House of Representatives
2 June 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

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

page 3007

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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 Bryant, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Mr Hunt, Dr Klugman, Mr Martin and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That withdrawal of government benefits under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion would discriminate against and disadvantage the least privileged in our society.

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

Under no circumstances withdraw government benefit under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt and Mr Macphee.

Petitions received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objecton to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Brandy

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

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our Government to protect the interests of Australian grape growers by:

  1. Lowering the excise duty on brandy produced in Australia.
  2. Reducing the quantity of imported brandy on the Australian market which is adversely affecting Australian producers.
  3. Abolishing sales tax on brandy.

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

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. 1 ) On 14th February, 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the Citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the Citizen forces in that it recognizes the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive and historic Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Citizens Military Force (Army Reserve ) and Citizens Air Force. by Mr Chapman.

Petition received.

International Air Fares

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

That the Government’s continued procrastination on the introduction of lower international air fares is causing confusion and concern within Australia’s travel industry and amongst Australia’s air travellers who were postponing overseas travel in expectation of the reduced international air fares.

That the Government’s decision not to make available to the public the Report of the Review of International Civil

Aviation Policy was further compounding the confusion and uncertainty and was denying Australians right of access to information on the options available.

That the Government’s policy of secrecy was suppressing public debate on the issue and was adding to the impression that the Government was reluctant to allow Australians access to lower priced international air fares.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Government cease delaying the introduction of lower international air fares. by Mr FitzPatrick.

Petition received.

Wanniassa, Australian Capital Territory: Schools

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

  1. that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, at a meeting on Monday 8 May 1978, decided that the opening of Wanniassa High School again be deferred:
  2. that the Wanniassa High School building is to be used to accommodate temporarily Wanniassa College until the college facilities are completed;
  3. that to open the college, year 10 students from Kambah High School, not normally eligible for college entry, will be compelled to attend Wanniassa College in the year in which they are to qualify for year 10 certificates;
  4. that a projected number of 1 19 year 7 and 8 ( 1 and 2 year high school) students will be bussed out of Wanniassa to enable college students to be bussed into the Wanniassa College;
  5. that no guarantee has or can be given that the Wanniassa High School building will be vacated by the college to enable its use as a high school in mid- 1979. In fact, it seems likely that the temporary accommodation may be required for the full year due to delays in construction of the college building;
  6. that, either inadequate equipment and facilities will be available for the college students in the high school building, or extensive and expensive removal of equipment will be necessary to re-accommodate Wanniassa College in its own building;
  7. that adequate accommodation exists in Narrabundah College to accommodate all the rightful college students from the Tuggeranong Valley in an already established and properly equipped college.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to: call upon the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority

  1. to reconsider its decision to defer the opening of Wanniassa High School;
  2. to defer the opening of Wanniassa College until 1980 when it may be accommodated in its own building; and
  3. to open Wanniassa High School in the school year commencing in February 1979.

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

Petition received.

page 3008

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3008

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE FERTILISERS

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Kennedy on Tuesday. What is the relative grade of phosphorous pentoxide in Queensland Phosphate Ltd rock and how does that rock compare with rock from Nauru, Christmas Island, Florida, and North Africa? Does Queensland rock contain high levels of silicon? How do Australian coastal freight rates compare with shipping freight from Florida? What is the life of the Christmas Island and Nauruan deposits? Will the use of Australian phosphate rock be permitted to increase the price of phosphate fertiliser to Australian farmers?

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

-The honourable member for Moore has asked a number of questions that I would like to answer. First of all he referred to the grade of rock from the Duchess deposit in Queensland. It is true that the grade of this rock is lower than that being received by manufacturers through the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. Of course, Nauru would have one of the highest grades of rock phosphate in the world. It is a very pure grade. On Christmas Island A-grade rock is being mined at the moment, but I point out that my understanding of the situation is that the A-grade rock will last only till about 1984-85 and Christmas Island then will have to go on to B-grade rock which really needs to go through a beneficiation process to make it an attractive rock or even a rock that is comparable with that from Duchess, although Duchess rock contains silicon and a degree of fluoride which presents problems for manufacturers.

The important point that some people are overlooking is that the prognostication for the supply of rock phosphate is somewhat doubtful. In America the demand for rock phosphate from Florida, which has one of the world’s big deposits, is such that America believes that it will require all those deposits after about 1990 to meet America’s requirements, which means that other countries will be then left largely dependent on deposits in North Africa. I would not like to think that the Australian farming industry, which is dependent upon phosphate for its agricultural and pastoral activities, will be in a position where it is dependent upon external sources of rock phosphate. I say that because the estimate of manufacturers both in Australia and

New Zealand is that from this year on an increasing quantity of outside supplies of rock phosphate will be needed to meet requirements and those requirements will progressively increase.

If Christmas Island went out of production in about 1984 or 1985 we could be looking at possibly two million to three million tonnes having to be imported each year. To allow to develop a situation in which we are vulnerable to revolution and changes of government in other parts of the world or to an OPEC-type operation in relation to the price of rock phosphate could mean that Australian users of rock phosphate and, in turn, the farmers who use superphosphate and other phosphatic fertilisers will have to pay exorbitant prices. It would be tragic when we have very large known reserves of rock phosphate if we did not plan to use those deposits as efficiently as possible and to integrate them progressively into the Australian scene, especially since we know that Nauru and Christmas Island supplies will become deficient.

page 3009

QUESTION

SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. According to the official guidelines of the Department of Social Security, and I quote from section 7, sub-section 101, of” the Department’s Manual of Instructions, ‘the test whether a person is self-employed or unemployed is applied realistically’. What is meant by ‘realistically’ in this context? What criteria are applied to determine whether a person who was previously selfemployed is now unemployed? Are the previously self-employed required to do any or all of the following in order to qualify for the unemployment benefit: Firstly, cease advertising for work; secondly, surrender licences which give them self-employed status; and thirdly, sell their equipment and tools?

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

– Basically all that is required is that such a person make a statement that he is unemployed and is registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for work. In regard to the type of person mentioned by the honourable member, the test whether such a person is self-employed or unemployed has to be applied realistically. The real problem is to find a proper interpretation of the word ‘realistically’. Because I have had a number of inquiries about this interpretation, the Minister for Social Security has given, in definition of the word, the example that a person may be genuinely unemployed and eligible for the unemployment benefit even though he spends a certain amount of time on odd jobs in his business. If a person runs his business he is employed. Profitability, for instance, does not come into it.

It is not possible to give a comprehensive list of all the factors which would indicate that a person has ceased to be self-employed, but it could well mean cessation of advertising or disposal of equipment. The Minister has informed me that it is necessary to examine each case on its merits, and the Department attempts to do that in order to establish whether the word ‘realistically’ can be applied to each case separately.

page 3009

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to reports concerning an inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission, to which public reference has been made by the Chairman of the Commission. Can the Minister indicate whether an inquiry is contemplated, in view of the fact that a royal commission is the only process available to the Government?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I have noted the coverage given to comments concerning a possible inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I want to make it quite clear that no decision has been made to hold an inquiry into the ABC. I made that clear a couple of nights ago. The Green report which was tabled in the House on 9 November 1976 recommended that the policies and performance of the ABC be subject to review by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal every seven years and that the first of these reviews should take place in 1980. 1 certainly believe there is a good case for regular and independent inquiry into the ABC, and that is a principle which the ABC itself adopts. As I said on Wednesday, in due course I would consider asking the Government whether an inquiry should be undertaken earlier than that recommended in the Green report but, I stress, there has been no decision.

page 3009

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it true, as claimed by pharmacists, that the Minister’s Department will announce, even before the next Budget, an increase in patient contributions for pharmaceutical benefits? Is he aware that this would be a severe extra burden on the sick and the poor, especially where these two categories are combined in large families?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– On the question of the cost of the patient contribution for the purchase of pharmaceutical benefits under the pharmaceutical benefit arrangements, the Government will be making an announcement, probably in the course of today or on Monday, about the cost of patient contributions for such benefits. Let me remind the House that had there been a wage freeze and a price freeze since 1976 the patients, and indeed the Opposition, would have had every right to expect there not to be an increase in patient contributions for pharmaceutical benefits but, in a situation where there are rises in costs and wages, one would expect there to be a rise in the patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits. People have to pay by one means or another for the services or items available to them. If there were to be a rise of the order mentioned by the honourable gentleman it would be completely consistent with the rises that have taken place generally in the consumer price index since 1976.

page 3010

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Productivity aware that Nomad aircraft are flying daily services between centres in my electorate? Did the Minister recently see an edition of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television program A Big Country devoted entirely to the Nomad aircraft? Is the Minister concerned that the program may have adverse effects on the sale of Nomad in Australia and overseas?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware of the fact that bush pilots are flying the Nomad daily in the honourable member’s electorate. I am also very aware that there is great customer popularity for the Nomad aircraft in that electorate. I did not see the television film in question, but I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission did endeavour to present a most informative, balanced and entertaining program. But it created in the minds of some people the thought that the Nomad is in some way not safe. This was apparently because the program highlighted the fact that during the Nomad ‘s history there had been an experiment with a certain type of wing which had led to a serious accident in 1976. The program featured a flight engineer, Mr Larcey, who had been injured in the accident. In fact the program aimed to show that Mr Larcey still has full confidence in the Nomad and that he and his wife have no recriminations at all.

The experimental modifications were abandoned after that accident. There has never been any safety problem with those production aircraft which had been delivered, nor will there be.

The Department of Transport in Australia and the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States of America have the highest standards of safety and the Nomad conforms to those in all respects. I assure the House that no one who intends purchasing a Nomad or who intends flying in one need have any fears about its safety in any respect. Extensive testing is being done constantly by the Government Aircraft Factories and by the Aeronautical Research Laboratories. With regard to our world prospects, at the moment we are flying the Nomad aircraft in India with a view to selling it there. In other parts of the world our prospects look very good. There is no question about the safety of the aircraft.

page 3010

QUESTION

MURRAY RIVER

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for National Development, by saying that there are a million people who depend on the quality of River Murray water for their livelihood and that, frankly, they are sick to death of the Federal and State governments, since 1914, passing the buck. They want some action taken.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will now ask his question.

Mr JACOBI:

-I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that three of the most critical problems- salinity, sedimentation and the survival of the greatest red gum forest in the world- cannot be solved if they are left to the States, despite their good intentions? In the light of mounting concern, will the Government implement the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution tabled in this Parliament more than eight years ago to set up a national water commission and equip it with the necessary powers to make and implement decisions and to cut through the existing bureaucratic mess which, if no action is taken, will surely threaten the whole existence of the River Murray system?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

-That was not so much a question as a broadside. I have a great deal of sympathy for the honourable member’s frustration in this matter. I must say that since I assumed the responsibility for water resources, the problems that exist along the River Murray have been put to me pretty firmly and vividly, particularly by the honourable members for Murray and Mallee, as well as by some honourable members opposite. I think the honourable member for Hawker knows the problem as well as I do. A commission was set up under the River Murray Waters Agreement, but that commission has a responsibility only for the main stem of the river; its authority does not go much beyond the banks. In 60 years there has been only one amendment to that Agreement. Why has there been only one amendment? The reason is that this matter has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. The only way in which an authority such as the one suggested by the honourable member could be set up would be for the States to relinquish some of their constitutional rights. In 60 years they have not done so.

Let us try to look at the more optimistic side of what is happening. The Government is firmly committed to co-operating with the States to try to get some results on salinity and drainage. I think things are happening in that respect. At least under the Agreement we will be coming forward with an amendment which will allow the River Murray Commission to worry about water quality as well as quantity. I spoke yesterday on another matter, and said that the Maunsell report is now with me. I hope that we will be able to act quickly on those interim urgent measures that we can actually fund. As for the rest of the matters, there is the national water program. As I said yesterday, we stand ready to help as much as we can to implement any long term projects the States may put forward. To summarise the position, I do not think that there is much hope for an authority. The best way is to work through co-operation. The Commonwealth will be trying to do that. I believe from what I have seen so far, particularly what was started by my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, that the co-operation is there. There is a will on the part of all governments to do something.

page 3011

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS: ‘PAY DOCTOR’ CHEQUES

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

-Is the Minister for Health concerned about the payment of medical benefits by the health insurance funds and by Medibank by means of ‘pay doctor’ cheques on the abolition of bulk billing when the cheque is sent to persons who may not understand the mechanics of passing on the cheque to the doctor? Is this a particular problem in the case of underprivileged areas such as North Richmond where the issue has been given some currency and amongst some other groups of patients, particularly Aboriginals? Has the Minister considered rectifying the type of problem which may well arise? If so, what conclusions has he reached about the matter?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am very concerned about the North Richmond Community Health Centre. It is performing a very important role amongst an important ethnic community in Melbourne. It is providing a service to refugees. I am also concerned about some of the other underprivileged areas in some of our capital cities and country areas. I refer to the town of Bourke in my own electorate where there is a very high percentage of Aboriginals in the community. There has been justifiable concern that when a ‘pay doctor’ cheque, or a cheque drawn in favour of the doctor, is sent to some patients there is a very likely possibility that the doctor will never receive the cheque. I had discussions last night with the doctors ‘ reform group which also brought this question to my attention.

I am looking at the proposition of enabling cheques to be returned by the Health Insurance Commission to the doctor rather than the patient in certain circumstances. Such an arrangement would avoid confusion and the possibility of doctors not receiving payment for services rendered. Many of the doctors who work in underprivileged areas are compassionate enough to accept the benefit as payment in full. This does not apply to all doctors in the community but it applies to the doctors who work in those types of communities.

With the abolition of bulk billing the patient will at least have an opportunity of seeing the cost of the services rendered by the doctor. It is at that time that the doctor has an opportunity to recover the gap, that is, the difference between the benefit and the charge that he makes for the service rendered, if he chooses to do so. I assure the honourable member for Diamond Valley and all honourable members on both sides of the House that I will be looking very seriously at modifying the present arrangement which is far too inflexible.

page 3011

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I draw his attention to his statement in the House last week in which he said:

The change in medical benefits is expected to lead to a reduction of 46c a week, family rate, in medical insurance contributions, reducing the average rate to $4.54 a week.

Is he aware that spokesmen for private health insurance funds have stated that there will be no such reductions? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that medical insurance contributions to private health funds are reduced in accordance with his promise?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The health insurance funds have a responsibility to pass on to the contributors the saving that will accrue as a result of their having to pay a lesser percentage of the benefit than they would otherwise have had to do. Therefore, the health insurance funds will be facing some very serious problems, so far as I am concerned, if they do not pass on that benefit to the contributors. I have power under the Act to take appropriate action, and I will not resile from taking that action unless they do the right and proper thing by the contributors.

page 3012

QUESTION

INTERSCAN: PRODUCTION IN TASMANIA

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question, which is particularly important, I address to the Minister for Productivity.

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr HODGMAN:

– If the Labor Party cared at all about Tasmania it would realise how important it is. My question is: In view of Tasmania ‘s proven capacity to produce high quality scientific equipment, as demonstrated in the manufacture of precision instruments in World War 2, will the Minister give the most detailed consideration to the possibility of InterScan utilising Tasmanian resources in the proposed manufacture of parts for the InterScan aircraft landing system, involving the possible formation of a CommonwealthStateprivate enterprise consortium to establish in Tasmania this manufacturing operation, which the United States of America authorities assesses as being worth more than $200m during the next decade?

Mr MACPHEE:
LP

-Nobody in this House, after the work of the honourable member for Denison and his colleagues, could be unaware of the plight of Tasmania. As it happens, the Leader of the Opposition of the Tasmanian Parliament made a special trip to Canberra this week and saw the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for National Development on this very subject and he also had a discussion with me. I can assure the honourable member that the Government will do all that it can to ensure that, if possible, the talents, experience and skills in Tasmania are utilised when we enter the production stage of the InterScan program. I must caution the honourable member that that could be some time away. We have established the very kind of consortium which he has mentioned- InterScan Australia- to act as the company to enter into international commercial negotiations. When those negotiations are concluded, I trust that there will be some work for a number of Australian companies, and certainly the Government will have very seriously in mind the role that Tasmania might play in that.

page 3012

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWINGS: EMPLOYMENT

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Government has borrowed, or contracted to borrow, overseas more than $2,000m in this financial year alone? Could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House how these funds have been disbursed and, in particular, could he indicate what public development works have been undertaken to increase employment as well as the productive potential of Australian industry, so as to ensure that Australia will have the capacity to repay the loans?

Mr Anthony:

-The Treasurer will answer the question.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is a fact, as I think all honourable gentlemen will know, that last year the then Acting Treasurer announced an ongoing borrowing program designed to supplement Australia’s international reserves. In February of this year I made a statement on Australia’s external position and indicated that if further borrowings were necessary to supplement our international reserves the Government would be prepared to undertake them. Australia’s capacity and credit to borrow these substantial sums to supplement our reserves ought to be a matter of satisfaction, rather than of scepticism such as is implied in the honourable gentleman’s question. The Government believes strongly that a on-going borrowing program to supplement our reserves is an entirely proper and effective way of conducting our external account.

page 3012

QUESTION

BRITAIN’S URANIUM REQUIREMENTS

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources. Has the Minister recently had discussions with Sir John Hill, the chairman of the British Atomic Energy Agency? Can the Minister inform the House what information is available about Britain’s uranium requirements, and the implications of this for Australia?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

- Sir John Hill, the Chairman of the British Atomic Energy Agency, visited me this week to bring me up to date with activities in Britain relating to the nuclear fuel cycle but principally to find out what progress has been made in Australia with the development of uranium and the prospects of future exports of uranium. He mentioned specifically that Britain was interested in purchasing from 1982 onwards 1,300 tonnes of uranium a year to meet its requirements. In Britain today there are 28 nuclear reactors in operation. There are 10 in the planning stage, two more just having been given approval. Some 13 per cent of British power now is being produced from nuclear operations.

Although Britain has very significant gas and oil deposits its selection of nuclear power as part of its overall energy production is a recognition of the important part that nuclear energy can play. It is unfortunate that members of the Australian Labor Party do not seem to be able to get in step with some of their colleagues in the United Kingdom who obviously recognise the important contribution nuclear power can make to Britain’s energy requirements. Alas, Labor Party supporters apparently are going to remain influenced by some of the ossified views of their party, and I think that while they retain this attitude to nuclear energy they must slowly lose the respect not only of other countries but also they will continue to lose the respect of the Australian people who recognise the important contribution nuclear power can play in supplying energy to the rest of the world.

page 3013

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: IMPUTED RENTAL ON FARM HOUSES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is it correct that the Treasurer at a recent National Country Party function in Moree in northern New South Wales indicated that the Taxation Office is examining the addition of imputed rental on farm houses to farm employees and primary producers taxable incomes so as to increase income tax revenue? If the Treasurer was correct in saying that the proposal is only being examined, can he explain why the Office is now undertaking assessment of imputed rentals of farm employees and farm properties? Does it indicate that the Government proposes to proceed to impose this additional tax burden?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-About the only thing that is correct in that question relating to a report on my activities on that occasion is the fact that I did attend an extremely pleasant gathering in Moree as a guest of my very good friend and colleague the Minister for Health. The question of the application of section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act was raised during the course of the evening, and to the best of my recollectionthe event occurred some weeks ago- I was asked regarding the operations of section 26 (e) a general question not unlike some of the questions that have been asked by members of this House. I indicated on that occasion that that section had been in the Act for a considerable number of years.

I expressed some views regarding the application of the section and said that the question of the administration of it was entirely a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation. Beyond that I frankly have no recollection of having said the other things attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am unaware as to the basis of his belief that I said those things, particularly as I do not -

Mr Hayden:

– Is the Taxation Office undertaking this survey?

Mr HOWARD:

-That was not the question you asked me.

page 3013

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE FERTILISERS

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Acting Prime Minister a question which follows up the question asked a little while ago by the honourable member for Moore. Will superphosphate made from Duchess rock be more expensive to Australian farmers than other superphosphate? If so, can he say how much more expensive it will be? Will the Minister give me an assurance that the Government will look long and hard before committing the farming community to another increase in input costs?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I do not think anybody wants to see the cost of superphosphate or any fertiliser go up when the Australian community has been in such difficult circumstances in meeting the cost increases that have occurred over recent years. Nor do I think that any responsible Australian would ever want to see their future supplies of phosphate put at risk. Australia has been fortunate in that the British Phosphate Commission and now the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission have guaranteed the regular supply of rock phosphate to our manufacturers. We have had a degree of control over these sources. But the supply from these sources is now starting to decline and the rock phosphate is becoming more expensive. We must recreate the situation in which we have a regular and secure supply of rock phosphate. I cannot think of any better means of achieving this than by utilising the discoveries that have been made in northwest Queensland. Undoubtedly the deposits in that region are of world significance.

We have to work out a scheme whereby a minimum impost is put on the farming community during the period in which the rock from our own deposits is being integrated into the Australian system. I think it is fair to say- I would be prepared to be challenged on this-that within the foreseeable future the world price of rock phosphate will increase considerably. There was a period in 1974 when the world price of rock phosphate was double the present market price. The price rose because Morocco tried an OPEC-type operation by demanding a much higher price than it had previously received. We know that the price will go up. If an arrangement can be made whereby Australian manufacturers are able to receive a secure, reliable, and regular supply of rock phosphate, possibly under a long term arrangement for a price which does not fluctuate and which obviously over a period will be much less than the ruling price, this will be a responsible and sensible way in which the interests of not only farmers but also the whole nation can be protected.

page 3014

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE: MEANS TEST

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that the means test for eligibility to receive the benefits of the pensioner medical service and other ancillary benefits has not altered since 1960? Is the Minister also aware of the severe hardship suffered by pensioners who, when they receive a small increase in other income, are disqualified from receiving the benefits of the pensioner medical service? Will the Minister consider up-dating this means test in line with inflation which has taken place since 1960?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I will certainly convey the question and the concern of the honourable member to the Minister for Social Security. No doubt she will examine this matter in the course of her consideration of the Department of Social Security estimates during Cabinet Budget discussions.

page 3014

QUESTION

PETROL FREIGHT SUBSIDY

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Can the Minister tell the House why South Australia will be the last State to make available to country fuel consumers the petrol freight subsidy funded by the Commonwealth? Has South Australia had the same notice as other States to introduce this scheme? Are there any steps which the Minister can take to overcome the State Government ‘s incompetence whereby it is again showing its contempt of the South Australian rural community?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

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

– I advise the House that in January of this year the Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers indicating this Government’s decision to subsidise the freight component of petrol prices to a point where the freight component in any part of Australia would not be more than 8c a gallon. The Prime Minister indicated to the Premiers that the Commonwealth would need the co-operation of the States to pass on this benefit to the motoring public throughout Australia. It is a matter of record, of course, that the legislation has passed through this House. Indeed, the subsidy scheme was introduced into the Northern Territory on 19 May. As a result of Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia passing complementary legislation, the subsidy scheme commenced in those States yesterday. The New South Wales Government has indicated to the Commonwealth that it is prepared to meet the cost of the scheme from its own resources, until such time as it is in a position to pass complementary legislation. As a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, the subsidy scheme will commence in New South Wales on 15 June. The Tasmanian Government has also indicated that it is prepared to enter into a similar arrangement.

