free to stimulate knowledge of matters associated with science, even if these could be potentially embarrassing for the government of the day. Consequently, we shall seek to ensure only the necessary minimum of control by the Minister over confidential commercial or security matters. We shall also seek to amend the Bill to require a greater turnover of the Council’s membership. ASTEC will need a regular infusion of new ideas, new approaches. The Bill as it stands would make it too easy for ASTEC to become entrenched, for its relationship with the Government to become too comfortable. This situation has tended to develop with science advisory bodies in Australia under conservative governments. This tendency should be broken.

Finally, the Opposition has some reservations about the secrecy provisions of the Bill. The provisions are not only restrictive but, in fact, impose almost impossible conditions on scientists who give information to the Council. Certainly, commercially sensitive or defence-related information should remain confidential. But because clause 26 is so comprehensively written, it will pose problems for scientists acting as consultants or committee members. The Opposition supports the Bill, and hopes that the Government will review the narrow focus it has proposed for ASTEC and will have another look at clause 26 to see whether it really prevents consultants to the Committee from publishing their work later on. We hope that when the Australian Science and Technology Council is finally established with the permanence, independence and status the passage of this Bill will provide, the Council will see itself free to give rather more substantial, helpful and daring information and advice than its report on energy research and development contains. The Opposition supports the Bill but will move a number of proposed amendments.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– The Australian Science and Technology Council Bill 1978 that we are now debating is the result of six years progression in the field of committees and advisory bodies on science and technology. The first Australian Government commitment to the advisory body on science and technology was in April 1972 when the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, now the Right Honourable Sir William McMahon, announced the formation of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. The present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was the responsible Minister at that time. The Committee had only a brief existence, meeting for the first time in October 1972 and being disbanded by the Labor Government in February 1973. In 1974 the Labor Government invited three overseas examiners of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to come to Australia. This resulted in a White Paper entitled: ‘Science and Technology in the Service of Society- the Framework for Australian Government Planning’. Here it seems that both the Government and the Opposition agree.

In January 1975, by Cabinet decision, an interim Australian Science and Technology Council was established. Things got under way again in February 1976 when the Prime Minister announced that he had asked an advisory group to advise him on the role of and the terms of reference for a science and technology advisory council.

The group presented its report in March 1976. The interim Australian Science and Technology Council was continued, with some change of membership and functions. Its principal charter was to report to the Prime Minister on the longterm arrangements for a permanent council. After wide consultation the interim council reported in November 1976 and recommended the creation of a permanent and independent advisory body on science and technology and that this permanent ASTEC become a statutory body. The permanent council was established by Executive action in April 1977, and now the House has before it the Bill to establish it as a statutory body. All through the history of this body there has been the intent to provide independence for the council and to obtain overview reports. This, therefore, is the reason why it is not just an offshoot, under the Minister for Science, or part of the Prime Minister’s Department or other departments. The Government’s determination to provide this independence is shown in many clauses of the Bill but principally in clauses 8, 19,20 and 25.

Sub-clause 2 of clause 8 specifically says that the Minister is not empowered ‘to give directions to the Council with respect to the content of any information or advice to be furnished’. This negates the possibility of politics entering the advice rendered, and ensures that such advice is founded on scientific facts. Clause 19, in subclause 1, states: . . the staff required to assist the Council in the performance of its functions shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1 922.

Further, sub-clause 4 states that the staff shall perform their functions and duties in accordance with the directions of the Council. Again, subclause 2 of clause 20 states:

While an officer or employee of an authority is performing services for the Council in pursuance of an arrangement under sub-section ( 1 ), that officer or employee is not to be subject to direction by that authority.

In further pursuit of full independence for the Council there is clause 25. This clause forbids any legal action against the Council, its staff, or those working for it or giving information to it while they are acting in good faith for the Council. So, we see that much of the Bill is related to the independence of the Council.

The other important aspect which shows in the Bill and in all the other statements and reports on the Council, is the wide range of subjects covered. It is not, as the honourable member for Prospect said, narrow. This was brought about by the need for an overview on the whole situation. Some idea of the range of subjects covered is found in clause 5, the reference clause, and it is important enough to repeat it. It states:

The functions of the Council are to investigate, and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of, matters relating to science and technology, including the following matters:

the advancement of scientific knowledge;

the development and application of science and technology in relation to the furtherance of the national well-being;

the adequacy, effectiveness and overall balance of scientific and technological activities in Australia;

the identification and support of new ideas in science and technology likely to be of national importance;

the practical development and application of scientific discoveries;

the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry; and

the means of improving efficiency in the use of resources by the application of science and technology.

A further idea of the range can be gained from the variety of departments and agencies with substantial interests in science and technology that will be called upon for help. The following departments are represented at the monthly meetings of the council: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Defence, Department of Health, Department of National Development, Department of Primary Industry, Department of Science, Postal and Telecommunications Department and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Also, minutes and agenda papers, and an invitation to be represented at council meetings when items of interest are on the agenda, are sent to the following group of departments and agencies: Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, Department of Finance, Department of Productivity, Department of Transport, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Telecommunications Commission, and the Tertiary Education Commission.

The first necessity for ASTEC was to determine a classification system within which all fields of science and technology could be reviewed. The following list of classifications gives a further indication of the range covered: Aeronautics and aerospace, agriculture, atmosphere, coastal and ocean engineering, communications, construction, earth, electronics, energy, environment, marine sciences, food, forestry, fundamental research, health, industrial chemicals, international relations liason and aid, metal products and machinery, mineral processing, mining, organisation of research and development, scientific and technical computing, textiles, transport, urban and regional planning, water resources and wood products.

At this stage it is worthwhile giving an idea of the make-up of the Council itself. At present there are seven professors, each covering a different area, four managing directors or general managers of large public companies, the chairman of a primary producers organisation, a political scientist, a union leader and a scientist. That indicates that the previous speaker did not understand the position when he said that he wanted scientists involved. Again honourable members see how, with the wide experience of the councillors, the range involved in ASTEC is extremely large. Let me remind honourable members that the Council is an advisory group and has no executive role. Its advice will be used in many ways, especially in the allocation of resources and long-term planning. To give some idea- only a small idea- of the work that has already been completed, I mention the report of 1977 with advice on biological surveys in Australia, the drifting buoys program- a worldwide effort in which Australia is now involved, Landsat receiving in Australia, and, last month, the Prime Minister tabled the ASTEC report on energy research and development in Australia. I have given the history leading to the present ASTEC I have shown how the Government has provided independence for ASTEC. I have shown the wide range covered by ASTEC and, finally, I have given some examples of the advice it gives. I seek the support of all honourable members for this grand idea which has now come to fruition. I seek support for the Bill, which makes ASTEC a permanent statutory body.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The Opposition welcomes the introduction of this Bill, which will establish the Australian Science and Technology Council as a senior source of science policy advice to the Government. We welcome the Bill because we recognise that, despite its deficiencies, it is the product of initiatives of the Australian Labor Party. It was the Labor Party which, 13 years ago, committed itself to the effective exploitation of science and technology for the achievement of national goals, and it was the Labor Party which also recognised that the fruits of modern science often entail costs as well as benefits. As a result, we wrote into our platform in 1965, the undertaking that in office we would set up a science council. We were then well ahead of the thinking of the conservative parties which have subsequently followed us.

In 1969, the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in responding to a proposal of the Academy of Science that an independent advisory committee on science and technology be set up, expressed his satisfaction with ‘A network of informal and ad hoc relationships’ for advice on science and technology. Three years later, after the then Prime Minister appointed such a committee, his Minister for Education and Science- the present Prime Minister- backed down from his previous position. Indeed, he announced in August 1972 that the Australian Science and Technology Council would be serviced from within his Department and would report to him, rather than to the Prime Minister as had been the case since April that year. The marks of ad hocery and haste were, unfortunately, all too evident.

The Science Advisory Committee was, in 1972, a political football, just as it has been over the past year. By contrast, Labor, after its election in late 1972, undertook a full and independent review of Australian science, and also sought to encourage informed comment on the nature and role of appropriate science policy advisory machinery. Mr Morrison, who was then Minister for Science, tabled the Green Paper Towards an Australian Science Council’ early in 1974, proposing a Science Council. The report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development entitled ‘Examiner’s Report on Science and Technology in Australia’, issued in August 1974, recommended the establishment of an advisory council for scientific and technological policy. The 1975 White Paper, ‘Science and Technology in the Service of Society’, announced that an Australian Science and Technology Council would be created. In May the Interim Council was announced.

Our basic commitment, made 10 years earlier, to a Science Council had been fulfilled. We had gained the confidence of the Australian community by consulting with it. We had accepted those suggestions which would widen the interests of the Council to include technology related matters, and which would involve a ministerial committee to receive ASTEC ‘s advice. Most significantly, we had decided to provide ASTEC with terms of reference wide enough to encompass the impacts of scientific activities throughout the economy and society as a whole.

It is unfortunate that the present Government has failed to build quickly on that firm foundation, and that in some respects it has seen fit to reject the sound proposals Labor in office had adopted. So, whilst we welcome the introduction of the Bill and whilst we congratulate the Prime

Minister for his radical change of mind on the value of a Science Advisory Council, we do not support the narrow view of the functions of ASTEC which the Bill embodies. The case for seeking the advice of ASTEC on the social aspects of scientific developments has been widely supported, not only by the 1974 Green Paper and the 1975 White Paper produced by the Labor Government, but also by the OECD examiners in their report on Australian science and technology, by the Science Policy Commission of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science and by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration.

To disregard these broader aspects of science and technology is to reduce science policy to a very narrow view. It is to ignore those features of science policy described by Professor Don Lamberton in 1 970 when he stated:

Scientific research, technological development, and human progress are interconnected and achievement in any one of these areas cannot be judged efficient without taking account of the costs and benefits in all three areas. Technological change and its impact upon human values requires a major research effort of genuinely interdisciplinary character.

The absence of these wider matters from ASTEC’s terms of reference is all the more difficult to comprehend in view of the Prime Minister’s explanation in 1972 of his change of mind in favour of a Science Council. He said at the 44th conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for Advancement of Science:

  1. . the position has changed–

That is, since 1969-

  1. . in several important ways. Not the least of these is the growth of environmental awareness and the impact of this on industry and national development. The importance of technology assessment- penalties as well as benefits- is well appreciated.

The Bill before the House presents a narrower view of science policy than that espoused by the Prime Minister in 1972. In fact, this narrow view- the view adopted by this Governmentrestricts science policy considerations to those related to the advancement of science and to the industrial innovation of technology. The Bill before the House proposes terms of reference for ASTEC which go no further than this. What is more, the composition of ASTEC as it now exists also reflects these limited concerns. The Government has reverted to the 1972 position of a Council dominated by big business and the scientific establishment.

Now, we recognise that in a mixed economy technology provides the muscle of industrial and rural development. But there are criteria other than economic against which technological change should be judged. They include the implications for employment, education needs and environmental consequences. Similarly, whilst the senior members of Australia ‘s technical community have useful contributions to add to science policy considerations, if ASTEC or the Government wanted to know what is happening at the frontiers of research, who better to ask than the young, active, vigorous scientists and technologists of our nation? It is these people who should be encouraged to explain the social aspects, the possibilities, the limitations of recent advances in their fields. It is these people who should, by their involvement in advising Government and the community, be encouraged to develop their social consciences as well.

We are disappointed also, that there are no public sector scientists or technologists on ASTEC. In Australia, scientific research is dominated by Government agencies. A Councilthe Government’s top science policy advisory body- which contains no women, and no public sector employees will surely find it difficult to gain the confidence of the Australian people to whom its reports will be available. ASTEC needs broader terms of reference, to encompass the manpower aspects of science, the international character of science, and, explicitly, the socioeconomic aspects of science and technology. That is why we propose to amend the Bill to give ASTEC the terms of reference provided in the 1975 White Paper.

The past 12 months have seen ASTEC used as a political football just as it was in 1972. On 19 April last year, the Prime Minister revealed that ASTEC would report to him and that its secretariat would be attached to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This was the position outlined again on 10 April this year in the Prime Minister’s second reading speech on the Bill. Nevertheless, in the meantime ASTEC had spent some time in the Department of Science after 20 December. I hope that now ASTEC has settled into an equilibrium position.

Perhaps this will enable the Council to build up the confidence it needs to move beyond the platitudes which begin, dominate and end its report on energy research and development.

The Opposition is disappointed, also, that ASTEC will not report to a council of Ministers. This would have given the Council access to the many relevant Ministers, and it would provide the recognition that science impinges on most components of public policy. I have said that the introduction of this Bill is supported by the Opposition. We will seek, however, to amend the Bill to ensure that ASTEC is more fully independent of Government direction and to ensure a more rapid turnover of its membership. As far as this latter change is concerned, we believe that ASTEC needs the regular infusion of ideas. Science policy advisers have, in the past, had too comfortable a relationship with government. ASTEC certainly needs security of tenure, but government needs to be challenged with ideas it might not otherwise have come across. ASTEC can serve to educate and inform scientists, government and the public about scientific matters and their relationships with social and economic wellbeing. ASTEC needs clear assurances that, in this role, its efforts will be welcomed. The Opposition supports the view of Professor Harvey Brooks, Chairman of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development group on science policy, when he said:

  1. . that the new orientation of our societies towards the qualitative aspects of growth and towards broader concepts of welfare will require a much closer integration of science policy with the totality of economic and social policy.

We are proud to have initiated and acted towards the establishment of ASTEC so that these perspectives can be added to science in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

page 2524

HANSARD’ REPORT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I take this opportunity to read to the House a minute which I received from the Principal Parliamentary Reporter. It reads:

Earlier today the honourable member for Prospect drew attention to the Hansard report of a speech made yesterday by the Minister for Health on the subject of health care costs. The honourable member claimed that no leave had been given by the House for the incorporation of the table which appears at page 2398 and that Hansard had ‘co-operated ‘ by providing sub-headings throughout the speech for ‘Government propaganda ‘.

As the contents of the table appearing on page 2398 were read out by the Minister they formed pan of his speech and leave to incorporate the table was not required.

The use of cross-headings in Ministerial statements is a long-established practice. This concession is also available to the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition shadow Minister leading for the Opposition in a debate. It was used as recently as 9 May by the honourable member for KingsfordSmith in a debate on foreign policy.

I do not propose that any changes should be made in relation to tables. That is, leave must be given for incorporation. I propose to continue the practice of allowing headings in speeches made by Ministers or shadow Ministers leading for the Opposition.

Dr Klugman:

– Even fictitious headings?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member for Prospect will discover that when a statement is made the headings that appear are usually the headings which were on the statement. For instance, the Budget Speech by the Treasurer is a perfect example of a speech which always has headings. I think they assist the reader to find in the speech, especially if it is a long one, the section he wants to pick up quickly.

Mr Bryant:

– I wish to make a point in regard to this matter. I think the practice of putting in headings is a good one, and I think a speech should be readable. I say that despite the glowing eloquence of our speeches. However, the same rules ought to apply to any tables which any honourable member seeks to have incorporated in Hansard. I presume that the case would be that Hansard, in editing a speech, would put in the headings in that way, even in the case of a humble backbencher such as myself or even you, Mr Speaker, in your time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I may not be on the back bench but I am still humble.

Mr Bryant:

– I think this is a consortium of equals and anything that differentiates between us -

Mr SPEAKER:

– In an egalitarian spirit, I will look at that suggestion and meet it where possible.

page 2525

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL BILL 1978

In Committee

The Bill.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I seek leave of the Committee to move together the amendments circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I shall be moving amendments to clauses 5, 6, 8, 10 and 1 1, which read in part:

Clause 5.

The functions of the Council are to investigate, and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of, matters relating to science and technology, including the following matters:

  1. the advancement of scientific knowledge;
  2. the development and application of science and technology in relation to the furtherance of the national well-being;
  3. the adequacy, effectiveness and overall balance of scientific and technological activities in Australia;
  4. the identification and support of new ideas in science and technology likely to be of national importance;
  5. the practical development and application of scientific discoveries;
  6. the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry; and
  7. the means of improving efficiency in the use of resources by the application of science and technology.

Clause 6.

  1. Where the laying of a report before the Parliament in accordance with sub-section (2) would result in-

    1. the disclosure of information that would, in the opinion of the Minister, be contrary to the public interest by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth or relations between the Commonwealth and any State; or
    2. b) the disclosure of information received by the Council in confidence, the Minister shall, in his discretion-
    3. cause the report to be laid before the Parliament with such deletions as he thinks necessary to avoid that result; or
    4. cause the report not to be paid before the Parliament until he is satisfied that laying the report before the Parliament would not have that result.

Clause 8.

  1. 1 ) The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions as are given to it by the Minister in writing.

Clause 10.

  1. The Council shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than 3, nor more than 13, other members.

Clause 1 1.

  1. Subject to this Part, a member holds office for such period not exceeding-

    1. in the case of the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman 5 years; or
    2. in the case of any other member- 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment.
  2. A person shall not hold office as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman for a continuous period exceeding 10 years.
  3. A person who has held office as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman for a continuous period of 10 years is not eligible for re-appointment as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman, as the case may be, for a term of office commencing within 12 months after the expiration of that period.
  4. Subject to sub-section (6), a person shall not hold office as a part-time member for a continuous period exceeding 6 years.
  5. Subject to sub-section (6) a person who has held office as a part-time member for a continuous period of 6 years is not eligible for re-appointment as a part-time member for a period of office commencing within 12 months after the expiration of that period.
  6. Where-

    1. a person has held office as a part-time member for a continuous period of 6 years or, by virtue of a previous application or previous applications of this sub-section, a continuous period exceeding 6 years; and
    2. the Minister certifies in writing that, in his opinion, by reason of exceptional circumstances specified in the certificate, it is desirable for the person to continue in office, the person may be re-appointed as a pan-time member for a period of office commencing on the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a).
  7. A person who has attained the age of 65 years shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a full-time Chairman or Deputy Chairman and a person shall not be appointed or reappointed as a full-time Chairman or Deputy Chairman for a period that extends beyond the date on which he will attain the age of 65 years.
  8. In this section, ‘pan-time member’ does not include the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman.
Dr KLUGMAN:

-I move:

  1. Omit clause 5, substitute the following clause: 5, The functions of the Council are to investigate, and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of, matters relating to science and technology, including the following matters:

    1. a ) the advancement of scientific knowledge;
    2. the implications for the community, for the environment, for industry and for Government policy of developments in science and technology;
    3. utilising science and technology in the development of national objectives;
    4. priorities for scientific and technological research and development, and on policies to give best effect to these priorities;
    5. the organisation of and institutional arrangements for the conduct of scientific and technological activities;
    6. f) manpower policies for science and technology;
    7. the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry; and
    8. utilising science and technology in the achievement of national objectives.
  2. In clause 6, after sub-clause (3) add the following subclauses:

    1. Where the Minister exercises his discretion in favour of causing the report to be laid before the Parliament with deletions he shall disclose to Parliament the grounds upon which such deletions were made.
    2. Where the Minister exercises his discretion in favour of causing the report not to be laid before the Parliament he shall within 15 sitting days after receiving the report disclose to Parliament that he has received the report and the grounds upon which he has exercised such discretion. ‘.
  3. In clause 8, omit sub-clause ( 1 ), substitute the following sub-clause:

    1. 1 ) The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers as it sees fit and shall act upon any directions given to it by the Minister in writing. ‘.
  4. In clause 10, omit sub-clause (1), substitute the following sub-clause:

    1. 1 ) The Council shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than 7, nor more than 15, ordinary members of whom at least 2 shall be persons professionally qualified as social scientists, 3 shall be scientists currently involved in research and 2 shall be members of the Australian Parliament appointed respectively by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. ‘.
  5. In clause 1 1, sub-clause ( 1 ) (b), omit ‘, but is eligible for re-appointment”.
  6. In clause 1 1, omit sub-clause (2).
  7. In clause 1 1, omit sub-clause (3).
  8. In clause 1 1, omit sub-clause (4).
  9. In clause 1 1, omit sub-clause (5).
  10. In clause 1 1, omit sub-clause (6).
  11. In clause 11, omit sub-clause (8).

In moving those amendments, I have made a number of points in support of them. Other members of the Opposition would like to touch on some aspects of the amendments.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I wish to speak to the first amendment which is to clause 5 and which is related to the functions of the Australian Science and Technology Council. I suppose one can look at the functions of an organisation such as this in terms of the demands that might be made upon it Judging from the functions listed in the Bill as it stands, quite clearly the Government sees as by far the most significant functions those relating to research and development, I suggest, in the purely economic area. There are economic demands. I am not quibbling about that. That obviously is the first area that most people would note. In looking at those functions, one could categorise two of them as being in the area of research and five of them as being in the area of development, I repeat, essential in industry.

But I think the functions, even in the economic sense, should go beyond that. There are, for example, requirements for government in technological areas which are not at the stage of, if you like, commercial development. I shall cite a couple of possible examples. Let us take transport systems. Quite clearly in metropolitan areas something will have to be done in the not too distant future about our transport systems. Given the conflict of interests of the various components of the transport industry, I suggest that no one will come up with a solution unless and until an organisation such as the Australian Science and Technology Council gets involved in it and gives the Government of the day some advice on the course of development that might be taken. Clearly if we leave it all to private transport- the motor car- cities will bog down and grind to a halt. Perhaps some sort of grid system is necessary, with a monorail car which is perhaps controlled by computer. There are lots of far out proposals, but far out scientific proposals such as that tend to become reality in a very short time. The present system is useless and the construction of freeways solves nothing. All that freeways do is guarantee that the problem in the central business areas is increased, because freeways encourage more and more people to go into the city. In a like fashion, similar problems arise with communications systems. In order to illustrate my views I wish to read an article which appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, 9 April. The article is written by a gentleman called Lee Edson. It reads:

It was early in the 2 1st century when the last trickle of oil ran out. But by this time America was ready. In Washington, D. C, the President pushed a button that turned on a thin sliver of intense light and directed it at a capsule containing a form of hydrogen extracted from sea water. Laser Generator No. 1- the first American laser power plant- was on stream, replacing the last great oil-fed electric power station.

Laser beams racing along glass fibres thinner than the threads of a spider’s web carried massive volumes of information from place to place at blinding speeds- a bundle of fibres as thick as a matchstick could transmit the contents of 200 books in a second- causing a revolution in communications. The magazine, the newspaper and the business letter, as well as the mountains of trash they generated each day, had become as obsolete as copper wire. Instead, people read messages and learned the news from electronic screens or computer printouts . . . The technology rapidly transformed television and the movies, and provided a new medium for the ever-flourishing pornography market.

That may be fantasy, but we would be unwise to ignore the possibility of these things. The article continues:

Like any scientific discovery, the laser has enormous potential for good and for ill.

The bulk of the article describes the relative developments in Russia and America in relation to military hardware. It continues:

Lasers may turn out to be the world ‘s salvation, a new and inexhaustible source of energy, or its destruction in the form of devastating weaponry. In either event, whoever comes out ahead in the race to develop them will be in a position to change the course of history.

I confess to being a little melodramatic in that, but I did that simply to make the point that there is in existence a new technology. In fact, it is not new in the sense that it is already functioning in some ways. After all, there are doctors in this country using laser beams to operate on patients. It is not all a pipe dream. But we have not had any investigation by a body and I suggest an organisation like ASTEC would be ideal to investigate the potential of this sort of technology. We need to assess not only its applicability in terms of economic need but also the social impacts. We need to look at its potential effect, for example, on the whole communications industry.

I refer now to another area. We have investigations into our energy needs and we talk about the need to develop an energy policy. I suggest that the Government’s approach is essentially purely technological. How do we generate more energy? Where do we find it? How can we get more out of coal? But there are other aspects to the energy problem. What about the social impacts? Maybe an investigation will show that in some areas we will need to produce more and in other areas we will need to conserve. There may be areas where we need to consciously reduce our energy use. We will achieve nothing with the narrow economic approach that the present Government has taken in these areas, trying to get only technological advice without any relationship to the social impacts.

I could go on and refer to the area of social demand such as medicine and science which relate to people care, if you like. I could refer to nutrition and public health. Let me give an example from my own experience. In my life as a research worker in medicine I consider that I wasted time, to a certain extent, on transplantation surgery. I doubt very much that, in the overall context of the community’s need, the sort of research in which I was involved, namely, heart transplants, was worth anything at all. Some aspects of my research were worthwhile. I was also involved in kidney transplants, an area which proved to be of great benefit. But I do not believe for one moment that the time I spent on heart surgery was anything other than an utter waste of time.

Should we pursue the area of genetic engineering? Should we be trying to play God in terms of creation? I do not know. I think someone ought to be investigating the area. This work is going on in some communities in America and the communities are up in arms and fearful of the possible consequences. They have imposed blocks and restrictions on the research workers who, of course, are striking back. We need some body to look into the matter. I do not believe that that sort of report will ever come from the Council as established by the Government at this stage. The Council needs to have broader terms of reference such as those we have suggested in our amendment to this clause. In other words, we should care not just about technology and science but about the effects on society as well.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– Perhaps I can answer the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) very quickly on two points. He mentioned the functions of the Australian Science and Technology Council. I think that if he reads clause 5 carefully he will find that there are no inhibitions in the functions. The proposed new clause 5 represents just a rewording of the functions laid out in the Bill. He also mentioned that transport and communications, by way of examples, were not part of the overall investigation by ASTEC. If he had listened to my speech he would have heard me say that there would be a system whereby all the fields of science and technology could be reviewed. I listed some 26 or 27 items and communications and transport were included. I believe that the amendment is of no importance whatsoever.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The Austraiian Labor Party does not oppose the Australian Science and Technology Council Bill. We recognise that some years of effort, search and thinking have gone into the production of this document. However, we do not think that it answers all the questions that this side of the chamber would pose, nor does it create an institution which has features that we think would be desirable in a council that is going to deal with the important area of science. We know that the Council will have no executive function, but I do not think that is important. As I understand the position, one of the great struggles in science for governments all around the world has been to gather together the threads and to ensure that no inhibitions are created by governmental or bureaucratic action but that there is also a proper conservation of energy in the development of science policy.

I feel quite strongly about this subject as a result of my membership of this Parliament and of one of the councils established by the Parliament. The Opposition’s third paragraph of the amendment should be adopted because it would allow the Council to take initiatives on its own account. I cannot understand why we should place upon the Council the inhibition that the relevant clause of this Bill places upon it. We are proposing to invite some of the most distinguished people in the field of science to serve on this Council. Yet we are placing upon it the restriction that it can act only upon the Minister’s direction, or that seems to be the meaning of the clause as it appears in the Bill. I do not approve of that, and I think the Committee should adopt the third paragraph of the Opposition’s amendment. I cannot understand why honourable members opposite have any doubts about adopting that course.

Members on this side of the chamber do not like the secrecy provisions of the Bill. They appear to me to be very inhibiting indeed. Clause 26 applies to members of the Council and to members of a committee appointed under section 24, to members of the staff of the Council and so on. It states in part:

A person to whom this section applies shall not, either directly or indirectly, except for the purposes of this Act or with the permission of the Council-

make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information . . .

That seems to me to be a token of a sense of secrecy and confidentiality about the system which is undesirable.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You have missed the point. Read the clause carefully.

Mr BRYANT:

– I have looked at it, and I know that there are reservations further on in that clause. I have also been a member of this place for a long while. I have watched governments in action. I also know that many of the people who are employed in these situations are inhibited by the look of the legislation. I think that this is an unduly inhibiting clause and it ought not to be in the Bill. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) ought to know that many of the provisions in legislation are much more restrictive because of the atmosphere they create than because of the technical legal meaning of them. I think that that has an inhibiting impact.

The second paragraph of the Opposition’s amendment relates to access to reports. I was anxious tonight to speak about the membership of the Council. We have moved an amendment to the composition of the Council and a change in the clause which covers the period of membership. I want to put before the Committee the desirability of appointing members of Parliament to this body. For many years now I have represented this Parliament and this House in particular on the Council of the National Library of Australia. I served on that Council for a good number of years, and during my membership of the Ministry that Council service was undertaken by Mr Cross, the then member for Brisbane. Before I served on that Council this side of the chamber was represented on that Council by the late Leslie Haylen. The other side of politics was represented by Sir Alister McMullen, and is represented now by Senator Gordon Davidson. I am quite confident that all the members of the Council during that period would agree that the members of Parliament who served on it fulfilled a useful purpose and brought to it a breadth of understanding of the political structure that is desirable for anybody who is going to be a part of government. I only hope that it also helped in our understanding of the body. I suggest that we ought to give some thought to a provision being included in the House of Representatives Standing Orders for reports from people who serve in that way to be placed periodically before the Parliament. At page 1515 of today’s Notice Paper there is a list setting out the House of Representatives appointments to committees of this nature.

I think that the actual structure of the Science and Technology Council has to be changed in the way in which the Opposition has submitted. As I see the position, we can argue about numbers for any length of time, but our tendency will be to appoint people who are busy and important and who have an established status in the field of science. The problem is to match their experience with the dynamics that people who are just beginning a career can provide. I know that there is provision for advisory committees and so on to assist, but as far as I can see this will be an unduly restricted and structured body. The honourable member for Hotham has a right to hold a different opinion. As I understand his position, he has had a good deal of experience in life outside this place. I have had a good deal of experience inside this place and in government.

We face here the establishment of a council that has to accept a very great intellectual challenge. I do not think we have faced up to the great problems of science in relation to the community. There has been a growing uneasiness over the last 20 years, in the minds of all those who are concerned with social progress, about the conflict between scientific progress and the needs of society generally. It is for that reason that the Opposition has suggested in one paragraph of its amendment that the functions of the Council be changed to allow for a greater social input and a great study of the social implications of what we do. One of the oddities of our community at the present moment is that we are very careful of the environment. We want environmental impact statements before we cut down a tree. We do not seem to worry about what we do when we are going to cut down people. In our economic considerations there is very little concern for the people who are going to be struck down by changes in economic policy. If we are going to do anything to the environment we expend a great deal of care upon it, but I think the time has long passed since we gave serious consideration to people.

The Science and Technology Council ought to be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that science fulfils that role. The Opposition makes the point that the Council is unduly structured towards industrial and commercial usage of science. It is unduly restrictive in its membership and is unduly restrictive in the scope of its inquiries. It is unduly restrictive in its capacity to inform itself of its own motion. I suggest to the honourable member for Hotham, who is taking a deep interest in this subject, that one of features of government that beset us continuously is the tendency to restrict the activities of the bodies we establish. As long as the Minister has the power to intervene when he thinks that people have gone overboard about something, that should be adequate. Until the Council has established that it is unable to act with responsibility on its own initiative, we ought not to restrict its activities.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– I wish to add several points to the debate. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) referred to the fourth paragraph of the Opposition’s amendment, which relates to the appointment of parliamentarians to the Council. In my speech I made it very clear that one of the efforts behind the wording of this Bill was to have independence, which we tried to achieve through a number of the clauses. I think that in doing it this way we have achieved this end, but to include parliamentarians on the Council is getting away from the whole point of it.

The other point made by the honourable member concerned deletions from reports of the Council to the Parliament and the fact that notice should be given of the reports that have been received and of the grounds for any deletions. That is ridiculous when one looks at it from the point of view of prejudicing security. How can one possibly disclose a report and then say that certain parts of it have been deleted? That gets away from the whole point of clause 6 which deals with the possibility of not reporting under certain circumstances which would prejudice the security, defence, international relations or relations between the Commonwealth and any State. So I think the honourable member for Wills has missed the boat on that point.

I think one other point needs to be mentioned, and that is the membership of the Council. Perhaps large councils can get things done but I think the number that has been selected for this Council makes for a workable council. If a larger number of members were appointed- the honourable member suggested that members from all walks of life should be appointed- the Council would become unwieldy. The honourable member also mentioned that a wider range of people should be appointed to the Council. In my speech in the second reading debate I mentioned that representatives of many departments are invited to attend every meeting, and the minutes and agenda papers are sent to other departments if the items are of interest to them. I think that covers a wide variety of interests, and there is no need to extend the membership of the Council.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I would like to refer to the fourth amendment put forward by the Opposition, which relates to clause 10, the membership of the Council. By way of explanation, I would like to mention that when the interim Australian Science and Technology Council was appointed by the Labor Government its membership included a sociologist, and economist, a philosopher, a biologist, a chemist, two engineers- one an academic and the other from Telecom Australia- an immunologist, two industrialists and a trade unionist. We sought to encompass a complete spectrum of human endeavour relating to science and technology in the broader sense, including the social sciences. I think that philosophy is part of the spectrum that must be taken into account. In contrast, the membership of the initial Council appointed by this Government consisted of a grazier, five industrialists, eight academics, two chemists, two engineers, one geologist, two biologists, one political scientist and a trade unionist. There was no sociologist, no philosopher, no economist and no one representing the consumer organisations or consumer interests in the broader community sense. The Labor Government tried to appoint to that Council somebody from that sector but I am afraid that the then Premier of New South Wales refused to let the poor lady join the group. I think that members of the Opposition have encompassed in their remarks the reasons why we think the membership should include such a broad spectrum of people.

I shall now discuss the sorts of people who should be selected. The tendency with groups like this is to pick august members of the learned institutions, usually people who are retired from active research or technological endeavours- the elder statesmen, if you like. I think that defeats the purpose of the exercise, because what we are really out to do is to get the very latest available information; to tap the brains of the people who are working at the growing edge of science, the younger people who are actively involved. The Opposition’s amendment encompasses that not only when it refers to the types of people about whom I spoke but also when it seeks to strike out the lengths of service stated in the Bill- in fact allowing no one to serve for longer than three years. That is a realistic assessment of the fact that if a prospective member is actively involved in research at the height of his career he will not want to give up six, eight or ten years of his life, but he may be prepared to put aside three years in order to work on a council such as this and hence give the community the very latest and best advice in his area. Of course he will not be expected to answer all the questions, but because he is actively engaged in research he is more likely to be a member of what the Americans call the ‘invisible’ colleges. Groups of biologists throughout the world know more about one another and their latest work than they are likely to know about an engineer in their own academic institutions, say, in Sydney or Melbourne.

That is what we want; we want the very latest information because in a sense this Council, if it really functions properly, will have to indulge in forecasting, or providing studies in futurology, if you like. I mentioned that in my previous comments about the application of developments in science to the future of this country. That sort of wisdom and understanding will not come from the elder statesmen in the scientific fields who have completed their research, whose interests are locked into the work they have done, and who will not be as up to date as the sorts of people I have mentioned. So much for the type of people who should be on the Council. For that reason the Opposition has put forward an amendment to cut back the length of time for which members of the Council can be appointed. We are not saying that the chairman cannot be an elder statesman. I can think of half a dozen characters who could well fit that bill. But if a chairman is to get the best from a Council such as this he needs young, active research workers.

Now I come to another slightly controversial point, namely, the issue of the two representatives from the Parliament on this Council. This amendment was put forward because the Opposition hoped that the responsible Minister might have been flexible enough to accept it but of course that is not likely to happen. I would like to recount some observations I have made because I was involved in this subject for some time while I was a member of the Victorian Labor Party’s science committee looking into science policy. I read a lot of literature about it and formulated the idea that a science council was needed. I remember that when the examiners from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development came to Australia and we discussed these sorts of councils with them, sadly to say the examiners said that we ought to set up a science council- we call it the Science and Technology Council, but it is the same basic thing- but the Englishman and the Belgian, I think it was, said that in real terms, in most of the countries where these bodies have been set up, the experience has been fairly disappointing. They gave many reasons, not the least of which was that beautiful reports may be written but no one takes any notice of them; they are just buried. The West German examiner said: ‘We do not have that trouble. We think it is a good idea. But our scientists meet with a council of Ministers and in fact the reports which are published are not written just by the scientists; they are written by a combined group consisting of Ministers and scientists’.

The Labor Government accepted that proposal, and in fact at the same time as we appointed the interim ASTEC in May 1975 we appointed a ministerial committee, which was chaired by the Minister for Science, and I think five or six Ministers- members of the Cabinetwere on that committee. I was invited along as one of the Ministers who could be interested. I think I was Minister for the Media at the time, but I suppose it was seen that the media might have some relationship to technology and vice versa. I was one of the Ministers involved. We had two or three meetings- I forget exactly how many- at which all the scientists and this group of Ministers sat together to discuss how we might approach the problems and the sorts of problems that should be looked into, and that is how we intended it to continue. It is interesting to note that the Royal Commission into Australian Government administration, the so-called Coombs Royal Commission, in its discussions on this topic advised that ASTEC should be responsible to and should advise the Prime Minister and a ministerial committee on science policy. In case honourable members might have thought that the Labor Party was crackpot in this regard, this investigation, after considering all the evidence, came up with the same proposition.

I will repeat the reasons why I think it is important. It is easy for scientists who are not responsible for political decisions to go off into the never-never’ with their ideas about what ought to be- great idealism based on their fantasies of the possibilities of science in the foreseeable future. If they are forced to discuss their ideas with politicians they may well be dragged back to a more certain political reality. But at the same time- I think this is of major significance in the proposal- in the process of the argument or the discussion between scientists and with the politicians we will create an environment whereby the politicians may in fact be educated and may better understand the potential significance of what the scientists are talking about. It often is complicated. I read out some of what they are talking about earlier today and I heard a few snorts around the chamber. Obviously people thought it was a bit far fetched. It is not necessarily far fetched. But just to read about it and not know about it in the sense of being involved in the discussion or argument makes it difficult to accept. The concept of having a council ora committee of Ministers associated with ASTEC so that the reports that come out are in fact reports written by the combined group will mean that at least a significant section of the Cabinet will be very intimately acquainted with what the scientists are talking about. It is far more likely, therefore, that they will be fired with whatever recommendations the combined committee makes. It is far less likely that the report will be tabled and an occasional crackpot from either side of the Parliament pick it up and thumb through it, and then it be forgotten. It is far more likely that Cabinet will be forced to take the proposal seriously. For those reasons I very seriously propose that honourable members should at least accept our amendment and after what I hope will be a short time of experience, recognise the advisability of dragging some Cabinet members into the discussions.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) expanded on several points made from this side of the chamber. I want to take together clauses 6 and 26- the clause which deals with reporting and the one which deals with secrecy- and amplify if possible the point I was making that in many of these areas it is not exactly the legal prohibition that stops people working; but the inhibitions that flow from what they think is the situation. The same applies to the ministerial proscription upon what the council may or may not do. If we are to create an instrument by which science and technology are expanded, the intellectual challenge is taken up and the far edge of scientific research, as. my colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) put it, is continuously expanded by encouragement from a public body, we must remove the inhibitions.

I cannot quite understand the necessity for some parts of clause 6. For instance, take that part which regards as greatly secret and confidential and possibly destructive anything that may come before the council and be let out from its deliberations which would affect the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. We are not going to have the present Queensland Government there forever trying to inhibit the things that this Commonwealth does. I was a bit surprised at the assertion of the honourable member for Hotham that we would cripple the independence of the council if we put members of this Parliament on it. I know that internally in this Parliament we are not all that free. I know that honourable members opposite toe the party line. I know that on this side when we mark down the party line democratically we all toe it. So in the public debate here tonight I am careful of what I say, as always. For instance, I do not want to offend my friend the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) but I think it is fair to say that the great proportion of people in this Parliament, when they are facing up to the ordinary community gatherings, when they sit on community deliberations, when they go to meetings of other bodies to which they belong or of which they have membership, are probably the most free spirits in it. We are accountable to a particular group of people in a particular sort of way. If we are not afraid of the people in our electorates we do not need to be afraid of much else.

It is my experience that the people who are likely to produce the most outward-going view of situations are the people who have had a strong political background and training in an institution such as this one. I think that the honourable member for Hotham must be having a very chastening experience on his side of the Parliament if in the few months that he has been here he feels that he has lost all his independent spirit. As I understand the honourable gentleman, one of the products of private enterprise is that free flowing expression of the human spirit which creates a totally different view of things from that held by we humble downtrodden people on this side. That is what I thought was his view. What do I find? The honourable member said that it would cripple the independence of this council to put members of the Parliament on it. If in six months or thereabouts membership of that party on that side of the Committee has managed to cripple his independent spirit, it is a sad case indeed. I do not presume that it has. I think honourable members should stop speaking in that way about membership of this Parliament. I am convinced from my own personal experience that members of this Parliament have a great deal to contribute to bodies such as the one we are discussing. Therefore I ask honourable members opposite to place a vote of confidence in themselves and accept the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I think it is very important that when the Parliament has the opportunity to strengthen the role of the generalist as against the specialist it ought to take that opportunity. I have said before in this chamber and I am sure I will say again many times, that broadly speaking, we are a chamber of generalists. That is to say, all of us or most of us have some particular expertise in some area but broadly speaking we are generalists as against the entire range of subjects that come before us. I think where we have an opportunity to strengthen the role of the generalist as against the technical specialist we ought to take it. That is precisely what the amendment to clause 10 suggests. I think it is particularly important that if we are to have a parliament which is to stand up to the challenges of the last quarter of the twentieth century we ought to be sure that we are fully informed about what is happening in this extremely important Australian Science and Technology Council. That is the first thing- we ought to strengthen the role of the generalist vis-a-vis the specialist.

I make the point that very often in councils such as this the most important thing to be done is the determining of relativities. We will not be making absolute judgments, we will not be spending a lot of time examining, say, renal surgery and determining which kind of experimentation in renal surgery is likely to be more important than another. We will perhaps be determining relativities about how much time ought to be devoted to applied research as against pure research. That is a decision involving a value judgment. It is not altogether a matter of saying what the absolute value of each particular piece of research is; it is a matter of determining relativities. I think this is where the experience and the general understanding of life of the generalist- I include members of Parliament in that description- can be just as important as the role of the specialist. The scientists are not necessarily the best people to judge that.

I would like briefly to refer to my own experience on various boards which have been administering moneys and helping to determine policies for both the Commonwealth Government and the State governments. I was a member for a while, under a Liberal government, of the Commonwealth Music Board. I say without any hesitation that musicians are not necessarily the best judges of relativities in determining where money ought to go. Very often it seemed to me that the generalist who had a very deep interest in music could contribute valuably where it was a matter of determining relativities. We are not determining whether money ought to be spent recording the thirty-second Beethoven sonata as against the thirty-first.

Mr Katter:

– What has this to do with it?

Mr BARRY JONES I am talking about the role of the expert, the role of the technologist if you like, as against the role of the generalist. That is what I am talking about. It is very important. Similarly, I would have said from my five years as a member of the Australian Film Development Corporation that the judgment of the film maker about where money ought to be applied in films was not necessarily the best judgment. There is a very important role for the generalist to help to determine relativities. Similarly, in my six years on the Australian Council for the Arts- again, I point out that I was appointed by a Liberal Party Government- the important role that I and other people like Dr Coombs could fulfil was that as generalists we were able to help to determine relativities and to compare, weigh and evaluate the advice that was put in by people who were experts in particular areas.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You mean ordinary people instead of smart people?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, no. They represent the taxpayer, who, in many cases, is footing the bill.

Mr Bryant:

– They might even be smart.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Some of them are and some of them, no doubt, are not. Just as it is said that war is much too important to be left to the generals, and as we say that the preservation of archives is much too important to be left to the archivists, I believe that the determination of science policy should not just be left to the scientists.

Mr McLean:

– Leave that to the politicians.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The point about the politician is that he is not someone who begins in the same way as an engineer or a chemist. He does not start off when he leaves school by saying: ‘I will go to the university. I will acquire a degree in political science and that degree will automatically qualify me to become a politician. ‘ There are too many intervening stages before the person who might have a theoretical qualification is allowed to practice the art of politics. The result is that we appeal to the electorate, broadly because we are the nominees of parties which represent a coalition of broad general interests. That needs to be said very often. There are too many examples of scientists who have been afflicted by tunnel vision. They have had an acute knowledge of the subject very close to them but they have not been able to appreciate the whole. Honourable members will be familiar with the famous parable of the four blind men and the elephant. It illustrates in many ways the problems that we have where decisions can be made because a particular expert is putting his arms around some subject that is close to him and is not looking at the general problem.

We need to look at science policy, as with every other policy, at two levels at least. There needs to be the worm’s eye view by the specialist who works very close to the subject matter, and there also needs to be the bird’s eye view by the person who is not personally, professionally or technically involved but who, to use that ghastly cliche word, is able to exercise an overview. It is because of the need to have an overview that the Opposition believes that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), in his infinite wisdom and judgment, ought to accept the amendment which has been moved tonight.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I am not sure that I should carry the burden of the infinite wisdom which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), suggests I have, more particularly when I regret to advise him that I am not prepared to accept the Opposition’s amendments. I suppose the inference to be drawn is that I am a very unwise person. With due respect to members of the Opposition, both young and old, I suggest to them that it is a very grave mistake to think that members of parliament, simply because they are members of parliament, are expert in everything and, therefore, ought to be made members of every body, statutory or otherwise, created by the Parliament.

It appears to me that of all the amendments put forward by the Opposition there were only two that they sought to put forward with any vigour or any desire to have carried. The first was in their rewriting of clause 5, which sets out the functions of the Council. I must say, after listening to members of the Opposition from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) down, that they clearly have not read clause 5. They have ignored it completely and have sought to rewrite it. It is a simple matter of drafting for them to have understood that the functions are described in the widest terms. The very generality of those functions is specified by way of including, not’ limiting, certain matters to which the Council can direct its attention. Clause 5 states that the functions of the Council are to investigate and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of matters relating to science and technology. That is across the widest area of science and technology. The clause then goes on to specify particular matters that are included in the generality and to which the Council’s attention is directed. All those particular matters are very wide in their terms. For example, some matters are: The advancement of scientific knowledge, the development and application of science and technology in relation to the furtherance of the national wellbeing, and the identification and support of new ideas in science and technology likely to be of national importance.

So, when we hear the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition and of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) who said that too much attention was being given to science and technology with respect to industry, I think all we need to do is to turn to the language of clause 5. There we see the breadth of functions that the Council is given and the breadth of the particular matters to which the Council is being invited to pay attention. I noticed with some interest that the Opposition, in its rewriting of those functions, adopted what is sub-clause (f) of clause 5 when referring to the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry. Far from there being over-emphasis upon science and technology in industry, that is the only part of that clause which refers to industry. As I pointed out, that sub-clause has been completely adopted by the Opposition.

I thank the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) for his contribution to this debate and for pointing out the things that I have pointed out as to the inadequacy of the Opposition’s treatment of clause 5 and of other parts of this Bill. It was the honourable member for Maribyrnong who said that one of the defects of the Bill was that it did not allow, for example, the Council to investigate such matters as genetic engineering. I advise him that the fact of the matter is that the Australian Science and Technology Council currently has a sub-committee dealing with the necessary care to be used in research in genetic engineering. That demonstrates the wide purview of the existing terms of reference that are given by this Bill to the Australian Science and Technology Council. I think it can be seen that the Bill provides all the necessary and extensive authority to the Council to investigate matters of scientific and technological relevance to the national well-being and matters which, in their widest understanding, are of national importance.

The other matter on which the Opposition seemed to concentrate its attention was the membership of the Council. I regret to say that Opposition members seemed to miss completely the point of the provision in the Bill authorising the membership of the Council. Quite deliberately, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his second reading speech:

Members of the Council will be selected for their personal qualities rather than as representatives of organisations or interests.

I would have thought that for a body such as this Council the overriding consideration would be that the members of the Council be selected for their personal qualities rather than representing any particular organisation or interest. We know from wide experience in government that if people are selected as representatives of organisations or interests they are not necessarily the people with the appropriate qualities for the particular job in hand. I have already referred to the suggestion from honourable members opposite that members of Parliament have the qualities necessary for membership of this Council. As I understand their argument, they were saying that because members of Parliament are representatives of the people, therefore they ought by right to be members of this science Council. I think the proposal needs only to be stated, as I have done, for the inadequacy of it to be shown.

The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) referred to his past membership of the Australia Council Music Board and of the Australian Film Development Corporation. As admirable and valuable as that membership may have been I challenge the validity of his analogy to the Australian Science and Technology Council. It shows a misunderstanding of the nature and function of the Council. As honourable members can judge from what I have said, it is a specialist advisory body; it is not an executive body. Being a specialist advisory body, in the Government’s judgment it requires as members persons selected for their personal qualities. For those reasons the proposed amendments dealing with those two matters are not accepted by the Government, nor are the other amendments proposed by the Opposition accepted by the Government.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Viner)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third dme.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-During the Committee stage it was pointed out that we had not covered fully some of the matters that were dealt with by the proposed amendments. I think it should be made clear, and for the record, that there was a very restricted period available for this debate. Given the opportunity to do so we would have dealt with the Bill satisfactorily and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) would not have been able to make such an inadequate reply at the end of the Committee stage after he had listened to our advice.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-On that point, I think it should also be recorded that at no stage did anybody try to stop the progress of the Australian Science and Technology Council Bill through the chamber. Nor, when the Opposition had speaker after speaker on the various clauses in the Committee stage, did we try to interpose and stop them. In fairness I think the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) should do the right thing and say that the Bill had proper passage through the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2535

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Reports; and Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the House take note of the papers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2535

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - I have been advised of the following nominations of honourable members to be members of the Commonwealth Parliament’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention: Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair, Mr Ellicott and Mr Wilson have been nominated by the Prime Minister. Mr Hayden, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Scholes, Dr Blewett and Mr Barry Jones have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2535

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Public Service Arbitration Act Amendment Bill is bad legislation and will be opposed outright by the Opposition. This is not what could be described as a properly considered piece of legislation. It was born out of the Government’s humiliation and defeat in the recent Commonwealth Employment Service dispute and will ultimately do great harm to industrial relations within the Public Service. It is quite extraordinary that the Government, having handled the dipute so badly, and having participated in the dispute as a party to the dispute, now wishes to change the rules in order that the Government or the Public Service Board is always the winner. That is not industrial relations but industrial anarchy.

This legislation has as its origin the bungling management of the Public Service carried out by this Government since it came to office in 1975. The unions involved in the recent dispute can in no way be looked upon as a group of militants attempting to usurp the role of Government. The fact that the unions involved were prepared to take this dispute to the point of stand-down requires some further analysis. I believe Government decisions taken well before this dispute arose played some part in the employees’ decision to fight the Government on this issue. The conflict occurred towards the end of 1977 and early in 1978 over a Board proposal to recruit a large number of people from outside the Service to middle level positions in the Commonwealth Employment Service. The unions took the view that applications for promotion or transfer from serving officers should be considered before the recruitment campaign was launched outside the Service. In addition to this, the associations also believed a review process should be established to allow the capabilities of long serving Public Servants to be matched against recruits from outside the Service. The Public Service Board of course refused to accept these views, and the dispute arose.

Before dealing with the dispute as such, allow me to present what I consider to be some of the problems that came before this actual dispute arose. In his second reading speech the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) said:

Honourable members will recall that in 1 976 the Government commissioned Mr J. D. Norgard to conduct an inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service. In his report Norgard identified the need for more staff in the CES who have relevant experience in industry and commerce, either at an operative or managerial level. The Government accepted that view. Accordingly, in November of last year, vacancies for Employment Officer (Class 4) positions in the CES were advertised both within the Public Service and in the Press.

The House can see from this that the Minister and the Government place great emphasis upon the review carried out by Mr Norgard in taking the action that they did late last year. However, the Government has been crudely selective in using Norgard as a springboard for these decisions. Let us have a look firstly at what the Norgard Committee said on staff resources on page 1 73 of its report. It states:

There has been a marked increase in the areas of the CES staff establishment in recent years. Establishment at the end of June 1974 was 1,874. At the end of June 1976 it had risen to 2,766, an increase of 48 per cent. However, in the twelve months ending June 1974 the number of clients seeking employment help with the CES totalled 1,063,000 whilst for the same period in 1976 the number was 1,667,000. This represents an increase of 57 per cent. In other words staffing increased at a lower rate than the number of clients.

Coming on top of this of course we had the Government’s policy of 1 976 to place ceilings on all departments of the Commonwealth Public Service right across the board. It was ironic that at a time when this Government was purposely building the pool of unemployed in Australia, it at the same time was placing a ceiling on the number of people that could be appointed to service the wants of the unemployed. It is a wonder that an industrial dispute did not arise at that time. One can well understand the frustrations of those people working in the offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, greatly undermanned as they were, who were weekly having greater and greater pressures put upon them. It is interesting to note in the Royal Commission Report on Australian Government Administration the comments made on the impact of the Government imposing ceilings within the Service. The Commission had this to say:

Without question the grievance most often made against ceilings is their general incompatability with the growth of government initiatives by way of expanded or new programs. In the first place departments claim that the ceiling given them does not take cognisance of the thrust of their expected programs, and this would be a natural complaint levied by all government agencies against all central controlling organs of government. However the more serious aspect of this complaint relates to government initiatives announced after ceilings have been proclaimed with no allowance for the ceiling to be adjusted to take account of this initiative. In short this boils down to an unawareness on the pan of Cabinet in particular of the resource implications of government moves. Naturally enough the Public Service Board is not able to adjust any department’s ceiling without the authority of its own minister (virtually the Prime Minister in all cases). In short it can be stated quite definitely on the basis of numerous cases cited throughout the government machine that ceilings have not been as responsive as government initiatives.

I place great emphasis on this point because I consider that the Government’s decision to cut back on the Public Service had a big influence on the dispute at the end of 1977 and early in 1978. The Commission continued.