Despite the fact that I got in touch with the South Australian Government a few days ago, offering to enter into an arrangement similar to that which has been entered into with New South Wales and which will be entered into with Tasmania, I still have not received a response from the South Australian Government. I take this opportunity to re-issue the invitation to the South Australian Government to meet the cost of the scheme from its own resources until such time as it is prepared and is able to pass legislation complementary to that of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth stands ready to enter into such an arrangement with South Australia so that the motoring public in South Australia will not be disadvantaged any longer than is absolutely necessary. It is a very significant subsidy. Even the honourable member for Grey ought to have an interest in this matter because his constituents at Coober Pedy will benefit to the extent of 2.8c per litre, and that is a very significant contribution. In Gosse, which is situated in the electorate of the honourable member for Barker, the benefit will be 1.2c per litre. I repeat: I re-issue the invitation to South Australia to co-operate with the Commonwealth so as to enable the South Australian motoring public to benefit in the same way as the motoring public in the rest of Australia is benefiting.

page 3014

QUESTION

PUBLICATION: ‘FOR THE ETHNIC MEDIA

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. What is the source of information and expressions of view included in the publication For the Ethnic Media issued by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? Has information or an expression of view attributed to honourable members on this side of the House ever been included in that publication? If not, why not?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The material included in the publication For the Ethnic Media is drawn from official publications and statements made by the Government and Government Ministers. I believe also there are inclusions from official reports. I am not aware of the inclusion in that publication of any material which has originated from members of the Opposition.

Mr Lynch:

– There is nothing worth while.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– As my colleague says, there is nothing worth while coming from the Opposition. I have not given consideration to including in the publication official news releases by members of the Opposition. I will give consideration to it.

page 3015

QUESTION

MELBOURNE-CHRISTCHURCH-HOBART AIR SERVICE

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of reports in this morning’s Press that consideration is being given to allowing Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines to operate on certain international routes, will the Minister give urgent consideration to allowing Ansett and TAA to operate a triangular service between Melbourne, Christchurch and Hobart?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– I never cease to be amazed at the keenness with which honourable members from Tasmania push their State. I can see why there has been a fair amount of advancement in that State in the last two or three years. There have been a number of significant changes to legislation to boost Tasmania and- I have to put it simply- these have come about because of the representations of the five members, including the two Ministers, from that State. Having said that I should say that the matter of a triangular operation between Hobart, New Zealand and the mainland raises both domestic and international aviation policy questions and, as the honourable member knows, I have had under review both international aviation policy and domestic policy. I hope to be able to make a statement on those matters at an appropriate time. The matters that the honourable member has raised have given consideration in that review.

I also should say that there has been no application by any civil aviation operator anywhere to run a service between Hobart and New Zealand, and whether the routes the honourable member has proposed will be of interest may well be a matter for judgment in the future. I will take care to consider the question raised by the honourable member when the review is concluded.

page 3015

QUESTION

YEELIRRIE URANIUM DEPOSIT

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources. Did he hear a radio news report today in which Sir Charles Court was reported as saying that the Yeelirrie uranium deposit in Western Australia would be developed before Ranger because there will be no bureaucratic interference, and that Western Australia is planning for the installation of a nuclear power reactor? Has the Minister any knowledge of these proposals? Does he approve the development of the Yeelirrie deposit and has the Federal Government approved, or is it likely to approve, the construction of a nuclear power station in Western Australian.

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I did have the benefit of hearing the news service this morning and the statements which were made by Sir Charles Court. The understanding that I have of the Western Mining project at Yeelirrie is that the company is at the moment seeking environmental approval to put in a research plant to test the feasibility of a uranium mining operation at Yeelirrie. The program for this research project is for it to come into operation in 1 98 1 . If that operation is satisfactory, the company will proceed with the development of a full-scale mining operation which has no likelihood of coming into operation before 1 984. So there is no substance whatsoever in statements that Yeelirrie is likely to come in before the Ranger project and it is quite wrong to make statements that that project can go ahead without the satisfactory environmental impact statements that are required before any uranium project is approved.

Regarding a nuclear reactor in Western Australia, there was no time put on this proposal. The statement, as I heard it, was that Western Australia will have a nuclear reactor or nuclear power, and I suppose that is quite a possibility in the future. But there is certainly no talk at the moment of even considering such a plant, so I think one has to say that maybe it is a possibility in the future but there is no planning at the moment.

page 3016

QUESTION

MR ALI BHUTTO

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following the last question on this subject to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, what further representations have been made to the Government of Pakistan about the trial of Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the death sentence imposed on him?

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

-I am not aware of what action has been taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or his Department. I will check on it and advise the honourable member at the earliest opportunity.

page 3016

QUESTION

DAIRY MARKETING ARRANGEMENTS

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry what reaction he has received to date from the States to Stage 2 of the Government’s dairy marketing arrangements and the Government’s offer to co-operate with the States to guarantee a return to dairy farmers of 80c per lb for manufacturing milk. If the States will not cooperate, will their alternative and individual offers of assistance, if any, provide a similar guarantee?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– The lot of the Minister for Primary Industry in dealing with State governments who have the sole responsibility for production and domestic intrastate distribution of agricultural products is extraordinarily difficult when he is seeking to resolve a national problem. In order to assist the dairying industry the Federal Government, through the Industries Assistance Commission, asked Sir John Crawford to produce recommendations for changed marketing arrangements. The Federal Government has largely accepted that IAC report but now that we have reached the stage of the introduction of Stage 2 of those marketing arrangements we find that there is very little acceptance by State governments of the proposals which seem to be very much in the interests of Australian dairy farmers. It is true that within States and between States there are significant differences in the profitability of dairy farms, the volume of production, in seasonal opportunities and in markets, but what we have tried to do in offering the selective underwriting arrangements is to consult with State governments and State Ministers to ensure that they are fully cognisant of the arrangements, as also are the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and the bodies responsible for overseas promotion and regulation and the Australian Dairy Corporation.

Unfortunately, there is only one State that has replied positively to the offer which has been put to the States and that is Western Australia, but even it has indicated that it has some qualifications. All the other States have sent a series of questions to me but I am still unaware of their response to the offer. I hope that shortly we will receive their response because it is my wish that legislation on this matter go through this House fairly shortly. However, from the newspapers I gather that in Victoria there is an intention to proceed independently of the offer made by the Federal Government. If this is so, I hope that the dairy farmers in Victoria realise that the price whatever additional assistance is provided would seem to be by way of a levy imposed on market milk and, if that is the case and the benefits are paid for in that way only, I suggest that the designed containment of unprofitable production could well be frustrated. I believe that selective underwriting is the way in which in this one year of transition we might be able to help dairy farmers in a time of marketing difficulties. It seems to me that the proposal we have put to the States is one which for that reason they should accept if they genuinely have the interests of dairy farmers at heart.

Mr Anthony:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I congratulate honourable members on their good humour on the fifth consecutive day of sitting. Not since July 1944 has the Parliament sat on five consecutive days.

page 3016

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation for the year ended June 1 977.

page 3016

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, 1 present the Trans-Australia Airlines final annual report for 1 976-77. This report contains two amendments, on pages 27 and 42, to the report presented to the House on 25 October 1977. The amendments do not affect the financial result as disclosed in the accounts included in the annual report.

page 3017

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer and Acting Minister for Finance · Bennelong · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926 I present the audit of accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 3017

COMMITTEE ON OVERSEAS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications for the year ended December 1977.

page 3017

COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP OF STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a copy of a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) concerning compulsory membership of student associations at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education.

page 3017

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr UREN:

– Thank you. This morning my attention has been drawn to an article that appeared in the Perth Daily News of 30 May. It stated that a group of Labor members met with members of the Communist Party in Coffs Harbour two weeks ago. I will not elaborate on the article as other people were named, and I do not want to repeat the libel. I was specifically named. The article is false, in fact it is a complete lie. This type of sinister smear has been circulating in the parliamentary corridors all this week. I never thought that anyone would be so stupid as to publish such a deliberate plant by such a paranoid and distorted mind. Similar smears circulate each year about this time, but they have never been so deliberate and personal in the past. I wish to advise the House that I am instructing my legal people to take the appropriate action in the courts to correct this stupid and malicious libel.

page 3017

TAX INDEXATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-by leave- I take this opportunity to inform the House the size of the tax indexation adjustments to income tax rates and rebates for 1978-79. The relevant regulations are being gazetted today. Tax indexation was introduced by the present Government in the 1976-77 income year, so that increases in income as a result of inflation would not push taxpayers into higher tax brackets. Indexation was applied again in 1977-78 and this will be its third successive year. It was, and remains, one of the most significant changes ever made to the Australian personal income tax system and has been of major benefit to taxpayers.

The latest indexation adjustment confers still further benefits. It will increase the rebate for a spouse, a housekeeper or a daughterhousekeeper from $555 to $597, an additional tax saving of $42. The rebate for a sole parent will be indexed from $388 in 1 977-78 to $4 1 7 for 1978-79. Other rebates will also rise. The 1978-79 rebate for an invalid relative will be $270, previously $251, and for a parent or parent-in-law $539, previously $501. In addition, the zone rebate for people who live in isolated areas and have dependent children will be increased because allowances for the children that are taken into account in calculating the rebate are to be indexed from the previous levels of $251 and $189 to $270 and $203.

I turn now to the tax scale itself. Here, too, indexation will reduce tax in 1978-79 below what it would have been in the absence of indexation. Every taxpayer will benefit, because the amount of taxable income to which the zero rate of tax applies will rise from $3,750 to $3,893. The range of taxable income to which the standard rate of 32 per cent applies will similarly be lengthened, so that that rate will apply on income up to $16,608, instead of $16,000. And the 46 per cent rate will run to $33,2 1 6, previously $32,000.

I illustrate how indexation of the tax scale will benefit people, by reference to a person without dependants with a taxable income of $10,000. The tax payable by such a person in 1978-79 will be $1,954.24, a saving of $45.76 compared with the tax that would have been payable but for indexation, namely, $2,000, and a saving of $193.06 compared with the tax that would have been payable under the rates of tax that applied on 1 July 1977, namely, $2,147.30.

The indexation factor for 1978-79 is derived by adjusting the movement in the average level of the consumer price index for the 12 months ended 31 March 1978 over the level for the 12 months ended 31 March 1977. Because of the Government’s success in curbing inflation, the movement in the consumer price index over these periods was only 10.9 per cent. The basic 1 978-79 tax indexation factor of 1 .076, that is, an increase of 7.6 per cent, is derived from this movement by netting out the effects, included in the 10.9 per cent movement, of increases in indirect taxes, the health care changes and exchange rate adjustment made in the December quarter of 1976.

It was announced when the standard rate system was introduced that ‘half indexation’ would apply to rates of personal income tax for the 1978-79 income year. In accordance with this, the indexation of the tax scale for 1978-79 reflects an indexation factor of 1.038. At that time it was also announced that measures would be taken to ensure that no taxpayer would pay more tax in 1978-79 under half indexation of the standard rate system than would have been payable under full indexation of the previous scale.

With the adoption of a 7.6 per cent basic adjustment only a limited number of taxpayers, namely those whose 1978-79 taxable incomes fall in the range $6,600 to $6,978, would, if nothing were done to prevent it, be slightly worse off by amounts ranging from one cent to $7.06, as a result of half indexation. Legislation will be introduced in the Budget sittings to provide for a rebate to be granted to remove the detriment that otherwise would be suffered by taxpayers in this income range. The rebate will be available in respect of any 1978-79 assessments made before the Budget.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-by leave-The Opposition regards this statement as highly inadequate. It means that instead of the full tax indexation which the people of Australia were promised a couple of years ago, we have now got down to one-third tax indexation. The House will recall that the Government, when it announced the tax cuts last year, said that they would be followed by half tax indexation. But we now see that the half tax indexation will be about onethird tax indexation, that is, an adjustment factor of 3.8 per cent compared with a price movement over the 12 months to March 1978 and the 12 months to March 1977 of 10.9 percent. That is a very substantial reduction. It means that the impact of tax indexation for taxpayers in this country is becoming less and less.

At the same time, of course, as wage indexation is being whittled away, so too is tax indexation being whittled away very substantially. Of course this destroys the whole concept of what tax indexation is about. Tax indexation is designed to ensure that taxpayers whose incomes are adjusted in line with inflation do not move into higher tax brackets and pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. But if we whittle away at the tax indexation factor, what happens is that people move into higher and higher tax brackets. That is what is happening in this country now because of this Government’s continual movement away from full tax indexation to the position where something like one-third tax indexation is now to apply.

This statement is also highly inadequate in that it leaves totally unexplained the derivation of the adjustment factor used for this coming financial year. The Treasurer (Mr Howard), having mentioned in his statement that the movement in the consumer price index over the appropriate period was 10.9 per cent, then said:

The basic 1978-79 tax indexation factor of 1.076, that is, an increase of 7.6 per cent, is derived from this movement by netting out the effects, included in the 10.9 per cent movement, of increases in indirect taxes, the health care changes and exchange rate adjustments made in the December quarter of 1976.

That is the end of the explanation. We are given no figures at all, no calculations whatever, to justify a very substantial movement away from even the half tax indexation which was promised last year. That is just not good enough. The Government’s move from half tax indexation to one-third tax indexation is a cost to every taxpayer in this country. Yet there is not attempt whatever on the part of the Government to give figures to the people of Australia to explain why that is being done. There is simply mention of three items: Indirect taxes, health care changes and exchange rate adjustments. There are no figures. We think that the figures ought to be supplied. In fact, it is incumbent on the Government to do so if it wants to satisfy the people as to what it is doing. Of course it ought also to give them reasons as to why such items should be netted out. That is just taken for granted. Why should those figures be taken out? Perhaps there is a logical explanation in respect of some of the items, but no attempt has been made by the Treasurer to give us that explanation. Nor has he given any figures to justify his actions.

In respect of the exchange rate movements, I think it is very important to note the figures being used by the Commonwealth Government in the national wage cases to justify a reduction from full wage indexation. I am not arguing that the

Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commision should not take into account exchange rate adjustment figures, but the Government is using not just the increase in import prices due to devaluation, but all increases in import prices for whatever reason. Is that what is being done here too? Is the tax indexation factor being eroded by all increases in import prices, for whatever reason at all, as is being done in the national wage case? We are not told. But that is a very important factor. No mention has been made of it.

What about oil prices? In the national wage case, the Government has argued that increases in petrol prices stemming from the increase in the crude oil price- as a result of decisions made by this Government- ought to be discounted from the adjustment factor for purposes of calculating wage indexation. Is that what is being done here also in respect of tax indexation? We are not told. Oil prices are not mentioned. But if they are being taken into account, we would like to know about it. Indeed, if they are being taken into account, the figures are probably being calculated quite wrongly. In the national wage cases the Government argued that on the basis of an input-output model calculated by the Treasury the adjustment for oil prices ought to be 0.23 per cent in the March quarter, but that that should be netted out. But the Government did that in the same quarter as the consumer price index showed falls in petrol prices in almost every capital city because of the spread of petrol discounting, principally due to the operations of ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd. Is that what is being done here also? Has there been an attempt to net out oil price increases on the basis of some Treasury calculation of an unexplained inputoutput model, or is the Government using the consumer price index? We simply do not know, and it is totally unsatisfactory that this is the situation. The Government has a bounden duty to explain to the people exactly what calculations have been used to move from a half indexation factor to a one-third indexation factor.

It is also interesting to note in the statement by the Treasurer that some people are not to benefit from the tax cuts half indexation arrangement as compared with the previous arrangements, with just a continuation of the old tax scale and application of full tax indexation. This is a point we have made before, but it is interesting to see that the Government now acknowledges it. Indeed, it has had to bring in a special rebate to ensure that those people who would have been disadvantaged by this new operation, by the tax cuts plus one-third tax indexation, are not worse off than they would have been had the old arrangements continued. Of course if these people are not to be made worse off, it means that other people at incomes in this range, which is from $ 127 a week to $134 a week, certainly do not get much benefit out of the much vaunted tax cuts and half tax indexation arrangements which were so important at the last election.

Many people on relatively low wages clearly gained nothing from the tax cuts. That is now patently clear to the Parliament from the fact that the Government has to introduce a special rebate to ensure that some of them are not worse off under the new arrangements than they would have been had the old scale continued with half tax indexation. The statement by the Treasurer left a lot of questions unanswered. He has a bounden duty to explain in full to the Parliament what calculations he has used to bring about a reduction from half tax indexation to one-third tax indexation.

page 3019

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure I present the report of the Committee on the Northern Territory forestry program together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (Lilley)-by leave-This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure originated from a recommendation made to it from the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. That recommendation was inspired by a former member of the latter Committee, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). It was made subsequent to its preliminary examination of the issues in the last Parliament. This type of inquiry into the efficiency of a particular program will always constitute a significant role for the Committee in its scrutiny of government expenditure. It has been accomplished in a very short time span but necessarily will not replace broad inquiries such as those presently occurring into the Budget Estimates. The Northern Territory Forestry Program required an almost immediate response and this was made. The honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) responded quickly and sensitively to the subcommittee work.

The Committee recommends a virtual cessation of forestry activities in the Northern Territory as they are now practised. We believe the planting of softwoods should be halted immediately, pending the results of at least 10 years of useful research into the prospects of some success in planting programs. We further recommend that the extensive program of maintenance of the native forests be discontinued. Other significant and consequential recommendations follow.

The various forestry programs since 1959 were aimed at making the Territory self-sufficient in timber resources, and have cost, on our estimates, at least $30m. After almost 20 years of forestry activity, total local production of sawn wood in the Territory amounted to a mere 240 cubic metres in 1977, and at what cost? These results speak for themselves. The Committee acknowledges that forestry operations are by their very nature long term investments. However, during our inspections and in all the evidence received we saw nothing to suggest that the large sums of money invested in Northern Territory forestry would realise other than a marginal return in the very distant future.

Why then has the program continued unchecked since 1959? One cannot escape the view that those whose responsibility it was to manage the programs felt it was not appropriate to expose their unrealistic and wasteful nature. Instead there was talk of magnificent native timber resources, excellent prosects for softwood plantations and Territorial self-sufficiency in timber in the near future. This even ran to visions of exports. This was all illusory and the basis for the growth of a forestry branch within the Department of the Northern Territory. No-one was prepared to call a halt to the growth and the few foresters who were prepared to criticise the program through legitimate channels seemed to have been victimised for it and had their careers disadvantaged.

Dr Jenkins:

– They certainly did.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-I thank the honourable member for Scullin. We know of his first interest in this matter.

In this respect I would like to clarify one point which I consider to be most important, that is, that we are not only criticising the current forestry administration in the Territory but also the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry which had a very significant role in the development and promotion of these wasteful programs up to 1975. Without the support and encouragement of the Bureau, the forestry programs could not have developed to the extent they did.

We have recommended that funding for the forestry program be substantially withdrawn and the responsibility for it from 1 July next will lie with the Northern Territory Government which will have to decide on the future of forestry in the Territory. The present principles of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to which that Government might seek to appeal indicate that the extent to which the forestry program was designed to serve a commercial market will result in an adverse assessment of its funds. To keep up that program will represent a net Territorial cost. Hence the only means of obtaining Commonwealth funds would be under the terms of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act 1978. The application for such funds, which are loan funds, would have to be considered in the light of the evidence placed before this Committee. I could not be optimistic about the success of such an application, let alone the wisdom of making the application in the first place.

During the course of the inquiry, the estimated total cost to the Australian community of the forestry programs grew and grew from the Department’s initial figure of $10m to the Committee’s estimate of at least $30m. Economic and accounting practices which do not record accurately the total cost of such programs, or which do not allow the total cost to be readily available, do not enable proper evaluations and decisions based on adequate economic criteria to be made by the Parliament. With regard to our recommendations concerning assistance through local forestry matters to Aboriginals, this would be funded directly and perceptibly by the Commonwealth Government through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The report of this Committee and the evidence taken by it will be of interest and assistance to the Government of the Northern Territory. I will today be forwarding copies of both to the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for the information of all Assembly members. I wish them well in their deliberations.

I would like to comment on the attitude to the Committee of the Department of the Northern Territory. At our second public hearing in Canberra, it was the intention of the Department to be represented by one assistant secretary only, on a matter which it was known had provoked considerable critical interest from this Committee. When my concern at this attitude was made known to the Secretary of the Department, Mr Livingston, an acting First Assistant Secretary was also sent to give evidence.

A final remark concerns the outstanding service rendered to this Committee by one of Australia’s most distinguished foresters, Mr Kel

McGrath, who was our expert adviser in this inquiry and who is listening to this speech. His profound knowledge of forestry and its economics, combined with his excellent good sense, allowed this Committee to complete the inquiry in the very short time available to us. The Committee records its sincere thanks to Mr McGrath. This report could not have been prepared in the short time span available had it not been for the open, willingly given and enthusiastic interest of the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Parramatta and the Expenditure Committee staff.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-by leave- The inquiry by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Expenditure into the Northern Territory forestry program was instigated by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) when he was a member of the Expenditure Committee. Dr Jenkins had noticed some figures on projected timber production released by the Department of the Northern Territory and fortunately questioned the inaccuracy. Thus began the job of untangling a complex net of deceit which led to the disastrous story that the Committee’s report uncovers. The forestry scheme was based on a false premise which originated in 1959. ‘O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive! ‘ So said the great Scottish writer. How true it is. This expose of government inefficiency should be a salutary warning to honourable members and Ministers as to how governments can be effectively snowed by devious officials.

The original Cabinet submission in 1959 was born out of an exaggerated assessment of the Territory’s forestry potential made by people who were either patently dishonest or blatantly lacking the professional expertise they were alleged to possess. The error was probably a combination of the two conditions, that is, poor professional advice provided by mediocre foresters with a more than acute sense of potential empire building and the attendant perks of such attainment. Over the years this web of deception and/or ignorance, inexcusable from highly paid people described as experts, has been allowed to spread until the pathetic situation revealed by our inquiry 20 years later was ultimately reached.

The sub-committee, on its visit to the Northern Territory, was not only appalled by what it found, but even more appalled by what it did not find. The forestry expert, Mr Kel McGrath, attached to the Committee, spent days in the forestry areas looking for what he aptly described as the mythical tree’- even one worth cutting down. The professional sense of Mr McGrath, a world-renowned forester, was assailed and offended by what the department was exhibiting as its precious resource. The native eucalypts have practically no commercial value and the pine plantations exhibit growth rates well below accepted levels.