Some other general complaints which have been voiced regarding ceilings include the following:

They are not an effective control mechanism. It is the whole management system of the depanment which is the key. Ceilings are just one instrument. Ceilings are unnecessary if your management is good.

They cause tension, strain and stress, rivalry and communication breakdowns in departments.

They are time consuming to implement, more so in large complex departments with far flung outposts.

They affect the credibility of departments with the general public, with specific clients, and with potential recruits.

They are inappropriate to departments with the general public, with specific clients, and with potential recruits.

They are inappropriate to departments which have experienced frequent reorganisations.

They inhibit attempts to decentralise government activity because the application of staff ceilings invariably means centralisation of physical activity and decision making.

They lead to all sorts of claims by departments that all or portion of their activities should be exempt from the ceiling. In other words they lead to special pleading which can often find its way right through to Cabinet level.

They are far too arbitrarily applied with no real attempt at priority determination especially at the macro level.

The Public Service Board keeps insisting that the ceilings will determine the workload of the department but it is the workload which determines the ceiling.

Not enough recognition is given by the Board in its allocation of ceilings to the irrevocable commitments which tie departments to certain programs and thus inhibit their attempt to formulate priorities, especially when the ceiling is a tight one.

The findings of the Royal Commission would have had a greater bearing on the CES offices which were working under such enormous strain than possibly any other government department. Yet the Government continued to pursue this folly. As I have pointed out, Norgard found staff increases in the CES were growing at a much lower rate than that of the number of clients. In this context, and with a dispute imminent, the Norgard Report is also important. As I have said, the Government had been crudely selective in its use of the Norgard recommendations.

The Minister uses as his whole case a very small part of the Norgard recommendations on which to justify the Government’s pigheadedness during the term of the dispute that led to the introduction of this legislation.

Norgard in fact gave a very comprehensive and detailed analysis of the inadequacy of the staffing of the CES offices, much of which had been caused by Government decisions. In both the Norgard and the Royal Commission inquiry into the Public Service, emphasis was placed upon job satisfaction, the opportunity for promotion, the proper utilisation of ability, and the attitude to the Public Service as a career. Though the Government gives lip service to many of these views on employment within the Government service itself, action in this matter does quite the contrary.

On pages 1 10 through to 1 15 of volume III of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration the disillusionment of many Government employees in the Third and Fourth Division is evident and the Government should have taken these things into mind when it embarked, at the behest of the Public Service Board, into this dispute. The Government would have known that to recruit such a large number of people into Government employ was not a correct interpretation of the Norgard recommendation. To talk of bringing in over 600 employees with ‘managerial experience’ was then, as it is now, nonsense. To talk of the 600 having qualifications and experience and skills which not one person in the Public Service had already attained was also nonsense. But the Public Service Board wanted complete control.

In the light of the Association’s refusal to accept the Board assertion of its absolute authority, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations referred the matter to the Public Service Arbitrator for settlement. One would have thought that, having notified the dispute to the Arbitrator, the Minister and the Public Service Board would have abided by the decision of the umpire. In his second reading speech the Minister intimated what happened when the matter came before the Deputy Arbitrator. The Minister said:

He refused to deal with the central issue, i.e. there should be a right of appeal against appointments to the CES from outside the Public Service, on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction to do so because in his view the matter did not, as was required under the Public Service Arbitration Act, concern conditions of employment of officers or employees of the Public Service.

I should say that it has been abundantly clear, right throughout this period from the commencement of the dispute until today when honourable members are debating this legislation, that the Associations involved have not been opposed to outside recruitment. They seek the maintenance of the promotions appeal system which is such an integral part of their working conditions. We on this side of the House do not agree with the Minister when he says in his second reading speech:

The Parliament has clearly intended that the area of vital importance to the standing of the Service recruitment, selection and promotion procedures should be a matter of management decision.

There seems to be something very sinister about the way in which the Government has acted. On the one hand it says it is important to bring in people with these new skills to the Public Service, but apparently these people cannot stand up against the appeals of people already in the Service. One can only conclude that the people the Government is seeking out do not have all the skills the Government would like us to believe they have. In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The issue is not simply one of management prerogatives though that is important, it is whether the efficiency of the Service might be allowed to be placed in jeopardy.

I put it to the Minister that if he was so confident of the ability of his new employees they would have easily stood up to any appeal that may have been launched. But the Minister and the Board were determined at all costs to pursue their own course and throw industrial relations into the rubbish bin. When the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator refused to deal with the central issue the matter was taken to the High Court. The High Court left no doubt as to its belief in the jurisdiction of the Deputy Arbitrator. In an extremely important decision, the High Court completely vindicated the stand of the Associations and ruled against the stand being taken by the Government. In its decision, after giving its interpretative reasons, the High Court said:

For these reasons the Deputy Arbitrator had power to make an order granting to the officers concerned in or affected by or likely to be concerned in or affected by the industrial situation a right of appeal against the appointment of outsiders to positions in the service, provided that he thought such an order ‘necessary or desirable for putting an end to or preventing the occurrence of, the situation or preventing the occurrence of further industrial situations’ or necessary or desirable by reason of the existence … of the situation’. However he misconstrued the provisions of the Act and misconceived the extent of his powers.

He wrongly failed to consider the merits of the dispute which had given rise to the industrial situation. Once this conclusion was reached it was clear that mandamus should issue to command him to exercise the jurisdiction which he wrongly declined. Moreover the orders that he in fact made were made only because of the erroneous interpretation which he had placed on section 12d and his erroneous assumption that he lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the dispute. His statement, which is quoted above, makes this plain. For that reason those orders could not be allowed to stand.

From then the matter should have rested, but the Board and the Government, again not to be defeated, decided to change the ground rules. Thus we have this legislation before the House which, as I said at the outset, is ill-considered and completely unnecessary. Not only does it turn the clock back for the Government as an employer but it contains in clause 4 penalties that can be described only as legislative over-kill. Standdowns in the field of industrial relations will never be accepted as such by the industrial movement. It is a mechanism used by employers which the movement endures, but to take this matter to the extent of penalising the sick leave, annual leave and long service leave of any person stood down is taking stand-down provisions to new heights of repugnance, besides necessitating a mountain of administrative work that otherwise could be avoided.

The jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator to deal with these matters was established as far back as 1922. It was confirmed in this most recent High Court decision. The association involved agreed to be bound by the decisions of the Arbitrator. The employees in this case have carried out their responsibilities in a manner which leaves no room for criticism. The Government’s actions on the other hand, the lead-up to the dispute, the ceilings, the lack of real concern in the case of the CES officers, the refusal to be bound by the Arbitrator’s decision and now this legislation have been part of one long series of political blunders which deserve the highest condemnation.

Recruitment from outside the Public Service is supported by all, including both parties in this House and employees in the Service. The Government had at hand all the ingredients for a peaceful transition. Only a government devoid of ideas and goodwill could have bungled the issue the way this Government has. The Opposition opposes the Bill.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-The Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill does two things: Firstly, it confers on the Public Service Arbitrator the right to stand down employees in certain circumstances. That is the principal provision of the Bill, and it is a provision with which anybody who is opposed to industrial anarchy has to agree totally. It is nonsense for the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to indicate that this provision represents a reversion to the past. It is not a reversion to the 1 9th century. It is a plain piece of common sense. The plain fact of life is, whether it is in private enterprise or whether it is in public enterprise, if there is no work there is no pay. If there is no work, the salaries are unable to be paid. By opposing this Bill, the honourable member for Port Adelaide is inviting a situation in which he would want no authority whatsoever and in which a form of anarchy would operate within the Public

Service. That cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever.

It is widely known that hundreds of federal awards contain stand-down provisions. The award covering the Vehicle Builders Employees’ Federation of Australia contains stand-down provisions. Many of the awards covering employees of the Australian Workers Union contain them, and there are hundreds of awards that contain stand-down provisions. Many of those awards are consent awards. So it is nonsense to say that this authority should not exist. The first principle upon which this Bill has to be supported is that if such provisions are not enshrined in legislation, we would be inviting a form of anarchy within the public sector. That situation is not tolerable. A second point needs to be made, and it is simply this: We have observed in many statutory corporations and other bodies that people have not been willing to perform all the work that is appropriate to be performed. Where all the work that is appropriate to be performed is not so performed, the right of stand-down must exist. The honourable member was saying: Throw away that right that accrues to any organisation or any authority that is an employer’. If that were done, we would have a state of total and complete anarchy.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide made a serious mistake. He overstated his opposition to this Bill. I suggest that some of those people who are briefing him have merely made him a tool of the argument that they propose. What he is proposing does not work in private enterprise and does not work in public enterprise. What he is proposing is not adopted by Labor governments in Australia when they have such authorities within their own Public Services. It is not adopted in State Conciliation and Arbitration Commissions which have an authority to stand down. He is suggesting that these provisions be placed in a state of nihilism in the Commonwealth field. Nobody could tolerate that precise proposition. Let me quote from what I stated in one industry award. I refer to part of the metal industry award which makes it quite clear that stand down provisions operate in that award also. The award states:

The employer shall have the right to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or through any breakdown in machinery or any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.

That is a reasonable proposition. Were the honourable member responsible for employing or for providing the resources and getting the revenue to pay people within his own office, he would have to abide by the same principle. Anybody would have to abide by it. It is a feature of this Bill, and it is the linchpin of the Bill. It is the crux of the legislation.

I want to deal with one other part of the legislation which worries me. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to consider that matter. It is a minor part of the legislation; nevertheless I think that it is important. We know that in any stand-down position there are those people who are directly involved in the process and there are those who are stood down because there is a lack of work or employment available to them. Sometimes, that second group of people, who can be quite innocent of the first stoppage, can be quite some distance from the stoppage of work that occurred in the first place. I merely ask the Minister to consider this matter carefully. I wonder whether some of the provisions with respect to the stoppage of accruals for annual leave, sick leave or long service leave ought to be applied stringently in respect of those people who have not been concerned directly in the stoppage. This does not apply in private enterprise, as much as it may be said to do so. Provisions exist whereby this could occur in private enterprise.

When there are stand-downs of employees who are some distance from the original dispute, in the process of negotiating the settlement those matters often become a part of the process of negotiating that settlement. I know of employers who have waived the non-accrual of recreation leave, sick leave and so on for those who have not been concerned directly in a dispute but who have been involved in a stand-down. It may be said, for example, that the application of the new provisions- the non-accrual of sick leave, recreation leave and long service leave- will help to put pressure on those people who are involved directly in the dispute. I merely put this proposition to the Minister, and I ask him to consider it. There are many cases in which the pressure that could be put upon those who are directly involved in the dispute cannot be organised.

Let me give some examples. A clerical officers strike could take place, as a result of which some stenographers or typists are stood down. They are stood down legitimately. Having been stood down, they will not be able to exert any pressure upon those employees who were responsible for the original stoppage. These could be Fourth Division officers, and the employees who went on strike originally could be in a different division altogether. There could be no influence of one group upon the other.

Let me give another example of a situation in which a strike could occur. The employees in a certain division will stop work. Employees known as tea ladies will be stood down. They have to be stood down because there is no work for them. Why then has the accrual of recreation leave and so on been stopped in respect of the tea ladies? They are members of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, which is a quite distinct and separate union. They will not be able to bring any pressure to bear upon those who were responsible for the original stoppage. I find it difficult to see why this legislation, which is correct in principle, goes quite that far.

I would like to give a third example as I think it is appropriate to consider it. Some telex operators could stop work at the Department of Defence in Canberra. That would mean that there would be insufficient work for telex operators, say, at Lavarack Barracks in North Queensland or at the Pearce Base in Western Australia. The later can have no effect upon the former in terms of stopping the dispute or of putting pressure upon those who were responsible for the dispute. I wonder why then, during the course of that dispute, one should go through the complicated process of seeing that in respect of the new mattersthat is, annual leave, sick leave, long service leave and so on- the right of accrual should be suspended for the period in which the standdowns operate for those other people.

I am aware of one other point which might persuade the Minister to try to consider those who are the innocent parties in disputes in this area. The legislation makes it quite clear that such stand-downs will be mandatory and that no variation will be possible in respect of accrual of those other incidental matters. I am wondering whether the Minister will consider bringing about a situation whereby the Public Service Arbitrator can decide in respect of those who will have the incidental leave and accrual suspended so that they might be spared from that position. In private enterprise, where there is the right to do what is proposed in this Bill, the settlement of a dispute becomes on many occasions an appropriate bargaining point so that those involved in the dispute on both sides can save face and bring about a return to work as quickly as possible.

I merely make those points to the Minister and hope that he will consider them. I support the principal features of the legislation. They deserve to be supported because they are necessary in order to bring about a situation in which one is not a complete hostage to industrial anarchy. I refer to one other point. The Queensland legislation has attempted to deal with this position in terms of stand-downs. A recent amendment to the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act inserted a new section 21 A. Subsection (2) (a) of that section reads:

Any employee stood down by an employer pursuant to sub-section (1) may appeal to an industrial magistrate against his being so stood down.

He may appeal also in respect of the conditions which are pursuant to his being stood down. I am not suggesting that there should be the right of appeal in the Commonwealth legislation but I suggest that there is a softening of that legislation. I know that when stand-down orders are made time is allowed before the stand-down order operates. The non-accrual of sick leave and long service leave does not operate for the first seven days on which the stand-down occurs. I suggest that the Minister therefore might consider looking at what can be done so that those who are situated a great distance from the original cause of the dispute can be spared and so that what will be infinitely difficult calculations as to the non-accrual of various types of leave can be avoided. I think the Minister might consider that that would confer an advantage upon the Public Service Arbitrator in that it would give him a certain flexibility in negotiating a settlement to the dispute, which is what we all want.

I return to the principal terms of this Bill. They have to be supported. They are principles which operate in private enterprise. They are principles which operate in public enterprise and in State jurisdictions. To abolish them totally within Commonwealth jurisdiction would be a very foolish move indeed. The honourable member for Port Adelaide, who led the debate for the Opposition, had a case which he could have made with respect to certain sections of this legislation. Once again he has overstated his position.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill which is before the House is in many ways the epitome of ruined industrial relations. It seems to me that this Bill typifies the reality of the situation that we have seen, namely, the total shemozzle of industrial relations in this country. When one takes into account that the great argument has been between the Commonwealth Government, on the one hand, and responsible and senior public servants, on the other, it must be regarded as a very great reflection on the part of the Government which often gives lip service to the principles of conciliation and the general concept and idea of effecting reconciliation rather than allowing the law of the jungle to operate in connection with industrial disputes.

Of course, this Bill is the sequel to a long saga of disputation which dominated the media of this country for months in the latter part of 1977 and for months in the early part of 1978. Nobody knew where the consequences would finally lie, who was to be affected, what number of public servants would be denied the unemployment benefit and what number of people, especially amongst the unemployed, would be denied the benefit of the services which had been so effectively rendered by the people who had been dragged into this disgraceful dispute in such an ungainly and unreasonable way. I believe that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has a great deal of accounting to do in order to try to get off the hook, because he can be fairly and squarely indicted as having made a first class blunder, a belligerent blunder, in a situation which could and should have been resolved much earlier than it was. I have just received from the Parliamentary Library a great heap of newspaper clippings about this matter. I have selected some of them. An article in the Age on 18 February 1978, headed ‘Jobs staff face dole’, states:

Staff standdowns loom in the Commonwealth Employment Service next week because of a two-month-old dispute over recruitment from outside the Public Service.

The dispute is the result of a trade union ban on processing outside applications for CES positions following the Government ‘s decision late last year to expand CES staff.

Of course, that followed from the Norgard inquiry and the general idea of upgrading the Commonwealth Employment Service. Of course, that was done in an indelicate way, as though it were designed deliberately to provoke an adverse reaction on the part of these senior public servants- people who had served the Government for so long. They were told that there was to be a very considerable expansion in the number of senior officers and that they were to come from outside rather than inside the Service. This Government, with its obtuse approach to employer-employee relations, apparently did not have the faintest idea or inclination that there would be some adverse reaction on the part of these career public servants who had devoted their lives to the Service. The fact that they might be disadvantaged, with no proper consultation and no negotiation taking place, and with some of the most responsible people in this country being provoked into what turned out to be an ungainly industrial situation, did not disturb the Government. On 24 February 1978 the Sydney Morning Herald, in an article headed ‘NSW vote supports continued CES bans’, stated:

The CES employees, members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, are objecting to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations hiring employment officers from outside without giving preference to Government employees.

The article could have read: ‘Without even giving consideration to the capacities of Government employees’. The Australian Financial Review of 23 February carried the headline ‘CES Dispute Deteriorates ‘ and stated:

The Commonwealth Employment Service staffing dispute deteriorated yesterday with the Federal Government threatening to apply for de-registration of the major Public Service union on top of standing down a further 17 CES managers.

The West Australian had the headline: ‘Hundreds face stand-downs in CES row’. The headlines go on and on. Another one from the Canberra Times reads: ‘Ultimatum to CES staff could force stand-downs’. An editorial in the Canberra Times carried the heading: ‘Staff to work without pay’. Another one stated: ‘Standdown Stand-off’. The headlines go on and on. Finally we get to the inevitable, what anybody could have told the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. If there was to be any settlement it would be because of the preparedness of the parties concerned to get into an effective conciliation system. This man and this Government extols the virtue of conciliation and arbitration processes for everybody else but demonstrate an incapacity to put their own house in order. The last headline I refer to is that of the Canberra Times of 17 March which stated: ‘CES row back to Arbitration’.

One can never cease to be amazed at the inability of the Government to react and operate reasonably in situations involving industrial disputations. I am not just talking about disputes with the Public Service. The old master-servant syndrome dominates the mentality of this squattocracy which is predominant in the Government ranks. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) goes to his seminars day after day armed with all the contemporary attitudes about employer-employee relationships, about worker participation, about profit sharing, about information sharing to ensure that employees can be guaranteed security in a stable industry and all the rest of it. He is involved in issue after issue in telling other people how to run their affairs. When the crunch comes these attitudes contradict the Government’s basic philosophy. An employer-master domination and an employee servility typifies the Government’s attitude.

This Bill is to put the public servants in their place after they dare to seek a say on the issue of outside appointments which threatened the continued employment and promotion of senior officers- as if that was an unreasonable course to pursue. We know that the stage has been set for this kind of confrontation for a long time. Every time public servants take any kind of stance which is at all in accord with the dignity of an organised profession we have these threats. New legislation is brought in to compound the offensive and belligerent apparatus of the Commonwealth Government. I refer to the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation, to amendments to the Trade Practices Act and to amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which equipped the Commonwealth with power to move in even more ruthlessly and unreasonably than it has been able to do in the past. One can only regret that situation.

I say to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is not an insensitive man, that somewhere along the Une something is wrong with the advice he is receiving. I do not think he could initiate such grotesque and belligerent attitudes on his own account. When one speaks privately to the Minister he talks about reasonable relations with workers. What then is it that causes Government members, in their corporate state, to bring down such pernicious legislation, as expressed through this Minister, which can have the effect, no matter what group of employees are involved, of bringing out only the worst in them. God, if it were not for the common sense of the Public Service organisations this legislation could have brought this country to its knees. I do not want to aggravate the situation. I simply say these words in the hope that they can bring about a saner attitude.

The Opposition does not stand for stupidity. It does not stand for madcap attitudes in industrial relations. It is talking about the need for understanding, compromise and common sense. I know that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) comes in here and talks about the virtues in employer-employee relations in other parts of the world. He says that in Japan the employers virtually regard their employees as people whose welfare has to be safeguarded, people to whom there is to be a continuing and enduring obligation. All these beautiful phrases are mouthed, and yet when we come to a situation as fundamental as one which involves people being threatened with their employment, common sense just goes out of the window.

The simple provisions of the Bill before us are threefold. It Will put the exclusive prerogative of the Public Service Board beyond doubt in matters of recruitment and promotions. It will quell the voice of public servants in such matters by closing off the role of the Public Service Arbitrator to whom Public Service employee organisations have previously had some recourse. That is the situation. The main provisions of the Bill are to this effect: The Public Service Arbitrator is precluded from altering or affecting recruitment into or promotion within the Public Service by an amendment to the definition of conditions of employment in the Public Service Arbitration Act. The power of the Public Service Arbitrator to order the standing down of officers or employees who are concerned in or affected by an industrial situation is made specific by the inclusion of a new paragraph. In other words, the power of the legislature wins the day.

Despite the fact that the unions took their case to arbitration and established the validity of their claims, the Minister, who was quite incorrect in many of his utterances- if time permits I can establish this contention- is now going to disregard the fact that unions were right. This was established by the High Court of this country. He is simply saying that even if the unions were right the Government’s will is still going to prevail because it will change the law to suit itself even in respect of unreasonable concepts.

Let us see what the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association had to say in its submission to members of Parliament. Let me summarise it. The union referred to this long industrial dispute between the ACOA and the Austraiian Public Service Association on the one hand and the Public Service Board and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on the other. The fact is that the conflict occurred over a Board proposal to recruit extra people from outside the Service. The union took the view that applications for promotion or transfer from serving officers, some with many years service, should be considered- that is all, considered. The union felt that qualifications and the suitability of those people who had been in the Service for a long time should be taken into account in respect of these appointments before a recruitment campaign was launched outside the Service. The two associations believed that a review process- that is their terminologyshould be established to allow the capabilities of long-serving public servants to be matched against those of the unknown raw recruits from without the Service. But they were confronted with the Board’s flat refusal to discuss the issue. The union had put forward a comprehensive proposal on the occasion of the very first meeting on 17 November 1977.

The irony of the whole situation is that the ultimate memorandum of understanding forced upon the associations, under threat of punitive action, on 1 March- that is, three and a half months later, after this grave dispute had taken its course, after there had been unemployment and anxiety and all the rest of it- was to the effect that there was to be no more than a variation of that original proposal. In other words, right at the start the union put up the solution that was ultimately accepted. Well may the Minister hang his head in embarrassment. There is no great hurry in the proceedings here tonight. There is not a lot of business before the House. We can confidently expect the Minister to stand up and defend his ineptness in this situation. The fact of the matter is that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations referred this matter to the Public Service Arbitrator for settlement. It is important to note that the Minister and the Public Service Board took the step of notifying the dispute to the Arbitrator. Of course, one would expect that in such a situation, when one looks for an umpire, when one looks for a referee, that the decision of the Arbitrator would be accepted by the person who had referred the matter. But that has not been the case.

Mr Street:

– The Public Service Arbitrator said he did not have jurisdiction. It was not us who appealed, it was the union.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You went to the umpire for a decision.

Mr Street:

– No, we did not. It was the union who appealed the Arbitrator’s decision, not us. Get your facts straight first.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-And they won, did they not?

Mr Street:

– That was not it. It was a question of who appealed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Lloyd:

– He is only sorting him out.

Mr Street:

– I have fixed him now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr LES JOHNSON I am not sure that you have. I will find the documentation relating to this matter, if not before I finish then in time to enable my colleague to handle it. If I am wrong about it I will certainly withdraw. One would certainly acknowledge that whoever did the referring adopted a sensible course of action. I am anxious to know what referring the Minister admits to. Was he just prepared to resort to a stand-off situation, to bluff them down? Did he make any conciliatory approaches in the situation? At least I offered him the virtue of accepting credit for taking this matter to the Public Service Arbitrator. He does not seem to believe that that is a reasonable thing to do. Let me tell the Minister that these matters have been the prerogative of the Public Service Arbitrator since the year 1 922, and that has been acknowledged.

Mr Street:

– Where is the case that decided that?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The cases are stacked up here. The Minister is asking a technical question, but the case was No. 3 of 1922, the Australian Postal Electricians Union, claimant, against the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner and the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth. That was the case and the documentation is here. If the Minister does not know anything about this kind of disputation I will give him a very well indexed file. The Minister can see that some parts are underlined in red. I will not have the opportunity to read them but they are to the effect that the courts have decided on previous occasions, as they did on this occasion, that the right of appeal is fundamental. Does the Minister deny that that ought to be the situation, that there ought to be an appeal? Regrettably, I cannot put my hands on the documentation, which is so precise and so devastating in this respect. However, the High Court decided in these cases that an appeal is fundamental, and it overruled the Public Service Arbitrator who was taking the view that he had no jurisdiction in regard to appeals affecting the conditions of employment of these public servants. The Court has taken the view unanimously. Because the Court has taken the view unanimously that employees are entitled to appeal, the Government has now brought down this legislation to close off the options of those employees. As a government it can be overbearing and monopolistic, and it has done this so that senior public servants, who have been so indecently treated by this Government, can be pushed down further into a subjective situation. I believe that this Government stands indicted for the way in which it has brought the Public Service, which acts on behalf of the people of this country, into such serious and unnecessary disputation with the Government of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-The Bill before the House is the Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill. In rising to speak to it, firstly I must make a couple of points against the previous speakers. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), in his usual role as the defender of the unions, and he does it very well, spoke out very strongly in opposition to the Bill. But it is interesting to speculate that if a Bill were brought before the House next week to bring about the reverse conditions against the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union I am sure that he would speak against it. He is a nice fellow, but he has said, tongue in cheek, that what is good enough for the metal workers and other unionists is not good enough for the Public Service. The Government is trying to provide the Public Service with the same rights and privileges and restrictions and controls as those applying under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to the private enterprise sector. I think that that is not an unreasonable case to put forward.

My colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), playing it fifty-fifty, agreed with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and supported the Bill, provided that it affects only the strikers, the ones who are causing the trouble. He knows quite well, as does the honourable member for Port Adelaide, that in the case of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union and other unions, any person affected by a strike can be stood down through lack of work if necessary. I know that the honourable member for Lilley did not really mean what he said. He was only trying to point out something to protect some friend of his in the Public Service.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– That is a very foolish statement.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Not as foolish as some of the statements that you have been known to make. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) was the stand-in for the Labor Party and he did it very well. I congratulate him for his try, but he stood up and said exactly the same thing. It is all right for private enterprise, it is all right for the unions outside-

Mr Holding:

– You know nothing about it, nothing at all.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-Hello, we have that exhopeful premier from Victoria sitting over there. He lost in Victoria, he was hopeless there, and now he has come here. God help us, he could be the leader of the Labor Party in this country one day. That would be a tragedy! Never mind, let us get back to the Bill before he gets excited. The honourable member for Hughes said that the Minister was not sensitive. That is utter nonsense. Nobody in this country has tried to work more closely with the unions to bring about a good relationship between employees and employers than the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Opposition knows it and we know it. The Minister should be congratulated for the efforts he makes to arbitrate and conciliate at all times. There are many people on both sides of the House and in union and employer organisations who sometimes ask why the Minister does not use the big hammer on the unions, but he always prefers to conciliate and arbitrate for a better overall result. In every case he has been proved correct, and I support entirely his actions in this case.

The honourable member for Hughes bemoaned the fact that these people in the Public Service do not get the chance to apply for jobs that were advertised in the class 4 section. The truth of the matter is that we are trying to bring better expertise into the Public Service, to provide the opportunity for the best man to get the job. The people to whom the honourable member referred are not restricted in applying for a job. What is the point of saying, as the honourable member said, that they should have some sort of special privilege, that they can apply first for a job and if nobody in the Public Service is suitable for the job then it can be advertised outside the Service? Honestly, that is ridiculous. Everybody would accept that. We are making it possible for outside expertise to be admitted to the Public Service. Those people will be measured against everybody else who applies, from within the Public Service or not, and the best applicant will be offered the job. That I think is a reasonable proposal, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr Holding:

– It is just as well I did not go for Liberal Party pre-selection, otherwise you would have been in trouble.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The honourable member won pre-selection for Melbourne Ports, and he won it against a much better man; but he won it on numbers only. Do not let us talk about winning pre-selection on ability, because the honourable member would not be here if that were the criteria.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! I invite the honourable member to return to the Bill.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to return to the Bill. Let us look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He quite clearly spelt out what this Bill is all about. He pointed out that as a result of the

Norgard report certain action was recommended and taken by this Government. I am sure that if the Labor Party had been in government it also would have taken the same appropriate action, and on this occasion it would have been supporting that action.

Employment Officer Class 4 positions in the Commonwealth Employment Service were advertised. Then the Public Service union decided to oppose this course, and bans were later applied. The honourable member for Port Adelaide said that he was surprised that bans were not applied earlier. I can understand that because his general theme is to strike, impose bans and create general industrial trouble. The Minister in his second reading speech said:

An officer or employee who is stood down will not be entitled to salary, wages or other remuneration and allowances in the nature of salary or wages in respect of a period for which he is stood down. Nor will the period of stand down count as service for the purposes of recreation leave, long service leave and sick leave. A period of stand down will not break an officer’s or employee’s continuity of employment for long service leave purposes.

In supporting the Minister’s second reading speech and the Bill, I would like to bring before the House some general information regarding other examples of federal awards under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I refer to a result of a survey conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in August of last year, which revealed that at that time there were in excess of some 300 awards under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with provisions for stand down or deductions of pay for any day that employees could not usefully be employed because of any strike or cause for which the employer could not reasonably be held responsible. I request the permission of the House to have incorporated in Hansard examples of the federal awards containing stand down provisions. The honourable member for Port Adelaide may look at them first, and if he agrees I would ask that they be incorporated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I have two or three other documents, and I would ask that the honourable member for Port Adelaide look at all of them. If the House agrees, they might be incorporated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I point out to the honourable member that the usual procedure is for an Opposition member to see the documents.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– I am quite happy to pass them to the honourable member so he can look at them. It is a list of the various awards.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the honourable member will realise that he places Hansard in some difficulty if he leaves the incorporation of these documents until the end of his speech.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that. The provisions of the metal industry award serve as an example of the stand down provision typical in most awards. Under this award the employer shall have the right to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or through any breakdown in machinery or any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible. This is accepted under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by all trade unions throughout the country. Why does the Opposition protest vigorously when we are trying to bring the Public Service into line with that? It is only carrying out a phantom exercise because it believes that is the role of the Opposition. We accept that, but let us be reasonable. The Opposition knows that what we are doing is correct. Members of the Opposition, in their hearts, support it. Do not say too many hurrahs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that leave is granted for the incorporation of material in Hansard.

The document read as follows-

EXAMPLES OF FEDERAL AWARDS CONTAINING STAND DOWN PROVISIONS

AWU- BHP Aust. Ltd, Westernport Refinery, Agreement 1972

AWU- Oil Refinery Employees (Amoco Aust.) Agreement 1972

Commonwealth Hostels Award 1 973

Confectioners Award 1977

Country Printing Award 1959

Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Domestic Airlines) Award 1975

Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways) Award 1975

Liquor Industries (Wine and Spirit Stores) Award 1974

Liquor Industries ( Breweries ) Award 1 974

Mannequins and Models Tasmania and N.T. Award 1 974

Manufacturing Grocers Consolidated Award 1975

Metal Industry Award 1971

Miscellaneous Workers Plaster of Paris and Gypsum Products Industry (CSR-Wetherill Park ) Award 1975

Miscellaneous Workers Photographic Industry Award 1975

Pilkington ACI Production and Warehousing Geelong No. 2 Award

Port of Sydney Ship Repairing and Ship Building Industry Industrial Agreement 1976

Queensland Alumina Ltd Agreement 1975

Saddlery Leather and Canvas Workers Award 1 975

Salaried Officers (TAA) Award 1 97 1

Salaried Staff (Ansett Airlines ) Award 1 972

Scientific and Technical Officers (Chemical Industry) Award 1972

Storeman and Packers (Wool Selling Brokers and Repackers) Award 1973

Surfacing Prospecting Geological Surveying, Exploration and Mineral Drilling Award 1973

Television Industry Award 1975

Textile Industry Award 1976

Theatre Managers Award 1974

Theatrical and Amusement Employees Award 1 947

Underground Mining Award 1972

Vehicle Industry Award 1 972

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I thank the House. Under most of the awards loss of working time by an employee due to his being stood down without pay in terms of the relevant award provisions is not counted as part of the qualifying period for annual leave entitlement, although it will not break the continuity of service for such leave. The metal industry award is a typical example. Similarly, awards of the Commission relating to long service leave provide that interruption or termination of employment arising directly or indirectly from an industrial dispute is deemed as not breaking continuity of employment provided the employee returns to work in accordance with the settlement terms of the dispute, but the period of absence from duty does not count for long service leave purposes. Again I would ask that a document relating to this matter be shown to the honourable member for Port Adelaide. It shows the provisions of the metal industry award concerning annual leave. I state quite categorically that in relation to long service leave the metal industry award contains similar illustrations of these provisions applying in this sector. I would ask that the document be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That will require the approval of the House. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will need to sight them.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I agree. I also have two more documents to be incorporated. I have shown quite clearly that the Government is trying to bring the Public Service into line with the rights, privileges, controls, restrictions and the general ordinances of other organisations that come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understand that leave is granted to have material incorporated in Hansard.

The documents read as follows-

PROVISIONS OF METAL INDUSTRY AWARD RE ANNUAL LEAVE

Clause 25 of the award provides that a period of 28 consecutive days’ leave shall be allowed annually to an employee after 12 months continuous service (less the period of annual leave) as an employee on weekly hiring in any one or more of the occupations to which the award applies.

In relation to calculation of continuous service the clause provides as follows:

For the purpose of this clause service shall be deemed to be continuous notwithstanding:

Any interruption or determination of the employment by the employer if such interruption or determination has been made merely with the intention of avoiding obligations hereunder in respect of leave of absence;

any absence from work on account of personal sickness or accident or on account of lea ve lawfully granted by the employer; or (in) any absence with reasonable cause proof whereof shall be upon the employee.

Any absence from work by reason of any cause not being a cause specified in this sub-clause shall not be deemed to break the continuity of service for the purposes of this clause unless the employer during the absence or within 14 days of the termination of the absence notifies the employee in writing that such absence will be regarded as having broken the continuity of service.

In calculating the period of 12 months continuous service the following absences shall be taken into account and counted as time worked:

Up to 160 ordinary working hours in a 12 monthly period in the case of sickness or accident;

Long service leave taken by an employee in accordance with the Metal Industry (Long Service Leave) Award 1976 or the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 96 1 - 1 964, as the case may be.

Other absences from work shall not be taken into account and shall not count as time worked in calculating the period of 12 months continuous service’.

SUB-CLAUSE (1) OF CLAUSE 5 OF THE METAL TRADES (LONG SERVICE LEAVE) AWARD

For the purposes of the award the service of an employee with an employer means the period during which the employee has served his employer under an unbroken contract of employment: provided that a contract of employment shall not be deemed to have been broken by reason only of any interruption or determination thereof, if the interruption or determination:

has been made by the employer with the intention of avoiding any obligation imposed on him by this award or by State law dealing with long service leave; or

has arisen directly or indirectly from a dispute concerning industrial matters, if the employee returns to duty with the same employer in accordance with the terms of settlement of the said dispute; or

has been made by the employer by reason of slackness of trade, if the employee is re-employed by the same employer within six months of such interruption or determination; or

has been made by the employer for any reason other than those referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) hereof, if the employee is re-employed by the same employer within two months of such interruption or determination.

Provided further that the period during which the employment has been so interrupted or determined shall not, except when due to the reasons referred to in paragraph (a) hereof, be taken into account in calculating the period of service. ‘

Note: The following are further examples of federal awards containing identical provisions:

The Federal Meat Industry (Long Service Leave) Award 1966

The Food Preservers (Long Service Leave) Award 1964

The Footwear- Manufacturing and Component- Industry (Long Service Leave) Award 1 977

The Glass Workers (Long Service Leave) Award 1 965

SICK LEAVE PROVISIONS OF THE METAL INDUSTRY AWARD

Entitlement to sick leave

An employee on weekly hiring who is absent from his work on account of personal illness, or on account of injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, shall be entitled to leave of absence, without deduction of pay, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

He shall not be entitled to paid leave of absence for any period in respect of which he is entitled to workers’ compensation.

He shall, as soon as reasonably practicable and within eight hours of the commencement of such absence inform the employer of his inability to attend for duty, and as far as practicable state the nature of the injury or illness and the estimated duration of the absence.

If it is not reasonably practicable to inform the employer within eight hours of such absence the employee shall inform the employer within 24 hours of such absence. (iti) He shall prove to the satisfaction of his employer (or in the event of dispute, of a Board of Reference) that he was unable on account of such illness or injury to attend for duty on the day or days for which sick leave is claimed.

He shall not be entitled during his first year of any period of service with an employer to leave in excess of forty hours of working time. Provided that during the first six months of the first year of any period of service with an employer, he shall be entitled to sick leave which shall accrue on a pro rata basis of 6V> hours of working time for each month of service completed with that employer.

Provided further that an application by the employee during the seventh month of employment and subject to the availability of an unclaimed balance of sick leave the employee shall be paid for any sick leave taken during the first six months and in respect of which payment was not made.

He shall not be entitled during the second or subsequent years of any period of service with an employer to leave in excess of 64 hours of working time.

Single day absences

In the case of an employee who claims to be allowed paid sick leave in accordance with this clause for an absence of one day only such employee if in the year he has already been allowed paid sick leave on more than one occasion for one day only, shall not be entitled to payment for the day claimed unless he produces to the employer a certificate of a duly qualified medical practitioner that in his, the medical practitioner’s opinion, the employee was unable to attend for duty on account of personal illness or on account of injury by accident. However, an employer may agree to accept from the employee a Statutory Declaration, stating that the employee was unable to attend for duty on account of personal illness or on account of injury by accident in lieu of a certificate of a duly qualified medical practitioner as prescribed by this sub-clause. Nothing in this sub-clause shall limit the employer’s rights under paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (a) hereof.

Cumulative sick leave

Sick leave shall accumulate from year to year so that any balance of the period specified in paragraphs (iv) and (v) of sub-clause (a) hereof which has in any year not been allowed to an employee by an employer as paid sick leave may be claimed by the employee and subject to the conditions hereinbefore prescribed shall be allowed by that employer in a subsequent year without diminution of the sick leave prescribed in respect of that year. Provided that sick leave which accumulates pursuant to this sub-clause shall be available to the employee for a period of twelve years but for no longer from the end of the year in which it accrues.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I thank the House. As I was saying, clearly in the private sector the trade union movement quite rightly accepts the restrictions, rights, controls and privileges provided under those awards. Why should the Public Service not be given the same priviliges and rights? Why should it be a privileged body that is allowed to have different rights? In most cases, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said when he was a Minister in the Labor Government- this refers to what the honourable member for Hughes said about this Government taking some action against senior public servants- they are the fat cats, the most privileged people in this country.

Mr Holding:

– You would agree with that.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The honourable member is wasting his time. He should go back to Victoria. He was not successful there, but he is less successful here. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will go back to the Bill.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– He is a retread.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Yes, he is a recap and not a very good one at that. The honourable member for Hindmarsh made it quite clear that the Labor government was opposed to privileges, rights and everything given to public servants. Strangely enough now that the Labor Party is in Opposition its members say in here that the Government cannot do anything that might be detrimental to the Public Service. They do not fool the public servants. They know what members of the Opposition do at every opportunity they get. The real fact is that public servants get many privileges under this Government, and they are protected in many ways, but they know in their hearts and in their minds that they should not get more rights than their fellow Australians; therefore, they should be bound by the same rules of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as the ordinary workers of this country.

I totally support the Minister who has always worked very closely with the unions. He has discussed these matters with all sections of the union movement in this country and is held in very high esteem by the union organisations. He is prepared not only to speak up when he is in favour of something the unions want but also to stand up for what he knows is right when it may not be entirely what they want. I support entirely what the Government is proposing in this Bill and what the Minister put forward.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-It is very significant, I think, that when the Government brings forward typically repressive legislation aimed at public servants in the national capital, in the seat of government in Canberra, when hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia are employed as public servants in every State, very few supporters of the Government come into the House even to listen to the debate. The Government can produce only three speakers, one of whom, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), to his credit, showed a little compassion for public servants.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– A good speech.

Mr FRY:

– Yes, it was a very fine speech but he was reprimanded for saying something compassionate about public servants. But the most notable point, of course, is that the Government supporter who represents 50 per cent of the people of Canberra and who obviously supports the Bill has not seen fit to say a few words in support of it. Of course, he is the champion of private enterprise in Canberra and he would agree entirely with this Bill. Undoubtedly he supports it but he will not come in and speak for it publicly- a rather regrettable situation. I think many honourable members will have read the very fine articles published in the National Times in the last two weeks by Mr Clem Lloyd, one of our foremost scholars on government, a man of very wide experience, who pointed out, I think very rightly, the dangers inherent in the way the Executive is taking over the Parliament. This Bill is a typical example of what happens when, by due process of law, a decision is made which does not please the Government. In that case the Government just changes the law. It does so with a great deal of contempt. It is passing this Bill with hardly anybody in the chamber to listen to the debate, not even the honourable member who represents half the public servants in Canberra.

I think it is fair to say that this Bill destroys the facade that this Government really believes in arbitration, that it really believes in the due process of law, that it supports law and order. Above all the Bill shows quite clearly that the Government does not adhere to the process of arbitration. This Bill points up quite brutally the determination of this Government to undermine and destroy the arbitration procedures which have been followed meticulously by the union in this case. If the arbitration procedures do not bring about decisions that suit the Government, it changes the law and that is what has happened. This matter is a classic example. The union went to arbitration. The arbitrator made a decision. The union was of the opinion on good legal advice that the decision was incorrect. It did not go on strike; it took the matter to the High Court. It followed the due process of the law. At its own risk and at considerable cost the union took the matter to the High Court and the High Court, of course, upheld the union’s point that the right of appeal was a fundamental condition of employment. How the Government could decide otherwise I do not know. Apparently it was not aware of the 1922 decision, No. 23, which was a determination concerning the Australian Postal Electricians Union’s claim against the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner and the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth.

It is all documented and the Minister has disclaimed knowledge of it. How the Government could not have had that sort of advice I do not know. Apparently its legal advice on this occasion was not quite as sound as that given in 1975 when it succeeded in throwing out a democratically elected government. The union members went to the court. The High Court upheld their appeal and costs were awarded against the Government. The Court gave very sound judicial reasons for upholding the appeal. It said that the right of appeal is a fundamental condition of employment, particularly in the Public Service where there is a tremendously wide range of opportunities and a wide range of qualifications required to fill various positions. In placing this Bill before the Parliament, the Government is virtually thumbing its nose at the decision of the High Court. It is saying, in effect: All right, you won that time but you will not win next time. We will fix it so that you do not win next time.’ In effect it is taking away the right of the unions to appeal in a similar case to this one using the same process that was followed here. In effect that will completely undo the decision of the High Court in a most contemptuous way.

The Government claims that it must have the power to control promotions and appeals. Of course, this is nonsense. It has precisely those powers now in relation to other conditions of employment. Why it should select this particular condition of employment for special reasons, I do not know. If we look at conditions in relation to salaries we will find that the Public Service Board can determine salaries, people can appeal against such determinations and the arbitrator can make a decision. He can support the Public Service Board or he can support the union. The same process is followed in the national wage case. The Government has that power; it is the normal process which is taken in relation to promotions. The Board can make promotions. People can appeal against those promotions and go to a proper board for a decision to be made. To say that the Government needs special conditions for this particular condition of service is nonsense. It could quite easily have accepted the decision of the High Court. The Government may not have been sure that the right of appeal was a condition of service, but the High Court said that it was. Why did the Government not accept that decision gracefully and carry on in the way it does with all other conditions of service where it has the power to set salaries or make promotions and where people have the right of appeal against such decisions.

The stand down provisions rather concerned the honourable member for Lilley because they do penalise the innocent parties in disputes. These provisions typify the Government’s innate hatred of and its abrasive attitude towards working people generally and the Public Service in particular. They are part of the Government’s determination to undermine the public servants’ hard won conditions and to cut back on hard won reforms that have been gained over many years of experience. They follow the Commonwealth Employees (Provisions) Act and the amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, both of which cut down on the rights and privileges of public servants. The other argument used by the Government is that what it wants to do is in the interests of efficiency. It is rather laughable that it should invoke efficiency in support of this Bill. Is there anything inherently efficient about employing an outsider in a position on the assumption that he may have had experience in industry or commerce? I do not know in what area of industry or commerce one would get the sort of experience that one would need in a Commonwealth Employment Office. I do not know whether the Government contemplates employing people who have worked in private employment offices where a profit is made out of people who are unemployed. I do not know whether they would be suitable people to bring in to the Commonwealth Employment Service. I could not imagine many people wanting that job. It is not a terribly highly paid job. It is certainly not a fat cat job; it is only a Class 4 position, which is a very middle standard.

Mr Young:

– Average weekly earnings.

Mr FRY:

– The salary is about average weekly earnings. It is by no means a fat cat position, which our friends opposite like to talk about. Surely it is not the intention of the Norgard report that these people should be employed in that particular area and to carry out that particular function. I think the Government is drawing a long bow in trying to invoke the Norgard report in support of this repressive legislation. Efficiency is much more closely related to many other aspects of the Public Service. One of the greatest reasons for loss of efficiency in the Public Service now is the imposition of staff ceilings. In our own Department of the Capital Territory I fail to see what is very efficient about not having staff to collect overdue rates or to prepare urgent legislation which will allow the Government to operate smoothly. Today somebody told me that correspondence which they had written 10 days ago had not been posted because of the shortage of staff in a particular department. Surely that is not efficiency. It is not efficient to have property of the Commonwealth deteriorating because we cannot get a few bob to paint it or to do some minor repairs. These are the basic inefficiencies in the Public Service now. It is not because of the way that we appoint people. It is because we have staff ceilings. It is because we do not have enough people, not because we do not have the right people. This, too, is a non-argument.

The other thing that I would like to refer to is the inconsistency of this Bill when compared with the movement over the last 10 years towards trying to increase the civil liberties of public servants generally throughout the world and not just in Australia. There has been considerable progress. The International Labour Organisation has been working towards a draft paper or a convention which will cover the employment of public servants and which will give them greater civil liberties. We have contributed to that. We have sent people to these conventions each year. They have served on committees. This has been going on for years. There has been a movement towards greater civil liberties for public servants. Now the Government comes along and turns the clock back on all the progress that has been made over many years. That is consistent, as I said, with the Government’s determination to undermine the basic civil rights and individual liberties of workers generally and public servants in particular. The Government wants to bludgeon the Public Service into submission, to deny it the right to withhold its labour, to wave the big stick at it. Then the Government has the hide to talk about efficiency and to expect efficiency. I oppose this Bill. It is a disgrace which is typical of the Government’s attitude towards the Public Service. It deserves the condemnation of all reasonable people.

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

– I shall endeavour to refer to the comments that have been made by honourable members in this debate. I start by referring to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) who led for the Opposition. He said that the Public Service Board wanted complete control of recruitment into the Public Service. He referred to the Public Service Arbitrator’s action in relation to the dispute which involved recruitment into the Commonwealth Employment Service. It is perfectly true that the genesis of this legislation was in that dispute. But I remind the House that the Public Service Arbitrator in that case said that he did not have jurisdiction. That, in fact, was the original umpire ‘s decision.

I remind the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson)- I shall come back to this later- that it was the union that did not accept the umpire’s decision. It was the union that appealed against the decision, as it was perfectly entitled to do. As it turned out, the High Court of Australia upheld that appeal. In effect what that decision meant was that what had always been assumed to be the case was not in fact correct. What the Government has done in response to that decision is to put beyond doubt what had previously been the accepted practice. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) referred in some detail- I understand his concern- to the non-accrual of long service leave, annual leave and sick leave and asked whether it should apply automatically in the case of public servants who are stood down.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– In all cases.

Mr STREET:

– In all cases. In private industry that can be part of stand down provisions in awards. As I am sure the honourable member knows, from memory, stand down provisions are part of something like 300 awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– But they are often not applied.

Mr STREET:

– Whether they are applied or not, it is quite true, as the honourable member says, that that can be decided by the Commissioner in considering his attitude to a settlement. That provision can be used as part of the bargaining process. I accept that that has been the practice on the part of private industry. But the honourable member for Lilley has also accepted that the non-accrual principle can apply in the case of private industry. Indeed it can apply, as I am sure the honourable member knows, in many of the State public services as well.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– But not automatically in all cases.

Mr STREET:

-It is not automatic. I make it clear to the House that the Government considered this automatic aspect of application to the Public Service very carefully. In doing so the Government bore in mind its dual responsibility, firstly as a good employer, and secondly as the representative of the public interest. After all, the Public Service is paid for by the taxpayer and the Government has an overriding responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayer in these circumstances. It is quite relevant that apart from long service leave, recreation leave and sick leave- as the honourable member has pointed out quite rightly the loss of accrual is mandatory as part of the stand-down provisions in this legislation- the Public Service Arbitrator has flexibility in deciding what other terms and conditions of employment can be considered in the context of arriving at the settlement of a dispute. The Government had all these factors very carefully in mind and it had to strike a balance, always having as a principal cause for concern the responsibility that it had to the public. The Government therefore considers that this legislation is a fair reflection of this responsibility.

I mentioned a moment ago the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes who alleged that, following the High Court decision in the Commonwealth Employment Service dispute, the Government had altered the law to suit its own purposes. I have already pointed out that the legislation merely makes clear that, in future, the position, which up until then had always been accepted as being the situation, will be put beyond doubt. The honourable member for Hughes also referred to court decisions in relation to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. I have done a great deal of research on this matter and I have not been able to come up with one single court decision in relation to it. I merely ask the honourable member for Hughes to check his facts. There have been expressions of opinion by Public Service arbitrators. I stand willing to be corrected, but I think one was Deputy Public Service Arbitrator Hughes, who gave as his opinion that it might be within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator to make decisions in relation to recruitment or some similar kind of thing. So far as I am able to determine there was no court decision in relation to this particular aspect until the High Court decision of recent date to which the honourable member referred.

The House is indebted to the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) for a very clear exposition of the reasons behind this legislation. He did an excellent job of exposing the inconsistency of the Opposition’s attitude to the Public Service as a whole. Various members of the Australian Labor Party have expressed the harshest criticism of the Public Service. Yet tonight in this debate we had members of the Australian Labor Party putting on some spurious pretence of espousing the cause of the Public Service. I do not think I need to say anything more about that. The Opposition’s sincerity or lack of it will be judged by its remarks which are on the public record.

The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) referred to the problems which emerged during the CES dispute. I do not want to go over all that old ground again, but it needs to be stated explicitly that early in that dispute, long before it had reached the serious proportions it eventually did, the Public Service Board on behalf of the Government put forward a proposition relating to a review procedure which was exactly the same as that eventually accepted as a basis for a settlement of the dispute. That is one of the most disappointing aspects of this dispute which did great damage to the operations of the CES and its morale and put the public image of that Service in a bad light. The basis for the settlement had always been there. It was put to the unions at that stage. They refused to accept it. That caused a great deal of disruption, which honourable members know about, but eventually the unions ended up accepting what had originally been put to them. That is incidental to the broad thrust of the legislation which now puts the Public Service, as the Government sees it, on a fair and proper basis in relation to employees in private industry.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 66

NOES: 28

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2551

ADJOURNMENT

Media Coverage of the Uranium Debate- Department of Overseas Trade: Purchase of Filing Systems- Alleged Land Deal in Queensland- Wartime Executions in New Guinea: Missing Records- National Health

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I wish to speak about a matter that I raised in the Grievance Debate two weeks ago. It relates to the poor reporting of the national Press of the uranium debate. In that debate I particularly mentioned the shallow reporting of certain journalists on the Sydney Morning Herald. It is perhaps not surprising that the Sydney Morning Herald, in its brief and inadequate report of my criticisms, published the inaccurate smear of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) that I have not opposed nuclear power in the Soviet Union. On many occasions I have spoken against Soviet development of nuclear power but it suits the Sydney Morning Herald to publish such smears. It is part of the subtle campaign by the Sydney Morning Herald to label any opposition to uranium rnining as left-wing opposition and to obscure the real issues which concern a wide cross section of the Australian community.

Another example of this kind of inaccurate and simple minded smear is contained in an article by Mr W. C. Wentworth published by the Herald on Monday 15 May. I quote from the article:

The ALP found itself confronted by the anti-uranium line which its left wing had adopted from overseas.

Mr Wentworth went on to say:

Politically the ALP is in a very ambiguous situation. Many of its leaders are privately convinced that uranium mining should go ahead but they are responding to left wing pressure and making public commitments against it.

I have written to the Sydney Morning Herald about this kind of reporting. I seek leave to have my letter and the reply of the Editor-in-Chief of the Sydney Morning Herald incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows

page 2551

OFFICE OF HON. T. UREN, M.P

Federal Member for Reid 1 8th May 1978

The Editor,

Sydney Morning Herald, 235 Jones Street, Broadway, N.S.W. 2000

Dear Sir,

I draw your attention to the repeated assertions contained in articles of your newspaper that it is only the left wing of the Australian Labor party that is opposed to the commitment of Australia ‘s uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle.

I also wish to correct several misrepresentations of Labor Caucus decisions made in page 1 articles on May 10 and 1 1.

Your assertion that opposition to uranium mining is solely a left wing cause in the ALP would not stand up to any fairminded analysis of the ALP’s response to the uranium issue. Opposition to uranium in the Party cuts across all ideological positions; this parallels the identification by many sections of the Party with the anti-nuclear war movement. This is a movement for humanity, sanity, and survival. It is an antinuclear weapons position, prompted by such important considerations as the 3rd finding of the 1st report from the Ranger Inquiry which says ‘that the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war’.