The scheme was originally set up with these high sounding ideals: ( 1 ) preserving the natural resource; (2) providing useful employment for Aborigines; and (3) conserving the soil, water and wildlife. On every count it has been a splendid failure.

In 1955 a report was published which stated in unequivocal terms the limitations to forestry development in the Northern Territory. This report was a realistic assessment of the Northern Territory forestry resources and their little potential for development; it gave due recognition to the realities of the Northern Territory environment. Despite the truth of this report, a large forestry organisation was developed. The organisation was significant in terms of Northern Territory expenditure and personnel employed. It completely overshadowed the meagre forestry resource. The forest itself had always offered mute protest. Despite paper expectations and people’s opinions, it remained as it was and will always be- a very poor and primitive resource.

The simple figures of this 1955 report illustrate the overstatement of the department ‘s view of its resources. For example, the Maningrida area had, according to the department, a projected output of 2,245 super feet per acre. The real production was accurately nominated by the 1955 report as 100 super feet per acre. That was just a nice little overstatement of 2, 1 45 per cent.

Let me cite a few of the Committee’s interesting figures. The report will indicate to any honourable member who reads it that the total cost of the scheme is somewhere over $30m. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs admits to spending since 1971 $870,000 for Aboriginal enterprises in forestry. The total return has been $33,000. In Umbakumba, $45,000 was spent with no return. In Maningrida, $370,000 was spent in 1975-76 for a return of$l,500-and that does not include a quarter of a million dollars spent on a defunct sawmill which has been inoperative for three years and lying rusty. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Forest Research spent $948,000 in less than three years on Forest research with such significant lack of results that it is now withdrawing completely from the Northern Territory.

One of the answers to the sub-committee’s questionnaire suggested that surveyed areas of natural timber on Melville Island totalled 695,000 hectares, but the total area of Melville Island is under 570,000 hectares, so I assume they were going to plant trees in the seamangrove forests perhaps. These overstatements are typical of the whole false rationale on which the scheme was formulated and, for 20 years unfortunately, fuelled with federal funds. No real evaluation was ever made of the inhibiting local environment. The very real problems of the natural hazards of this harsh area were disregarded. Fire, cyclones, and the alldevouring mastotermes termites are huge problems- overlooked in the inexorable march to a large and grander forestry empire.

One simple fact emerges. Despite the idealism of the original concept, despite the great efforts over the years of many of the more devoted forestry staff to conquer the myriad of problems, the grand dream is in tatters, an abject failure. The house built on a shifting foundation is about to crumble, as was its pre-determined destiny. Any project based on such unreal assessments must, of its own inherent weakness, crash. What a pity, then, that the assessments made in 1971 by a courageous and outspoken critic of the scheme, Mr Chris Lacey, a research forester, were ignored. Mr Lacey criticised the resource severely, emphasising its lack of potential for development and the refusal of the hierarchy to accept research data. Evidence given at our inquiry showed that this critical document was suppressed- taken from the department’s file and placed in Mr Lacey ‘s personal file. I have no doubt that Mr Lacey’s career since then has suffered as a result of his frankness and honesty in revealing all of the weaknesses inherent in the scheme. The sub-committee’s finding have confirmed Mr Lacey’s assessment of seven years ago as deadly accurate. I would like to go on record as acknowledging not only Mr Lacey’s courage but also his professional integrity and skill as a first-class forester. I hope that his career prospers from now on.

Public moneys have been squandered in a cavalier and irresponsible fashion. I hope that the emerging State of the Northern Territory, and its new Legislative Assembly heed the finding of the sub-committee and is able to salvage something from the wreck of this forestry venture.

In conclusion, may I pay tribute to my fellow sub-committee members, the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) and the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), for their responsible and bipartisan attitude to this inquiry. The sub-committee staff, Mr Bush and Mr Nelson, as well as our forestry expert, Mr Kel McGrath, also deserve the highest praise for their ready co-operation and expertise. Finally, one telling statistic fully illustrates the history of this ill-conceived and disastrous venture. The department, in 1974 informed the Forwood Conference that the anticipated production of hardwood sawlogs in the Territory in 1980 would be 58,000 cubic metres. Despite criticism from foresters this figure, for 1980 production, was raised again in 1977 to 82,000 cubic metres. The Committee is now informed that the figures has been revised in 1 978 to zero.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

– by leave- I also want to refer to this report, but with a view to drawing to the attention of this House certain matters of consequence arising from it regarding the way in which public money is spent, and how these matters could provide assistance to the Expenditure Committee as it addresses itself to the whole concept of the administration of public expenditure.

My first problem is the way in which this whole inquiry was instigated. It really originated in March 1977, when Mr David Cameron, a research forester with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, based in Darwin, made certain allegations during an in camera hearing of the Environment Committee of the House concerning the management and viability of the government forestry program in the Northern Territory. After an inquiry into these allegations by a sub-committee of the Environment Committee, the chairman, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), reported that the Expenditure Committee should take this matter on board and carry out a full investigation. It seems to me that this highlights a very serious deficiency in the way in which public programs are administered and reviewed. Why should professionals in the field, themselves public servants, have to take matters to parliamentary committees of inquiry to have their professional reservations heard? Why are they unable to have a proper professional input to these public expenditure programs through the departmental authorities responsible for administering them.

This raises a frightening question: How many other highly expensive but defective programs are still proceeding simply because proper scrutiny is not being exercised by the proper authorities? Why should this indirect and rather exceptional procedure have to be adopted? Even then, it was only the persistence of certain professional people that brought this problem to public notice. Surely notice should have been taken of a professional forester’s viewpoint, particularly as that view was being reinforced by a number of other foresters over a long period of time. This raises another question: Is there an in-built tendency within the Public Service to maximise rather than minimise public expenditure?

In this regard I should state that several conclusions about the forestry program have emerged as a result of this inquiry. First, there has been a gross overestimation of the native forest resource in the Northern Territory, a matter that was referred to by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). In 1974 the department estimated that the production of hardwood sawlogs in the Territory would be by 1980 58,000 cubic metres. In 1 977 this figure was raised to 82,000 cubic metres but, as the honourable member said, just this year it was revised downwards to zero. The second major conclusion was that there had been inadequate research undertaken to ascertain whether certain softwoods would succeed in the Northern Territory. Softwood plantations were established, despite the fact that inadequate reseach was undertaken regarding soil types, seeding and planting technology, growth rates of suitable species and so on. The third conclusion was that the benefit cost analyses were based on unrealistic assumptions, not on research data. In fact, the planting of Cyprus pine was undertaken on a projected benefit cost ratio of 1:2.7 which is a very rosy picture, but this ratio was determined in 1971. Only three years later the ratio was determined to be less than the break even point of 1 : 1 .

In all these areas professional foresters had voiced their concern and issued professional warnings over a very long period of time, but the program continued to expand. All I can conclude, on the basis of available evidence, is that either this information was suppressed deliberately in order to prevent minimisation of public expenditure, thereby protecting certain vested interests, and that the Parliament has been misled, or that the people responsible for administering the program were just not competent to do so. I recognise that these are serious charges, but they are the conclusions which we have had to draw from the evidence we have received.

Another problem that the Committee encountered, and which has relevance to the

Expenditure Committee, was that it was almost impossible to obtain accurate total figures of expenditure for this program. There is obviously no program budgeting undertaken in regard to public expenditure in this country. We were told that the total costs of the forestry program amounted to approximately $ 10m. As a result of questioning we learnt that this figure excluded the costs incurred by other departments and agencies in respect of this program. The Committee has now estimated that total expenditure on the program amounted to approximately $30m. It has subsequently been ascertained that the Department of the Northern Territory has no actual expenditure records for two years of the 1967-70 program. In other words, the stated program costs on which parliamentary approvals were given were incomplete and seriously underestimated. It would appear that this is a standard method of preparing estimates. In my opinion this Committee should examine the implications of this approach to appropriating funds. What it means effectively is that even if the House of Representatives had the procedures and the forms which would enable us to examine estimates in detail, there would be little possibility of assessing accurately individual projects and their viability. An assessment of estimates only on a departmental basis can be very misleading for the Parliament and can obviously accommodate sloppy program budgeting, as has been the case in the program which is the subject of this report.

It is not enough to justify such practices solely on the basis of a social function of employing Aboriginals. It appears that no review of the program was undertaken when Aboriginal attitudes to this kind of employment changed. They changed rather dramatically in 1974. Further, there seems to have been no adequate consultation between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of the Northern Territory regarding what is or is not an appropriate form of employment for Aboriginals. I maintain that it is a highly questionable practice to train Aboriginals in ventures which have no long-term viability. After all, $30m has been spent, and only 28 Aboriginals now have employment in the project. That is a pretty substantial subsidy per person.

It appears that no adequate and independent on-going review of clearly defined expenditure programs is undertaken by this Parliament. The Committee should address itself to the problem of establishing proper review mechanisms which will obviate the need for waste and inefficiency in expenditure programs being brought to the notice of government only by public servants being motivated by their professional standards to make submissions to parliamentary committees of inquiry. This is hardly the way to exercise an on-going scrutiny of public expenditure.

In summary, I think this inquiry opens up more questions than it answers- questions which the Committee will have to consider within the context of the whole principle of public expenditure administration. I have an instinctive feeling that the sheer extent of public expenditure in Australia and the very nature of public enterprise make it almost impossible for that expenditure to be properly accounted for on behalf of its shareholders, the Australian taxpayers. Certainly, given the existing resources of the Parliament and the procedures of this House, it is beyond adequate parliamentary scrutiny at this stage. We can certainly examine clearly defined areas of public expenditure, as we have done in this report. My concern is whether or not the whole spectrum of public enterprise in Australia could withstand the kind of scrutiny which this Committee undertakes in specific areas. In my opinion that is the major question to be answered by the Expenditure Committee in its future work.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks to the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for Parramatta for the way in which they carried out their duties in bringing this inquiry to a swift conclusion. I also would like to pay tribute to Mr Kel McGrath who is in the House at the moment. He possesses the rare combination of exemplary academic qualifications in the forestry area and a very sound and pragmatic businesslike approach to forestry programs. I also would like to congratulate Mr Bush, the clerk to the subcommittee. He developed a very sound knowledge of the technical aspects of the subject under consideration, and it was his administrative ability which enabled us to bring this report to a swift and, I think, very just conclusion.

page 3024

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to provide positive action to create new jobs in the light of recent sharp falls in total civilian employment, in production and in consumer confidence.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-There is one economic measure above all others which we of the Labor Opposition consider to be most important, and that is the measure of employment. We believe that the object of government policy should be to provide full employment, that is, as many jobs as there are people seeking jobs. Along with full employment there must be a rise in the standard of living. By all the indicators, particularly the important indicator- the unemployment indicator- and indeed many other indicators the Fraser Government has failed. There is disillusion in this country, the people having been promised and expecting so much yet getting so little. The latest statistics show a decline in total civilian employment, not just a slow down in the rate of growth, which would be bad enough, but a decline in the total number of civilians employed in this country. The picture is a very dismal one. We have to face the unpalatable facts. If only this Government would face those unpalatable facts it might change its policy so that we would have a much improved economic program.

The facts are that each year at the present time our work force of 6.4 million workers is increasing by about 2 per cent. This means that each year there is net somewhere between 120,000 and 128,000 additional workers in the work force. This is the net increase. I repeat the word net’. This is the number of extra jobs that it is obligatory on those who seek to rule this country to create if we want to put into work those extra people coming into the work force. That net figure is over and above those who are retiring.

We need a growth rate- a growth in our gross national product, our GNP- of at least 5 per cent. We are achieving nowhere near this growth rate, according to the latest estimates which indicate that the rate is only about 2 per cent. We are living at a time when so much of our emphasis is and, I concede, must be on increased international competitiveness, on increased productivity. This provides for a growth rate of about 3 per cent. We need to maintain an additional 2 per cent above that 3 per cent, making a total of 5 per cent, to which I alluded, in order merely to absorb the present increase in the numbers joining the work force. We need a growth rate of yet a further 5 per cent, making a total of 10 per cent, to absorb in one year the great proportion of the half million presently unemployed in this country. We will need a growth rate of this magnitude if we are to get that half million back to work and achieve full employment, which is the Australian Labor Party’s aim. These are the facts. This is the difficult scenario which we are bound to face and which we assert the Government is not facing.

The Government is failing dismally in the task of getting the country moving. The picture gets worse as every week goes by. Just Wednesday of last week, to take just one day, we were subjected to the miserable news of three disastrous results. I would like to use that one day and those three results as an indication of what is happening. First, there were the production figures. My time is short so I must give just the bald facts. Those figures showed that in 19 of 32 categories for which production statistics are given there were lower figures for production output than there were in the previous month. But that was not the only picture. Not only were the figures for April lower when compared with March but also over a longer period, for the 3 months to the end of April compared with the 3 months to the end of January, 19 of the 32 production output figures were lower. To say the very least, Australian industrial output is weak. This is the message one gets from businessmen and trade unionists everwhere when one visits the various industry groups in this country.

The second miserable announcement on that day last week related to the latest consumer surveys. The Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, along with the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd conducted a series of sixweekly surveys on consumer attitudes and intentions. The index of consumer sentiment dropped a further four points between the April and March surveys. This followed a drop of 4.4 points between March and January. This shows that the short term attitude towards the economy taken by the Australian people is, to say the very least, in a downward trend. Over the last sixweek period alone 8 per cent fewer people thought favourably than those who thought unfavourably about prospects. Why is this happening? It is happening because there is a growing realisation that the Fraser Government’s economic policies are wrong and inept; that they need to be changed and that there is a desperate need for them to be changed right now.

The third important indicator which was released on Wednesday of last week was published by an industry body- the Metal Trades Industry Association. It showed that average capacity utilisation of companies in the Association was dropping still further. In other words, no substantial recovery was to be expected in that important labour-intensive industry on which the return to full employment depends to such a large extent. Capacity utilisation in the factories of members of the Association is now under 70 per cent and, I repeat, is still dropping.

The reality is that the economic recovery promised to the Australian people at the last election campaign by every member of the Liberal and National Country parties is just not happening. It was a false promise. Consumer confidence is eroding. The level of unemployment is up even though people are dropping out of the work force. Industrial production is stagnant. Industry itself is forecasting that conditions will get worse, not better. Where on earth is that boost which was supposed to result from the February tax cuts? It is nowhere, as we in the Labor Party forecast at that time. It is nowhere because the increased health charges and other imposts on the less well off in the community have resulted in wealth being transferred from those who have less to those who have a little more. This was not even in the best interests of those who have a little more, to say nothing of those who have less. It is not the way to get our economy moving so that we are all better off. We need more spending power in the pockets of those who spend- those who are less well off and who desperately need to spend in order to maintain their living standards. This is not just crying gloom, as I am sure some of those on the other side of the House will say. It is facing the stark facts in the hope that policies will be changed, so we can get this country going again.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) needs to stay here and face these facts and to listen to a little reality from the Australian people rather than flying away on his ego-boosting exercises overseas to engage in his absurd activities of seeking to persuade others to follow his own inept, unsuccessful, contractionary economic policies. It is bad enough for him to do it here. We are the sufferers. We need a return to a higher level of activity in the world economy. Yet the Prime Minister goes abroad to lecture to those who see the situation clearly. He seeks to persuade them to allow a lower rate of economic activity. That is quite absurd. I repeat that the Prime Minister needs to stay here and think about and study his Government’s coming Budget.

We heard a speech from the suspended Minister for Finance, promising us worse policies, not better ones. We need the Prime Minister here to tell us what status this speech of the suspended Minister for Finance has. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) asked a question about that speech yesterday. I asked a question about it the day before. All we get from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is stalling. While we have this stalling we have problems because there is a further lack of confidence. Last Wednesday I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether pensions are to be increased; whether they are to be maintained in real terms by continued indexation. Is indexation to be deferred as has been suggested? There was no denial from the Acting Prime Minister. If these matters are not to be considered why did the Acting Prime Minister not make a denial? Why did he not state there and then that pensions would be maintained? Is the means test to be reimposed for those people over 70 years of age? There has been no denial of this assertion at Question Time. There have been two opportunities- yesterday and the day before- to do so.

Is education to join health and possibly security as a victim of real cuts? This would be the implication of the speech from the suspended Minister for Finance. There was no denial of this. We need a Prime Minister here to allay our fears, not an Acting Prime Minister who further kills confidence by failing to deny these charges, these possible options which the Government could take. The options which the suspended Minister for Finance raised are a further denial of justice to those who are less well off in the community and they should be denied. Giving these people less spending power- and this would be possible under the options put forward by the suspended Minister for Finance- would only result in a worsening economy.

The States have a right to know what will happen to them. There were serious implications in the speech that was made by the suspended Minister for Finance last Monday night about what might happen to the States. The serious implications of that speech were certainly along the lines of the States being hit to leg. To date the States have saved us from some of the worst aspects of Fraser Government economic and social policies. They have taken up a little of the slack. One would not know it if one looked at the unemployment figures climbing as they have. Indeed, when we look at what the States have tried to do we see that particularly the Labor States have saved us from an even worse fate than otherwise would be the case. They have employed more people to save the dole queues from growing even further. Now apparently they are to have their funds cut, forcing them to create more unemployment and to lessen their services or, alternatively, to impose double taxation on the people, as they could if they adopted the Bill which was rushed through this House yesterday without proper consideration.

I come now to what the Labor Party suggests as an alternative policy. Clearly, the creation of new jobs is the greatest challenge we face at a time when Fraser Government policies are causing thousands more to join the dole queues each year. Clearly, concentrating solely on reducing inflation and interest rates and leaving, Micawber-like, the return to full employment in the hands of private business decision-makers is unfair and unsuccessful. Like Mr Micawber, the Government is just waiting for something to turn up. This is the Fraser Government’s record.

Business is still struggling to be more competitive. It is inevitably investing in automation. It is deepening its investment in this area and consequently is shedding labour. It is not good enough for the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) to say that confidence is returning and that the investment figures are up. Investment figures are not an indication of what is happening in the economy. All that is happening is that investment is deepening and machines are taking the place of men. What we want is investment to widen so that new jobs are created.

Certainly the more expansionary general macro-economic policies advocated by the Australian Labor Party would help enormously. We need more government spending on public works programs to create new jobs and to help stimulate a return of confidence. But governments of the correct philosophical outlook can help more than this. I am referring, of course, to governments of a progressive nature- governments like an Australian Labor Party government. We need a body to promote national investment. Let me call it an Australian enterprise corporation. We cannot just stand back and say that we are creating the conditions and that inevitably the private sector will take up those conditions. We have to promote investment. We have to seek out new investment opportunities on behalf of the community. We have to promote investment widening, I repeat, and to create new jobs.

There is a gap in our institutional framework at the present time. Labor would fill that gap by establishing such a corporation, perhaps by revamping the existing Australian Industry Development Corporation. Our political opponents will wallow in their ideological straightjacket, utter cries of socialism and allow the ranks of the unemployed to grow still further, instead of getting on with implementing progressive new imaginative policies which are so desperately needed at the present time. There is so much that such a corporation could do in the way of stimulating investment, in getting consortia together, and in getting some capital to top up finances in cases where a new project is not receiving sufficient support from the private sector. I could point to a number of ventures in relation to which such a corporation could have got investment going again in recent weeks. I refer, for instance, to what is happening in relation to phosphate in Queensland at the present time. I refer also to the need to build aluminium smelters in this country instead of just looking at the newspapers in the hope of seeing that the private sector intends to get such projects off the ground. I could refer to Mr Ralph Sarich and his research into and development of a new engine. Are we just to wait in the hope that some private company will do these things? We should not do that. We need a Labor government to see that the proper investment takes place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The silly arguments that are brought forward by the Australian Labor Party in debates on matters of public importance are truly amazing. It was with great amusement that I heard the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) continually referring during his contribution to this debate to figures which were announced to this House last Wednesday. I suggest that he should update his information and look at the figures to which I shall be referring and which were released as late as noon yesterday, 1 June, from a source which I think even members of the Labor Party would recognise as being most reliable, namely, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The honourable member for Adelaide commenced his whole argument by saying that the objective of government is to provide full employment. I totally agree with that assertion, but I can say that that is what happens only under our type of government; it is not what happens under the type of government that he represents. Let us compare the statistics very briefly. The rate of inflation in 1972 stood at 3.4 per cent, but by 1975 the inflation rate for a full year was 17 per cent. That occurred under a Labor administration. When Labor came to office the number of unemployed was 136,000, but that figure had increased to 328,705 by the end of its regime- an unfortunate three-year period.

I note with interest also that the honourable member for Adelaide had the hide to mention the Melbourne University’s Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research. That organisation leaped into prominence in the latter part of 1972 with the statement that unemployment would be high in the early part of 1973. That was absolute rubbish. I can only say that since then the Melbourne University’s Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research has continued its marvellous record of being completely out of tune with what is actually happening. The Sun newspaper of Tuesday, 17 August 1976, carried an article with the headline: ‘Inflation “to stay high” ‘. That followed the introduction of the Lynch Budget of that year. The article went on to state:

Rates of inflation would continue to be more rapid in Australia than our big trading partners through 1 977, Melbourne University’s Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research said in its latest review.

The Institute brought forward information which was completely inaccurate. What really and truly amazes me is the fact that the first point mentioned in the matter of public importance brought forward by the honourable member for Adelaide reads:

The Government’s failure to provide positive action to create new jobs.

I believe that the Government has created new jobs very ably. Since the early part of 1976 eight job creation schemes have been in existence. Five of them are entirely new schemes and three of them have been dramatically changed to give more opportunities to the Australian people to achieve what they all want, namely, a good job and a safe and secure future. The type of economic framework that we have put down will achieve that end.

I wish to look just briefly at some of the training schemes which we have. I shall begin with the National Employment and Training scheme, which is commonly known as the NEAT scheme. With little more than doubling of expenditure, the numbers in training under that scheme at the end of June 1 978 are expected to be six times the number as at December 1975. At the present time the number in training represents an increase of five times the previous level. There has been a major change in the nature of the training, the change being from formal training courses to on-the-job training. On-the-job training is most directly related to industry needs. More than 85 per cent of the training is now done on the job. The level of on-the-job training was approximately one-third in December 1975.

Let us compare the number of people assisted under the changed NEAT scheme introduced by this Government with the number helped by the previous Administration, the socialist Labor Party. As at 3 1 December 1975 the total number of people involved in the NEAT scheme was 7,736, at a total cost of $40.2m. As at 1 March 1978 we find that the total number of people involved was 29, 1 12, at a total cost of $44.9m. So there has been quite a dramatic increase in the number of people involved in the scheme but a very small increase in the total cost of it. The approximate number of people assisted under the scheme since 31 December 1975- these figures are available from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations- is a dramatic total of 94,000. So 94,000 people have been ably assisted by a program which this Government introduced in a form which was dramatically changed from the previous scheme. The emphasis is on job training.

The second program I think I should mention is the Special Youth Employment Training Program. This program, since it was introduced in October 1976, has helped approximately 40,000 young people. Recent research indicates that 61 per cent of all assisted trainees were still in employment four to six weeks after the completion of training. The information I have is that in my electorate of Brisbane- indeed, some of my colleagues involved in the Employment and Industrial Relations Committee can verify this from surveys that we have done- that estimate of four to six weeks has increased dramatically. The surveys show that in some cases these people were still in employment as long as 12 months after the completion of the set training program. As at 3 1 December 1 976 there were 3,275 people in training and being assisted by this scheme. As at 30 April 1978 that figure had increased to 22,994. That is a dramatic increase which shows that this Government is concerned with providing positive action to create new jobs.

I turn now to the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme. The apprenticeship intake in 1977 was 8 per cent above that in 1976. At the end of March 1978 the national apprenticeship intake was some 10 per cent above the intake at the same time in 1977. Again there has been an increase in the number of people being trained under a new scheme- an increase in the number of people going forward and being involved in programs which are worthwhile and which will provide future employment for themselves and future security for their loved ones.

Another program which is completely innovative is the Community Youth Support Scheme. Almost 45,000 young people are expected to have been assisted under CYSS by June of this year. The actual total number of people involved in this scheme since its inception is 44,900, at a total expenditure of $6.67m. The number of people involved is dramatic. I can say with pride that a number of my colleagues, who join me on youth affairs committees and on the Employment and Industrial Relations Committee, have put forward the most innovative proposals which have assisted those young people under CYSS. I am very appreciative that the Committee on Youth Affairs- I see the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Groom) is at the table- is looking forward to ensuring that we have young people who, because of policies of the previous Labor Government which we are slowly but surely eliminating, thereby creating confidence in the business community that we did not have previously, will be ably looked after and who will be confident in the future of a country which we can govern properly to ensure that those people will share in our total wealth. The programs that are coming out of the Minister’s Department will ensure that.

Another innovative program is the Relocation Assistance Scheme which is providing useful support to help unemployed persons who need relocation where that is a necessary condition in obtaining secure employment. The total number of people involved between 3 1 December 1 975 and 1 March 1978 was 939 at a total cost of $0.6m. The approximate number to be assisted since 31 December 1975 is 1,340 people at a total cost of $ 1.085m. A further program which has been extremely well received and which is operating successfully is the Fares Assistance Scheme. From 1 July 1977 to 31 December 1978 a total of 26,700 people were to have been assisted at a total cost of $95,000 and the revised estimate for the total 1977-78 financial year is 54,000 people assisted at a cost which is commensurate with the whole program.

I conclude my remarks dealing with this whole area of positive Government approach by referring to the education program for unemployed youth. It is estimated that over 2,000 people will have been assisted by that program at the end of this financial year. I refer next to training for industry and commerce. The allocation for the 1977-78 year is $lm. Claims have been made about the number of persons unemployed. Let me quote the figures so that we can get them in perspective. I will use three sources. Firstly, the number of persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at April was 402,534-a fall of 7,460. Next we look at the

Australian Bureau of Statistics’ figures. The ABS figures express persons seeking full time work. That is the series most comparable to the CES figures. They show 334,300 people, a total fall of 1 1,400; down some 6.2 per cent in the month of April on the previous figures. Then we have a look at a third source, the Morgan gallop poll. Full time unemployment in April fell 526 to 286,000 people who are registered for unemployment benefits. If we look at any one of the areas that we take as reliable and accurate figures, every single one shows that there has been a fall in unemployment. We then come to the fact that there has been a recent sharp fall in production which is the matter of public importance initiated by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). Let us look at production statictics. Comparing the three months ending April 1 978 with the three months ending January 1978, preliminary data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests an improvement in production. Eighteen out of the 32 items for which seasonally adjusted data is available increased while 14 decreased.

Consumer confidence is another such area which is touched on in the matter of public importance. The index of consumer sentiments published by the Institute of Applied Consumer Economic and Social Resource- the one which I mentioned previously- now stands at 110.8 points as at April. The fact remains that the index is considrably higher than it was in December 1975 which was 103.8 and in December 1974 which was 92.2. Those are the Opposition’s own figures from its own source. It is amazing the amount of information that particular group seems to have in concert with the Labor Party. Now let me quote the ABS figures of 1 June, which is yesterday, not last Wednesday. As of 1 June 1978, in a release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics the total value of retail sales of goods in original figures was up 19.5 per cent between July of 1977 and April of this year. Then if we use the seasonally adjusted figures, which is another way of looking at them, there has been a total increase of some 8.9 per cent through those months. Even if we look at two months, three months or six months or if we look at the full financial year we are still in a situation where there are more people spending because of what this Government is doing in economic policies and there is confidence and that confidence has been reflected in any indicator one wants to use.

The last thing which I will touch on is the revival of capital investment. In the manufacturing industries that is up 20 per cent in the March quarter. This is a comparison with the 1977

March quarter. It is up 20 per cent which is a dramatic increase. Capital expenditure has increased by 8 per cent in the first three months of 1978. I believe that all these matters which have been brought up do show that the Government is concerned to create jobs; it has not had a fall in production; it has not had a sharp fall in consumer confidence. Indeed, no matter which source one uses, no matter which way anybody approaches it, even with the most biased approach one will still come forward with end results which show that unemployment is down, inflation is down, investment is up, capital expenditure is up, consumer confidence is up, total confidence in Australia is up and production is up. I think that that is a pretty good end result when one compares it with what we as a government inherited in 1975.

I say one last thing. There is one other factor that has to be considered. We have a ministry which is concerned about the Australian people and that is reflected by every single individual who holds that high office and the responsibility under the firm, sensible, mature and statesmanlike leadership of our Prime Minister, who is at present overseas trying to ensure that Australia will receive a greater degree of recognition for our primary produce which is so important to the future of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 3029

NORTHERN TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) BILL 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Bills listed under Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 13, Government Business, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 13 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 13 measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– While the Opposition has not opposed the discussion of these Bills together we are rather concerned at the precipitate way in which some Bills have been brought in this week to be debated this week; in particular, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bills (No. 2) and (No. 3). They may at first sight appear to be purely machinery matters that could be debated in this way, but it will be recalled that the Opposition had extensive amendments to move on the original Bill and it could be anticipated that we would be wanting to raise some of these matters. There should be time made available to the Opposition to consult in its party committees and party meetings to determine its attitude to all these matters. So I suggest to the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) that we are not happy about the way legislation has been rushed through this week, even though it may appear from the Government’s point of view that they are purely machinery Bills. There are matters that have to be considered in a responsible way and they are important Bills, particularly in the light of the first one that is coming before the House today- the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill. It is to this Bill that I will address my remarks in the second reading.

The Australian Labor Party favours decentralisation.

Mr Hodgman:

– Oh!

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The honourable member who interjects -

Mr Hodgman:

– I did not. I said ‘ Oh ‘.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– He did not interject. He said ‘Oh’.

Mr Hodgman:

– I am amazed.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Well, the honourable gentleman who has now interjected belongs to a party which even today was making a great song about handing back to the States their taxing powers. It was pointed out by honourable members on this side of the House that the Australian Labor Party when in power federally did more to decentralise decision-making to local government than any of the States. We made available to local government 2.3 per cent of income tax takings, even ignoring the Regional Employment Development scheme which was called on mainly by local government, but the present income tax formula gives local government far less than the 2 per cent of income tax revenue for which it is now asking.

The Opposition favours decentralisation, selfdetermination and self-government. In recent times the Queensland Government has been doing its darnedest to prevent Aboriginal communities from achieving self-government as they understand that term- that is, self-management and self-determination. The Opposition’s platform provides for statehood for the Northern Territory after a plebescite, which is normal democratic procedure. One does not expect major constitutional changes to be made without a vote of the people affected. While the degree of self-government planned to be given to the Northern Territory next month is short of statehood, in the opinion of several people it does go more than halfway towards statehood. Yet the determination of which functions are to be transferred to the Territory has been made imperfectly, spelt out slowly and defined with poor consultation or, at best, poor publicity has been given to that consultation. Even among the elected representatives in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, which has a majority with the same political persuasion as this Government and in the Territory generally there has been widespread concern at this lack of consultation. This is nothing new.

The image of Canberra’s bureaucracy in the north and the centre of Australia is even worse than it is in the States and the Australian Capital Territory, if that is possible. This in itself is no reflection on the Government but it ought to be a warning that before a major constitutional change of this kind takes place the Government should not only consult but also clearly be seen to consult with the people of the Territory. They are just as intelligent as the advisers of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) in Canberra. The people in the Territory know a vast amount more about their problems, their needs, the possible solutions of those problems and the disastrous failures of previous attempted solutions dreamed up or re-edited all too often by Cabinets and bureaucrats in Canberra or bureaucrats sent to the Northern Territory under one system or another with over-rigid Public Service guidelines and procedures to observe. Selfgovernment will do something to cut through the red tape that so often strangles appropriate action. I stress again that the Australian Labor Party is acutely aware of this and has moved with no less dispatch than the present Government to prepare for this stage of selfgovernment. In fact, the record will show that when in government we took quite a few steps to achieve self-determination, particularly for the Australian Capital Territory, and some of those steps are being duplicated in a similar move for the Northern Territory.

The Opposition basically objects to the lack of consultation and publicity on how the administration of the Northern Territory is to be financed The straws in the wind, the brief indications that we have had in recent days- a couple have surfaced even today- are that there will be increasing burdens placed upon the Northern Territory to raise its own funding. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) presented a report on the Northern Territory forestry program and the remark was made that it will be up to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to decide the future of that program. Clearly the Assembly will have to do a pretty severe pruning job on it as this Government would have to do if it were administering the Territory after 1 July. However, the handing over of projects which can be made viable, profitable and reasonable is not really the main concern of the Northern Territory. The Territory’s main concern is for those services which will need a continuing input far into the future in excess of the input that is normally available to the States. The fact that one-third of the Territory’s population is Aboriginal in itself places an enormous burden on the planning and administration of the Territory although, of course, the responsibility for providing services to the Aborigines will remain with this Government.

However, this does not alter the fact that it does create problems for the local administration. It is not possible to package and compartment the population of the Northern Territory into Aborigines and non-Aborigines and to say that these are the health, education, welfare, transport and other services for Aboriginal people, and those are the services for nonAboriginals. Many of these services must be provided for the whole population. There is an increasing, urgent and obvious need to delineate responsibility in all areas of administration so that the people in the Territory know where they are going and where they stand. Earlier this week honourable members on the Government side were saying that the need for funding and planning of projects is something that the Northern Territory Administration will have to iron out in the future. Certainly we will not be deserting or abandoning the Administration. Honourable members opposite in the debate earlier this week on the new taxation arrangements criticised the

States for not encouraging investment and settlement in the States, such as Queensland did by abolishing death duties. However, I think they should look to their own Government’s planning in the Northern Territory to see what encouragement it is providing for people to settle there, especially when it does not spell out what the financial obligations of the people in the Territory will be. Will the Northern Territory be forced to raise enormous sums by way of, say, stamp duties out of all proportion with that raised in the States in order to finance its Administration? Will this intimidate and deter people from going to the Northern Territory? Will it aggravate the difficulty that exists in attracting and encouraging public servants to go and stay in the Northern Territory? The Government ought to be spelling out what those financial arrangements are, as the States do.

One of the biggest inhibitions to adequate and efficient services in the Northern Territory is that people who go there from within the Public Service are disadvantaged and not treated as generously as are public servants in Canberra. In many respects they have inferior accommodation in the departments and do not have the financial incentives offered by many private enterprises, such as mining companies. I was able to take a small step towards correcting the position when I was the Minister for Health. When I found that Tennant Creek was so unpopular with health personnel that the town could not retain even one doctor, let alone a medical superintendent with a junior doctor assisting him, I made a special locality allowance to attract a doctor there. This allowance was matched by the mining company at Tennant Creek but, unfortunately, shortly after, because of the financial restraints that were forced on the Labor Government, and no doubt on other governments around the world, the Public Service Board became very reticent and was unwilling to allow any further development of this sort of incentive. I think the Government ought to be looking at the sorts of zone allowances and fringe benefits that should be made available to people to go to the less popular areas of the Northern Territory which include, by and large, any part of the Territory other than the far north, the Top End. Financial arrangements ought to have been discussed and spelt out before the Government was asked to approve, in this rather blanket way, all the constitutional provisions for handing over so many functions to the Northern Territory. I shall move, at the end of my speech, an amendment which seeks to substitute these words for the words in the motion.

That the Bill be withdrawn until a plebiscite has shown that voters of the Northern Territory approve the financial and constitutional provisions due to take effect on 1 July 1978.

It is not just the financial and constitutional provisions of the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Bill which exercise our concern. Whilst I have stressed that the Labor Party wants self-government and self-determination, it wants it at a rate that may correspond more of less with the sorts of steps taken here, but the Labor Party also stresses that it wants the Northern Territory Assembly to undertake a little bit of decentralisation also, in self-government. We are not terribly impressed by the record of the present Administration in Darwin with regard to Aboriginal affairs, just as we are not very impressed with the record of the States, particularly those States with governments of the same political colour as the Northern Territory Administration. I am not alone, and the Opposition is not alone, in this concern because this year one of the outstanding developments in the field of Aboriginal affairs, the one that has perhaps drawn more public notice and comment than any other issue in Aboriginal affairs, was the one-eyed approach of the State Government in Queensland- I stress that it is of the same political colour as the Administration in the Northern Territory- over the matter of land rights.

I know that there is strong feeling among whites in the Northern Territory that they have rights also. Some white people were born there, and some of their families have been there for generations. They are perfectly entitled to regard that Territory as their own, just as the Aborigines who may have an ancestry going back thousands of years. Let us not go overboard and get the wrong perspective on this issue. I have a transcript from This Day Tonight of 31 May tided White Backlash from Katherine NT on Aboriginal Land Rights’. This is the sort of thing about which the Australian Labor Party is concerned. It feels that the Northern Territory Administration, as is the Queensland State Government, is unduly influenced by the white backlash and peculiarly insensitive to the other case that should be balanced against it in any appraisal of administration of the Territory, particularly when looking at self-government. My remarks have relevance not only to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill but also particularly to the last of the Bills in this debate which, for the first time, has been placed on the Notice Paper, unlike some of the others which honourable members were led to believe would be debated earlier. It is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978. This Bill is one that gives, we believe, undue constitutional power to the Administrator. It places him virtually in the same position of power as the Governor-General of this nation or the Governor of a State. We do not believe that that it appropriate; we do not believe that he should have the same status. We believe that he should be subject to some more constraints which oblige him to confer with his advisers in the Northern Territory Assembly, to be guided by them and to take their advice. Also, there should still be the opportunity for this House to review matters in which the Administrator may be at odds with the Northern Territory Assembly. For that reason the Opposition will be moving some amendments at the Committee stage which are aimed at taking care of those aspects to which it has objection.

It is easy to understand why supporters of the Government may not be very sensitive about this constitutional issue. They feel that the Administrator, in the good old Westminster tradition, should have the same sorts of prerogatives as did Sir John Kerr. If they are honest and candid with themselves and others I think they will see that Sir John Kerr’s powers, as he exercised them, are still the basis of considerable controversy in the Australian electorate. They are still of concern around the world. When I was in London privately a couple of years ago it was brought home to me very forcibly that Britain in particular, and other countries in Europe at that stage still had considerable misgivings about what many of them saw as the misuse of constitutional power by the Governor-General. I think there ought to be some provision for spelling out the sorts of conventions that many people believe were breached by the Governor-General on Remembrance Day 1975. He failed to take the advice of his Ministers before making a major constitutional decision. He failed to receive the Speaker of the House who was waiting to inform him that the appointed Prime Minister did not any longer hold the confidence of the majority in the House of Representatives.

There are other aspects about which people feel uneasy and which should be provided for in some of the amendments. In the Committee stage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill we will also spell out some of our misgivings with regard to the rights of Aboriginals. Let me firstly go back to the transcript of This Day Tonight on the white backlash. We see some quite unwarranted misconceptions among the white population. These misconceptions did not arise this week or this year; it is something that has been going on for many years. The misconceptions relate to the rights of Aborigines overriding those of whites. For example, it was stated at the interview that ‘land claims now in existence and in the pipeline cover at least 50 per cent of the Territory and Aboriginals are currently negotiating not only for rnining royalties, but in one instance, for 36 per cent of the gross profits as well’. There has never been, and I cannot see that there ever will be, from the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council, the bodies responsible for negotiating land rights for the Northern Territory, a claim for anything like 50 per cent of the Territory. I think the claim is for less than one-eighth of the Territory.

This surely is not a very big claim when one looks at the fact that one-third of the people are Aborigines and when one look at the fact that nearly all of these claims are for land that is unalienated Crown land. It is not occupied by any white interest other than the Crown itself. Above all, of course, is the argument that the Aboriginal people were in Australia long before the whites. They were given no option over the acquisition of land for the purposes of whites, the white culture and the white economy. The conscience of Australia is now waking up to the fact that we ought to be doing something about the matter. Honourable members on both sides of the House will agree with this concept. I am sure they will agree also that this myth that 50 per cent of the land is being claimed by Aborigines ought to be vigorously exposed and the legitimate claims of the Aboriginal people spelt out in a way in which white people can understand and not feel threatened by it. That has been done in other countries, particularly North America. But certainly authorities there had a bit longer to negotiate and to work it all out.

There is a need for increasing the intensity of the education by the white population to avoid this backlash. Until this happens in the Northern Territory, I believe that members on both sides of the House would be very concerned if we were to hand over full powers on Aboriginal matters, for example, to Northern Territory people. In the Northern Territory many Aborigines are not on the voting rolls. Very little effort is made to encourage them to be enrolled and to exercise their right to vote. That is something else that ought to be undertaken by the Federal Government as an educational exercise throughout Australia, because that is an Australian responsibility. In a referendum in 1967, over 90 per cent of the people gave the Federal Government reponsibility for Aborigines. But there were only a handful of polling booths in the whole of the country where a majority was not recorded. This includes Queensland, as well as the Northern Territory. In that referendum, the people said that the Federal Government ought to be responsible for Aboriginal affairs and that it ought to exercise its responsibilities. We ought to be doing so increasingly and more vigorously.

It is true that there was a claim, in one instance, for 36 per cent of gross profits of uranium mining carried out on Aboriginal land to be paid to Aborigines. It is also true that the Aborigines have no right to enforce such a payment. That will be determined by other than Aborigines. It is almost certain that the Aborigines will not get that 36 per cent. So let us not get too uptight. Let us reassure those people who are too uptight such as those white people who met in Katherine that there is no way in which the Aboriginal people will be entitled to say that they will take 36 per cent of the gross profits of any mining venture, whether or not it is on Aboriginal land. One of the people interviewed at Katherine was asked what was the problem as he or she understood it. He or she volunteered his or her suggestion:

Well they are trying to son out that black fella problem I s ‘pose. When they get the lazy so and so ‘s to work, instead of letting ‘em sit on the bloody best pieces of country.

Here again we see this distorted view that the Aborigines have the best pieces of the country. The Aborigines have been driven off those pieces of the country that white men wanted. In fact, when it suited some of those white settlers, squatters, developers or miners, the Aborigines were not only driven off, they were put to death. In some cases they were massacred. So let us kill that he right now about the ‘ bloody best pieces of the country’. The only ‘bloody best pieces of the country’ are those that have been made bloody by the shedding of black blood by whites.

Somebody else was asked what was his or her feeling about the subject and why they were here. The reply was:

For our rights.

They were asked: ‘ What rights? ‘ The reply was:

For everybody here.

They were asked what rights were being denied them. The reply was:

Oh well, the blackfellas here. They won’t work.

In other words, they were saying: ‘It is our right as white Territorians to get rid of the blackfellas or to make them work. The lazy so and so’s. Put them to work’. Honourable members know that there is a percentage, however small- in fact it is shamefully small; around 30 per cent in many parts of Australia- of Aborigines who are employed. Up to 70 per cent- for the whole of the Territory it is probably well over 60 per cent- are unemployed. But it means that 30 per cent are employed. Now, if that 30 per cent are employed in a time of record unemployment, it will take much to convince me that the 30 per cent or more who -are employed are lazy so and so’s or that they will not work. They obviously want work. Many of those who are not in work also want work. However, there are several things standing in the way of their getting work. Many of them do not have the training or the understanding required for certain jobs. Certainly many of them do not have the motivation.

I do not know that those who lack motivation are any more deserving of the term ‘lazy’ than the whites who are not in work and who have been termed ‘dole bludgers’, a term which was invented by the Premier of Queensland and which has attained wide currency. It seems from the results of the last Federal election that the people who said that the issue most concerning them was unemployment were in fact more concerned about ‘dole bludgers’ than providing jobs. Nevertheless, Australia ‘s record of near fuD unemployment shows that most of the people now receiving unemployment relief do not want it; they want jobs. This applies also to most Aborigines. Most of them do not have the facility or the capacity to become employable. It is not really very surprising that a high percentage of them lack motivation when whites who have persistently been denied any work since they left school are fast losing motivation too. But people can be motivated. There is a very high incidence of alcoholism amongst Aborigines, but it is found in those who are unemployed and the depressed people who do not have this work facility. It has been shown time and again that when they are given work in which they are interested, for which they feel an incentive, a sense of achievement, in which they can be proud, and for which they are given due respect and obtain a fair return, they respond accordingly. A very high percentage of them give up drink and lose their alcohol problems far more easily than the whites because they have bridged a bigger gap in becoming employable.

I do not have time to enlarge on the white backlash, but I stress that we want selfgovernment for the Northern Territory. We understand the fears of white Territorians as regards what they see as undue attention to the needs of blacks. We realise that whites, too, have been deprived and neglected in many ways. We hope that self-government for the Northern Territory, to the degree in which it will receive selfgovernment, will help those people. At the same time, we are concerned about the black minority.

In the Committee stage I shall remark on some of the other Bills, particularly the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill. I believe there has not been adequate consultation with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on this legislation as to what will happen to funding and what its rights will be. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn until a plebiscite has shown that voters of the Northern Territory approve the financial and constitutional provisions due to take effect on 1 July 1 978 ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Cass:

– I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-This really is a momentous occasion not only in the history of this Parliament, but also in the political development of the Northern Territory. Today in this House we are being invited to affirm that this Parliament considers it desirable, by reason of the political and economic development of the Northern Territory, to confer self-government on the Territory and for that purpose to provide, amongst other things, for the establishment of separate political, representative and administrative institutions in the Territory and to give the Territory control over its own treasury. Up to now there has been a measure of responsible government in the Northern Territory but it has not been self-government of the quality proposed by this Bill. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) suggest that he and his colleagues support self-government in the Northern Territory, yet, at the same time, they want a referendum as an act of self-determination. It would seem to me that they are anticipating the result of such a referendum. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say with one breath that there should be a referendum and then say that notwithstanding that referendum they support selfgovernment. The Government parties support self-government for the Northern Territory. We believe it is right and proper that the people of the Territory should now have the sort of control over their own affairs that we who come from electorates in the original States have in our own State parliaments.