It must be appreciated that the finding of the Ranger Inquiry has had a profound effect on the ALP. I refer you to statements of Mr Hayden that he personally was deeply disturbed by his reading of the first Ranger Report. All sections of the ALP have been struck by the many unresolved environmental, genetic, technical and economic issues which were documented in the Ranger Reports. The Commissioners themselves have stressed the importance of these findings of fact as against their recommendations, (p. 5, 1st Report.)

Any assertion that uranium is just a left wing cause inside the ALP denies the fact that the present policy was passed unanimously at the Penh Conference. It denies the strong anti-uranium feeling at the grass roots of the Party’s branches, exemplified by last weekend’s special State Conference in Victoria, which was called at one week’s notice to organise opposition to the Fraser Government’s most recent repressive uranium legislation.

You have also incorrectly reported ALP Caucus decisions. I refer to an article entitled ‘Darwin Trip to Counter Uranium Fears’ (S.M.H. 10/5/78 p. 1) in which it was claimed that the Labor Caucus decided to vote with the Liberal Party in the Senate against any Country Party attempts to amend the uranium legislation. The following day it was incorrectly reported by Peter Bowers, in an article entitled Uranium Law Dispute settled by Darwin Talks’, that the Labor Party decided to oppose outright only one uranium Bill, and seek to strengthen three other Bills. Labor Caucus decided to oppose at both the 2nd and 3rd readings the four uranium Bills which provided a basis for the mining of uranium, and to seek to strengthen the Aboriginal land rights and National Parks Legislation. No decision was taken to support uranium Bills which were opposed by the Country Party.

It is about time that the public was treated to some indepth and balanced reporting of the uranium issue by your newspaper. Nowhere in your paper have I seen a thorough appraisal of the Government’s assertion that nuclear waste can be safely disposed. Nowhere have I seen an assessment of the Fraser Government’s safeguards policy or a questioning of the government’s refusal to provide the Australian people with details of exactly what safeguards it is negotiating with countries like Iran and the Philippines. Moreover, it is a disgrace that the reporting of the debate in Federal Parliament of the Fraser Government’s uranium legislation should be relegated to two small reports at the back of your paper which day after day W. C. Wentworth is given prime feature space to promote his pro-uranium views.

Most disgraceful of all has been the failure of your paper to question the economics of uranium mining. We are continually treated to the raw propaganda of the mining industry, the Government and W. C. Wentworth that uranium will bring untold economic benefits. The fact is that the very serious structural unemployment which Australia faces today can be attributed, in part, to our excessive involvement in the minerals export sector. At a time when minerals have risen from 12 per cent to 29 per cent of Australia’s exports, the proportion of the workforce engaged in mining has dropped from 1 .4 per cent to 1 .2 per cent. Meanwhile manufacturing has been starved of investment funds and its contribution to the workforce has dropped from 27 per cent to 2 1 per cent. If we speed up the growth of the mineral sector by exporting uranium, we will surely aggravate our structural unemployment crisis.

I hope that future reporting of the uranium issue by your newspaper will exhibit a greater degree of analysis, fairmindedness and accuracy.

Yours sincerely,

page 2552

TOM UREN.M.P

page 2552

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

235-243 Jones Street, Broadway, Sydney, Australia. 19th May 1978

The Hon. T. Uren, MP., 1st Floor, Granville Towers, 10 Bridge Street, Granville, N.S.W.2142 Dear Sir,

I refer to you letter of May 18, which reached me today.

I am having this investigated. If we made errors of fact, we will correct them as quickly as possible.

I suggest that you supply me with evidence of these repeated assertions by the Herald. For myself, I have always believed that it is the left wing that is most active in propagating these policies; but that is not at all the same thing as saying that support is narrowly confined to the left wing.

I am sorry that you have forgotten the prolonged arguments and heavy publicity of last year. Your own name appeared in headlines often enough then (eg, ‘ Fraser ‘s claim on safety false: Uren’- August 30, 1977). Apart from discussion in the news columns, the matter was taken up in feature articles by staff journalists and contributors, in leading articles, and in many, many letters from scientists and from laymen. And of course argument and discussion will continue whenever there are developments. Your charge is baseless.

This again was discussed last year. Do you not recall the leading articles? Not remember the report quoting Professor C. B. Kerr (‘Government approach to safeguards only “intentions’”)? The Page 1 lead, ‘Fox queries safeguards’, reporting information supplied by you? The Page 1 lead, Whitlam warns: Govt act adds to nuclear war risk’? The other articles and letters? Memory can indeed be fallible.

It is true that the Herald has not questioned that the negotiations are not being carried out in public. The Herald has reported that negotiations are in progress, and the Government assurances that any agreements will have to contain all the elements of Australian safeguards policy announced last year. I find it difficult to see how the Government can go beyond that. Or are you implying that it would be wise or practicable to conduct international negotiations in public? I find that hard to believe. Did you, as a minister, conduct negotiations in public? You may be certain that, if the Herald got wind of any details, it would be very happy to publish them.

That is our job. It would be ludicrous, however, Tor us to demand that the negotiations themselves be public.

There were not merely ‘ two small reports at the back ‘. The first report was published on April 1 1, and the first of the articles of which you complain did not appear until May 3. The reports about the legislation in fact go back to a Page 1 lead of September last year, as you may care to recall (‘Uranium law allows jail for unionists, says Uren’). The legislation was also discussed in a long article by a staff reporter. The debate itself proved, unhappily, another gallop along a much-travelled road, and added little or nothing to public knowledge or understanding. It was treated accordingly.

In fact, a view of the matter which happens to parallel yours was expressed as far back as April last year, in a review of a publication ‘The case against uranium mining: red light for yellow cake ‘. The reviewer, having reported this economic assessment, added, ‘What the authors (of the book) fail to say is that this move away from manufacturing to mining is already taking place and is likely to continue given that the export-orientated mining sector enjoys a relative comparative advantage not experienced by Australia’s overprotected manufacturing sector’. The matter has come up from time to time since then.

I am surprised that you did not think this or any other aspect of the Wentworth articles important enough to take up in a letter addressed to their substance. You complain that there is no proper public debate, yet you object to someone as well-informed as W. C. Wentworth being allowed to appear, and you fail to take him up.

I am afraid that once again your sweeping assertions do not stand up to the facts. We publish information from all sides. It is unfortunate that you should see the statements of your opponents as ‘propaganda’. It isn’t a word that I would apply to their views any more than to yours. In the same letter you preach to me about fairmindedness. The difference between us is this: You have a mission, in which fairmindedness would be a handicap. We have a duty, which is to be fairminded, and we do our best to carry it out.

Yours faithfully,

page 2553

QUESTION

DAVID BOWMAN

Editor-in-Chief

Mr UREN:

– In my letter I point out to the Herald that opposition to uranium mining is based on a strong grass roots anti-uranium feeling in the branches of the Labor Party. That was reflected two weeks ago when the Victorian State branch called a special conference of delegates at one week’s notice to fight the Fraser Government’s repressive uranium legislation. I point out that opposition to uranium cuts across all ideological positions in the Australian Labor Party. It parallels the identification of many members with the anti-nuclear war movement, a movement for humanity, sanity and survival. But, the Sydney Morning Herald chooses not to publish these facts. It chooses not to publish my letter. It has sent me a detailed reply but chooses to have my arguments analysed and judged only by the Herald bureaucracy, not by its readers. As I have had incorporated in Hansard my letter and the letter of the Editor-in-Chief of the Sydney Morning Herald, people will have the right to determine the facts of the case. What has the Sydney Morning Herald done to promote the uranium debate in recent months? I have instanced the articles of Mr W. C. Wentworth, five in all, appearing on 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 15th May. Those articles amount to about 5,300 words of prime feature space with associated diagrams. What has the Herald done to present the opposite view to that held by Mr Wentworth? The Herald has failed to act on requests by the movement against uranium mining to put views contrary to those of Mr Wentworth. The Herald has failed to print an article submitted to it by Dr Hugh Saddler, a former research assistant to the Ranger inquiry, which discusses some of the issues raised by Mr Wentworth. The Sydney Morning Herald certainly has not given equal space to the anti-uranium position. I submit that democracy is at a low ebb when public debate on a matter so important as uranium can be suppressed in that way. That has been the situation with the Sydney Morning Herald.

There have been other inaccurate reportings by correspondents to the Sydney Morning Herald relating to the reporting of the Labor Party Caucus. I have also reported that matter. I shall talk about it on another occasion when I have more time than I have at the moment in an attempt to have the Sydney Morning Herald correct the position. If it does not do so I shall raise the matter in the House again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Isaacs I draw the attention of the House to the very high level of conversation. I requested earlier that the House be silent. I was reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Reid and rob him of time but I remind honourable members that this behaviour is a rank discourtesy to honourable members who have the right to be heard in silence.

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

– I am concerned that the Department of Trade and Resources recently purchased filing systems manufactured in United States of America in preference to locally manufactured products. The products are described as panels for microfiche filing. Those purchased were manufactured by Ring King Visibles Incorporated in Muscatine, Iowa, United States of America. Our local product is known to the Department and is manufactured by Arnos Melbourne Pty Ltd, Nepean Highway, Cheltenham. Arnos Melbourne Pty Ltd is a small, privately owned company with 90 employees. The company has been involved with export for over 20 years and its filing systems are sold in 32 countries. Arnos won an export award for its achievement in 1973 and the company’s microfiche filing products are currently listed in the American publication ‘Information and Records Management, 1978 Storage and Information Retrieval Guidebook’.

Surely the Overseas Trade Commissioner offices should be a place for Australian manufactured enterprise wherever possible. Now we have a situation where Arnos is currently manufacturing an order worth $350,000 for national distribution to United States of America and the three Trade Department offices in that country are using a competitive United States of America manufactured product purchased in Australia. The founder and Managing Director of Arnos Melbourne Pty Ltd is Mr Bill Martin. Mr Martin and his company are well known to the Department of Trade and Resources, having participated in more than 40 Australian trade exhibitions around the world. In 1976 Mr Martin was the Government-appointed leader of exhibitors to the Honolulu Trade Show and later in that year accompanied the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony), Deputy Prime Minister, to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as leader of exhibitors for the Moscow Trade Show.

Hardly a month goes by without Mr Martin or a representative of his firm being overseas somewhere in the world selling. His determination and unyielding efforts to promote Australian manufactured products abroad is an object lesson to many would-be exporters both large and small. Companies such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Nilex and Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd would be proud of the success Arnos has achieved in the export market for it is their raw materials that are being used in the manufacture of Arnos products. I feel that the Australian Trade offices overseas should be an area where potential customers can see Australian manufactured products. Many of the Arnos range of products are unique and would require a demonstration to enhance their suitability in an export market. Arnos Melbourne Pty Ltd exports 70 per cent of its products. I hope that when the Department of Trade and Resources makes purchases of filing systems it will give Australian companies an opportunity to supply that equipment because the policy of the Government is to help Australian industry by providing it with orders for Government purchases.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Two weeks ago, on 1 1 May, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) circulated a written reply to questions raised in this House about land purchased by the Australian Postal Commission at Bundall in Queensland. As one of the questioners, I received one of the replies. The House was given no opportunity to debate this matter although the report was leaked to the Press two days earlier. These tactics do not obscure the omissions, errors and inconsistencies in the Minister’s sloppily laundered account of this shady land deal. Let us look at the Minister’s reply. On the second page he states:

On 15 October 1976 Australia Post learnt that the Bundall land had been sold to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd.

It is a pity that the Minister failed to read the minute of Mr Spratt, the Managing Director of the Commission, a little more carefully. Mr Spratt records the situation differently. In referring to a telephone conversation of 4 January 1977 with the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Spratt says:

I made the following points: The Commission would like very much to acquire the site under sale to Mr McMaster.

I repeat that according to Mr Spratt, the land was under sale and not sold when the Postal Commission was interested in purchasing it. Who was telling the truth? If the present Minister had wanted to find out the facts, all he had to do was read the documents tabled on 5 May in this House by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe). These documents- the ValuerGeneral’s notification of change of ownershipreveal that on 18 October 1976 Ron McMaster took an option to buy the land in question from Watkins Ltd. I repeat that he took an option on the land. He did not buy it until three months later in January 1977; nor did he pay for it. The Minister’s reply is wrong. The land was not sold to McMaster in October 1976. In fact, he did not buy it until after he had discussed the matter with his local member, his friend.

Mr Holding:

– Who was the local member?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– It was the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson). Why is the present Minister hiding the truth? Is it to protect his predecessor? Is it to obscure the fact that McMaster bought the land only when he knew that he could make a $40,000 windfall profit from its resale? These are the things that this Parliament needs to know.

Let us have a look at the various accounts of how the Postal Commission first became interested in this block of land. The Minister stated in his written reply:

On 23 August 1976, Australia Post was informed by Watkins Ltd that it had for sale at $240,000 a piece of land

The reply continues:

On 25 August Australia Post advised the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, that this land met all of its requirements and to concentrate on an early acquisition. On 15 October 1976, Australia Post learnt that the Bundall land had been sold to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd.

During that period from 25 August to 15 October- 714 weeks- the Postal Commission had been unable to secure the land. Did the Commission actually try to secure it during that period? We just do not know from the Minister’s reply. There is a gap, a blank, in his record of events. But we do know the situation of the real owner of the land. The Australian of 5 May 1 978 contains the following report:

A spokesman for Watkins Ltd said last night that the company had no knowledge that the Government was interested in the land before it sold it to McMaster.

Watkins did not know that the Postal Commission wanted the land, but it looks as though McMaster did. How did he find out? Finally, a report on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program PM on 4 May quoted the Acting State Manager of Australia Post, Mr Athenden, as saying:

We came across this piece of land rather unexpectedly.

Nowhere does the Minister’s reply leave this impression. Rather, we are expected to believe that the Postal Commission under the then Minister acted slowly and cautiously. Mr Athenden says differently and, if he is telling the truth, and there is no reason to suspect his story, the Minister’s statement is a tissue of fabrications.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I rise to join with the Papua New Guinea Defence Minister, Mr Mona, in denouncing the disgraceful actions of the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) in recent times in mounting a campaign for publicity purposes which has failed to elicit any new information and which has cast a slur on the Australian Armed Forces, a slur on historians in this country and a slur on the archivists of this country. It has caused worry, concern and distress to relatives of soldiers who served in the

Papua area during the last War. It has resulted also in a direct attack for mealy political purposes, for the purpose of grandstanding, upon distinguished persons such as Sir Edmund Herring and Mr Justice Selby. What the honourable member has done is to claim that there has been some form of cover-up to protect the reputations of persons who during the Second World War were involved in the bringing to justice of criminals who were later hanged.

The first point I make is that contrary to the claims of the honourable member a great deal of information has been made available about these matters in the past few years. Sir Edmund Herring has previously spoken on the matter. Various other persons who were there at the time have spoken. One has only to go to the article written by Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Grahamslaw which was published in the May 1971 edition of the Pacific Islands Monthly to find a first hand account of what happened. Mr Grahamslaw was the former Chief Collector of Customs in Papua New Guinea and a LieutenantColonel with the Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit at the time. He won the O.B.E. (Military) for his work behind Japanese lines during World War II. As Mr Mona has pointed out, these persons were dealt with for murder and /or for rape. The honourable member for Lalor came into the House originally claiming that the crimes were exclusively treason. In some way it could be said that that is so but there were also murders and rapes. The first hand account is quite clear. Mr Mona points out that any fourth form student in Papua New Guinea knows what occurred and has known the position for many years. Everybody in Papua New Guinea knows about and there are many records available of what happened. In his article Mr Grahamslaw said:

The pattern of murder was usually the same. In the first place, the soldiers or airmen, after having made contact with the natives, would be taken to a central place in the village, usually a rest house, where they would be given food and drink. Then, as they were relaxing in the belief that they were amongst friendly people, they would be attacked from behind and killed.

Mr Grahamslaw mentions specific examples. On one occasion nine Australian prisoners comprising five men, three women and one child were brought in by natives and subsequently killed and beheaded.

Another incident involved two young missionaries, Miss May Hayman and Miss Mavis Parkinson. A man who was lying under a building saw these two missionary ladies led out from a building where he said they had been for a day and a night. He saw the Japanese enter the building and then depart When the women came out a Japanese siezed Miss Parkinson and started to hug her. She pushed him away. He thereupon drew a bayonet or dagger from his scabbard and stabbed her in the throat. She gave a slight scream and dropped dead. Another Japanese who was standing near Miss Hayman drew a handkerchief from his pocket and handed it to her indicating at the same dme that she was to blindfold herself. She did so and then stood with her head upright facing the Japanese and without speaking. The Japanese then bayoneted her in the breast and she fell dead. The bodies were buried in a shallow grave at Popondetta.

Mr Mona pointed out that other groups of women were raped continuously and raped close to death. Mr Grahamslaw points out that the villagers themselves demanded punishment of the culprits, and the widow of one of the persons hanged said: ‘Good riddance; he was a bad man and he deserved it’. The people of Papua New Guinea have known about these vile crimes and supported the actions at the time. The crimes were the subject of courts martial in the field.

The honourable member for Lalor still tries to justify himself by claiming that the speech of Mr Mona is silly and that silverfish have been getting at the records. I can assure the honourable member that I have a letter from the Director of the Australian War Memorial, of which I am a member of the Board of Trustees. Mr Russell Smith has been allowed to look through the records and has seen all records, save for those that are sealed because they relate to honours and decorations. No complaint has been made regarding this matter, and further investigations have taken place at the Archives. The actions of the honourable member are consistent with the lowest form of politics in this country. He was a failure as a former member of the Victorian Parliament. He has no discretion. When he has been a member of this House for a few years he might learn to compose himself and to act properly.

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

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Gold Coast Liberal Party cocktail circuit is a scene of fluctuating fortunes and divided loyalties or dividend loyalties; I am not sure which it is. Take the case of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and one of his constituents, Gold Coast builder and land speculator, Mr Ron McMaster. It seems that while Mr Robinson was telling the Melbourne

Herald on 9 May that he knew McMaster well -

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I believe that this matter is sub judice and that the honourable member should not be talking about it. Secondly, if it is not sub judice, there should be a substantive motion before the House before the honourable member can talk about it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– While Mr Robinson was telling the Melbourne Herald: ‘I know McMaster well. I have met him over the years and he is a man who enjoys a good reputation’, his good friend Mr McMaster was telling the Gold Coast Bulletin: ‘I’ve met Eric Robinson at the opening of buildings. I’ve been to cocktail parties at his home. But that was at Liberal Party functions with big crowds’. He said on 6 May that he regarded Mr Robinson as an acquaintance rather than a friend. Why is Mr McMaster trying to ditch his old friend? After all, when Mr McMaster wanted a quick profit- initially $110,000 and finally $40,000-on a land sale to the Australian Postal Commission, to whom did he turn for help?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member is embarking on a course of impugning the Minister’s character or his actions, he is required to do so on a substantive motion. I caution the honourable member for Newcastle that I will call him to order if he proceeds on that line.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To whom did he turn for help in relation to a land sale to Australia Post? He turned to his friend, the Minister responsible, his local member. What help did he get from his friend? According to the reply given on 1 1 May by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) the Postal Commission discovered 7 1/2 weeks after deciding to buy a block of land at Bundall from Watkins Ltd that it had been beaten to it by Ron McMaster. When the Commission decided to buy from McMaster, the deal was signed, sealed and delivered in four weeks- half the time. Successful negotiations between the Postal Commission and McMaster began less then three days after McMaster and the Minister discussed the land. What did the Minister tell his friend?

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Newcastle has made an allegation against a member of the

House, and it should be the subject of appropriate notice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Again I remind the honourable member for Newcastle that his remarks are bordering very closely on those which would require a substantive motion. I caution the honourable member in that respect.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am referring to the substance of a reply given by the present Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I resume my remarks. What did the Minister tell his friend? According to the present Minister, he advised him to reduce his price to secure the sale. After all, McMaster, who did not even own the land, wanted a guaranteed profit of $ 1 10,000 before he would take up his option -

Mr Hodgman:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is based on the clear and undisputed fact that an imputation has been made contrary to the Standing Orders, Standing Order 76 in particular, in that it is being alleged that a Minister of the Crown gave advice, thereby breaching his ministerial oath and giving an advantage to a person.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have been listening carefully to the honourable member for Newcastle. I feel that implicit in his remarks is an attack on the character of the Minister. I feel that the honourable member’s comments should be made in the form of a debate on a substantive motion. If the honourable member for Newcastle cannot assure me that he will refrain from persisting with the present line he is taking with his speech, I shall require him to resume his seat.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been quoting from a reply that the present Minister for Post and Telecommunications has circulated to honourable members. I have a copy of it here. What we are bringing to the attention of honourable members is just what is taking place as regards a Minister, his Department and the sale of land involving substantial profits. What is the Government afraid of? Of course it is afraid. It is a crooked corrupt government and honourable members opposite know it. The facts are set out in the reply from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It points out that McMaster, who did not even own the land, wanted a guaranteed profit of $1 10,000 before he would take up his option to buy for $240,000.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I feel that the honourable member for Newcastle has overstepped the line. He charged the Government with being corrupt and immediately linked that comment with the Minister in question. The honourable member’s time has expired. I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for McMillan.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for WillS has moved that the honourable member for Newcastle be granted an extension of time. He was standing at the same time as the honourable member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I called the honourable member for McMillan.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, he has moved that the honourable member for Newcastle be granted an extension of time. I draw your attention to the Standing Orders relating to a situation where two members are standing and one is called.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is the practice to alternate between one side of the House and the other.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Wills rose to his feet and moved that the honourable member for Newcastle be granted an extension of time when the honourable member for Newcastle was still on his feet and speaking and before you said that his time has expired. Therefore under the Standing Orders you are required to put that question to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I apologise to the House for the confusion. The position is that the honourable member for Newcastle was speaking beyond the time allotted to him. He is not permitted to speak for a second time in the adjournment debate. At that moment the motion for an extension of time was not in order. I call the honourable member for McMillan.

Mr SIMON:
10.48

-In the short time available to me tonight I should like to cover matters which are really of some import but which I will touch on only very briefly because of the time factor. I refer to the question of national health expenditure and, in particular, the aspect of preventive medicine and what pan it can play in the containment of health expenditure. I wish particularly to talk about the health of the people of Australia and, in doing so, to emphasise the need for detailed analyses of the health of the young people of Austrafia, particularly those of primary school age.

The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) recently announced that national health expenditure has risen from $2,232m in 1 97 1-72 to $6,254m in the current year- a matter which has been recognised in the Government’s community health program. Unfortunately only approximately one per cent of the national health bill is spent on the community health program and on preventive medicine in this country. On page 46 of a Discussion Paper on Paying for Health Care prepared by Dr Sax it is stated:

A growing Austraiian professional constituency asks for more emphasis on prevention of disease, health promotion, health maintenance and health education.

I would like now to refer briefly to a number of people who have carried out recent surveys on and investigations into the subject matter of the health of young people. I refer firstly to Mr Brian Jeanes who did a study at Monash University of the physical performances of primary school children. He indicated that the report would assist physical educationists to devise specific programs to remedy problems in particular children. Despite that report or because of it Mr Jeanes has stated that he had little or no objective data on a broad scale on physical profiles of children and claimed that that needed to be systematically collected throughout Australia.

On 2 1 July 1 977 Mr Ron Clarke, a well known former athlete who is presently a businessman and still interested in the fitness of Australians in an article in the Age newspaper headed ‘Teenage fitness declines’ looked at the United States situation and commented that last March, that would be 1977, in the United States a newsletter published by the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports reported on a comparison between the fitness of Australian and American teenagers. It was said that compared with the 1958 United States data, Australian boys were almost equal in pull-ups and sit-ups and were superior in all other tests except for the Softball throw for distance. It was concluded that in seven years Australian youth had deteriorated so dramatically in its physical fitness levels that its American counterparts were superior in every aspect. In October 1976 I was fortunate enough to undertake a survey around Australia on sport and recreation. One of the recommendations which came out of the report- a wide range of people in Australia was involved- stated:

The National Policy will ensure that, for example, State Governments undertake ‘ life be in it ‘ type programs and that the respective State Education systems change the emphasis in Sport and Recreation from the secondary sector of education to primary level.

I turn now to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled Drug problems in Australia- an intoxicated society? I remind honourable members of some of the facts which were presented to that Senate inquiry. They were that of 3,369 fourth formers in 1973, 24.2 per cent were non-users of alcohol, 75.8 per cent were currently drinking alcohol and 5.2 per cent were drinking on most days.

I now turn very quickly to a letter I received from Dr Bert Willee who is Chairman of the Department of Human Movement Studies at the University of Melbourne. He quite emphatically points out that, after having completed in 1969-70 a study entitled ‘Youth Fitness Survey’, there was a grave necessity to upgrade that report particularly in relation to a survey of obesity in school aged children and in the community. He had evidence which was available to suggest that the problem was widespread. He referred to other matters like the posture of children and stated that 1949 was the last year in which a survey had been done and that obviously there was a grave need to update that statistical data. He also said that the last survey in 1 970 showed that 75 per cent of post primary government schools did not have a gymnasium or covered activity area and that 75 per cent of our children at that level in government schools did not have a planned continuous program of physical education.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired. I call the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr COHEN:

– Fair go. You are on every night, Barry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Robertson has been called.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you called the honourable member for Robertson. If he is not prepared to speak the next call should go to our side.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair exercises its discretion. If the honourable member for Robertson does not wish to speak I call the honourable member for Lalor.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am grateful to the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) for giving me another opportunity to return to the case of the missing archives. Our archives are a vital national resource and the fact that they have been plundered is a crime against the nation. It may be that the motives of the people who mutilated the wartime archives were good. They may well have felt that they were protecting the Army’s reputation by destroying the files, but in fact the absence of files makes it difficult to make an effective case in the Army’s defence. They may have been -

Mr Neil:

– Murder and rape!

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Let us talk about murder and rape. The curious thing is that if one looks at what few files survived, for example file 85/1/671 which is one of the few things that escaped the holocaust, one finds that although they refer to ‘the, conviction and execution of 21 natives- 12 being for murder and nine for treason’- there is not one word about rape. There is no reference to any accusation about rape. This is the problem about relying on personal memories, going back 35 years in the absence of documentary evidence. In what few documents survived there is not one reference to the crime of rape. That is not to say that that is not true. It may have been that rape was involved. What I am saying is that in the absence of the documents it is impossible to form any kind of judgment.

The most important issues in the controversy over the Australian Army’s hanging of indigenes in New Guinea are, firstly, the selective omission or suppression of important documents relating to the nation’s history; secondly, the whole question of the relationship between a civilian government at home and the actions of its armies in the field; and, thirdly, the all-too-ready assumption that ‘what you don’t know doesn’t hurt you’ and that national ignorance on distasteful subjects is preferable to knowledge of the facts which could lead us to make balanced, informed judgments. I have been concerned, but not altogether surprised, by the bitterness of the attacks made on me in many letters I have received- many anonymous, some obscene and all of them missing the point.