We also believe that the people of the Northern Territory through their elected representatives have made it quite clear that they too want self-government. As the Territory is moved along a road towards the ultimate goal of statehood this Bill is one of the most significant milestones on that road. It is probably a milestone, a mark, a position from which there is no return. It is true that technically and legally this Parliament under section 122 of the Constitution can withdraw the powers that are being conferred by this Bill. But I put it to the House that that would cause a political confrontation of the nature of the confrontations that arose when the colonies of Great Britain were themselves seeking either full independence or self-government. From a political point of view this legislation is the point of no return. I think it is important that members of this Parliament, the people in the Northern Territory and the nation appreciate that fact.

As chairman of the government members federal affairs committee I want to thank firstly the members of that committee and secondly the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) for their involvement in the preparation of this legislation. The committee has spent many hours on this matter and has made a great number of suggestions. Except for two or three the Minister has acceded to the wishes expressed by that committee- wishes which arose from a genuine feeling that the legislation as originally proposed could be made better. There is, however, one aspect, with which I shall deal later, about which I personally have some very serious concern.

In conferring self-government we do two things. Firstly, we separate legislative power from administrative power and confer legislative power on the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Secondly, we give the Assembly executive authority so that it can execute, implement, put into action its legislative decisions. Therefore, let us first consider the legislative power we are conferring upon the Assembly. Clause 6 of the Bill states:

Subject to this Act, the Legislative Assembly has power, with the assent of the Administrative or the GovernorGeneral, as provided by this Act, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory.

That will confer on the Assembly complete, plenary powers. In my view it will confer on the Territory a legislative capacity which the six States of the Commonwealth do not have. I believe that that legislative power should at least be limited to the power which was conferred upon the States. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should rely on the implicit significance of existing constitutional conventions and legislation to ensure that there is a limitation on the power of the Territory. The legislative power of the Assembly will be so full that if the Assembly could pass legislation by obtaining assent- I am thinking of 20 or 30 years ahead- it could raise its own army, impose its own customs duty or make its own coinage.

Let us look at the Australian Constitution to see how this situation comes about. It is true that under section 122 of the Constitution the Commonwealth can confer only the powers that it is authorised to delegate. In a legal sense the powers which it delegates to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly can be withdrawn. But as I said earlier, in political terms a withdrawal of those powers as from the passage of this legislation may well become impossible. The powers which this Parliament is able to confer on the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly are limited by the Constitution. For example, it cannot confer a power that would enable a breach of the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution. It cannot confer a power that would enable the Territory to legislate to discriminate on a religious basis. But in relation to the powers to which I have referred section 1 15 of the Constitution states:

A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

The Territory will not be a State. It will be a selfgoverning Territory. We will give it plenary power. It will be a body politic with its own Treasury. Because we will give it wide legislative power it will be able to coin its own currency and raise its own army if it can pass legislation. The provisions which prevent the States from raising armies do not prevent a Territory with plenary powers from doing so. This Parliament can confer that power. I think it is absurd that we should be giving such a broad authority to the Territory. I do not believe that the Territory wants it. It wants to be in the same position as the States. This Parliament should say so. It should also say that in accordance with section 5 1 of the Constitution, if it exercises authority and passes a family law Act or a bankruptcy Act such Acts will have priority over any exercise of legislative power by the Territory. It has been argued that if a Territory under broad legislative powers attempted to pass legislation to enact its own bankruptcy law, for example, such a law would be repugnant to the Commonwealth legislation and therefore would yield. That is correct in a strictly legal sense but as we advance down the path towards statehood or perhaps even a branch track to independence there could come a time when the conventions and political arrangements between the two entities are such that the Territory could have the legislative capacity to pass laws that were contradictory to the laws of the United Kingdom, just as South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have. True, there was the Colonial Laws Validity Act, and there are other diplomatic arrangements, but who is to say that along that path towards statehood we will not find the emergence of those types of relationships which cause people to say that the Territory is becoming so independent that, having given it those broad plenary powers, we cannot withdraw the authority. How are we going to stop that? We give to the GovernorGeneral the right, in a period of 6 months, to disallow the legislation passed by the Territory. Does that mean that we in Canberra will have a monitoring unit looking at every piece of legislation of a self-governing territory? That would make a mockery of self-government.

If the Territory Legislature sought to pass an excise or customs duty, what would happen if a taxpayer challenged a particular class of tax, claiming that it was a customs duty, that the parliament of the Northern Territory had not the power, but the High Court said that it had, because we had given it plenary power. The six months period having elapsed, we would have a self-governing territory with a capacity to tax in ways different from the capacity conferred upon, or remaining with, the six original States. As a representative of one of those States, I resent that. I believe that we want to be a federation; that the Northern Territory should advance to statehood and arrive at a position where is becomes a State as an equal partner in our Federation. I therefore urge upon the Minister as strongly as I can that he go back to his advisers and ask that they be explicit in this legislation and give the Territory plenary powers to the extent that the States have such powers, but make it subject in all other respects to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

I turn now to the manner in which we are to give executive authority. Irony of ironies: we give them plenary legislative power and then, when we come to the conferral of legislative authority, we say, ‘We will give it to you by regulation, piece by piece, article by article’. The time has come when, if we mean to confer selfgovernment, we should confer upon the Territory an executive authority equal to its legislative capacity. Assuming that capacity is limited in the way I have outlined, it should be an executive authority as broad as a State’s. There may be some exceptions and, because we are moving along a road towards statehood, I would acknowledge that there might be a desire to say, Well, it is not for 12 months that we will want them to have executive authority in matters of health and education. It may be that, because of its national significance, we do not want them to have authority with regard to uranium’. Perhaps we need to say that they are not to have any authority with regard to Aborigines, although it must be remembered, as I would point out to the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham), that the Commonwealth now has power with regard to Aborigines. Maybe the Commonwealth should pass section SI legislation affecting the Aborigines of Australialegislating in a non-discriminatory way. The use of section 122 against a self-governing territory is in itself a denial of the conferral of that power. We should use section 122- other than in constitutional terms- in the most sparing fashion. It is my view that if we are to confer executive authority, section 35 of the Bill should be amended. I find it curious, in discussing the matter with people who have expertise in this area, that on the one hand they say to me, ‘Oh no, it does not matter; you need not limit the legislative power; we can withdraw it by the exercise of section 122; section 5 1 legislation of the Commonwealth prevails over the whole of the Territory, because the Territory has been held by the High Court to be part of the Commonwealth’- and rightly so- ‘and therefore its legislation, contradictory to our section 5 1 legislation, would be repugnant, and would fall to the ground on that argument’. I find it curious that they do not put in a limitation such as I have outlined. Yet when you ask them, Why do you put a limitation in when you confer executive authority?’ they say, ‘The list would have to be so long; it would have to exclude all those section 5 1 powers; it would take so much time to work out what powers we did not want them to have’. I thought we wanted them, subject to some exceptions, to have State-like powers, and I again most seriously urge the Minister to look at that provision in section 35. 1 will have more to say on that in the Committee stages.

I turn now to deal with one other aspect, the position of the Administrator. The Administrator of the Northern Territory will be in a unique position. He will have some functions as an administator, as a delegate of the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, but his primary and new functions will be those of a governor. The capacity he had been given as a governor is the authority to do certain acts on the advice of his

Northern Territory Ministers. So he assents to legislation, in respect of which the Territory will have been given executive authority, on the advice of those Ministers. No Minister here, no Governor-General in Canberra, can deny that right. We are conferring it in this Bill. But we are also giving him some prerogative rights. The honourable member for Capricornia made some remarks about those rights. I want to quote from a statement by the Hon. Don Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, as follows:

In the Westminster System it is quite essential as a protection to the populace that there be a Head of State independent of legislature, Judiciary and Executive. Without such an office one of the essential checks in the Constitution would be missing.

Mr Dunstan said also:

The second function of the Head of State is to exercise the reserve powers of the Crown. These chiefly operate in times of constitutional crisis.

The Administrator is to be given, I believe rightly, certain reserve powers. Even the Premier of South Australia acknowledges the importance and significance of the prerogative power of a Governor-General and, in the case of the newly self-governing Northern Territory, the significance of the prerogative power of the Administrator.

page 3037

SITTING ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave- I seek the indulgence of the House to make an announcement of interest to honourable members. I would hope that the House, resuming as it will be next Tuesday and Wednesday, will be able to conclude its deliberations at the latest by Thursday before the dinner adjournment. The progress of the legislation obviously is something that we will have to assess in relation to next week’s program. I had thought that we might be able to adjourn on Wednesday night, but at the moment the adjournment will probably be before dinner on Thursday next.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3037

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-I refer to the report presented to the Parliament yesterday on the defence service homes scheme by the Standing Committee on Expenditure and to a report in today’s Australian Financial Review on the introductory speech. I want to draw attention to only one preposition in that report which states:

In one area of administration - that is, the processing of applications for first loans- the Committee concluded that the number of staff should be reduced to 1 4.

The Hansard record states that the Committee determined that the number of staff should be reduced by 14. Departmental people who read this newspaper report could be subject to a good deal of unnecessary anguish, and I draw the attention of the House to this. I understand that in the notes put in the Press boxes the wrong preposition was included. I believe that unnecessary anguish can be attended to by making this explanation.

page 3037

NORTHERN TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) BILL 1978

Debate resumed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In this cognate debate on Bills relating to self-government for the Northern Territory there are quite a number of Bills which have some legal significance, and some of my colleagues wish me to advert to other legislation in respect of which they have shadow responsibilities. In that context I refer to the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Amendment Bill. This Bill is consequential, as are many of the other Bills, upon the Northern Territory gaining selfgovernment. The principal Act deals with claims against the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth statutory authority for damages caused by its motor vehicles. This Bill excludes from the provisions of the principal Act statutory authorities which are created by Northern Territory laws and which will come under the administrative control of the Northern Territory Government. We do not oppose that Bill. The Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Amendment Bill also is consequential upon the Northern Territory self-government enactment. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the continued application of the air accidents legislation to members of the public service of the’ Northern Territory to whom the Act currently applies after the advent of self-government. However, after 1 July 1978 payments under the Act will be by the Northern Territory at no cost to the Commonwealth. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill.

There are a number of consequential Bills which are of direct legal significance such as the

Ombudsman Amendment Bill, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. Those Bills also are consequential upon the Northern Territory selfgovernment legislation being enacted. It is proposed that rights similar to those which apply under the Commonwealth legislation at the present time will be available under Northern Territory legislation upon that enactment. I particularly want to comment on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. We seem to be in an extraordinary position in that this Bill seeks to amend a Bill which has never been proclaimed. The position is that the judicial review legislation passed the Parliament a while ago, but it has never become law. We are now in a rather strange situation of proposing to amend legislation that has not yet been enacted. I trust that the Government will please explain why there has been such a delay in proclaiming the earlier legislation. It was thought some dme ago that there may be some cases relating to immigration decisions which could be the subject of a judicial review, and the Government was sensitive about that and did not want to have a situation in which anybody could review a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In any event, that earlier Bill still has not become law.

I also support the full context of the Opposition’s amendment that the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill should be withdrawn until there has been a plebiscite, that is a referendum of the people of the Northern Territory to get their views in relation to the financial and constitutional provisions that should be applied to them. There could be very good reasons why the people of the Northern Territory might consider that the provisions to be applied to them are not the ones that they would want to be applied. No one is discussing self-government in that context. We are all in favour of selfgovernment, but it is a bit unfair to say to the territorians: ‘You are going to have self-government and you are going to pay substantial taxes because the Federal Government is not going to be able to support you as it has in the past’. Surely they ought to be permitted to express their views as to the effects of the legislation on their income and their rights. That is a normal democratic society. We hope, in fact we predict, that unless this is done there will be consternation amongst the people in the north as to whether they have been given a fair deal in this situation.

I now refer to the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Bill itself. I think it is very outrageous legislation, from the point of view that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory has rights of its own. I do not know whether the Government intended that this Bill to be a mere token exhibition of what the Government proposed, but as can be seen from the provisions in relation to legal powers the Assembly virtually counts for nothing. This is the whole point of the Commonwealth itself having constitutional power in respect of a Territory- which it has under section 122 of the Constitution- to legislate in a fashion to enable a Territory to be able to govern itself. Let me deal quickly with some of the provisions of the Bill which prevent that. Clause 7 of the Bill states:

  1. 1 ) Every proposed law passed by the Legislative Assembly shall be presented to the Administrator for assent.

The Administrator may withhold assent. If that occurs there will be no law. It is as ridiculous as it appears to be. There is a similar situation under clause 8 which states:

Where the Administrator reserves a proposed law for the Governor-General’s pleasure, the Governor-General shall, . . .

He may decide that he is not going to assent to a proposed law. Under clause 8 there could arise a situation in which a proposed law was reserved for the Governor-General’s pleasure and the Governor-General decided to exercise his pleasure by withholding assent. In other words, territorians, through their Assembly, might have to jump virtually two hurdles, both of which might be prohibitive. The end result might be that nothing is being done. There cannot be democracy if elected representatives are denied the opportunity to have their legislation effectively dealt with from the point of view of approval. There is always the sanction of the people. Their destiny should be controlled through their elected representatives. It may be satisfactory if a proposed law had particular significance, but this provision applies to all laws in the Territory. Under this Bill the Administrator may decide that he will not give assent, and that will be the end of it.

Mr Wilson:

– What about clause 33?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We will come to your point of view in a minute. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for disallowance of enactments. The reason for withholding assent is dealt with in clause 10, and the reason has to be given to the Assembly. Let me talk about the constitution and the membership of the Assembly. Under clause 13 there is very much of a disparity as to electorate quotas. There is a 20 per cent differential.

One wonders what the people of Darwin will think about this on the basis of what might be deemed to be one vote one value. Under this clause there can be a 20 per cent differential which is not fair from the point of view of democracy. On the question of qualifications of electors to vote, clause 14 deems that they will be the same as those applying under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is clear from High Court decisions that we can pass legislation which says that the people in the Territory will not have any rights at all. There are no guaranteed rights in respect of having a vote. It depends on legislation, which of course can be repealed. I want to say something later about the Constitution which does not give any rights.

There are additional difficulties under Division 3 headed ‘Procedure of Legislative Assembly’. Clause 22 (1) states:

The Administrator may, by notice . . . appoint such dmes for holding the sessions of the Legislative Assembly as he thinks fit . . .

Of course, he may never set the time for a meeting of the Legislative Assembly. Where is the requirement in the Bill to guarantee that the Assembly will meet? It is not in this legislation. That is a nullity of the normal process we would expect.

I now turn to clause 33, which deals with the office of the Administrator. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) adverted to this unusual clause. Clause 33(1) states:

That shall be an Executive Council . . . to advise the Administrator . . .

The clause also provides that the Administrator may introduce any matter for discussion in the Council irrespective of whether the Legislative Assembly believes it should be considered. The clause also provides that meetings of the Council will be convened only by the Administrator as and when he determines and not otherwise. Where is the principle of self-government? Clause 34 states:

There shall be such number of offices of Ministers of the Territory … as the Administrator from time to time determines.

He will determine how many Ministers there will be and whether there will be any at all. Clause 36 states:

The Administrator may appoint a member of the Legislative Assembly . . . and may, at any time, terminate the appointment.

That again is contrary to democratic principle. The Administrator could appoint anyone else to the government. Such people do not have to be members of the Assembly. This is no way in which to draft legislation to give to the people of the Northern Territory their own parliament, their own members of parliament and their own rights. Members of the Assembly, who should be administrators representing the people, will be subject to the Administrator in every detail. There may not be as many meetings of the Council as there should be. The Administrator can introduce any matter he likes into the Council and he can terminate their offices anyway.

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that an assembly with the equivalent of a government which has a majority of support should not be dictated to by an appointee with the title of Administrator who wants to interfere and sack people who have the confidence of that assembly. That should never happen. If this sort of situation is allowed to happen the result will be confrontation, division and disaster. There is no more wisdom in the Administrator than in the people who hold ministerial offices. There is a human element and the danger of someone thinking that something should be done. To vest all power in one man really denies power in every way to the Northern Territory itself.

I have outlined the most objectionable clauses. They give no inalienable right to vote. There is no Bill of Rights. People’s rights can be completely removed. The Administrator might well disallow any laws passed by the Assembly to give the people of the Northern Territory a right of freedom of assembly or demonstration. It is fundamental that this legislation should enshrine principles such as the principle of one vote one value and the continuation of the Executive while it has the confidence of the House. No administrator should have the right to disallow a law. He should be obliged always to take the advice of the Executive Council and never depart from it. That is a fundamental principle of the British system. That principle was always applied in Australia until 1975 and it should continue to apply now. These are matters which we think could easily be adjusted.

Mr Graham:

-What about Mr Lang in 1 933?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am talking about Australia; the honourable member is talking about New South Wales. The matter I wish to mention is very much the same. We should always apply the democratic principle that the elected representatives should have the support of the parliament. It is as simple as that. If that principle is rejected by the people the government has no right to govern. We should not appoint somebody to exercise all those rights.

Having said all those things, I come to another unusual clause- clause 49. This is really the same as section 92 of the Constitution. If there has ever been a lawyer’s feast as to what ‘trade and commerce between the States being absolutely free ‘ meant, we have it in section 92. This piece of legislation has simply copied the Constitution. There have been a number of reviews of the Constitution going back many years. Whilst the intention is not expressed, an intelligent appreciation of section 92 is that the clear intention is that ‘absolutely free’ means free from any pecuniary impost or from any restriction or liability imposed by reason only of goods or persons passing into a State from another State or from a Territory. Surely the clause could be better drafted in accordance with that thinking. In other words, ‘free’ means no taxation on goods moving between States. It is as simple as that. It should means a freedom of flow of trade with the removal of customs and excise duties. The first words of section 92 of the Constitution state:

The imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce . . .

That section specifies that trade and commerce will be absolutely free. Clause 49 of the Bill states:

Trade, commerce and intercourse between the Territory and States . . . shall be absolutely free.

We should define what it shall be free from so that there is no misunderstanding.

The Opposition has no objection to the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act being applied to the Northern Territory, although it could be argued that this is a matter for the Territory itself to decide. I am advised that appeals from the Northern Territory are heard in the Federal Court and not in the High Court and that special leave is needed from the Federal Court for an appeal to be heard by the High Court.

I come now to the question raised by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). He said there could be a danger of the Territory itself establishing its own army and doing other things. I disagree with him. The power that the Territory will have will only be given pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution, and the powers will be limited to what is contained in this legislation. It might be argued that because something is not in the Bill the Territory will do what it wants anyway. I doubt whether that will be the situation. Whilst section 1 18 of the Constitution, which relates to full faith and credit being given to the judicial proceedings of every State, will apply in the Territories, the provisions will not apply to the laws of the Territories in the States. Therefore the Commonwealth should consider enacting a provision similar to section 1 1 8 of the

Constitution to apply to laws of the Territory. This would be valid under section 122 of the Constitution which states that laws of the Territory may have extra-territorial effect.

I again advert to the fact that it is important when we are talking about self-government, which is the forerunner of statehood, that the Territory should have a constitutional approach to all the problems of the people of the Territory. Apart from the question raised here of financial constitutional provisions, I do not think the people of the Territory should have placed upon them the stupidity of an apparent selfgovernment which can be denied in the exercise of one man being the Administrator, with all the powers to which I have adverted. Such an arrangement could nullify every concept of selfgovernment in the Northern Territory. It is for that reason that the people of the Northern Territory should be invited and entitled to express their views. Until such time as they have this opportunity this legislation should not proceed.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-In speaking in support of this Bill I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). They said that there should be a plebiscite of Territorians prior to the passing of this Bill or conferring selfgovernment on the Northern Territory. The matter of self-government and responsibility was the main issue of the last two Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections- certainly the last one. Although the current majority party and would-be government lost a few seats, it certainly finished up with a handsome working majority. The Labor Party fought that election on a platform of no self-government for the Northern Territory. In fact, it conducted a very misleading campaign. The campaign was full of false statements about costs, leaked documents and so on. So it is completely wrong for those two honourable members to say what they did. The people of the Northern Territory would certainly wish to have a very strong say in their own affairs, and they have given expression to that at those two elections.

The honourable member for Capricornia was also bewailing the fact that no financial arrangements are spelt out in this Bill. These matters have been under constant discussion and negotiation for weeks. In fact, I would be surprised if Mr Everingham, during his stay in Canberra this week, did not speak very strongly with the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) and his colleagues concerning the financial arrangements. I think it would be wrong to spell them out here under these circumstances. I might not have heard the honourable member for Capricornia correctly, but I think he said that less than one-eighth of the Northern Territory was under claim as Aboriginal land. He was lining up that statement with the criticism by some Territorians that 50 per cent of the Territory is either Aboriginal land or under claim as Aboriginal land. I think he probably overlooked the fact that somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of the Territory is Aboriginal land anyhow under the reserves which were transferred to the Aborigines as Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I might add also that according to our information the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Toohey, is hearing a claim on behalf of the Walpiri people concerning the Tanami Desert Wildlife Sanctuary. If that claim is successful another 15,500 square miles will be added to the area of land which will not be under the administration of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, despite the fact that on the list of matters in respect of which Ministers of the Northern Territory are to have executive authority is included in this item: ‘Land- whether public or private- its use and development’. So we have this situation of land being given and being taken away.

The honourable member for Capricornia made a statement about the administration of the Territory. I take it that his statement was aimed at his namesake, Mr Everingham, the Majority Leader or Chief Secretary, and implied that he was being unduly influenced by meetings such as the one held at Katherine. The honourable member then tried to correlate that situation to something about which he was talking and about which most Labor people have been talking, namely, the Queensland situation. That is an entirely different situation. Paul Everingham has taken a very sound, commonsense and broadminded view about Aborigines and Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. He has visited many parts of the Territory. He has been around the Territory, probably as much as most people, visiting Aborigines, explaining the situation to them, getting their confidence and generally playing the part of a well-briefed and understanding Minister. So when he comes to take control of the administration of the Northern Territory he certainly will know something about the situation and will be very sympathetic and understanding.

I now turn to the Bill. It is a Bill of great importance to the Northern Territory. It is a sort of unofficial constitution. It certainly contains a set of guidelines for the Northern Territory. That being so, it is essential that it should be right for the Territorians as well as for the Commonwealth. But let us face the fact that it is the Northern Territory which is being granted these powers of self-government. Those powers should be handed over to the Territory without too much hassle and without argument. The Commonwealth should by all means see to it that Territorians are aware of their responsibilities and that the undertakings they give and are called upon to give will be honoured, as I know they will be. But the situation has to be put firmly on the line. After all, they are Australians; they are administrators; they are quite capable of looking after their own affairs. I have said before in this House that I often wonder, when I see Bills which affect the Northern Territory introduced into this place, what the draftsmen and the people who draw them up think Territorians are. They must think that Territorians are some sort of pinheaded apes or something like that. Well, they are not. The honourable member for Capricornia might look at me and think that, but I am certain that the administrators are not in that class.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the government members, committee on federal affairs have done a tremendous amount of work. Also a great amount of work has been done in negotiations between the Northern Territory Executive and the Federal Executive. I pay a tribute to the people concerned for having finally produced proposals, even though there are reservations in relation to some of them, which offer the Northern Territory something substantial rather than just a hollow shell which can be overruled by Commonwealth legislation. There were many clauses in this Bill and, for that matter, in other legislation which we have debated recently- I refer especially to the package of Bills which dealt with the mining of uranium- in respect of which we managed to battle our way through to get some representations accepted. I think that good sense has prevailed to a certain extent in relation to this Bill. I hope that what we hand to the Northern Territory will make Territorians feel or know that they have gained something.

Mr Fisher:

– They deserve it.

Mr CALDER:

– As the honourable member says, they deserve it. But I hope that what we give to the Northern Territory will not cause too many legal complications and misunderstandings. I am afraid that, from an examination of the Bill and from listening to some of the advice I have heard on it, that situation could arise. The honourable member for Sturt has expressed concern in regard to the ramifications of clause 6 as well as in regard to the overriding authority given to the Governor-General in clause 9 of the Bill. One begins to wonder where all that will finish. The original clause 75 of the Bill has been amended in the Bill as it is before us today. In the Bill as it was originally drafted that provision was very confusing. The Territory authorities were given power to legislate, but the Commonwealth Government could pass regulations to cancel out or nullify any laws passed by the Territory legislature; in fact, the Commonwealth Government could cancel out this Bill. That situation was referred to as the over-kill. I hope that it has been amended in this Bill.

While I am on my feet at this time I point out that one wonders, when this sort of legislation comes before us again and again, whether the Territory would be worse off if it were not for the diligence and vigilance of various members of the government members committee. There is only one other clause which I would like to mention. There are 13 Bills being debated together and there is not time to go through them all. I will just mention clause 35 which refers to the matters over which the Ministers of the Northern Territory will have executive authority. To my way of thinking there are 49. 1 might have miscounted. I thought I heard someone else say 51. However, there is a very considerable number of those and it would appear to me that to list a great number like that could be considered to be the wrong approach.

In fact, in the investigations which were carried out as to the improvements we could make to this Bill, some of the first questions to come up with Ministers and their staffs related to what should be on that list or what was on the list and there was discussion and argument there and then, even before the legislation came before this House. I am certain that if that were written another other way it may obviate that sort of problem. I did hear a rumour that there was an even greater list that would be put together if it were done the other way round, but I certainly would hope that that could be amended because I am sure there will be a tremendous amount of argument and litigation regarding those powers when the Bill is enacted.

I come now to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). Under section 35 of the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Bill is listed one of the matters over which the local administration has authority, that is land. It covers ‘land, whether public or private’. Yet this Bill it seems to me can now remove the land which has been given in a broad sense to the Northern Territory under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. There has been a perfect example of this recently at Borroloola. The government land- the common at Borroloola- will become Aboriginal land. Under clause 4 of this Bill there is an amendment which states that the Commonwealth can take over and extend its influence on this land and that virtually it can overrule the control or ownership of that land in the Northern Territory by way of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Taking the position at Borroloola as an example, we have the police station on the common. That would then be taken over as Aboriginal land and controlled by a land trust, and according to clause 6 of this Bill we are talking about compensation. Although the Commonwealth has taken the land from the Northern Territory, no compensation is to be paid. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act it will pass under the trust and then the Northern Territory Administration could well have to pay rent to the trust, the then owners of the land- the tribal people- for land which has been taken away but not compensated for. Under clause 6(b) which will be part of a new section 17, it would have to be paid for ‘in the case of a payment by the Northern Territory- out of moneys lawfully available for the purpose’. To me it is quite obvious that the Territory would then be paying and this could happen in quite a number of cases. I would very much hope that the Government would look at this and think about amending it.

Speaking of compensation, I would like to mention section 50 of the principal Act dealing with consultation between the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Administrator. There is no mention here of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I would hope that under section 7a of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act there could be some mention of the Majority Leader in this regard, because the administration of land will change and therefore it would be appropriate for the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to replace the Minister for the Northern Territory on that list for consultation or, if not to replace him, to be added to the list. After all, these land grants that are recommended under the Federal Act are having a bearing on Northern Territory land and certainly someone from the Northern Territory Administration- either the leader or his deputyshould be included in it. I have referred to the situation at Borroloola and it will happen elsewhere.

I would like to say briefly that I condemn the Government for its action on the Ashmore Reef and Carrier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill. Why they are taking this responsibility away from the Northern Territory I do not know. It seems to me to be a wrong move. I would like the Minister and the Government to explain why they are taking away what could be in the future an asset to the Northern Territory.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition regrets that the people of the Northern Territory have not been more effectively consulted in this matter. My colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) has proposed a significant amendment to that effect. I have been interested in listening to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), having spent many many days with him in the Northern Territory, probably in some 30 to 40 visits to the Northern Territory over the years as members of committees associated with Aboriginal welfare and public works. Indeed, as a former Minister for Housing, Minister for Construction and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I naturally maintain a keen interest in the development of the Territory and in the rights of the people who live there. The Canberra Times on 13 March this year had an editorial headed ‘Haste in the North’. We know, of course, that comparable considerations to the claim for self-government in the Northern Territory have been associated with the Australian Capital Territory for quite some time. In this article, which is headed ‘A matter of choice’, the editor of the Canberra Times said:

The most curious pan of the financial arrangements agreed to in principle as the foundation of self-government in the Territory is that self-government will come before the Commonwealth Grants Commission has completed its examination of the financial viability of a self-governing Territory based on expected receipts and expenditures. The outcome of this assessment will determine in some degree the level of continued Commonwealth support. It would seem then that a commitment to the self-government scheme as currently presented would be a less than business-like transaction . . . Territorians are not sure that they can alford self-government.

A great deal of the conjecture that has gone on in the Territory and in this debate is speculation about whether the Territorians will be financially better or worse off. It is interesting to note that in 1974-75 there were 25,047 taxpayers in the Northern Territory who contributed $32.4m in the form of taxation. In the Australian Capital Territory, which has not made the same progress towards self-government, there were 79,406 taxpayers and they paid tax amounting to $ 122.3m. When we take into account income tax and company tax the comparison is to this effect: The Northern Territory paid $37.3m and the Australian Capital Territory paid $ 133.7m. Of course, there is a very great gap or deficiency between the figure which the Northern Territory contributes- $37.3m- and what it actually costs to run the Territory. According to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) Commonwealth outlay for the Territory was $ 193 m, so it is not surprising that the editor of the Canberra Times said that the ‘haste in granting self-government for the Northern Territory is surprising’. In the editorial he went on to say:

In view of all this, the demand of Labor in the NT that the Territorians be formally asked to say whether they agree to the financial and political arrangements proposed seems to be eminently reasonable.

He went on to qualify his case by saying:

It is not to argue whether a referendum should be held to decide whether self-government is wanted or not. In a democracy self-government is both a right and a responsibility that cannot be shirked. But what form it shall take and how it will be financed is essentially a matter of choice by the people themselves.

That editorial very much puts the issue on the line and, as honourable members would have noted, it upholds the view taken by the Australian Labor Party. There have been all kinds of anxieties expressed, as the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) would acknowledge, about the financial dilemma with which the Territory might be confronted in the near future and in the medium and longer term. Recently a Bill was passed in the Territory to put an extra levy, a 1.25 per cent turnover tax, on bookmakers in the Northern Territory. We read that the Northern Territory Administration wants gambling casinos built at Darwin and Alice Springs and that the Northern Territory Executive has begun advertising for people interested in running casinos in these centres. The Northern Territory is supposed to be going after the gambling tourist trade in Australia and South East Asia. We have heard such comments as the Northern Territory perhaps becoming Australia’s Monte Carlo, that there will be Northern Territory bingo budgets and that we will see poker machines in Kings’ Hall. Apparently the administration there has quite a high expectation of revenue being raised from gambling. I do not regard that as a satisfactory way of launching the Northern Territory into selfgovernment and the longer term objective of statehood.

The Northern Territory population is very small. There are about 105,000 people in the Territory at present which is equivalent to twothirds of the populations in the electorates of Hughes, which I represent, and Cook, the neighbouring electorate. So, obviously, to think of statehood is a little premature at the present. Distances travelled in the Territory are vast and the consequent structure costs are very great. The cost of housing, electricity, roads and communication is increasing in sparsely populated areas. This Government’s financial commitment to the Territory has declined and, according to the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician, made available through the Parliamentary Library, in constant price terms, expenditure fell from $353.3m in 1975-76 to $306.7m in 1976-77. The intention of the Fraser Government is to reduce even further its financial commitment to the Territory which will place increased burdens on the Territory which will have to seek elsewhere funds necessary to maintain expenditure on roads, schools and communication. This outlook is ominous for the Territorians.

The Minister has indicated that the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Territory will be significantly no better for the Territory than the existing arrangements are for the States. If in the past CommonwealthState financial arrangements have not been satisfactory, the position of the States under the new federalism policy of the Fraser Government is worse and the reason for this is simple. Under the new federalism policy pressure is placed on the States, and will be placed on the Northern Territory, either to impose a double tax on residents or to increase the revenue obtained from State sources of taxation. In his statement on 14 September last, the Minister said:

Consideration will be given to the possibility of the Northern Territory government having access to revenues from a Commonwealth income tax surcharge within the Northern Territory on the same basis as the proposals under Stage 2 of the tax sharing arrangements with the States.

Of course, that is simply the option of double taxation and, not surprisingly, many people in the States and in the Northern Territory have expressed their horror at the prospect of double taxation and its imminence. However, if this option is not taken up by the Northern Territory Administration it will be left only with the alternative of increasing the revenue obtained from State sources of taxation.

The Federal Government has indicated that it will hand over to the Territories the power to increase payroll tax under the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill, one of the

Bills being debated at present. I believe that payroll tax is a regressive tax. The legislation provides that the Territory will be able to levy its own tax and in relation to work completed in the Territory Commonwealth payroll tax will not be payable. Payroll tax should be abolished because it is a tax on work and operates as a force against the creation of employment opportunities which it is so important to sustain in the Territory. Under this legislation the Fraser Government shows that it has no intention of removing payroll tax. The legislation also serves as a reminder that the financial arrangements which the Commonwealth has in mind for the Northern Territory are such that the Northern Territory may well be forced to use this regressive tax. Another source of revenue with which to sustain the standard of living of Territorians and to pay for the cost of improving the Territory would be a levy or one of the other State controlled taxes which would flow from the administration and control of the resources, particularly the mineral resources, of the Territory. Other States, such as Queensland and Western Australia which, like the Territory, have smaller populations, great resources and vast areas to administer, have used this approach. The result has been that 82 per cent of the mineral resources of Queensland and 49 per cent of the mineral wealth of Western Australia are now foreign owned and controlled.

The reason for this result is that the State governments are more concerned with immediate State issues and do not take a longer term view on the exploitation of Australian resources which, after all, belong to all Australians and not just the privileged few who live in the resource rich States. The political philosophy of the governments of Western Australia and Queensland is nothing more than one of expediency, and when matched with the philosophy of the central Government, with a similar approach, it amounts to a prescription for national disaster. As a nation we have sold our future and gained little in return. There are great lessons to be learned in this as far as the Northern Territory is concerned. Notwithstanding our vast mineral wealth, unemployment is at record levels, the economy is stagnant and the rate of inflation in Australia is higher than rates in comparable OECD countries. Non-existence of a national resources policy based on Australian ownership and control, when coupled with the pressure of inadequate Commonwealth Territory financial arrangements may, as in Queensland, lead to the loss of equity in Australian resources.

Foreign interests, whether other nations or national corporations, have less trouble exacting better conditions, for them, from our States which do not have the financial muscle of the Commonwealth. Our resource rich States are being picked off by overseas interests to the extent that, as a nation, we are confronted with the absurd situation where the resources of one State are undercutting the resources of another in international markets. Let me give an example: The foreign-owned Utah coal company in Queensland is undercutting the price obtained for New South Wales coal on international markets. The mining strategy of that company is to exploit only coal that can be obtained by the open cut method at the expense of other seams further down. The Northern Territory cannot be allowed to be placed in a financial disadvantage which will lead to exploitation of this type.

Generally speaking the Labor Opposition is for devolution of power in the Northern Territory. Government and eventual statehood should be given on the basis of fiscal support. There were signposts put up to that effect by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory which reported to the Parliament on 26 November 1974. My colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) was the Chairman of that Committee which provided such valuable guidance as to the way the Government should proceed. One of its recommendations was to this effect:

The Committee does not recommend the transfer of responsibility for all ‘State type’ functions to the Territory Executive but proposes that functions of local significance be transferred as soon as possible and that for the time being functions of national concern be retained by the Australian Government. The proposals of the Committee are, in fact, that all ‘State type’ functions be transferred to the Territory Executive except that major functions such as rural land, mining, education, health … be retained by the Australian Government and other major functions such as roads, fisheries, national parks and the Police be shared.

The timetable for the transfer of functions disclosed by the Minister in his speech of 14 September indicates that the important areas of education, land administration, mining service and administration, health services, roads and transport services are to be effective from 1 July 1979. 1 believe we have to be very careful in the implementation of the timetable to ensure that responsibilities are handed out to the Territorians comparable with the Commonwealth’s capacity to ensure that the Territory is not financially disadvantaged.

Self-government has been the objective of the Labor Party for many years. Over 20 years ago, in 1947, the Chifley Government first established the Northern Territory Legislative Council. In 1974 the Whitlam Government created the first fully elected Legislative Assembly. The Labor

Party has a great sense of history and responsibility about this matter. It is very concerned that the impetuous way by which the matter has been approached by the Government can create great financial problems and cause the progress of the Northern Territory to be impaired. For that reason I strongly commend consideration of the amendment which has been moved, which would ensure that the people of the Northern Territory would be treated in a more responsible way and treated as responsible people, so that they would be given the opportunity to express their views as to the rate of progress that should be made in the objective of providing effective self-government in the Northern Territory.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker -Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 61

NOES: 27

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the Bill as a whole?

Mr Wilson:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. What procedure are we going to follow? I understand that there are a series of amendments. Will we take them together or clause by clause?

Mr Adermann:

– The procedure will be that the Opposition’s amendments will be moved together, other amendments will then be moved together, and then the Government’s amendments will be moved together. We will take the Bill as a whole.

Or Everingham- Mr Chairman, I require further clarification of procedure. As I understand it, the Bill will be discussed as a whole. The Opposition will be moving amendments together. The Government will then move amendments together. That would not preclude any other amendments. The Opposition has circulated amendments to this Bill and to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3). I take it that that Bill will be discussed in a separate Committee.

Mr Adermann:

– Yes.

The Bill.

Clause 2.

This Act shall come into operation on 1 July 1978.

Clause 7.

  1. 1 ) Every proposed law passed by the Legislative Assembly shall be presented to the Administrator for assent.

  2. Upon the presentation of a proposed law to the Administrator for assent, the Administrator shall, subject to this section, declare-

    1. in the case of a proposed law making provision only for or in relation to a matter specified under section 35-
    1. that he assents to the proposed law; or
    2. that he withholds assent to the proposed law; or
    3. b ) in any other case-
    4. that he assents to the proposed law;
    5. that he withholds assent to the proposed law; or
    6. that he reserves the proposed law for the Governor-General ‘s pleasure.

Clause 8.

  1. As soon as practicable after the Governor-General has made a declaration in respect of a proposed law.in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ), the Administrator shall cause to be published in the Government Gazette of the Territory a notice of the declaration.

Clause 9.

  1. Where, as a result of his consideration of a law, the Governor-General so recommends any amendments of the laws of the Territory, the time within which the GovernorGeneral may disallow the law, or a part of the law, is extended until the expiration of 6 months after the date of the Governor-General ‘s recommendation.

Clause 13.

  1. For the purposes of sub-section (4), each electoral division shall contain a number of electors not exceeding, or falling short of, the quota calculated under that sub-section by more than one-fifth of the quota.

Clause 19.

Where a casual vacancy occurs in the office of a member of the Legislative Assembly less than 2 years and 9 months after the first meeting of the Assembly following the last preceding general election, an election shall be held for the purpose of filling the vacant office for the remainder of the term of office of the member who last held that office

Clause 21.

  1. 1 ) A person is not qualified to be a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly if, at the date of nomination-

    1. he is employed in the Public Service of the Territory or of the Commonwealth;
    2. b) he is an undischarged bankrupt; or
    3. he has been convicted and is under sentence of imprisonment for one year or longer for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

  2. A member of the Legislative Assembly vacates his office if-

    1. he becomes a person to whom any of the paragraphs of sub-section ( 1 ) applies;
    2. he ceases to be a person who is an Australian citizen or who otherwise has the status of a British subject;
    3. he is absent from 3 consecutive meetings of the Legislative Assembly otherwise than on leave of absence granted by the Legislative Assembly;
    4. he ceases to be entitled, or qualified to become entitled, to vote at elections of members of the Legislative Assembly; or
    5. he takes or agrees to take, directly or indirectly, any remuneration, allowance or honorarium for services rendered in the Legislative Assembly, otherwise than in accordance with an enactment that provides for remuneration and allowances to be paid to persons in respect of their services as members of the Legislative Assembly, members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory.

Clause 22.

  1. The Administrator may, by notice published in the Government Gazette of the Territory, appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Legislative Assembly as he thinks fit and may also, from time to time, in like manner, prorogue the Legislative Assembly.
  2. At the request of such number of members of the Legislative Assembly as is prescribed by enactment, the Administrator shall, by notice published in the Government Gazette of the Territory, appoint a time, being not later than 14 days after the day on which he receives the request, for holding a session of the Legislative Assembly.

Clause 28.

Where a person who has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, purported to sit or vote as a member of the Legislative Assembly at a meeting of the Legislative Assembly or of a Committee of the Legislative Assembly-

  1. was not a duly elected member by reason of his not having been qualified for election or of any other defect in his election; or
  2. had vacated his office as a member, all things done or purporting to have been done by the Legislative Assembly or that Committee shall be deemed to be as validly done as if that person had, when so sitting or voting, been a duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly, or had not vacated his office, as the case may be.

Clause 33.

  1. Meetings of the Council shall be convened by the Administrator and not otherwise.

Clause 34.

There shall be such number of offices of Minister of the Territory, having such respective designations, as the Administrator from time to time determines.

Clause 36.

The Administrator may appoint a mumber of the Legislative Assembly to a Ministerial office, and may, at any time, terminate the appointment.

Clause 43.

In this Part- public moneys of the Territory’ means revenues, loans and other moneys received by the Territory; “Territory authority’ means a body corporate established for a public purpose by or under an enactment, being an authority that is empowered by that enactment to borrow moneys.

Clause 53.

  1. Until provision to the contrary is made by an Act, the powers of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission do not extend to employment in respect of which a tribunal established by an enactment before the commencement of this Act has power to hear and determine disputes, claims or matters relating to the terms and conditions of the employment
  2. Provision may be made by enactment for a member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to constitute, or to be a member of, a tribunal of the kind referred to in sub-section (3), and nothing in this section orin the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 prevents a member of the Commission from accepting appointment, or performing duties, as, or as a member of, such a tribunal.
  3. The power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of a law conferring on any court, tribunal, board, body, person or other authority any power with reference to the hearing and determining of disputes, claims or matters relating to terms and conditions of employment.
  4. Where an enactment coming into operation on or after the date of commencement of this Act is inconsistent with an award or order made, whether before, on or after that date, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, the latter prevails and the former, to the extent of the inconsistency, is invalid.

Clause 56.

In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- commencing date ‘ means the date of commencement of this Act;

Clause 65.

Notwithstanding the repeal of the previous Act, until a person receives remuneration, allowances and other entitlements in accordance with an enactment, he shall receive in respect of his services as a member of the Legislative Assembly, a member of the Council or a Minister of the Territory, as the case may be, remuneration, allowances and other entitlements in accordance with the relevant determination by the Remuneration Tribunal in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and paragraph 2 1 (2 ) (e) does not apply in relation to remuneration, allowances and other entitlements so received.

Clause 69.

  1. All interests in land in the Territory held from the Commonwealth immediately before the commencing date are, by force of this section, held from the Territory on and after that date on the same terms and conditions as those on which they were held by the Commonwealth.

Clause 70.

  1. The Minister may recommend to the GovernorGeneral that any-

    1. land in the Territory in which no person other than the Territory holds any interest; or
    2. b ) interest in any such land, be acquired by the Commonwealth under this section.
  2. For the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ), an authority of the Territory shall not be taken to hold an interest in land by reason only of being empowered by enactment to exercise powers of management or control, or similar powers (however described ), over the land.
  3. The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister under sub-section ( 1 ), authorize the acquisition of land or interest, as the case may be, for a public purpose approved by the Governor-General.
  4. The Minister may cause to be published in the Gazette notice of the authorization by the Governor-General and, in the notice, declare that the land or interest, as the case may be, is acquired under this section for the public purpose approved by the Governor-General.

  5. 5 ) Upon publication of the notice in the Gazette, the land or interest, as the case may be, to which the notice relates is,’ by force of this section-

    1. vested in the Commonwealth; and
    2. freed and discharged from any restriction, dedication or reservation made by or under any enactment, to the intent that the legal estate in the land or interest, and all rights and powers incident to that estate or conferred by the Lands Acquisition Act 1 955 in relation to that estate, are vested in the Commonwealth.
  6. An interest that may be acquired under this section may be an interest that did not previously exist as such.
  7. A notice shall not be published under this section after the expiration of one year after the commencing day.

Clause 71.

  1. 1 ) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to-

    1. the substitution of the Territory for the Commonwealth as a party to a prescribed contract or a contract included in a class of prescribed contracts; and
    2. matters arising from, connected with or consequential upon any such substitution.

  2. In sub-section (1), ‘prescribed contract’ means a contract-

    1. which was subsisting immediately before the commencing day;
    2. to which the Commonwealth is a party; and
    3. which relates to a matter specified under section 35, other than a contract referred to in sub-section 69 (6).

Clause 75.