I have been accused, for example, of political stirring. For what purpose? There is no suggestion of an attack on the Fraser Government. I do not know when the archives disappeared. It could have been under the Chifley Government, the Menzies Government or under the Whitlam Government. There is no suggestion of an attack on the Fraser Government. I have made no criticism of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). Indeed, as I said tonight when I was talking to him, I think he has been extremely diligent and conscientious in pursuing the matter. It is a matter of conscience.

Mr Neil:

– What are you whingeing about?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Because the national record has been mutilated. That is what I am whingeing about. The angry and defensive reaction to my pointing up Mr Ellicott ‘s disclosures is that the relevant files are missing from all archival depositories- in Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne and Port Moresby. They have all been destroyed by some miraculous coincidence. I think this illustrates what I have sometimes called the ‘avoidance syndrome’- the marked unwillingness of Australians to face unpleasant issues directly or to explain their actions fully. I find Sir Edmund Herring’s position somewhat contradictory. If the 1943 hangings were so vital to preserve law and order in New Guinea, why was the Australian Government never informed about them? Sir Edmund Herring said: We were decent people trying to do the decent thing by them’. When the Australian Government asked for details, why did the Army say that there had been only seven hangings? I do not know the final figure yet. It is clearly more than 60 and may well be more than 100. But the Army was not in New Guinea for its own purposes. It was there as an agent of the civilian government.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– The Labor Government.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-A11 right. Why could not the Labor Government of the day be told the truth? The destruction of our history is an act of self-mutilation. If we accept it without protest we reduce ourselves to the status of moral pygmies. We ought to be in a position to know the facts and to form some kind of judgment, based on all relevant circumstances of the war. Knowledge may promote understanding: Ignorance cannot. I am alarmed by the apparent enthusiasm for suppression. Given the past record of the honourable member for St George I can understand his sensitivity on the grounds of wartime atrocities and war crimes. I can understand too that, if he could possibly exercise the power to suppress records, his own records would be amongst the first to go. The mutilation of our national records is a crime against the nation. How can we write the history of this country unless we understand all aspects of it? We cannot produce a kind of Pollyanna history.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL (St George)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NEIL:

– Yes, I do claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) claimed that my records have disappeared. To the best of my knowledge, when I became the Liberal candidate his former Defence Minister, Mr Morrison, got out my file to try to investigate it in the most disgraceful act of political chicanery.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– I require the debate to be extended, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not hear some of the comments made earlier tonight in the adjournment debate about matters relating to a land purchase on the Gold Coast and the former Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I did hear some remarks on the loudspeaker in my room and it seemed to me that there was some suggestion, some insinuation, some implication that the former Minister had somehow attempted to influence decisions of the Commission to the advantage of a constituent in relation to the land purchase in question. I want to make it quite clear, as I have already made it clear in this House during Question Time and in a written reply to questions asked of me recently, that there is no foundation whatsoever for any such insinuations, implications or allegations. To suggest that such is the case is to indulge in a cheap smear. In view of the potential importance of the allegations made some few days ago, a most careful examination of the facts was made. That careful examination made it quite clear, and it is beyond doubt on the words of the Chairman of the Austraiian Postal Commission and the Managing Director of the Australian Postal Commission, that there was no impropriety of any sort in the actions of the former Minister for Post and Telecommunications. If anyone is attempting to draw a long bow and to insinuate any impropriety, then he is challenging the integrity of the Managing Director of the Australian Postal Commission, who is one of Australia’s most senior and respected public servants. What is more, there is at the same time a challenge to the veracity, the basic honesty, of the Labor-appointed Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission.

Mr Armitage:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On page 4 of the Minister’s reply to me -

Mr Neil:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr Armitage:

-Let me make my point. On page 4 of the Minister’s reply to me, which I hold here in my hand, the Minister said that if Mr

McMaster was prepared to consider a lower figure -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

– I ask leave to incorporate this document in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

– I ask leave to incorporate this document in Hansard

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member does not have the right to the call at this stage of the debate. The 10 minutes ‘ extension is restricted to Ministers.

Mr STALEY:

– If the honourable member is asking that my previous answer on this matter be incorporated in Hansard, I am delighted to seek leave of the House to have it incorporated. Is it the same document?

Mr Armitage:

– The document is dated 1 1 May 1978 and is addressed to me and in it the Minister answered Mr McMahon.

Mr STALEY:

– Yes, that is the one.

Mr Armitage:

– Including all the attachments, because they tell the story.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The document read as follows-

page 2560

QUESTION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES QUESTION

On 4 May 1 978, Mr J. L. McMahon asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: What is the purpose for which land bought at Bundall, Queensland on 4 February 1977 by the Australian Postal Commission is to be used? For how long prior to the purchase had the Commission been seeking land in the Bundall area? What departmental officers or Government members were aware of the Commission ‘s interest in acquiring land at Bundall?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– The results of my enquiries are set out below.

The former Postmaster-General’s Department and Australia Post had been continuously seeking land in the Gold Coast area since 1974 to be used as the site for a mail centre. After much searching Australia Post indicated to the Department of Administrative Services in March 1976 that the Bundall area was one of its preferences.

Over this period there would have been many officials in Australia Post and the Depanment of Administrative Services aware of Australia Post ‘s interest.

On 23 August 1976, Australia Post was informed by Watkins Limited that they had for sale at $240,000, a piece of land on the corner of Crombie Avenue and Upton Street, Bundall. On 25 August 1976, Australia Post advised the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, that this land met all of its requirements and to concentrate on an early acquisition.

On IS October, 1976, Australia Post learnt that the Bundall land had been sold to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd for $240,000 or $248,000. Australia Post expressed concern to the Department of Administrative Services that what had appeared to be a straightforward acquisition, and most attractive to Australia Post, failed at the last moment due to the initiative of another purchaser and delays in the purchasing process.

Because the land was so ideally suited for postal purposes, Australia Post asked the Department of Administrative Services to pursue negotiations with the new owner.

Initial negotiations were carried on with Ron McMaster Pty Ltd from October to December 1976. During this period the vendor moved his asking price down from $350,000 to $3 10,000. On 9 December 1976, the Australian Postal Commission decided to defer the matter pending careful examination of the facts surrounding the sale to Ron McMaster Pty Ltd and on 17 December 1976, the Commission decided not to proceed with the acquisition and to release Ron McMaster Pty Ltd from the offer of $3 10,000. This decision was taken because the Australian Postal Commission was concerned that the vendor was in a position to make a considerable capital profit.

The Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, advised Ron McMaster Pty Ltd on 20 December 1976 that the Commission did not wish to proceed with the purchase.

In making this decision, the Commission had before it a final valuation on the land by the Australian Taxation Office of$360,000.

During the period of these negotiations the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications was asked , entirely at the initiative of the Commission, whether the proposed purchase, which would take place in his electorate, would be an embarrassment to him. The then Minister indicated that he would have no difficulties if the Commission were to purchase property in his electorate even if the Commission’s ultimate decision was to purchase at a profit to the present owner.

After receipt of the letter of 20 December 1976, Mr McMaster made immediate representations to his local Member, the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, questioning the decision notified by the Department of Administrative Services, and indicating that he believed that the Australian Postal Commission was still keen to buy the property.

The Minister rang the Acting Chief General Manager of the Australian Postal Commission on 30 December 1976, and made it clear that he did not want to be associated with any negotiations but that for the purpose of dealing with the representations from Mr McMaster it would be helpful if the Minister knew the Commission ‘s attitude so he could tell Mr McMaster where he stood in the matter.

The Minister asked that the Managing Director contact him on 4 January 1977 and indicated that he would delay answering Mr McMaster ‘s representations until after he had spoken with the Managing Director.

When the Managing Director contacted the Minister on 4 January 1977, the Minister confirmed the substance of his conversation with the Acting Chief General Manager. The Managing Director informed the Minister that the Australian Postal Commission would very much like to acquire the site but felt strongly its public responsibilities and would not contemplate a substantial profit being made by the vendor.

The Managing Director also indicated to the Minister that if Mr McMaster were prepared to consider a lower figure than $310,000, he should contact the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland, and the Manager, Planning and Technical Services, Australia Post, Queensland.

The Minister indicated that he would pass on to Mr McMaster the Managing Director’s advice.

Mr McMaster subsequently entered into negotiations with the Department of Administrative Services on 7 January 1977. The property was purchased from Ron McMaster Pty Ltd on 8 February 1977 at a cost of $280,000, which was $80,000 below the Taxation Valuation.

On 8 May 1978, 1 contacted the former Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, Mr J. J. Kennedy and the Managing Director, Mr A. F. Spratt, to seek their recollections of the matter.

Mr Kennedy has written to me as follows: 8th May, 1978.

The Honourable A. Staley, M.P., Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

My dear Minister,

In response to your telephone call, I confirm that I have a very clear recollection of the events surrounding the purchase of land at the Gold Coast by the Australian Postal Commission, which I understand is now the subject of an investigation by your good self.

The Commission negotiated strenuously for this most suitable site for a mail sorting centre, and although it was valued at about $350,000, in the event was able to purchase it for $280,000.00, after prolonged negotiations.

I understand there has been a suggestion that the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, The Honourable Eric Robinson, was in some way involved in influencing the Commission to purchase the property, so that the vendor would make a profit of some $40,000.00.

I do not wish to get involved in any political controversy, but I must state that, to my knowledge, no pressure or influence, implied, implicit, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by the then Minister, The Honourable Eric Robinson, in the Commission’s deliberations on the matter. The Minister made it quite clear to me that any decision on the purchase of the property at the Gold Coast was a decision that was entirely up to the Postal Commission, and he was particularly concerned, following a breakdown in the negotiations, that any re-opening of negotiations was entirely up to the Postal Commission.

The Minister made no attempt to influence the Commission ‘s decision to purchase the Gold Coast land. The land was purchased at a fair price below valuation, and was the most suitable land for the purpose. Less suitable land was available at a higher price, and this was taken into account in the Commission ‘s decision.

Yours sincerely,

  1. J. Kennedy

40008

Mr Spratt has by minute informed me as follows:

page 2561

PURCHASE OF SITE FOR MAIL CENTRE ON THE GOLD COAST (FEBRUARY 1977)

On 4 January 1977 after conferring by telephone with our State Manager, Queensland and our Chairman, I contacted by telephone the Minister for Post and Telecommunications further to his discussions with our Acting Chief General Manager on 30 December 1976.

The Minister confirmed as he had said to our Acting Chief General Manager on 30 December 1976 that he, the Minister, had been approached by Mr R. McMaster, seeking information whether the Australian Postal Commission would still be interested in the purchase of his, Mr McMaster ‘s, property if the asking price were reduced.

In discussion with the Minister I made the following points:

The Commission would very much like to acquire the site under sale to Mr McMaster but felt strongly its public responsibilities and could not contemplate an exorbitant profit being made by the new owner- in other words the Commission being ‘taken for a ride and ripped ofF. The Commission was also sensitive to the fact that the site was located in the Minister’s electorate.

The Commission would not consider dealing at the asking price of $3 10,000 but if Mr McMaster is prepared to come to a lower figure and talk, he should contact the Chief Property Officer, Department of Administrative Services, Queensland and the Manager, Planning and Technical Services, Australia Post, Queensland

The Minister indicated that he would pass on to Mr McMaster my advice that we would be prepared to reopen negotiations at a lower figure if Mr McMaster were to initiate contact with the relevant Queensland officers.

My contact with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on 4 January 1977 was the only occasion on which we discussed the proposed purchase. My clear impression from our Acting Chief General Manager and from the Minister is that the initiative had been taken by Mr McMaster. Furthermore, there was no suggestion by the Minister, either direct or implied, that we should reopen negotiations, nor was there any indication that the Minister had any involvement or wish to intervene other than to respond helpfully to Mr McMaster ‘s inquiry to him.

A. F. Spratt Managing Director 8 May 1978

The purchasing procedures which are set out in the Land Acquisition Act are there to protect the public interest. There must always be some risk that a private person or organisation will step in and purchase a property, although active negotiations are being pursued at a time by the Government authority and the vendor. In this particular instance it is unfortunate that the proposed acquisition by Australia Post was not finalised when the offering price was $240,000.

On 22 February 1977, the then Minister, Mr Robinson, wrote to the Minister for Administrative Services referring to the Lands Acquisition Act requirement that property transactions be conducted through the Department of Administrative Services. Mr Robinson said this requirement created difficulties for Australia Post obtaining properties quickly. The first example of delays which was quoted was the delay in purchasing the Bundall site on the Gold Coast.

Mr STALEY:
LP

-As I have pointed out, the Labor-appointed Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission- appointed by the Whitlam Government- has answered any allegation in relation to impropriety by the former Minister. Mr Kennedy, who has now resigned as Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, said in response to my request for information about this very serious allegation:

I do not wish to get involved in any political controversy, but I must state that, to my knowledge, no pressure or influence, implied, implicit, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by the then Minister, the Hon. Eric Robinson, in the Commission ‘s deliberations on the matter.

Mr Armitage:

– I raise a point of order. My whole case which I put before the House earlier rests on the inaccuracy of the Minister’s reply in protecting his colleague, Mr Robinson.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired. If no other Minister seeks the call the Minister for Post and Telecommunications may again be called. I call the Minister.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– I will continue to deal with this trumped up charge. The reply from the then Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, Mr J. J. Kennedy, proceeds as follows:

The Minister made it quite clear to me that any decision on the purchase of the property at the Gold Coast was a decision that was entirely up to the Postal Commission, and he was particularly concerned, following a breakdown in the negotiations, that any re-opening of negotiations was entirely up to the Postal Commission.

The Minister made no attempt to influence the Commission ‘s decision to purchase the Gold Coast land. The land was purchased at a fair price below valuation, and was the most suitable land for the purpose. Less suitable land was available at a higher price, and this was taken into account in the Commission ‘s decision.

They were the words of the Labor appointed Chairman of the Postal Commission, a person who is not even in the position today and who therefore would have no motive whatsoever to support a Minister over whom any cloud hung in this matter. Further, the Managing Director of the Australian Postal Commission, one of Australia’s most senior and respected public servants, on the same issue said that there was no suggestion by the Minister either direct or implied that we should re-open negotiations, nor was there any indication that the Minister had any involvement or wish to intervene other than to respond helpfully to Mr McMaster ‘s inquiry to him. Those responses from those people settled this issue once and for all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate is concluded. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Friday, 26 May 1978.

House adjourned at 11.7 p.m.

page 2563

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Pre-school and Child Care Programs (Question No. 133)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

Can the Australian Bureau of Statistics now provide figures for the identified outlay of State governments on preschool and child care programs for 1976-77 (Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3 166).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has provided the following table, which shows the amounts spent on pre-school and child care programs that can be identified from State Government Public Accounts; they should be regarded as approximate and may not be fully comparable between the States. State outlays include grants to local authorities made from funds provided by the Commonwealth under its Preschools and Child Care Program. Direct payments from the Commonwealth Government to local government authorities, which do not pass through State Government accounts, are not included.

Telephone Charges: Local Call Access to Metropolitan Zones (Question No. 167)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Sydney metropolitan telephone zone comprise the area withing a radius of 24 kilometres of the General Post Office and do the outer metropolitan zones comprise the areas within a radius of between 24 and 40 kilometres.
  2. What percentage of the (a) metropolitan and (b) outer metropolitan zones is over (i) land and (ii) water.
  3. What number and percentage of subscribers’ services in Sydney do not have local call access to the metropolitan zone.
  4. What are the comparable figures for Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Penh.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Sydney telephone charging zone (inner metropolitan zone) is the area embracing all telephone exchanges located within a radial distance of 24 km of the Sydney GPO. The outer Sydney telephone zones cover the area embracing exchanges within a radial distance of between 24 km and about 40 km of the GPO.
  2. If the zones were taken to be based on circles centred on the Sydney GPO with radii of 24 and 40 km, the percentages would be approximately:

    1. (i) 63.5; (ii) 36.5
    2. (i) 50.0; (ti) 50.0.
  3. and (4) The answers to these parts of the honourable member’s question will vary according to what definition of a metropolitan area is used. Telecom defines the metropolitan area in respect of each State capital city as the area covered by the capital city zone and all zones which adjoin it. By this definition all subscribers within the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Penh have local call access to the inner metropolitan zone.

Migrant Arrivals: Classification (Question No. 216)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

How many of the intake of migrants during 1977-78 came to Australia (a) for family reunion, (b) as refugees, (c) as specially approved cases, showing the general nature of these cases (d) from New Zealand and (e) as skilled workers required to overcome specific skilled worker bottlenecks.

Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Preliminary estimates indicate that migrant arrivals during the first nine months of 1977-78 were made up as follows:

16,1 18 person; for family reunion.

5,95 1 persons as refugees.

3,206 persons as specially approved cases consisting principally of those approved on humanitarian grounds, together with ‘patrials’ (UK citizens who are the children or grandchildren of an Australian-born person) and persons having a long and close association with Australia.

7, 1 77 persons from New Zealand, and

23,964 persons who were workers possessing skills in short supply (and the dependents of such workers).

Departmental Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 267)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department’s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on:

    1. overseas and
    2. domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of5 October 1977 as question No. 1635 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Department of National Development was created on 20 December 1977. The figures shown below refer to expenditure incurred by the former Department of National Resources whose accounting records are still held by my Department.

1 ) The amounts expended on fares and travelling allowances excluding car hire in 1 976-77 are set out below:

  1. The percentage of the Department’s expenditure on travel and subsistence, excluding car hire, were:
  1. Yes.

Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft in Malaysia (Question No. 287)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether Malaysia has reached the stage of self-reliance in the provision of defence aircraft at which the Australian Government stated that the RAAF Mirages would be withdrawn from Butterworth Air Base.
  2. If so, what is the reason for the retention of these aircraft in Malaysia.
  3. Is he satisfied that the security arrangements at Butterworth for the protection of RAAF aircraft against terrorists are adequate.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Australia is a party to the 1971 Five Power communique in which Ministers undertook to ‘co-operate, in accordance with their respective policies’, in the field of defence.

In accordance with the communique and in the same year, Australia entered into agreement with the Malaysian Government to co-operate in the development of its armed forces.

Though changes have occurred in both the global and the regional situations since 1971 neither of the Governments concerned takes the view that the RAAF deployment at Butterworth has lost its relevance to their concerns.

The Australian Government has no present intention to make any change to the deployment, which, I know from my recent visit to Malaysia, continues to be welcomed by the Malaysian Government.

  1. Yes.

Australia Post Employees: Membership of Unions (Question No. 297)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1978.

  1. 1 ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of the Australian Postal Commission belong.
  2. How many employees belong to each union.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Employees of the Australian Postal Commission belong to the following staff organisations:

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union

Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists

Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association

Australian Postmasters ‘ Association Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers)

Australian Telecommunications Employees Association Postal Overseers ‘ Union

Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia

Professional Officers ‘ Association

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Commissions Heads of Departments, Divisions and Branches Association

Australian Journalists ‘ Association

Australian Public Service Artisans Association

Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union

Building Workers Industrial Union

The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia

The Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia

The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union

The Australasian Society of Engineers

Electrical Trades Union of Australia

The Telecommunications Technical Officers’ Association

The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union

Non-official Postmasters’ Association.

  1. The question of membership numbers is, of course, the responsibility of each staff organisation and this information is not held by the Commission.

Telecom Employees Membership of Unions (Question No. 298)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of the Australian Telecommunications Commission belong.
  2. ) How many employees belong to each union.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Employees of the Australian Telecommunications Commission belong to the following staff organisations:

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union

Australian Telecommunications Employees’ Association

Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers ‘ Association

Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association

Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers)

Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia

Professional Officers ‘ Association

Australian Public Service Artisans ‘ Association

Telecommunication Technical Officers’ Association

Association of Professional Engineers Australia

Line Inspectors ‘ Association Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists

Telecommunications Traffic and Supervisory Officers’ Association

Non-official Postmasters’ Association (Telephone Office Keepers)

Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Commissions Heads of Departments, Divisions and Branches Association

Australian Journalists ‘ Association

Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights’ Union

Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners

Building Workers’ Industrial Union

Electrical Trades Union

Federated Clerks’ Union

Federated Firefighters’ Union

Operative Painters and Decorators’ Union

Printing and Kindred Industries Union

Professional Radio and Electronic Institute of Australia

Vehicle Builders Employees ‘ Federation of Australia.

  1. The question of membership numbers is, of course, the responsibility of each staff organisation and this information is not held by the Commission.

Vandalism of Public Telephones (Question No. 300)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of vandalism to public telephones in (a) Australia and (b) the Brisbane Telecom District during 1976-77.
  2. How many convictions were recorded in (a) Australia and (b) the Brisbane Telecom District during 1976-77.
  3. Is any effort made by his Department to recover the costs of repairs should a conviction be successful.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia does not record separately the cost of vandalism to public telephones. However for the year 1976-77 the estimated costs were: (a) $3,820,000, (b) $243,000.
  2. (a) 382, (b) 74.
  3. In all cases the Commission seeks full restitution of costs.

Non-official Postmasters (Question No. 350)

Mr Fitzpatrick:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are members of the Unofficial Postmasters ‘ Association seeking an increase in their rate of pay from Telecom Australia.
  2. Is tremendous work undertaken by members of the Association in providing a vital communications link in remote parts of Australia.
  3. 3 ) Is it considered that the payment of $ 1 .60 an hour (40c an hour between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.) is adequate recompense for these persons.
  4. In view of the massive profit of $99m announced by Telecom, will he urge Telecom to spend some of this profit in lifting the rates of pay for unofficial postmasters and in doing so ensure that vital communication links in the outback are maintained.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The service provided by non-official postmasters is important in the provision of telephone service in remote areas.
  3. Payment to non-official postmasters includes allowances in addition to payment for traffic handled. The awake’ component of the allowances is subject to National Wage indexation and was increased from the beginning of March 1978. The ‘sleeping’ component of the allowance is the subject of an offer by Telecom on 10 February 1978.
  4. Telecom’s profits are progressively invested in the Commission ‘s Capital Program and thus are being applied to finance necessary extensions of the telecommunications network to give improved and increased services to all sections of the Australian community including remote areas.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 400)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) two (b) none.
  2. $112.
  3. $598.

Croatian Embassy’ (Question No. 438)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. When was his attention drawn to the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ expressions of concern on 23 December 1977 at the establishment of a self-styled ‘Croatian Embassy’.
  2. Does he agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it would be unfortunate if citizens of Croatian origin were to be confused and their relations with their families in Yugoslavia compromised by their association with an institution which obviously could provide no consular or diplomatic services.
  3. Is it a fact that Australia has never recognised the independence of Croatia (Hansard, 28 April 1971, page 22 12 and 29 August 1972, page 858).
  4. What steps are being taken to end the display of a title and a flag which are not recognised by the Australian Government (Hansard, 7 March 1 978, page 435 ).
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) The answer to these questions was provided in the statement of the Government’s position made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 5 April 1978.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 515)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) pan-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Depanment of National Development was created on 20 December 1977. The costs shown below for 1976-77 refer to expenditure incurred by the former Depanment of National Resources whose accounting records are still held by my Depanment.

1 ) The Depanment of National Development currently employs on tea-making and distribution:

full-time staff- (i) Head Office 3, (ii) Other Offices 6.

part-time staff-(i) Head Office 1, (ii) Other Offices 1.

The cost to the Department of National Resources in 1976-77 was:

Salaries $70,781.

Other Charges $291.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Emergency Procedures (Question No. 596)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

Do contingency plans exist for the possible event of an accident at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission establishment at Lucas Heights; if so, what are the details of the plans which are calculated to protect (a) workers within the establishment, (b) residents living within a radius of 5 miles and (c) residents living between S miles and IS miles from the establishment.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Yes.

  1. Protection of workers within the AAEC Research Establishment is ensured by emergency procedures instituted by the AAEC’s health and safety organisations. The nature of the emergency procedures depends upon the type of accident and its likely effect.
  2. and (c) Procedures designed to protect residents in surrounding areas include alerting the relevant emergency organisations, speedy termination of the cause of the accident, evaluation of potential health and safety hazards and institution of counter-measures. The details of the emergency arrangements, as with (a) above, depend upon the nature of the accident.

Employment: Two Incomes (Question No. 624)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Women and Work Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 2, January 1978, has his Department made any investigations into the percentage of two income earners who are married.
  2. What percentage of married two income families have children.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has made no investigations into the percentage of two income earners who are married. The information contained in the Women and Work Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 2, January 1978 was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Income Distribution 1973-74-Parts 1 and 2 (Reference No. 17.8) which provides information on the income of individuals and families.
  2. The precise information sought is not available. However data are available on families where both husband and wife are in the labour force. Such families would include those where one or other (or both) of the husband or wife were unemployed and not earning income. These data are published in the Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of Families, November 1974, (Reference No. 6.57). The publication shows there were an estimated 1,221,800 married couple families with both the husband and wife in the labour force. Of these an estimated 59.3 per cent (or 724,500) had dependent children present. The publication also shows that of the married couple families with both husband and wife in the labour force, 44,100 (or 3.6 per cent) had either the husband, the wife or both unemployed. Since the data are based on a sample they may differ from those that would have been obtained from a complete census using the same questionnaires and procedures.

Conciliation and Arbitration: Auditing of Accounts of Registered Organisations (Question No. 669)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that no proclamation has yet been made to bring into operation section 25 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 3) 1977 assented to on 21 October 1977.
  2. Does section 25 insert ‘Part VIII AA- Accounts and Audit in Respect of Registered Organisations’ in the Principal Act.
  3. Is the delay in proclaiming the section due, wholly or partly, to the difficulties faced by auditors in auditing the accounting records of organisations which, pending the resolution of the situation to which the Industrial Court sought urgent attention in its judgment on 25 February 1969 in the case of Moore v Doyle, are required to register as separate organisations under the Federal Act and under one or more of the industrial arbitration acts of the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The delay in proclaiming the section is due to the fact that the regulations necessary to the operation of Pan VIII AA of the Act have not yet been made. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to consultation with trade union and employer peak councils, the format and content of proposed regulations is presently being examined by the National Labour Consultative Council. The implications of Moore v Doyle are not a reason for the delay.

Atomic Energy Research Establishment: Radioactive Waste (Question No. 806)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. With reference to the fenced area approximately 1 kilometre north-west of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, when were the signs proclaiming jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment and prohibiting public access erected.
  2. When was the area fenced.
  3. Is there any material considered dangerous or potentially dangerous to the public enclosed by the barbed wire fence; if so, what is the material and the quantity involved.
  4. Is the area under constant surveillance; if so, by what means and at what costs.
  5. 5 ) What is the annual cost of maintenance of this area.
  6. Have tenders been called or any contracts granted for work to be carried out on the land; if so, what is the nature and purpose of the work involved.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. A quantity of waste contaminated with extremely low amounts of radioactivity and toxic chemicals was buried in the area between 1960-1968. The levels were such as would permit similar waste in the UK or USA to be disposed of at municipal garbage dumps, thereby ensuring a measure of dilution and later coverage which is satisfactory to the authorities in those countries. The radiation level on the surface is effectively the same as normal background radiation in the area.
  2. Yes; by Commonwealth Police stationed at the AAEC Research Establishment as pan of their routine duties.
  3. ) Approximately $ 1 ,300 at 1 978 rates.
  4. Yes; the grass is cut under contract approximately twice a year to reduce the fire hazard in the area.

Unemployment, Sydney Area (Question No. 850)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

How many unemployed persons were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service offices at (a) Leichhardt, (b) Rozelle, (c) Surry Hills, (d) Marrickville and (e) the City of Sydney (i) in the year 1976-77 and (ii) during the period 1 July 1977 to 31 March 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. to (e) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable member contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Tasmanian Beer: Freight Equalisation Assistance (Question No. 903)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 April 1978:

In order to promote increased consumption of Tasmania’s Cascade beer by non-Tasmanian members of the Federal Parliament, will he ascertain what freight equalisation payments currently apply to the interstate export of Tasmanian beer bearing in mind that a half can of Cascade beer is currently retailing in the Parliamentary Bar at a price of 6 1 cents.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The current freight equalisation assistance payable for the interstate movement from Southern Tasmania of beer is $14 per cubic metre to Victoria, $15 per cubic metre to South Australia/ Western Australia and $ 1 7 per cubic metre to the rest of the Mainland. For each 370 ml can of Cascade beer, these rates of assistance are approximately equivalent to 1.44c to Victoria, 1.54c to Western Australia/South Australia and 1.75c to the rest of the Mainland.

Air Services to and from Tasmania (Question No. 926)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that on the afternoon and evening of 23 March 1978 a number of commercial airline flights in and out of Tasmania were either delayed for several hours or simply cancelled, and that on 10 April 1978 flights from Tasmania were again delayed, jeopardising the attendance of Tasmanian members and senators at the Federal Parliament.
  2. ) Will he now give a firm directive to the major commercial airlines that where through shortage of planes or any other reason flights have to be delayed or cancelled, flights to and from Tasmania shall be exempted and shall not be delayed or cancelled, bearing in mind the fact that Australians living on the mainland have access to alternative road and rail transport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is correct that on 23 March 1 978 and 10 April 1 978 airline services between Tasmania and the mainland were disrupted.

Disruption on 23 March 1 978 was caused by some aircraft unserviceability and deteriorating weather conditions at a number of locations on the airlines networks.

On 10 April 1978 there was severe storm activity which closed Melbourne, Devonport and Wynyard airports for several hours, resulting in some flights being delayed and others cancelled.

  1. The honourable member will recognise from the above explanation that it would not be appropriate for me to give a firm directive to the airlines that they should not delay or cancel Tasmanian nights through shortage of planes or any other reasons.

Former Regular Servicemen’s Vocational Training Scheme (Question No. 941)

Mr Chapman:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

Does the Government plan to expand the Former Regular Servicemen’s Vocational Training Scheme so that it can provide training for former servicemen with less than 15 years service.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The Former Regular Servicemen’s Vocational Training Scheme was introduced on 1 February 1978. It was developed after consultations with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, and detailed discussions between representatives from my Department, the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces.

There are no proposals under consideration which would reduce the qualifying period to less than the completion of 15 years effective full time service, although the Scheme makes an exception for members who have been discharged on the grounds of invalidity. However, former members of the Regular Defence Forces who are not eligible for training under this Scheme, may seek resettlement training through the National Employment and Training Scheme (NEAT).

Australian School Dental Service (Question No. 943)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the total expenditure, both capital and recurrent, on the Australian School Dental Service in 1 976-77.
  2. How many children were fully under the care of the ASDS in 1976-77.
  3. What surveys have been undertaken on the dental health of children after they have ceased to be under the care of the ASDS.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) $28.4m, comprising $8.6m for capital expenditure and $ 19.8m for recurrent expenditure. Of these amounts the Commonwealth provided $7. 7m and $ 14.7m respectively.
  2. 339,880.
  3. Although no surveys have been undertaken on the dental health of children after they have ceased to be under the care of the ASDS, the National Dental Survey which is now being planned would provide this information. Surveys which are currently being finalised deal with the dental health of children who were examined in the State and Territorial School Dental Services in 1977.

Northern Territory Primary Producers Board: Purchase of Property (Question No. 956)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 2 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Paul Everingham, arrange purchase of the Scott Creek- Willeroo property by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly through its Primary Producers Board, with the sale to become effective 3 1 March 1978.
  2. Under what statutory powers did the Board (a) acquire and manage the property on behalf of the previous owner or receiver and (b) buy and sell stock and equipment.
  3. Has final settlement been delayed by Mr Everingham ‘s refusing a loan offered by the receiver and seeking a European loan at a lower interest rate, thus bypassing the Loan Council, without provision for adjustment of interest with currency fluctuations.
  4. Who will pay employees on the property for work since 31 March 1978.
  5. Did Mr Everingham warn him that a scandal could arise from this transaction.
  6. Did he reply to the effect that complaints would be referred to Mr Everingham.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

Responsibility for the administration of the Northern Territory Primary Producers Board was transferred to the Northern Territory Executive on 1 January 1977. Accordingly, I have referred the matter to the Majority Leader, Mr Paul Everingham.

Airlines: Anti-hijack Procedures (Question No. 984)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the nature of anti-hijack procedures followed by (a) domestic airlines and (b) international airlines at Australian airports.
  2. What is the legislative authority under which airline operators are required to carry out anti-hijack procedures.
  3. Will he detail the specific provisions of the relevant legislative authority.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Domestic airlines are required to:

    1. prevent or deter the unauthorised carriage on their aircraft of any firearm, weapon, ammunition, explosive or incendiary device, in baggage or on the person of a passenger;
    2. prevent or deter unauthorised access to their aircraft;
    3. ensure that baggage, cargo and mail are loaded only in accordance with the company’s specified security procedures;
    4. ensure that adequate inspections of aircrafts are conducted in the event of bomb or other threats being received.
    1. International airlines are required to observe the same procedures as the domestic airlines both in Australian territory and at least at posts from which aircraft last depart for Australia.
  2. The Air Navigation Act and the Air Navigation Regulations made under that Act.
  3. Air Navigation Regulations No. 82 (2) and 89 (2) are applicable in the case of all airlines. Air Navigation Regulation No. 82 (2) provides that aerodromes and air route and airway facilities established or provided in pursuance of this Regulation shall be under the control and management of the Secretary to the Department of Transport who may, subject to these Regulations, determine the conditions of the use thereof. Air Navigation Regulation No. 89 (2) provides that the Secretary to the Department of Transport may, in relation to any aerdrome, air route or airway facility, air route or airway licensed, authorised, established or designated under this Part, issue such directions as he considers necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and compliance with the standards, recommended practices and procedures adopted from time to time in pursuance of the Convention. The Secretary has exercised powers conferred on him by these Regulations to require the domestic airlines to observe security procedures at airports.

Part XVIA of the Air Navigation Regulations is specifically applicable to international airlines. It provides that an operator of an international airline service to or from Australia shall not cause or permit an aircraft used in that service to fly over Australian territory or land at or take off from an Australian airport unless an aviation security program prepared and submitted by the operator has been approved by the Secretary and that approval is in force.

Payments to Connair Pty Ltd (Question No. 987)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. What sums has his Department paid to Connair Pty Ltd or its predecessor, Connellan Airways Pty Ltd, in each year since 1962.
  2. For what reasons were the amounts paid in each of these years.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. $56.00 on 17 June 1977.
  2. ) Air fare from Darwin to Gove.

Shipping Freights (Question No. 1004)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. What are the various surcharges that freight forwarders using Conference rates make, in particular the bunker surcharge and the currency adjustment factor, what is their purpose, and how are they calculated.
  2. Can he advise whether freight forwarders charging Conference rates deduct the full container load discount before applying the currency and bunker adjustment factors.
  3. Are any regulations in force which require forwarders to detail these charges in invoices to importers.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Conference lines in our overseas trades charge a basic rate for the carriage of sea freight between specified ports in Australia and overseas. They add to this basic rate surcharges, such as the bunker adjustment factor (BAF) and the currency adjustment factor (CAF). The magnitude of the surcharges are negotiated between the Conferences and the Australian Shippers’ Council. The BAF, or bunker surcharge as it is sometimes known, was introduced at the time of the oil crisis when fuel prices rose sharply, and at such frequent intervals that ship operators were unable to absorb the cost. The surcharge is calculated using a formula which varies from trade to trade depending on ports of bunkering, types of fuel used etc.

The CAF has been introduced by Conference lines as a contingency provision aimed at alleviating the short term effects of currency fluctuations and avoiding any significant financial gains or losses to shippers or shipowners. They are calculated using a basket of currencies in which shipping companies make disbursements. BAF and CAF surcharges are usually applied as a percentage of the basic rate. However, with the stabilisation of oil prices, an increasing number of shipping companies now incorporate this cost component in basic rates, with appropriate provision for adjustments should the cost of bunkers exceed agreed limits. Currency fluctuations however, have not stabilised sufficiently for the CAF to be generally incorporated in basic rates. In addition to the above rates, there are also fixed rates charged by Conference lines for wharfage and additional services such as transhipment, change of destination or discharge port, port congestion, receiving and loading, and inland haulage etc.

  1. Freight forwarders are normally employed where individual shippers do not have sufficient cargo to fill a container. In cases where freight forwarders are able to ship full container loads (FCLs), I understand individual clients are billed according to their proportion of the freight, net of the allowance, as charged by the shipping lines. BAF and CAF are generally applied to the basic freight rate, before adjustments for additions and allowances.
  2. ) I am not aware of any regulations in force which require freight forwarders to detail charges in invoices to importers.

Shipping Freights (Question No. 1005)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he party to the setting of freight charges to Australia by the Outward Continent/Australia Conference; if not, is Australia ‘s interest in this matter represented at all.
  2. What incentives are offered to European freight forwarders to use only Conference vessels and charge Conference rates.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Pan X of the Trade Practices Act which regulates overseas cargo shipping provides for negotiations of freight rates in outwards trades only. Inwards rates are established by the Outward Comment/Australia Conference in Europe.
  2. Information is not available on specific incentives, if any, that may be offered to European freight forwarders to use only Conference vessels and charge Conference rates. However the shippers generally find Conference services more attractive because of the quality of service offered in relation to frequency and regularity of sailings, reliability of sailing schedules as well as wider range of ports served and other services offered by Conferences.

Migrant Arrivals: Source Countries (Question No. 1040)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

What were the five major source countries of permanent immigrants as at (a) 31 March 1978 (b) 31 March 1975 (c) 3 1 March 1970 and (d) 3 1 March 1 965.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The listings given below are ranked in the order of the numbers of settler arrivals from each of the countries concerned for the three month period prior to the given date.

31 March 1978-1 The United Kingdom and Ireland, 2 New Zealand, 3 Malaysia (arrivals included Indo-Chinese refugees), 4 South Africa, 5 Hong Kong.

31 March 1975-1 The United Kingdom and Ireland, 2 New Zealand, 3 Yugoslavia, 4 U.S.A. (arrivals included a large number of school teachers recruited in the U.S.A. by State Governments during this period of time), 5 South Africa.

31 March 1970-1 The United Kingdom and Ireland, 2 Yugoslavia, 3 Austria (arrivals included Refugees from Czechoslovakia), 4 Greece, 5 Italy.

31 March 1965-1 The United Kingdom and Ireland, 2 Greece, 3 Italy, 4 Malta, 5 Federal Republic of Germany.

Sources: (b) (c) and (d) Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Quarterly Statistical Summaries, (a) Provisional count of incoming passenger cards.

Sydney Airport: Usage (Question No. 1059)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many aircraft movements were recorded at Sydney Airport during each of the years 1 976 and 1 977.
  2. How many of these were (a) wide bodied jets, (b) conventional jets, (c) private jets, (d) propeller driven passenger aircraft, (e) private propeller driven aircraft and (0 other types of aircraft.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1976-156,136 movements, 1977-162,406 movements.
  2. Statistics of movements in the form requested by the honourable member ate not maintained by the Depanment. The following estimates of movements have been made:

Airline Security Procedures (Question No. 1080)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

What procedures are currently in force at Australian airports for security checks of freight and luggage, other than hand luggage, on (a) domestic and (b) international airlines.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Security checks of freight and luggage, other than hand luggage, are performed by both domestic and international airlines only at times of increased security alert. Luggage not accompanied by a passenger is subjected to manual searching before it is carried and freight deposited by an individual or by shippers who are not known to the airline is not carried during the period of the alert

Road Casualties, Adelaide Urban Area (Question No. 1081)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

Were the results of studies of major casualty road accidents in the Adelaide urban area, as mentioned on page 2 of his Department’s 1976-77 annual report, published; if not, will he undertake to do so.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The in-depth study of casualty accidents in Adelaide has not yet been completed. Work is expected to be finished by 30 June and a major report on the findings of the study will be published as soon as printing can be achieved.

Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 1085)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 May 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the National Times of 12-18 December 1977, in which it was reported that he had advised the Minister for Transport that Vietnamese refugees would be sent back; if so, is there any substance in the report; if so, when and by what means did he provide that advice.
  2. ) What was the precise content of the advice.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have read the report in question, and as I stated in a press release on 8 December, 1977, there has been no change in Australia’s refugee policy. Australia will not return genuine refugees to their country of origin. I also stated in that Press release that the Minister for Transport had assured me that reports which would suggest a change in the Government’s attitude were a misrepresentation and distortion of his comments.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1101)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department.
  2. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1,104.
  2. $118,619.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1113)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department.
  2. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Department of National Development was created on 20 December 1977. The figures shown below refer to expenditure incurred by the former Department of National Resources whose accounting records are still held by my Department.

$9,736.45.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1122)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department.
  2. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

$15,319.75.

School Building Costs (Question No. 1162)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government propose to have a joint FederalState inquiry into the rising building costs of government and non-government schools.
  2. If so, what will be the terms of reference for the inquiry.
  3. Who will be the persons conducting the inquiry.
  4. When is it proposed to have the report completed.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (4) In February 1977 the Australian Education Council, which is the body composed of Federal and State Ministers for Education, approved a co-operative study to be undertaken into the building costs of both government and non-government schools in Australia. The study had the objectives of achieving accurate comparisons of building costs, identifying reasons for divergences in costs and bringing forward recommendations on building costs based upon realistic and economic norms and guidelines.

Officers from the State Departments of Education and Public Works, the Schools Commission, the Commonwealth Departments of Education and Construction and experts from the private sector have been involved in the study.

A report has been completed and sent to the members of the Australian Education Council and will be listed for discussion at its next meeting.

Queensland Government Railways: Apprenticeship (Question No. 56)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state how many apprentices are employed at the railway workshops at (a) Ipswich and (b) Redbank, Queensland.
  2. How many of those apprentices are subsidised by the Australian Government and what is the total subsidy in each case in a full year.
  3. How many of those apprentices will be completing their trade training during 1978 and 1 979 and how many can expect the offer of full-time employment as tradesmen with the Queensland Railway Department.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following information relating to the number of apprentices employed by the Queensland Government Railways (QGR) has been provided by the Hon. F. A. Campbell MLA, Minister for Labour Relations. A total of 275 apprentices have been allotted to the workshops at Ipswich as at 1 March 1978. The Redbank workshops do not apply for apprentices to be allotted, but some of the apprentices employed at Ipswich are transferred, for varying periods, to the Redbank workshops to augment their training. The number training at Redbank varies as a result.
  2. The Australian Government subsidises the employment of QGR apprentices in two ways. Firstly, it pays the entire cost throughout apprenticeship of employing 18 apprentices allotted to the Ipswich workshops. These apprentices are employed under the Additional Apprentices Scheme and are surplus to the Railways requirements. It is expected that on completion of training, these apprentices will be available Tor employment in the private sector. During the calendar year 1977, $108,224 was paid to the Railways Department in respect of these apprentices. Records of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations show that the equivalent amount for 1976 was $76,146 and for 1975, $45,590. The second method through which financial assistance is provided is under the apprenticeship support schemes, CRAFT (Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training) introduced on 15-1-77 and NAAS (National Apprenticehip Assistance Scheme) which preceded CRAFT. The Employers’ Incentive Subsidy under NAAS was payable for first year apprentices. The CRAFT Technical Education Rebate is payable whenever technical education is carried out throughout the apprenticeship. The amounts paid in each year will therefore escalate as new intakes start their technical education. Bulk claims are submitted by Queensland Government Railways and as a result the amounts payable in respect of those apprentices employed at Ipswich cannot be identified. The following figures relate to the total of all QGR apprentices. In 1975 there was an average of 107 first year apprentices subsidised under NAAS during each quarter. The amount paid in respect of them was $10,373.55. No subsidies were paid in 1976 because the eligibility criteria for NAAS were not met that year. It is estimated that the 165 first year apprentices employed in 1977 will attract a total subsidy under CRAFT of $63,525 for 1977, some $40,816 of this having already been paid. Taking into account the 1978 intake of 76, the total CRAFT Technical Education Rebate payable for 1978 is likely to be some $97,000. (This will be payable in respect of first and second year apprentices attending compulsory technical education courses).
  3. 3 ) I am informed by Mr Campbell that it is expected that, during 1978, 60 of the apprentices allotted to the Ipswich workshops will complete their training and that 53 of them will be retained by QGR. During 1979, a further 87 Ipswich apprentices will complete training, but the number of them who will be retained in employment will depend on QGR’ actual requirements when each apprentice completes training.

Trade Unions: Demarcation (Question No. 291)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the case of Moore v. Doyle in the Commonwealth Industrial Court concern the separate legal identities of the Transport Workers Union of Australia registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch registered under the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act.
  2. Did the court (Spicer C. J., Smithers and Kerr J. J.) in its unanimous judgment on 25 February 1969 stress that a system of trade union organisation was urgently needed which would enable the one body to represent its relevant members in both the Federal and State arbitration systems.
  3. Did Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Co-ordinated Industrial Organisation tabled on 1 August 1974 recommend complementary Federal and State legislation.
  4. Did the Federal Parliament on 24 October 1974 pass the legislation which His Honour recommended.
  5. Were the implications of the judgment in Moore v. Doyle on the agenda at the 19th conference of the Ministers for Labour on 24 February 1 978, the eve of the 9th anniversary of the judgment; if so, what decisions were reached.
  6. How many man hours have been lost in each year in the last 9 years in the course of demarcation disputes between the Transport Workers Union entities registered under Federal and New South Wales laws.
  7. How many unions are now registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and how many of them still have branches registered in one or more of the four States which have separate systems of registration (Hansard, 25 February 1975, page 638).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. to (4) Yes.
  2. I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question without notice on 28 February 1978 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 28 February 1978, page 202).
  3. Information on the number of man hours lost in each year in the last 9 years in the course of demarcation disputes between the Transport Workers Union entities registered under Federal and New South Wales laws is not available. However, for the honourable member’s information the table below sets out such relevant information as is available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  1. As at 18 May 1978, there are 147 employee organizations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, of which 1 1 7 have branches in one or more of the States. It would involve an unwarranted use of resources by both Commonwealth and State authorities to ascertain how many of those branches are registered under State industrial legislation.

Investment Allowance (Question No. 315)

Mr Young:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

To what extent has (a) the automobile industry, (b) the textile industry, (c) the footwear industry and (d) the clothing industry utilised the availability of the current investment allowance.

Mr Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The detailed statistics that would enable precise estimates to be made on these lines are not available, but a broad dissection of the estimated $100m cost in respect of the current investment allowance in 1 975-76 income year would suggest that the aggregate cost attributable to these industries probably did not exceed $2m.

Investment Allowance: Financial Cost (Question No. 316)

Mr Young:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: what has been the cost to the Government of the investment allowance since its introduction in 1976.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The estimated cost of the investment allowance which applied to plant and equipment ordered after 1 January 1976 was $100m in respect of the 1975-76 income year. The cost in respect of plant purchased and installed in 1976-77 will not be known until all of the relevant assessments have been made, but on the information so far available the estimated cost is put at $325m

Personal Income Tax: Differential Rate (Question No. 361)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many personal income taxpayers in New South Wales reside outside the major metropolitan complex of Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.
  2. What would be the cost to revenue of providing a 2Vi per cent tax rebate to these taxpayers.
  3. Are there any constitutional barriers to the establishment of a differential tax rate by means of this rebate.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of taxable personal income taxpayers in New South Wales residing outside the major metropolitan complex of Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong is estimated at approximately 450,000.
  2. The cost to income tax revenue of providing a 2Vi per cent rebate to these taxpayers is estimated at approximately $ 13m per annum.
  3. Relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia are:

Section 5 1 -The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

  1. Taxation, but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States.

Section 99- The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.

School Students: Work Experience Plan (Question No. 373)

Mr Falconer:
CASEY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the work experience plan conducted by the Victorian Government since 1974 under which school students work in industry for a short period as an integral part of their education.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to comments by the Victorian Minister for Social Welfare, the Honourable Brian Dixon, M.P., that the scheme suffers from lack of recognition under Federal awards which could make employers liable to pay full award rates to students participating in the scheme; if so, have any steps been taken to overcome this difficulty.
  3. What consideration has been given to participation by Commonwealth Government departments and agencies in the scheme by providing opportunities within their Victorian establishments for this work experience.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; this matter has been condered in detail by the Conference of Ministers for Labour and the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee, and the views of members of the National Labour Consultative Council are being sought on possible approaches fore dealing with the difficulty to which the Victorian Minister for Social Welfare referred.
  3. The Public Service Board has advised my Department that it is willing to consider work experience proposals and is prepared to explore whether and how such proposals can be accommodated within existing employment and other relevant legislative provisions. The extent and nature of the Commonwealth Public Service’s participation in such schemes would be determined by the nature of any proposals and the legal and other difficulties that might be thrown up in detailed examination.

I understand that opportunities are currently available, where work demands and staff resources within Departments permit, for interested students to observe work undertaken in the Commonwealth Public Service. Special arrangements are also made for the employment of students who need to undertake appropriate employment to complete the practical requirements of their academic courses.

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 480)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer you to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 468 Hansard, 4 April 1 978, page 978.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 502)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Street:
LP

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

The general conditions relating to provision and operation of beverage services in Commonwealth establishments are outlined in Finance Directions, section 8, paras 13-18, and in other Department of Finance memoranda. Charges are apportioned as shown hereunder

Met from Departmental Appropriations

Attendants’ wages

Beverage vending machines

Mobile trolleys

Multipots

Boiling water units

Power and fuel costs

Utensils

Repairs and maintenance of equipment

Disposable plastic cups for use with beverage vending machines

Initial stocks of crockery, cutlery, vending machine cup holders and staff uniforms.

Met by Patrons

Ingredients

Replacement of crockery, cutlery, vending machine cup holders and staff uniforms

Laundry and detergents.

In some buildings, more than one Department is served by a single beverage service. In such cases a proportion of the staff involved and the associated running costs can be attributed to each of the occupant Departments.

My Head Office and some of my other offices are located in such buildings, and this situation is reflected in the staff figures and costs.

  1. 1 ) (i) Head Office-(a) Nil, (b) 1.3; (ii) Otheroffices-(a) 1.7, (b) 10.4.
  2. (i) $77,872.55 (includes an element of supervisory charge); (ii) $9, 143.43.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 509)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Department of Finance- Central Office

    1. 1 ) (a) 3 full-time, (b) 1 part-time.
    1. The Department of Finance was created on 7 December 1976. For the remainder of 1976-77 the Department provided a tea service to both the Department of Finance and the Department of the Treasury. The Central Office salary cost shown below is consequently the cost for tea attendant salaries for both Departments for the period 7 December 1 976 to 30 June 1 977. (The costs shown below for other offices’ are, however, for the whole of 1976-77). (i) $26,166. (ii) Nil. Costs incurred in the supplyof consumable and non-consumable items are the responsibility of a Tea Club which is financed by contributions by officers who make use of the tea service.
    2. Other Offices
    3. Royal Australian Mint

    4. 1 ) (a) None full-time; (b) 6 part-time.
    5. (i) $ 14,968. (ii) Nil. Patrons pay individually and their subscriptions are taken by the Cafeteria Trust which provides the Service.
  2. Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office

    1. 1 ) (a) 1 full-time; (b) none part-time.
    2. (i) $6,742. (ii) $1,295, in respect of maintenance of vending machines and provision of paper cups. Other costs were covered by the takings from the machine.
  3. Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust

    1. 1 ) (a) None full-time; (b) 1 part-time.
    2. (i) $5,028. (ii) Nil. All costs are met by staff contributions.

Departmental Libraries (Question No. 529)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in his Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. 3 ) What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the last 3 years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Department last reviewed by the Department and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has a Central Library in its head office in Melbourne with a branch in the Industrial Registry and a Regional Library in each of the six Australian State capital cities, and small collections in Darwin and Canberra.

The main purpose is to provide a Library based information service for the Department by collecting and disseminating the necessary published information for the Department’s research, policy-making and operational activities.

  1. ) The information in the form requested is not available. The following information is provided:

    1. Library expenditure on all categories of publications, including books and periodicals:

1974- 75-$6 1,999.00

1975- 76-$65,940.00

1976- 77-$74,046.00.

  1. Items currently held:

The information is provided here in terms of linear feet of library shelving occupied by books and other publications (e.g. pamphlets, legal collections, et cetera) and periodicals (including serials). Books and other publications (including pamphlets, legal collections et cetera): 4608 linear feet. The average number of books per linear foot is 16. Periodicals (including duplicate titles): 2415 linear feet. Representing 1000 titles.

  1. Estimated acquisition in 1977-78:

Books and other publications -Total is dependent on the availability of publications in subject areas relevant to departmental needs. $40,100.00 has been allocated.

Periodicals- It is expected that the same number of periodicals acquired in 1976-77 will be acquired in 1977-78. $54,250.00 has been allocated.

  1. The budget allocations for publications, binding and specialised stationery for each library in 1 977-78 are:
  1. The establishment of each library is as follows:

Central Office Library- 1 9 positions

New South Wales- 4 positions

Victoria- 2 positions

Queensland- 2 positions

South Australia- 2 positions

Western Australia- 2 positions

Tasmania- 2 positions

Industrial Registrar- 1 position.