  1. 1 ) The regulations may make provision (including provision by way of modifications and adaptations of any Act) for and in relation to any matter arising from, consequential upon or otherwise connected with the establishment of the Territory as a body politic under the Crown.
  2. The power to make regulations under sub-section ( 1 ) extends to the making of regulations expressed to take effect on and from a date earlier than the date of the making of the regulations, not being a date earlier than the date of commencement of this Act.
  3. Regulations shall not be made under this section after 30 June 1979.
Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– On behalf of the Opposition, with the concurrence of the Committee I move:

  1. In clause 7 (2) (a), after ‘law’ insert ‘for a specified period, for the purpose of receiving advice from the Council relating to the purposes, objects or validity of the proposed law’.
  2. In clause 7, omit sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii).

  3. In clause 8, omit sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clauses:

    1. As soon as practicable after the Governor-General has made a declaration in respect of a proposed law in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ), the Minister shall cause a notice of the declaration to be laid before each House of the Parliament, and either House may, by resolution passed before the expiration of 15 sitting days of that House after the notice is so laid, disallow the declaration. (4a) Where either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (4) disallowing a declaration made by the Governor-General, the disallowance shall have the following effect:
    1. in the case of a declaration that the GovernorGeneral assents to the proposed law- that the Governor-General ‘s assent shall be deemed not to have been given;
    2. in the case of a declaration that the GovernorGeneral withholds assent to the proposed lawthat the Governor-General’s assent shall be deemed to have been given; or
    3. in the case of a declaration that the GovernorGeneral withholds assent to part of the proposed law and assents to the remainder of the proposed law- that the Governor-General’s assent to the remainder of the proposed law be deemed not to have been given. (4b) If, after the expiration of the 15 sitting days referred to in sub-section (4), neither House of the Parliament has passed a resolution disallowing the declaration, the Administrator shall cause a notice of the declaration to be published in the Government Gazette of the Territory.’.
  4. In clause 9, after sub-clause (3) insert the following subclauses: (3a) As soon as practicable after the GovernorGeneral has disallowed a law or part of a law under this section, the Minister shall cause a notice of the disallowance made by the Governor-General to be laid before each House of the Parliament, and either House may, by resolution passed before the expiration of 15 sitting days of that House after the notice is so laid, disallow that disallowance. (3B) Where either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3a) disallowing a disallowance of a law or part of a law made by the Governor-General, the secondmentioned disallowance shall be deemed not to have been made. (3c) If, after the expiration of the 15 sitting days referred to in sub-section (3a), neither House of the Parliament has passed a resolution disallowing the disallowance made by the Governor-General, the Minister shall cause a notice of the disallowance made by the Governor-General to be published in the Government Gazette of the Territory’.
  5. In clause 13 (5),omit’one-fifth’,substitute’one-tenth’.

  6. In clause 22, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clauses:

    1. After the general election of members of the Legislative Assembly, the Administrator shall, by notice published in the Government Gazette of the Territory, appoint a time, being not later than 30 days after the day appointed for the return of the writs relating to that election, for holding a session of the Legislative Assembly.
    2. The time appointed for the holding of any session of the Legislative Asembly shall be such that a period of 12 months or more does not intervene between the end of one session and the first sitting of the Assembly in the next session. ‘.
  7. In clause 33, after sub-clause (5) insert the following sub-clause: (5a) The Administrator shall convene a meeting of the Council if the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, so requests.’.
  8. In clause 34, after ‘Administrator’ insert, ‘with the approval of the Legislative Assembly, ‘.
  9. In clause 36, omit ‘appoint a member of the Legislative Assembly to a Ministerial office, and may,’, substitute, ‘with the approval of the Legislative Assembly, appoint a member of the Assembly to a Ministerial office, and may, with like approval,’.

The import of these amendments, as I indicated in the second reading debate, is to take some of the extraordinary sovereign powers away from the Administrator and to spell out some of the requirements that have been established by long convention and custom as the duties that a Governor or a Governor-General should observe and, by implication therefore, that the Administrator should observe, vis-a-vis his advisers. Our first amendment is to clause 7 and seeks to take away from the Administrator the power to withhold assent to a proposed law, except for a specified period, for the purpose of receiving advice from the Executive Council of the Legislative Assembly. Under our amendment, the Administrator would be required to seek advice from his Executive Council regarding the purposes, objects or validity of the proposed law. That, of course, does not take away from this Federal Parliament its rights to legislate in a way that would over-ride legislation of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to which it may object. We think that that reservation of itself should be sufficient without having to hand over to an appointed officer, albeit a man with such an exalted post as Administrator, the sorts of powers that have traditionally resided with the Crown, with the Governor or the Queen’s representatives and which by custom and convention have not been exercised in such an absolute way as is spelled out.

The same applies to the amendment to subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) of clause 7, that is, the withholding of assent by the Administrator to proposed laws in the case of laws other than those referring to Executive powers. Even though we seek to delete the provision that the Administrator may withhold assent to the law, we are still allowing that he may reserve the proposed law for the Governor-General’s pleasure. The remainder of that clause provides that the Governor-General may intervene if he is advised that the Executive of this Parliament believes that the proposed law should not be assented to.

Our next amendment relates to clause 8. It deals with the situation where the Administrator has reserved a proposed law for the GovernorGeneral’s pleasure. It provides for the procedure to be undertaken by the Governor-General when he assents, or withholds assent, or assents to part of the proposed law and withholds assent from the remainder. As it stands, this would allow the Governor-General, without any restraint or any scrutiny by this Parliament to agree to the decision of the Legislative Assembly, to agree with the Administrator, or to disagree with either of them. We believe it is reasonable that before he exercises that sovereign power, the legislation should be laid before this Parliament, according to the normal practice for ordinances, regulations and so on, as a further check against the exercise of arbitrary power. It is really to safeguard the rights of the Assembly so that it has a channel of appeal to this Parliament.

Mr Hodgman:

– Keep the Northern Territory on a leash. That is what you are saying.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– It is on a leash already. Legislation of this Parliament can override that of the Legislative Assembly in any case. This amendment is to give it a way out when the Governor-General has had a law referred to him by the Administrator. The Governor-General need not have the final say. This Parliament can have the final say.

The fourth amendment is of similar import. As it stands, clause 9 would allow the GovernorGeneral to disallow any law of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly within six months without any appeal to this Parliament. Any law could be negatived. It could be completely blocked by the Governor-General without recourse to any other opinion. We have already suggested that the Administrator should refer anything he disagrees with to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We believe equally that if the Governor-General intends to override a law of the elected Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory he should have to get the concurrence of this Parliament or at least have his decision laid before the Parliament so that there is another opportunity for the Legislative Assembly to have its law approved through debate in the Houses of Parliament. It should not be left to an executive decision.

Mr Hodgman:

– You would have two parliaments running the Northern Territory on that basis.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– No. This would happen only when the Administrator had referred a law to the Governor-General. Presumably that would occur very rarely. Even though the legislation would lay before the Houses of this Parliament we would not have to debate it. It could lie on the table for IS sitting days but it need not be debated if the Houses of this Parliament did not wish to do so. It is a safegaurd to be available if requested. The fifth amendment refers to the quota of voters, in deciding electoral divisions. Under the law of this Parliament no electorate is allowed to have a margin of 10 per cent above or below the numbers established by quota. That is, the average number of voters per Federal electorate cannot exceed or fall short of the margin of 10 per cent. The law for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for some unexplained reason has allowed a variation of onefifth either way. There could be 120 voters in one electorate for every 80 voters in another electorate, or 150 voters in one electorate for every 100 in another electorate. We believe that this provision is regressive. It should be brought into line with Federal Parliament provisions for a variation of one-tenth or less either way.

Mr Calder:

– Do you want the whole place run from Darwin?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I understand the interjection from the Country Party member. He believes that we should represent acres, not people. We believe in one vote, one value, as do most democratic parliaments in the world. The seventh amendment refers to a requirement on the Administrator to convene a meeting of the Council if the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, so requests. As the Bill stands the Administrator has the absolute authority to call a meeting of the Council. The Council cannot meet without his calling it together. I believe that he is being given even more power than is given to the GovernorGeneral. This amendment is a reasonable limit on that power. The eighth amendment refers to clause 34. It provides that the Administrator cannot decide on the number of Ministers or their functions without the approval of the Legislative Assembly. Again, this is spelling out a power which traditionally resides in the Prime Minister. He normally requests the Governor-General to appoint other Ministers.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-My remarks will be brief. At this stage of the Committee debate I relate them only to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). I found the amendments in globo to be quite contradictory and confusing. There is an expressed intention by the honourable member- I do not doubt his good faith- but because of the way in which it has been presented to this Parliament I would be less than frank if I did not say that he would be capable of being misjudged. On the one hand he claimed to give a greater right of selfgovernment to the Northern Territory, and on the other hand he brought in amendments which, if passed, would have the effect of keeping the Northern Territory on a leash like a little dog with Canberra as the master. The effect of these proposals would be virtually to give the Northern Territory double government. Not only would there be the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, but also the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia would be there as a watchdog.

The honourable member said that if the Governor-General does not grant assent to legislation it does not matter whether those Bills come into this Parliament. It does not mean that they will be debated in Canberra. What an offensive situation that would be, to bring them in and let them lie on the table. One of my colleagues remarked that they could sit there for 15 sitting days. That could mean a period of up to three months. What would happen if the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in Darwin passed legislation which on 2 June the GovernorGeneral said that he would not give assent to it? Under the amendment of my colleague, the honourable member for Capricornia, the legislation could sit in this Parliament gathering dust and cobwebs for three months. Is that really what the Labor Party wants for the Northern Territory? I do not believe it is. I have great faith in the honourable member. He knows that I have expressed views about his capacity as a Minister in the former Labor Government. He was a very good one. I am certain that he does not appreciate the implications of the amendments that he has introduced. As I said a moment ago, they are completely contradictory and confusing. Above all they indicate an underlying inability of the Labor Party to recognise what is meant by selfgovernment for the Northern Territory.

Quite frankly, the Labor Party looks back with longing eyes to the days of 1972 to 1975 when the Northern Territory became but a colony of Canberra. Self-government is contrary to the centralist principles of the Labor Party and to every objective it has enunciated in this Parliament over many years. It does not fully appreciate that the Northern Territory has now come of age and is entitled to self-government in its own right. Because the debate will be an abbreviated one I conclude my remarks by saying simply that whatever the good intentions of the honourable member for Capricornia, the amendments taken as a group completely cut across the entire principle of the Bill. We have just agreed to the second reading of the Bill. Were we to agree to any of the amendments, quite frankly, we would weaken the vote we have just taken in this chamber.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has ignored my answer to his interjection which had the same import as his speech. It is true that there could be a long interval between the laying before this Parliament of a decision by the Governor-General and the lapse of 15 sitting days of the Parliament. There could be a three months delay in the GovernorGeneral’s decision being determined. Let me point out that this Bill provides for a six months delay before the Governor-General can make up his mind. If a law is referred to his pleasure by the Administrator he has six months in which to make up his mind whether he will assent to it.

Mr Hodgman:

– Where does it say that?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– It says that here. I am sorry; it is even without the Administrator making a referral. When the Administrator has given assent to a proposed law the Governor-General may, within six months, recommend to him any amendments. He can disallow that law, or part of it, for a six-month period.

Mr Hodgman:

– With respect, it does not mean that he can sit on it for six months. He has to act.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– He need not within six months give any indication of his opposition to a law. The law can be completely revoked within a six-month period after the Northern Territory has, ostensibly, passed it, and even brought it into effect.

Mr Hodgman:

– With your amendments it could be nine months- six months plus three months.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

-Of course it could.

Mr Simon:

– What is the point of it?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– At least it is leaving open the possibility that this Parliament might just agree with the Northern Territory Assembly. I am sure that they would rather wait nine months and get the law through than wait six months and not get it through. So it is not a derogation of powers from the Assembly; it is a derogation of powers from the Governor-General.

The eighth amendment relates to clause 34 and, again, is designed to take away a power, which is spelt out, that the Administrator may, in effect, appoint and sack Ministers. In practice, of course, this happens: It is convention and custom that Governors-General and Governors appoint and dismiss ministries, but they do not usually go into that amount of detail- that they can appoint a Minister to a particular portfolio and remove him. That is normally done on the recommendation of the Executive and normally is limited to the appointment of a Prime Minister or Premier who enjoys the confidence of the majority party in the main legislative chamber. This would spell out powers whereby the Administrator could actually dictate the structure of the Ministry, and appoint and dismiss particular Ministers. We believe that should be done only with the consent of the Assembly. The ninth amendment is related to clause 36, and is of the same import.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I support the amendments. I am rather sorry that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) sought to confuse the issue. The effect of the amendment that my colleague has moved is quite clear. All we are trying to do is ensure that the ultimate authority rests with the Australian Parliament, not with the Administrator or the Governor-General. The ultimate right of veto must rest with the elected Parliament. This must be so if we are not to create a new State in the Northern Territory. We are not pretending to do that. No one is kidding himself: It is not to be a sovereign State. Therefore, sovereignty remains within the Parliament and the right of veto should properly remain in the hands of the Parliament, rather than of someone else.

I note that the second reading speech contains a statement that the Government would expect the Administrator to act on the advice of his Northern Territory Ministers. We know from bitter experience that that expectation is not always fulfilled. The Administrator, in common with the Governor-General, may not, in certain situations, act on advice of his Ministers. We know from experience that sometimes he acts on advice from people who are not representative of or elected by the people of Australia- with quite disastrous results. We are trying to protect the Northern Territory Administration from an unfortunate experience of that kind.

Generally, of course, I support the Bill. My only regret is that we are not debating a measure that will give self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. However, I know that the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) is watching the developments closely and I hope that, in the light of the experience with this Bill, it may not be too long a time before we will be debating a similar measure to give self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. They are, of course, very different kinds of territories, but have many things in common. One, in particular, is that for many years we have been discriminated against. We join the Minister in congratulating those who have over many years conducted the fight for self-government in the Territory.

The Minister said that in 1974 the Labor representation was annihilated. That was wishful thinking, of course. It might have been temporarily indisposed, but certainly was not annihilated. Labor is alive and well in the Territory. Mr Isaacs and his colleagues are doing a wonderful job of representing the people who put them into power, and trying to play their role in developing a sound basis of self-government for the people of the Northern Territory.

The Minister did acknowledge the very important role that over the years the Labor Party had played in the movement towards selfgovernment for the Territory and noted that the first Legislative Council had been established in 1947 under the Chifley Government; that it was in 1974 that further progress was made. So this is the result of a long struggle by many people of all political persuasions. I congratulate them on their efforts.

One of the most pressing problems, of course, concerns financial arrangements. We have the same problem here. Whatever arrangements are made, it is important to develop a formula whereby the people of the Northern Territory will know where they stand; so there will not every year be a hassle as to how much they will receive. A formula which relates in some way to the many disabilities experienced in the Territory, as well as its population, should be developed. One cannot relate government grants simply to the number of people in the Territory. It has fewer people than in my one electorate of Fraser here in Canberra. We must take into account such disabilities as the size of the Territory, its population, the tyranny of distance which, as has been mentioned, operate on many aspects of the way in which people live in the Territory. Also to be considered are transport costs, the isolation, the cost of communication, the general cost of living and, of course, the climate.

We must also remember that the Territory occupies a unique place in the geography of Australia. In many ways it is our frontier, the first point of contact that the people of many important South East Asian nations have with Australia. Many of the main political issues of the day are centred on Darwin and the Northern Territory. The problem of the Vietnamese refugees is just one. It is of great concern to people of the Territory inasmuch as it could lead to the introduction of both human and animal exotic diseases. The issue of surveillance is centred on Darwin. Unfortunately, we have very little to show in that regard; but that is where it is all happening. Other important issues which arise in that area include the great question of Aboriginal land rights, what to do with our uranium, the bluetongue problem and the illegal importation of drugs, plants and animals. All these things give the Northern Territory a tremendous political importance which far overshadows the question of the number of people who live there. Recently I visited the Northern Territory and had the good fortune to see the beautiful national park at Kakadu, which must be one of the most beautiful in the world. The Northern Territory has a special responsibility to see that it is protected, in the interests of the Australian people.

In regard to the method of election, I would like to comment on the size of the electorates and the fact that they are to be single-member electorates. I do not support that policy. I believe that, given the geography of the Territory, there would be much more stable government if they were to be multi-member electorates. I do not mean to go to the extreme, as we have done in the Australian Capital Territory, with electorates for the Legislative Assembly that are equivalent to Federal electorates, where we have nine members. That, I think, unduly favours independent members. I think this legislation has gone to the other extreme, with single member electorates, because when there is a swing in the political pendulum there tends to be a situation in which the winner takes all and one party may not be represented at all. I think the happy medium is to have electorates with four or five representatives so that there is good representation from the main political parties but in which a strong independent will always win a seat. That is the sort of system I would like to see in both Canberra and the Northern Territory. It is very good to see the Northern Territory starting off on the right foot, with members being full-time and giving them reasonable rates of pay. I think that is a very progressive move. I hope that it will be emulated by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory when he puts up a proposition in relation to self-government for the Capital Territory. That is the only way in which to get sound administration- from good quality people, in full-time positions.

I believe that nobody could deal adequately with all the problems or issues which I have mentioned unless they are employed on a full-time basis. The responsibility for education and health are being left up in the air at the moment. I think this is probably a wise decision in the short term, but certainly in the long term I would like to see both health and education made responsible to the elected people of the Northern Territory. The elected representatives know the needs and aspirations of the people, in terms of health services and education, and they are in a better position to respond to the needs of the people rather than to have those decisions made by people in Canberra.

I know that there are some objections to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands being left in the hands of the Commonwealth Government, which I think is fair enough, but if the Government is to have responsibility for them it should effectively carry out surveillance of the islands because we do have information that from time to time they are used by Indonesian fishermen. There is the question of potential mineral rights. There may be some environmental problems, I do not know. Some interest should be maintained in those Islands by the Northern Territory Administration. I think some compromise solution involving the Northern Territory Administration and the Federal Government could be reached. Certainly the ultimate authority would lie in the hands of the Australian Government, but a very important role in the management of those islands should be left in the hands of the Assembly.

I would like to wish the people of the Northern Territory well. They have tremendous problems on their hands. I have great faith in the fact that if people are elected they will act responsibly. If they do not carry out their job the people have the right of recall. People tend to emphasise the cost of self-government, without putting any emphasis on possible savings. I think there is tremendous potential for savings by the cost of self-government being subject to much closer scrutiny by elected members. The devastating report presented in this House this morning about the horrors of the forestry project in the Northern Territory is a good illustration of how there can be savings.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Amendments negatived.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-In the second reading speech I indicated two areas that caused me very great concern. The first related to the extent of the grant of legislative authority. I dealt with that at length in my speech. I hope that the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) will give serious and careful consideration to the legal and constitutional implications of the doubts and reservations that I have about the method being adopted to confer upon the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory a legislative capacity which exceeds the capacity that is in the hands of the States and makes no reservation in regard to the general powers of the Commonwealth, other than our capacity to refuse to give the Assembly either executive authority or our capacity to use the reserve powers of the Governor-General to veto Assembly legislation.

In this Committee debate I want to draw attention particularly to the implications of clause 35 of the Bill. Under clause 32 the Executive Council of the Legislative Assembly is conferred with executive power. That clause states that that executive power is to be limited by the Act. Clause 35 limits the power, because the clause states that the regulations may specify the matters in respect of which Ministers of the Territory are to have executive authority. As I mentioned earlier, I indicated that it was unusual in one instance to give to the Assembly plenary legislative power but then to give it limited executive authority. I believe that the executive authority conferred upon the Assembly should match its legislative power, except in clearly denned areas. Where we are seeking to confer self-government it means in a legislative and an executive capacity. Therefore we should grant that joint authority. Where for reasons of constitutional development or national policy issues we are of the opinion that the executive authority should be limited, we should in those circumstances limit it specifically.

Therefore I would like to see the emphasis in clause 35 changed. I do not believe it changes the principle or the objectives that the legislation seeks to achieve, but it changes the method. I believe that section 35 should be altered to state that the regulations may specify the matters in respect of which the Ministers of the Territory are not to have legislative authority. That would make quite clear to the elected representatives and the people of the Northern Territory the area of reserve powers of the Commonwealth, rather than confront them with a difficult constitutional situation where in respect of every piece of legislation they have to ask whether the conferral of executive authority is wide enough to enable the Assembly to execute the legislation which it has passed.

The Government members federal affairs committee has given this matter very serious consideration. It has appreciated very much the discussions it has had with the Minister. It would like further discussions with him on this very important issue. It believes that there are a number of members of this House and of another place who feel very strongly that the methods by which the executive authority is conferred should be in the manner I have outlined rather than that proposed in the Bill. Rather than move an amendment today I indicate that I will be seeking an opportunity to raise this matter for further discussion amongst my colleagues on this side of the chamber so that the members of the Government can understand the strength of the feeling of members who sit behind them and can take account of those views so that hopefully the legislation will then be amended in the manner that we would like when it is before the other place.

I know from indications given to me that there are members in another place who have feelings equally as strong as those to which I referred in this place. Rather than putting forward this afternoon a proposal on a number of points in amendment form I want to indicate what we would have liked to have done. We proposed to adopt the procedure I have outlined which would be to amend paragraph (a) of clause 7 (2) and insert after the word ‘matter’ the word ‘not’. That would be a consequential amendment to the clause. In clause 35, page 1 1, line 12, after the word ‘are’, the word ‘not’ could be inserted.

I know that time is limited. So that honourable members can understand that there is feeling in this matter I propose to conclude my remarks rather than to take up the time that would be available to me in the hope that some honourable members who share my feelings and wish this matter to be discussed further amongst our colleagues are given the opportunity to speak. It is for that reason that I am sitting down after speaking for six minutes only notwithstanding that I could have spoken for 10 minutes.

I understand that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is in the House, supports me. I also understand that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon), the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and the honourable member for Penh (Mr McLean) support me in my plea that this matter should be considered and discussed further. I believe that there are other honourable members not in the chamber who would support me. I know that my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) would give strong support if he were given the opportunity to follow me in this debate. I propose to sit down in the hope that time will be made available to the honourable member for the Northern Territory to support the remarks I have made.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is the honourable member seeking leave to move both amendments together?

Mr WILSON:

– I indicated that I did not propose to move the amendments. I was speaking to the Bill. I have indicated a procedure that I propose to adopt. I hope that the honourable member for the Northern Territory will have an opportunity to say a few words.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I will be brief- I will have to be. During the second reading debate I indicated that I considered that clause 35 of the Bill could lead the Government into a great deal of trouble with litigation and misunderstanding. I mentioned that there are 49 or 50 matters in respect of which the Territory executive will have authority. The excuse we received for the legislation not being drafted in the way we expected was that it would take a long time to do this. I do not think that is the right approach to this matter. I hope that the Government will look at the suggestions that have been made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I thoroughly support him and my other colleagues in this matter.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I would like to support the remarks of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson).