However staffing levels in some of the departmental libraries are lower than the establishment provision:

Central Office- 1 2 staffof the following classification:

Librarian Class 3

Librarian Class 2

Librarian Class 1 (2 positions)

Library Officer Grade 2 (2 positions)

Library Officer Grade 1 (one position)

Clerical Assistant Grade 3 (three positions)

Clerical Assistant Grade 2 (two positions)

Industrial Registry- Clerical Assistant Grade 4

New South Wales-

Library Officer Grade 2

Clerical Assistant Grade 3(2 positions)

Victoria-

Library Officer Grade 1

Clerical Assistant Grade 3

Queensland-

Library Officer Grade 1

Clerical Assistant Grade 2

South Australia-

Library Officer Grade 1

Western Australia-

Library Officer Grade 1

Tasmania-

Library Officer Grade 1

Clerical Assistant Grade 2

No major staffing changes have taken place in the last three years.

  1. The provision of library services for Central Office was reviewed by the Department in 1976, and as an outcome of this a staff establishment review was undertaken. No such similar review has been undertaken in Regional Offices since 1 972. The new establishment in Central Office provides for a staff level of 19 officers.

Approval of this establishment was given by the Public Service Board on September 8, 1977.

Librarian Class 3

Librarian Class 2 (two positions)

Librarian Class 1 (two positions)

Library Officer Grade 2 (three positions)

Library Officer Grade 1 (two positions)

Clerical Assistant Grade 3 (three positions)

Clerical Assistant Grade 2 (four positions)

Clerical Assistant Grade 1 (one position)

  1. The public are free to make use of library collections in all the departmental libraries. Inter-library loans are made to any library requesting them. Loans are made directly to persons engaged in training programs et cetera, if there is no facility for an inter-library loan by one of the regional libraries. Public usage has not been accurately assessed, but members of the public, and in particular students from secondary and tertiary institutions, people from private business firms, industrial establishments, trade unions, management organisations, teachers, and in the case of the Industrial Registrar’s library persons from the legal profession, are using the Central Office library as well as all the regional libraries.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Research (Question No. 595)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

Has he determined that research and investigations, other than that associated with uranium and atomic energy, be carried out by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act; if so, ( a ) what are the research projects involved and (b) what proportion of the annual budget of the AAEC is allocated to these projects.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been carrying out limited research and investigations into the following non-nuclear fields with existing skills and facilities from the dates shown:

solar conversion using photochemical cells- July 1 974,

total energy requirements of a residence from solar energy- January 1975,

magnetohydrodynamic turbine- Mid 1 977.

Approximately one half of one per cent of the 1977-78 budget is being devoted to the three projects.

Taxation: Health Insurance Levy (Question No. 617)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

How many individual taxpayers for the year 1 976-77 were exempted from the health levy for (a) the whole 39 weeks and (b) a pan thereof because they were privately covered for medical and hospital insurance.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The number of taxable individuals who were not assessed for health insurance levy in respect of 1976-77 income year and whose assessments issued to 28 April 1978 is 3,542,3 1 6. The great majority of these taxpayers would have been exempt because they were adequately covered by private health insurance, but the number includes other taxpayers who are not liable to levy as pensioner medical card holders or members of the defence forces or for other reasons.
  2. The total number of taxable individuals who were liable for the levy for only part of the year and whose assessements issued to 28 April 1978 was about 200,000.

Unemployment: Training, Education and Relocation Assistance (Question No. 639)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were (a) in in-plant training under the NEAT Scheme, (b) employed under the Special Youth Employment Training Program, (c) employed under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full Time Training and (d) enrolled in the Education Program for Unemployed Youth as at 28 February 1978.
  2. How many unemployed persons were given relocation assistance to take up jobs away from their home environment during 1977.
  3. From which Commonwealth Employment Service occupational categories were those persons drawn.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) A total of 26,298 persons were in on-the-job training under the NEAT System as at 28 February 1978.

    1. Of the number shown in ( 1 ) (a) above 18,057 persons were receiving training under the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP).
    2. As at 28 February 1978 9,972 employers had claimed the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training (CRAFT) in respect of 18,175 apprentices. This represents approximately 50 per cent of the estimated number of apprentices eligible for rebate payments.
    3. A total of 423 young persons were enrolled in the Education Program for Unemployed Youth (EPUY) as at 28 February 1978.
  2. In 1977 a total of 692 persons were assisted under the Relocation Assistance Scheme (RAS) to take up jobs in other areas.
  3. The Commonwealth Employment Service occupation categories from which these persons were drawn are as follows:

Special Youth Employment Training Program (Question No. 643) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

1 ) How many persons have received training under the Special Youth Employment Training Program.

How many have subsequently obtained full-time employment.

) Have many graduates and diplomates from tertiary institutions had, and are having, great difficulty in obtaining employment although they have the necessary qualifications, because of what industry calls ‘lack of experience’; if so, will he consider as a matter of urgency, extending the aims of the S.Y.E.T.P. to allow these highly qualified young persons to gain experience without meeting the unemployment requirement, bearing in mind that they have not been employed when they were students.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. It is estimated that about 40,000 young people have been assisted to date under the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP).
  2. The most recent survey conducted by my Department 4-6 weeks after the end of the training period found that about 70 per cent of former trainees were in full time employment at the time they completed the survey questionnaire.
  3. It is not known how many graduates and diplomate, from tertiary institutions have great difficulty in obtaining employment solely because they lack relevant work experience.

It is pointed out that the aim of providing a special rate of subsidy under SYETP is to assist those who, having tested the labour market, are not able to find stable employment. The fact is that the great majority of those completing full time education are able to find employment without any financial assistance. To extend SYETP benefits to an employer for a young person he would have employed without subsidy would be costly and contrary to the Government’s policy of restraining public expenditure.

Finally there does not seem to be any merit in dispensing with the qualifying period under SYETP for graduates and diplomates. To do so would place these people at an advantage over others and would make it difficult to identify people in need of special assistance.

Papua New Guinean Ex-servicemen: Australian Benefits (Question No. 665)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What Australian benefits are available for Papua New Guinea ex-servicemen who served with Australian forces in World War II.
  2. What requests has the Government received from the Government of Papua New Guinea on this issue.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Benefits made available under the Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act and Regulations to

Papua New Guinea ex-servicemen who served with Australian Forces in World War II are pensions (including pensions payable to widows and other dependants) in respect or incapacity, or death, resulting from service, and Decoration Allowance payable in respect of decoration awards during service.

  1. In 1976, Sir Albert Maori Kiki, then Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, wrote to the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs seeking a special pension similar to the Australian service pension to be paid to bona fide Papua New Guinea ex-servicemen from the age of SS years until death. The request was later supported by the then Governor-General and Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. The Government decided not to accede to the request as it was considered that the payment of a special reward for service ‘ pension would not be in keeping with the principle of payment of pensions for disabilities arising from war service or the effects of war. A request has recently been made by the Hon. Louis Mona, the Minister for Defence in Papua New Guinea, for the grant of a lump sum of $3m tobe paid to the Papua New Guinea Government to be administered by a Trust. This money could then be disbursed to eligible Papua and New Guinea ex-servicemen who served with the Australian Forces during World War II and their dependants either by instalments or lump sum. The grant sought was to have been in addition to Disability Pensions already paid to entitled Papua New Guinea ex-servicemen.

Department of Social Security: Stalling: Delays in Providing Benefits (Question No. 696)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the program This Day Tonight of 30 January 1978 which investigated the non-payment of social security benefits; if so, (a) did the Department of Social Security staff on that program claim that the Department is grossly understaffed and (b) did the management say they are capable of handling all payments.
  2. With present staff ceilings, (a) can the Department of Social Security meet its commitments and (b) can it do so without exploiting staff willing to do much paid and unpaid overtime.
  3. What provisions are made for those waiting for overdue cheques who have no money, and how and when are they notified of these provisions.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) and (b) A departmental officer interviewed in the program referred to by the honourable member stated that departmental staffing numbers were sufficient; the capacity to handle all payments was not mentioned. The officer agreed that a small number of people applying for unemployment benefits had experienced some delay because of exceptional circumstances, including a seasonal load, the holiday period and the introduction of payment of benefits in arrears.

The officer forecast that the delay would be under control within two or three weeks from the date of the program and the delays mentioned were eliminated by 1 5 February 1978.

  1. (a) The Department’s approved ceiling for 30 June 1978 is 10,000. The existence of staff ceilings requires the Department to concentrate on essential work and priority is given to income security functions. Generally the Department is meeting its commitments within the constraints imposed by financial and staff restrictions.
  2. (b) The working of overtime is necessary to meet peak workloads and overcome any arrears that may arise. Such overtime is invariably undertaken by staff volunteering to work. Within the Public Service, staff beyond the salary level of Clerk Class 8 ($16,832-17,51 1) are not paid for working overtime.
  3. There exist, in the Department, procedures providing for the immediate issue of a cheque to those people for whom entitlement exists and to whom payment is overdue. Persons concerned are advised of these procedures when the Department becomes aware that a need for immediate assistance to relieve personal hardship exists.

Notification usually takes the form of advising the beneficiary that a cheque will be prepared that day. The beneficiary is asked to call at a particular time to collect the cheque. If the person wishes the cheque to be posted to him, this is done.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit, May-June 1977 (Question No. 812)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the means of travel for all members of his party for each section of his journey abroad during the period 26 May 1977 to 28 June 197.
  2. What was the name of the carrier whose services were utilised in each section.
  3. What was the cost of (a) travel and (b) accommodation for all members of the party for each section of travel undertaken.
  4. What was the total cost of (a) travel and (b) accommodation for all members of the party from the date of departure from Australia to the date of return to Australia.
  5. Have all accounts in respect of the journey abroad been paid.
  6. Where in the Budget Papers are the expenses refered to in Parts ( 1 ) to (5 ) shown.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) On the overseas visit from 26 May to 28 June 1 977, 1 travelled by commercial aircraft to Britain, by charter aircraft to Europe and by commercial flights to the United States of America and return to Australia. Not all members of the party accompanied me on all stages of the journey.
  2. to (6) Commercial air travel costs were quoted as an around the world fare and were not charged on an individual sector basis. The total air and rail travel cost for all members of the party was $99,3 10.20.

Accommodation costs, together with other normal expenses for overseas visits, are included in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1977-78 under the Department of Administrative Services for visits abroad of Ministers and personal staff and under the travelling and subsistence items for the various Departments represented by other members of the travelling party.

No further accounts are expected for this visit.

Railways: Additional Transcontinental Line: Electrification (Question No. 828)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What cost/benefit studies have been made of (a) the proposal for railway links between north-west Queensland, the Northern Territory and the natural gas and ore reserves of Western Australia, and (b) the electrification of main railway links in Australia.
  2. ) When will the results be made public
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) As far as the Commonwealth is concerned I am advised that a preliminary study, which indicated there was little merit in further evaluation, was undertaken when this proposal was first put forward. However this could not be described as a full cost/benefit study.

    1. A report was prepared by the French National Railways Consultant Organisation, SOFRERAIL, on the technical aspects of alternative technology that might be used for long distance rail electrification in Australia.
  2. Copies of the SOFRERAIL Report were sent to the State Transport Ministers, the Chief or Chairman of Commissioners of each of the State Railway System and the Australian National Railways and to others who have specifically requested a copy.

Taxation: Deductibility of Health Insurance Contributions (Question No. 837)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

What is the estimated saving to revenue during 1977-78 due to the abolition of tax deductibility of health insurance contributions.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Rebates for health insurance contributions were discontinued as from the introduction of the health insurance levy on 1 October 1976, since payment of private health insurance contributions exempt a taxpayer from payment of the levy. To have also allowed a concessional rebate for the contributions would have resulted in a further benefit and placed a taxpayer contributing to a private fund at an advantage in comparison with a taxpayer who paid the health insurance levy. The saving to income tax revenue in 1 977-78 due to the abolition of rebates in respect of health insurance contributions paid on and after 1 October 1976 is estimated at approximately $50m.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Ratification (Question No. 876)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 April 1 978:

  1. Did he tell me on 24 March 1977 (Hansard, page 638), in answer to my question on 9 March 1977, that he was advised that no advice had been received regarding the outcome of the examination by the Queensland Treaties Commission of ILO Convention No. 107- Indigenous and Tribal

Populations, 19S7 (Hansard, 6 September 1960, page 8S6, 15 November 1962, page 2251, 27 March 1963, page 127, 15 October 1963, page 1824, 22 September 1966, page 1248, 19 November 1968, page 3007, 3 June 1970, page 2902, 24 April 1971, page 2122, 23 February 1972, page 126,31May 1972, page 3408, 24 October 1972, page 3 1 10, 16 September 1976, page 1193, 21 September 1976, page 1205, 15 February 1977, page 87, 2 June 1977, page 2555 and 11 October 1977, page 1864).

  1. Does he now know that the Commission’s report had been tabled in the Queensland Parliament on 9 December 1976.
  2. ) Who advised him to give his erroneous answer.
  3. On what date did each other State agree to the ratification of the Convention.
  4. What steps are being taken to secure Queensland’s agreement.
  5. Which States have now agreed to the ratification of ILO Conventions No. 64- Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939, No. 65- Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939 and No. 104- Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1955 (Hansard, 23 February 1977, page 405).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The reply to the honourable member’s question given on 24 March 1977 was not, as is suggested by the honourable member, erroneous. He will recall that he asked whether the Queensland Treaties Commission had recommended changes to Queensland law to permit agreement to ratification of ILO Convention No. 107. While the Commission’s report contained references to Convention No. 107, the Commission made no recommendations regarding changes of law necessary to permit agreement to ratification and nor did it indicate that its examination of the Convention was concluded. Against this background the answer provided on 24 March 1977 was correct: no advice had been received regarding the outcome of the examination by the Queensland Treaties Commission of ILO Convention No. 107.
  4. Four States have agreed to the ratification of Convention No. 107. The States and dates of agreement are as follows: New South Wales, 16 March 1967; Victoria, 12 May 1970; South Australia, 17 February 1967; Western Australia, 17 June 1974.

The Convention has no application in Tasmania.

  1. There has been continuing correspondence over a number of years at the Prime Minister/Premier level and this correspondence is continuing.
  2. The position regarding State agreement to the ratification of these Conventions remains as set out in my reply to parliamentary question No. 1179 which appeared in Hansard on 23 February 1977.

Oil Exploration: Taxation Incentives (Question No. 901)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that taxation incentives for oil exploration announced in the 1977-78 Budget will apply only to expenditure made by Australian companies; if so, in the case of partnerships between Australian and overseas companies, will only the expenditure incurred by the Australian partners be eligible for deduction from taxable income.
  2. ) Will exploration funds lent by an overseas partner to an Australian partner in a joint venture be eligible for deduction from the taxable income of the Australian partner.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian of 9 March 1978 that a local company, Cultus Pacific NL, intends to use this means of minimising its taxable income in a 40 per cent joint venture with 3 Canadian companies.
  4. Are these methods of subsidising foreign exploration for oil in Australian waters carried out at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. As a result of changes announced in the 1976-77 Budget, expenditure on exploration for petroleum, both onshore and off-shore, is deductible against assessable income from any source. The deduction is available to both resident and non-resident companies. A further taxation incentive for petroleum exploration in off-shore areas of Australia was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 24 August 1 977 and was mentioned in the 1977-78 Budget Speech. This further incentive is in the form of a rebate to subscribers of capital to companies holding registered interests in permits or licences under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Those companies, whether overseas or Australian companies, will be able to lodge declarations with the Commissioner of Taxation forgoing the right to deductions to which they would be entitled for petroleum exploration and development in order to confer rebates on both corporate and non-corporate and resident and non-resident shareholders. Legislation to implement the shareholder rebate scheme is contained in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978 which was introduced into the Parliament on 7 April 1978.
  2. Funds lent by an overseas partner to an Australian partner in an oil exploration venture conducted by the partnership, which are expended by the partnership on oil exploration, would be deductible in calculating the net income of the partnership for tax purposes. In the case of an exploration joint venture that does not constitute a partnership for tax purposes, and is therefore not assessed as such, loan moneys received by an Australian resident participant from a foreign participant and expended by the former on oil exploration would be deductible from the assessable income of that taxpayer. Of course, as I have indicated in ( 1 ) above, direct expenditure of these funds by an overseas resident on oil exploration would be deductible from the Austraiian assessable income of that enterprise.
  3. The report in the Australian of 9 March 1978 appears to refer to the incentive announced in the 1976-77 Budget Speech and not to the shareholder rebate scheme mentioned in the 1977-78 Budget Speech. If so, the article is incorrect in suggesting that immediate deductibility of petroleum exploration expenditure against income from any source is restricted to expenditure on off-shore exploration. Overseas interests that do not derive income in Australia may not be able to benefit by way of immediate deductions for oil exploration expenditure. In these circumstances it may be arranged that the overseas interests provide loan funds to Australian resident participants who are in a position to benefit from the deductions against other Australian income.
  4. A great deal of exploration and development expenditure on petroleum and general mining is financed by loan funds from overseas and other sources. The loans are, of course, repayable and expenditure out of them is incurred by the Australian borrower. In these circumstances deductions for the expenditure are in accordance with the policy underlying the special tax provisions.

Payments to Connair Pty Ltd (Question No. 985)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 978:

  1. What sums has his Department paid to Connair Pty Ltd or its predecessor, Connellan Airways Pty Ltd, in each year since 1962.
  2. For what reasons were the amounts paid in each of these years.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following amounts were paid by my Department to Connair Pty Ltd or its predecessor, Connellan Airways Pty Ltd in each financial year since 1962: 1961-62, $215,092; 1962-63, $229,890; 1963-64, $236,422; 1964-65, $281,200; 1965-66, $386,000; 1966-67, $400,000; 1967-68, $483,981; 1968-69, $449,025; 1969-70, $447,739; 1970-71, $838,620; 1971-72, $755,805; 1972-73, $886,410; 1973-74, $764,884; 1974-75, $625,000; 1975-76, $608,333; 1 976-77, $550,000.
  2. These payments were made for the purpose of ensuring the continuity of operation of air services within the Northern Territory and other remote parts of Australia.

Extradition Arrangements with Israel: Mr M. Glickman and Mr I. Makler (Question No. 993)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Israeli Knesset passed extradition laws since his answers to me on Australia’s extradition arrangements with Israel (Hansard, 24 February 1977, page 5074 and 8 March 1978, page 570).
  2. Do the Israeli laws affect these arrangements; if so, how.
  3. Have consultations been held with the Israeli Government on the effectiveness of the existing extradition arrangements between Australia and Israel following the departure of Morris Glickman and Igal Makler from Australia for Israel in February and April 1978 respectively.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that the Israeli Knesset in January this year passed a law which, when it comes into force, will prohibit the extradition from Israel of Israeli nationals. This prohibition will not, however, apply when the offence for which extradition of an Israeli national is sought was committed before he became an Israeli national. The law also provides for prosecution in Israel of those nationals not subject to extradition. Moreover, under the new law Australia will be able to request that an Israeli national, who has been sentenced in Australia and who then flees to Israel, serve that sentence in Israel.
  2. This law will not strictly affect the Extradition Treaty which has been in force with Israel since 3 January 1976. Article VIII of that Treaty provides that either Party may refuse to extradite its own nationals. This discretionary provision accords with international extradition practice whereby many countries refuse extradition of their nationals. Australia does not favour this practice.
  3. Along with some other countries party to extradition treaties with Israel, Australia has expressed its concern to Israel that the new law should not operate so as to allow Israeli nationals to avoid criminal proceedings. The Australian Ambassador to Israel has had discussions with Israeli authorities on this matter and has been informed of Israel’s willingness to engage in negotiations to satisfy the Australian concern that a requirement for Israel to prosecute Israeli nationals not subject to extradition be formalised by an amendment to the Extradition Treaty.

Sydney and Melbourne Urban Railways: Links with Airports (Question No. 1006)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say how many kilometres of unused or lightly used railway line exist in the Sydney and Melbourne Transport Districts.
  2. Have these lines been taken into consideration by his Department in the development of strategies for transport in these crowded cities; if so, how.
  3. What consideration has been given to upgrading or adapting lines to provide direct rail services from Mascot and Tullamarine Airports to the respective city centres.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am unable to say how many kilometres of unused or lightly used railway line exist in Sydney and Melbourne. Under the terms of the Commonwealth’s urban transport assistance program the potential contribution any such line could make to the transport strategy for a city would be considered in the event that the State proposed improvements relating to such a line.
  2. The present Commonwealth/New South Wales Major Airport Needs of Sydney (MANS) Study has under consideration a number of surface access options including that of a direct rail link between the City and Mascot Airport. Provision has been made at Tullamrine Airport to cater for future rail access. At this stage there are no firm proposals to link either of these airports with their respective city centres by a direct rail service.

Australian Balance of Payments Statistics (Question No. 1007)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the figures for (a) imports (b) exports and (c) invisibles in the Australian overseas trade current account for each year since 1 957-58.
  2. As to the invisibles component over that period, how much is attributable to (a) insurance, (b) storage and (c) freight charges.
  3. What has been the proportion in the current account of the movement in invisibles relating to freight charges in each of the last 5 years.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The attached table shows, for each of the years 1957-58 to 1976-77,the following components of the current account of the Australian balance of payments:

    1. imports f.o.b.;
    2. exports f.o.b.; and
    3. invisible credits and invisible debits.
  2. The table also shows, for each year, the amounts paid overseas in respect of (a) net marine insurance and (c) freight on imports. Storage charges (b) are not separately available. Some storage charges may be included in the figures for freight. However storage charges incurred after goods are landed in Australia would not usually be reflected in the balance of payments and those incurred overseas would usually be included in the value of imports f.o.b.
  3. Freight on imports paid to non-resident carriers has represented the following proportion of total invisible debits in each of the last five years: 1972-73-14.2 per cent; 1973-74-17.6 per cent; 1974-75-19.7 per cent; 1975-76-16.8 per cent; and 1976-77-19.5 percent.

Andamooka and Coober Pedy Airstrips (Question No. 1035)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

What assistance is made available by his Department by way of capital or maintenance costs for airstrips providing an air service to communities such as Andamooka and Coober Pedy, S.A., where the airstrips are owned by community organisations and, as no local government operates, are outside the provisions of the local ownership plan.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The financial assistance which can be provided by my Department under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan is limited to 50 percent grants towards approved development and maintenance works on licensed aerodromes owned by properly constituted local government authorities, and 50 percent grants towards approved maintenance works on privately owned licensed aerodromes with regular public air services.

Both the Andamooka and Coober Pedy aerodromes are Authorised Landing Areas (ALA) only and generally of a lower standard than licensed aerodromes.

Accordingly, in the present circumstances, there are no means by which financial assistance can be arranged within the existing policies.

Income Tax (Question No. 1046)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the income of a married person receiving average weekly earnings with a spouse and two children is total tax and social security payments.
  2. What proportion of the income of a married person earning two and a half dmes average earnings with a spouse and two children is total tax and social security payments.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The income tax payable by a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children and having a taxable income in 1977-78 equal to 52 times the December quarter 1977 average weekly earnings (seasonally adjusted) would be equal to approximately 16.5 per cent of that taxable income. The tax payable, reduced by family allowances in respect of the 2 children, would be equal to approximately 12.4 per cent of the taxpayer’s taxable income. The tax calculations from which these percentages were derived do not take account of any deductions allowable for union dues, housing loan interest or gifts and they assume that the taxpayer’s allowable rebatable expenditure does not exceed $ 1 590.
  2. The corresponding percentages for a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and 2 children and having a taxable income equivalent to Vh times average weekly earnings are 34.2 percent and 32.5 percent.

Pensioner Health Benefit (Question No. 1065)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

How many persons were holders of pensioner benefit cards as at (a) 30 June 1975, (b) 30 June 1976 and (c) 30 June 1977.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The estimated number of Social Security pensioners who were holders of pensioner health benefit cards at the dates requested were:

The above figures include age, invalid and widow pensioners and recipients of wife’s pension. Pensioners paid by Department of Veterans’ Affairs are excluded.

Office of Road Safety (Question No. 1079)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Public Service Board completed its consideration of the staffing structure of the Office of Road Safety as mentioned on page 14 of his Department’s 1976-77 annual report.
  2. If so (a) was his Department’s proposal for the structure of the Office adopted by the Public Service Board, (b) what is the staffing structure of the Office, (c) what is the title of each of the functional areas of the Office, and (d) what is the name and classification of the most senior officer of each of the Office ‘s functional areas.
  3. What is the name and classification of the officer within his Department to whom the Director of the Office reports.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The proposal mentioned on page 14 of the 1976-77 annual report was designed to provide an interim organisation for the Office of Road Safety and the Public Service Board has completed its consideration of it. A further proposal to vary and strengthen the organisation structure was forwarded to the Public Service Board in February 1 978 and is currently under active consideration in the Board ‘s Office.
  2. (a) Yes.

    1. The Office has two Branches, each comprising four Sections. The establishment of the Office is sixty-four positions.
    2. The titles of the functional areas of the Office are Road Safety Branch and Vehicle Structures Safety Branch.
    3. The Director of the Office is classified as Level 3 Second Division and the position is occupied by Mr F. E. Yeend. The Road Safety Branch is headed by a position classified as Level 1 Second Division and Dr I. R. Johnston has recently been provisionally promoted to this position. The Vehicle Structures Safety Branch is headed by a position classified as Engineer Class 5 which is occupied by Mr J. H. Permezel.
  3. The Director of the Office reports to the Permanent Head of the Depanment, Mr C. C. Halton.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1098)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Depanment have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department.
  2. What was the cost to the Depanment of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 95 members of my Depanment have their home telephones rental and charges fully or partially paid by the Depanment.
  2. The cost to the Depanment of this expenditure in 1 976-77 amounted to $ 12,9 1 0.00.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1120)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Depanment have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Depanment.
  2. What was the cost to the Depanment of this expenditure in 1976-77.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. Out of a staff of 1 1,746 in Central and Branch Offices and 20 medical institutions in all States and Territories there were 103 officers of the Department who had their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Depanment as at 30 June 1977.
  2. 2 ) The cost for 1 976-77 was $ 1 5 ,4 1 2.34.

Commonwealth Regional Consultative Group on Energy (Question No. 1165)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

Will the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting working group on energy give early consideration to the solar energy transfer techniques being developed at the Research School of Physical Sciences at the Australian National University.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Regional Consultative Group on Energy was established by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney (13-16 February 1978) and is to be convened by India. The Group has not as yet held its first meeting. As a result, consideration has not yet been given to which energy development techniques will be examined by the Group, nor to which organisations will be consulted. It is anticipated that Australia ‘s participation in the work of the Group will fall primarily within the responsibility of the Minister for National Development.

Ministerial Travel Overseas (Question No. 1242)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 May, 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has he travelled outside Australia by ship since 1 1 November 1975.
  2. Has he travelled outside Australia by aeroplane since 11 November 1975.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780525_reps_31_hor109/>.