Progress reported.

page 3054

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the purposes of an amendment to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948 announced.

Bill returned from the Senate with a request.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s request.

Clause 9.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

After paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1), insert the following paragraph: (ba) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: “(2a) For the purposes of sub-section (IB) and paragraph (aa) of sub-section (2), every senator whose term of office was 6 years shall, if at the expiration of 3 years after the commencement of that term of office that term of office has not expired, be deemed (in addition to his having ceased to be a senator at the actual expiration of that term of office if he continued in office for the whole of that term) to have at the expiration of that period of 3 years ceased to be a senator by reason of the expiration of that term of office. “; ‘.

The purpose of clause 9 is to enable members of the House of Representatives and senators to qualify, in terms of the provisions relating to the period of service required in respect of voluntary retirement, situations for benefits provided under the superannuation scheme. The amendment seeks to enable senators to qualify for what is described as an ‘occasion ‘ in terms of the legislation as it now stands in much the same time as do members of this chamber. This is achieved by equating Senate service of three years with the theoretical three-year term of a member of the House of Representatives. The amendment simply gives senators broad equivalence of treatment with members of the House of Representatives in respect of the voluntary retirement provisions of the legislation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This amendment brings the provisions applying to a senator into line with those applying to members of the House of Representatives. In other words, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is proposing that contributors may retire voluntarily after 12 years or four terms of Parliament and qualify for an allowance. ‘A parliament’ is denned as a three-year term of the House of

Representatives. The definition if applied to the Senate, could be interpreted as being a six-year term- and we do not want to see those venerable gentlemen in the Senate having to serve 24 years to qualify. To give some balance, we have no objection to the fact that a period of three years service for senators ought to be deemed equivalent to three years service in the House of Representatives. We reserve our views as to whether the work of senators is of the same value. From the point of view of service we see no reason to object to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3055

NORTHERN TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) BILL 1978

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– I propose to move amendments to clauses 2, 19, 21, 28, 43, 53, 56, 65, 69, 70, 71 and 75. 1 move:

  1. . Omit clause 2, substitute: 2. ( 1 ) Sections 1, 2 and 70 shall come into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

    1. The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into operation on 1 July 1978.’.
  2. In clause 1 9, omit ‘2 ‘, substitute ‘3 ‘.
  3. In clause 21(1 )(a), after ‘Service’, insert ‘or the Police Force’.

  4. In clause 2 1(2), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

    1. he fails to attend the Legislative Assembly for 2 consecutive months of any session of the Assembly without the permission of the Assembly; ‘.
  5. In clause 28, omit ‘Act’, substitute ‘section’.
  6. In clause 43, omit ‘that ‘ (second occurring).
  7. In clause 33(3), omit ‘the commencement of this Act’, substitute’ l July 1978’.

  8. In clause 53, after sub-clause (5 ), insert (5a) Sub-section (5) does not prevent the making of-

    1. a law conferring the power to make determinations by way of the ascertainment of rights or obligations conferred or imposed on persons by law; or
    2. b ) a law conferring power on the Public Service Commissioner of the Territory, on a body established by enactment, or on the holder of an office established by enactment, to make determinations by way of the fixing of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed in the Public Service of the Territory or employed by that body or by the holder of that office, as the case may be. ‘.
  9. In clause 53(6), after ‘enactment’, insert ‘, or a determination referred to in paragraph ( 5 a)( b ), ‘.
  10. In clause 53 (6), omit ‘the date of commencment of this Act ‘, substitute ‘ 1 July 1 978 ‘.
    1. In clause 56, omit ‘the date of commencement of this Act ‘, substitute ‘ 1 July 1 978 ‘.
  12. In clause 65, omit ‘commencement of this Act’, substitute ‘commencing date’.
    1. In clause 69( 3 ), omit ‘ by ‘, substitute ‘ from ‘.

  14. In clause 70, omit sub-clauses ( 1 ) to (6), substitute:

    1. 1 ) The Minister may, from time to time, recommend to the Governor-General that any interest in land vested or to be vested in the Territory by sub-section 69(2) (including an interest less than, or subsidiary to, such an interest) be acquired from the Territory by the Commonwealth under this section.
    2. The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister under sub-section ( 1 ), authorize the acquisition of the interest for a public purpose approved by the Governor-General.
    3. The Minister may cause to be published in the Gazette notice of the authorization by the GovernorGeneral and, in the notice, declare that the interest is acquired under this section for the public purpose approved by the Governor-General.
    4. Upon publication of the notice in the Gazette or immediately after the commencement of section 69, whichever is the later, the interest to which the notice relates is, by force of this section-
    1. vested in the Commonwealth; and

    2. freed and discharged from any restriction, dedication or reservation made by or under any enactment (not being an interest to which sub-section (6) applies), to the intent that the legal estate in the interest, and all rights and powers incident to that estate or conferred by the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 in relation to that estate, are vested in the Commonwealth.

    3. An interest that may be acquired under this section may be an interest that did not previously exist as such.
    4. Upon the acquisition of an interest by the Commonwealth under this section, all interests that were held from the Territory immediately before the acquisition, being interests derived from the first-mentioned interest, are, by force of this section, held from the Commonwealth on the same terms and conditions as those on which they were held from the Territory. ‘.
  15. In clause 70 ( 10), omit ‘day’, , substitue ‘date’
  16. In clause 71 (2)(a) omit ‘day’, substitue ‘date’.
  17. In clause 75 ( 1), omit ‘The’, substitute ‘With the consent of the Administrator for the Territory acting with the advice of the Council, the ‘.
  18. In clause 75 (2), omit ‘date of commencement of this Act ‘, substitute ‘commencing date ‘.

I would like to have responded at greater length to the remarks made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson); but I say briefly that the legislative power of the Northern Territory is plenary in character, subject to laws made not being inconsistent with particular Commonwealth Acts in force. That power has been held by the Northern Territory legislature since 1948. Given the establishment by the Bill of the Territory as a body politic under the Crown and the conferment on its Ministers of the appropriate prerogatives, the quality of the executive power to the extent that it is conferred will be as ample as it can be. To confer executive authority by way of exclusion, as the amendment purports, it would be necessary to identify all matters of exclusive national executive concern not covered by an existing Commonwealth Act in an exclusive way. External affairs, defence in some aspects at least, and customs tariffs are obvious cases, but others might need to be added, such as coinage and legal tender as well as, of course, the major matters of Aboriginal land rights, uranium and related matters.

At a number of points a reserved list would present the similar problems of definition, drafting and application to those said to be involved in specifying matters under the present clause 35. Possibly the existence of a reserve list might encourage legal challenges. In addition the balance in the present Bill would be significantly modified. Important clauses, such as clause 32(3), clause 69(5) and clause 71(2), have been drawn on the basis of a list of specified matters of Territory executive powers. I believe that we have almost reached a state of agreement with the Legislative Assembly as to the list of functions to be transferred.

I turn to the amendments which I have just moved on behalf of the Government. Being conscious of the hour, I do not want to speak at length on them. The Government’s amendments, which follow very close consultation with the Northern Territory Executive and the government federal affairs and law and government committees have, on the whole, the effect of tightening up the Bill as it was originally drafted. Perhaps I could categorise these amendments very briefly. The first amendment, the purpose of which is reflected in amendments Nos 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18, is to allow the administrative machinery for the re-acquisition of the land which the Commonwealth will require for its own purposes to be put into effect before all land in the Territory is transferred to the Northern Territory Government under clause 69 of the Bill. Amendments Nos 2, 6 and 13 are drafting corrections.

The third amendment has been included at the request of the Northern Territory Executive, as the Majority Leader has indicated that the Northern Territory Police Force may be removed from the Northern Territory Public Service. Amendment No. 4 provides for disqualification from membership of the Legislative Assembly in precise conformity with section 38 of the Constitution. Amendments Nos 8 and 9, which were drafted after very close perusal by Commonwealth and Northern Territory Public Service officers, have the effect of more accurately reflecting the intention of the clause.

Amendment No. 14 is a redraft to meet a deficiency in the original provision, as a result of which subsidiary interests in land held by the Commonwealth for its purposes can be held from the Commonwealth. For example, as it was originally presented, the clause would have resulted in a lease on Darwin airport held by the Darwin Aero Club from the Commonwealth Department of Transport being held from the Northern Territory after 1 July 1978. Amendment No. 17 has been made to accommodate some concern which was held by the Northern Territory Executive and the federal affairs committee. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in my remarks, since the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) has indicated the lateness of the hour. I take pride in participating in the Committee consideration of this Bill, despite the minor contribution which I intend to make, because I had the honour of being the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory during the term of office of the Whitlam Administration. That Committee took major steps in recommending to the Government measures which were adopted and which have resulted in the progress which is now being furthered by the Government.

I turn to the amendments. I am somewhat astonished to see the Government at this late hour moving 18 amendments and rushing the legislation through, even though it says that the legislation was presented after careful scrutiny of all the proposals. It is my honest belief that these amendments have occurred to the Government only since the arrival in this capital city last week of Mr Everingham, the Majority Leader of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The fact that the Government has moved these amendments indicates the hastiness with which the legislation was drawn up. It bears out the allegations which the Austraiian Labor Party has made.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) spoke in support of the legislation and of the Government’s amendments, although he seemed to favour the Labor Party’s attitude to clause 7 of the legislation. But he did not vote for the amendments moved by the Labor Party. Similarly, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) found nothing to condemn in clause 7. Therefore we believe that the amendments that we moved were worthy of much more consideration by the Committee. We believe also that acceptance of the amendment that we moved at the second reading stage would have benefited the legislation as a whole and the people of the Northern Territory. In my view, the honourable member for Sturt failed to spell out correctly the legislative powers provided for in the legislation. Too much power is being given to the Administrator of the Northern Territory and to the Governor-General. We should all be well aware that major constitutional changes should be decided by the people of the Northern Territory and not by this Parliament. We are now in the latter part of the twentieth century. We must maintain a peoples’ democracy in which people have more say than administrators and Governors-General. I would like to have said much more. I applaud the general principle of the legislation, but I suggest that it would have been a lot better had the amendment which the Labor Party moved at the second reading stage been adopted.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Adermann)- by leaveread a third time.

page 3057

ASHMORE AND CARTIER ISLANDS ACCEPTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I do not wish to detain the House. I made a brief reference in my speech during the second reading debate on the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Bill to the fact that this is one of the key areas in respect of which the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was not consulted. It has financial implications. I simply stress that the Opposition is concerned at the failure of the Government to have consultations in this regard.

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3058

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Street:

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3058

LANDS ACQUISITION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Street:

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3058

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Howard:

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3058

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Questions 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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3058

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– I have an amendment to clause 6, which reads in part-

  1. 1 ) Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting ‘Australia’ and substituting ‘the Commonwealth’;
    2. by omitting ‘Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1959’ (first occurring) and substituting Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978’; and
    3. by omitting ‘ Legislative Council for the Territory by the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1959 to make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory shall be construed as including provision to make Ordinances so applying’ and substituting Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory or Australia by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 in relation to the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory shall be construed as extending to the making of laws so applying’.
Mr ADERMANN:

– I move:

At the end of sub-clause ( 1 ), add the following paragraph:

by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(2) Without derogating from the generality of subsection ( 1 ), nothing in this or any other Act shall be taken to limit the power of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in relation to the making of laws relating to the prosecution in the Supreme Court of indictable offences against laws in force in the Territory under or by virtue of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978”.’.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Adermann)- by leaveread a third time.

page 3059

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3059

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3059

COMMONWEALTH MOTOR VEHICLES (LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-I point out to the Minister that there is no indication of the authorities concerned, how long the traditional period will be or what the subsequent arrangements will be. I hope that he will make those details available to honourable members. They concern the management of Aboriginal sacred sites, education and so on. What are the authorities concerned and what future action is proposed.

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 Adermann) read a third time.

page 3059

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-This Bill provides utterly inadequate cover for the persons to whom it is directed. It is my view that the statutory amount now payable in respect of people injured in aircraft accidents, that is, $45,000, is scandalously low. It is also my view that the provisions relating to those who are injured in aircraft that are not chartered aircraft or not flying on schedules are utterly inadequate too.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I inform the honourable member that we are dealing with the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978. It would appear that the honourable member’s remarks should be directed to another Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Adermann)- by leave- read a third time.

page 3059

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I apologise for the misunderstanding earlier which was caused by my not hearing which Bill we were dealing with. I have an amendment to clause 4 which reads:

Section 1 1 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections:

Subject to this section, this Pan applies to the carriage in an aircraft operated by a person other than the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority of a passenger, being a person to whom paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) would apply if the references in those paragraphs to the Commonwealth were references to the Northern Territory and the references in those paragraphs to a Commonwealth authority were omitted.

For the purposes of sub-section (4), the definition of ‘passenger’ in section 4 has effect as if the reference in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (c) of that definition to the Commonwealth were a reference to the Northern Territory.

For the purposes of the application of this Part in accordance with sub-section (4), the succeeding provisions of this Part have effect as if references in those provisions to the Commonwealth (other than references to a Commonwealth authority, or references to the Commonwealth in the expression “whether in the Commonwealth or elsewhere”) were references to the Northern Territory.’.

Mr WILSON:

-I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to decide for itself the level of compensation and protection that it will provide for the public servants of the Northern Territory and until it makes such a decision the existing Commonwealth Act will prevail. It is unfortunate that we are imposing upon the Northern Territory utterly inadequate legislation. I appreciate that dme is limited. If the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) were in a position to indicate to me that the Government is prepared to look not only at this matter but also at the whole question of insurance protection and general compensation provisions relating to people who travel on aircraft, whether they be flying on schedules, charter or privately, that would comfort me and enable me not to proceed at length to explain why I think this amendment should be made and why this legislative capacity should not be withheld from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Minister apparently is not able to give that indication so I will proceed with my argument. I wanted to move a more extensive amendment but to save time I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard because it indicates the principles which I think the Legislative Assembly ought to be enabled to adopt if it so wishes. That is the purpose of the amendment before the Chair. I could not move the amendment in the more extensive form because it would not have come within the short title of the

Bill. So I seek leave of the Committee to incorporate the more substantial amendment in Hansard so that honourable members can see what I am driving at.

Leave granted.

The proposed amendment read as follows-

Clause 4, after proposed sub-section (6) add the following sub-section:

(a) A person to whom sub-section (4) applies shall not fly in an aircraft operated by a person other than the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority unless an approved insurance policy is in force in relation to such aircraft.

An approved insurance policy in respect of paragraph (a) is one which-

insures the carrier who operates the aircraft mentioned in the policy against ail liability incurred in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person caused by or arising out of the use of the aircraft in any part of the Commonwealth, whether such use be with the authority of the carrier or not, for a minimum sum of $250,000 for each person;

shall not be invalidated by reason of the fact that it contains any term, condition or warranty which avoids liability by reason of any negligence by the carrier or his agent of any breach by the carrier or his agent of any provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations relating to air-worthiness, conditions of flight, rules of the air, or air traffic control signals, and

does not provide a ground for the insurer to avoid his obligations under the terms of the policy that the accident was due to the negligence of the ground crew or of the air traffic control staff at an aerodrome or to facilities or services at an aerodrome which did not comply with the requirements of the Air Navigation Regulations. ‘.

Mr WILSON:

– That incorporation will enable me to summarise my case far more quickly. The protection given to people flying on charter or scheduled aircraft- it is limited to $45,000 whether for death or serious injury- is utterly inadequate and should be lifted to a figure of the order of $250,000 to make that protection comparable with that for people driving in motor cars. The fact that there is no protection for people flying on private aircraft is of special significance, especially for the Northern Territory where there are many private aircraft. A lot of people think when they get on a private aircraft and the pilot or owner tells them that he is insured that they are protected. In fact, the insurers offering that type of insurance are writing into their policies exemption clauses which enable them, on the very grounds that establish the claimants claim, to be exonerated from liability to protect the owner or pilot of the aircraft.

It is interesting to note that Commonwealth statutory authorities require that if their employees fly on aircraft that are not scheduled or not flying under charter conditions there must be an adequate comprehensive insurance policy. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, I am informed, requires such insurance protection. I understand that such insurance policies must contain the provisions of the insurance policy which covers motor cars and damage to third persons in a personal way. I think every aircraft flying in this country should be required to be covered by a comprehensive third party personal injury policy to ensure that those who fly on it and are injured as a result of the negligence of either the operator of the aircraft or those who administer the functions within airports are allowed to claim damages and be compensated without the risk that their claim may be against a man of straw, because very often the owner or pilot of the aircraft is a man of limited means.

I would like to expand on my argument but instead I make three points: Firstly, the need to increase the limit from $45,000 to $250,000; secondly, the need for a requirement that all aircraft carry an insurance policy to protect passengers against a lack of financial resources on the part of the owner, the pilot or the person causing the negligence; and thirdly, that the quality of those policies be such that the insurer not be allowed to get out of his liability on the ground of breaches of aircraft flying regulations or the negligence of the pilot.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– The Opposition wishes to comment on this Bill without moving an amendment. Whilst we are not supporting specifically the type of amendment which the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has moved, we do agree that the compensation figure of $45,000 is totally inadequate. According to the formula put up in 1970 by the then Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, the figure should be $67,000. I notice that the honourable member now is asking that it be something like $250,000 although in June 1976 he opposed an Austrlian Labor Party amendment which would have raised it to $67,000.

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

– I respond on behalf of the Government to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). The Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act provides a maximum liability in respect of damages in the event of death or injury of $45,000 without the need to prove negligence. That point we accept. The limit under the Act has been tied to the limit under the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act which extends to all internal flights within Australia. International flights by Qantas Airways Ltd are similarly limited to the maximum carriers liability of $45,000. The level of damages applying under Australian aviation legislation reflects Australia’s adherence to international civil aviation agreements. With the exception of the United States of America, these agreements have resulted in a uniformity of cover throughout the world. The Government will consider increasing the limit under the Australian aviation legislation in accordance with any further possible increases in the level of cover provided under the international agreements. Therefore, the Government does not accept the amendment at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Hunt)- by leave- read a third time.

page 3061

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Because of the late hour, I am reluctant to raise this matter this evening in the adjournment debate, but I feel -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.38 p.m.

page 3062

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Environmental Impact Statements (Question No. 802)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

On what matters and on which dates have (a) environmental impact statements been prepared, and (b) inquiries conducted under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.

Mr Groom:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. Environmental impact statements have been directed on the following proposals on the dates shown: 30 September 1975-A.N.L. Container Terminal, Botany Bay, New South Wales. 7 October 1975- Marine Maintenance Facility, Neutral Bay, Sydney, New South Wales. 8 October 1975- South Eastern Freeway, Brisbane, Queensland. 9 October 1975-K.eilor By-pass, Victoria. 9 October 1975- Eastern Freeway, from Thompson/ Bulleen Road to the Maroondah Highway east of Ringwood, Victoria. 9 October 1975- Extension to Lower Yarra Freeway, Victoria. 9 October 1975-Hume Freeway, Bell St to Eastern Freeway, Victoria. 9 October 1975-Burnie By-pass, Stage B, Tasmania. 1 October 1975- -Canbe”« /Royalla Transmission Line. 5 February 1976-A.C.T. Police Radio Facilities. 24 March- Proposed, Telephone Exchange, Davey Street, Hobart, Tasmania. 24 May 1976- Proposed Mail Exchange and Transport Centre, Campbell Street, Hoban, Tasmania. 30 July 1976-Nebo Open Cast Coal Mining Project, Bowen Basin, Queensland (Thiess Dampier Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd). 30 July 1 976-Hail Creek Project Open Cast Coal Mine, Bowen Basin, Queensland (Hail Creek Management Pty Ltd). 30 July 1976-Norwich Park Coal Mine Proposal. Queensland (Central Queensland Coal Association). 30 July 1976-Blair Athol Coal Project, Bowen Basin, Queensland (Blair Athol Coal Pty Ltd). 30 July 1976-Gregory Coal Mining Project, Bowen Basin, Queensland (Dampier Mining Co. Ltd). 3 December 1976- Agnew Nickel Mining Project, Western Australia (Agnew Mining Co.) 3 December 1976- Second Darwin Power Station, Northern Territory. 19 January 1977- West Cape Light Tower, Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. 30 January 1977-North Canberra, 132 kv Subtransmission development- Extension to Ainslie and Kingston, Australian Capital Territory. 7 March 1 977- Construction of Stuart Highway on a new alignment from Port Augusta, South Australia to Northern Territory border. 8 March 1977- Proposal to extend and expand export approvals for the Woodchip Operation of Harris Daishowa Aust Pty Ltd at Eden, New South Wales. 26 March 1 977-Proposed Pulp/Paper Mill Albury, New South Wales (Australian Newsprint Mills) 4 April 1977- Goldsworthy ‘C Iron Ore Development, Western Australia (Goldsworthy Mining Co.) 4 April 1977- Marandoo Iron Ore Development, Western Australia (Texasgulf Australia Ltd). 5 May 1977- Erection of Telecommunication Tower at Katoomba, New South Wales. 1 1 May 1 977- Wagerup Alumina Project, Western Australia (Alco of Australia (WA) Ltd). 1 July 1977- Proposed establishemt of Omega Navigation Facility. 26 July 1977-Elements of the Western Parkway and Arterial Road System Australian Capital Territory (Glenloch Interchange). 23 September 1977- Offshore Petroleum ProposalPeel No. 1 Exploration Well, Western Australia (West Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd). 26 September 1977-Second Hobart Bridge across the Derwent River at Dowsing ‘s Point, Tasmania. 10 October 1 977- Construction of Coconut GroveLudmillaFannie Bay Connector and Frances Bay Connector Roads (as a scheme for improvements to road ecces from the Northern Suburbs to Darwin CBD), Northern Territory. 1 November 1977- Redevelopment of Garden Island Naval Dockyard, Sydney, New South Wales. 14 November 1977- Proposed Export of Woodchips from the Port of Newcastle, New South Wales (Sawmillers Exports Pty Ltd ). 17 November 1977- Jabiluka Uranium Project, Northern Territory (Pancontinental Mining Ltd). 17 November 1977- Koongarra Uranium project, Northern Territory (Noranda Australia Ltd ). 17 November 1977- Nabarlek Uranium project, Northern Territory (Queensland Mines Ltd). 17 November 1 977- Yeelirrie Uranium Project Western Australia ( Western Mining Corporation Ltd ). 12 December 1977- Agnes Waters Mineral Sands project, Queensland (Mineral Deposits Ltd). 12 December 1 977- Proposed establishment of a lead zinc mine at Elura, near Cobar, New South Wales (EZ Industries). 13 January 1978- Proposed 27,000 acre tourist complex Farnborough (near Yeppoon) Queensland, (Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd). 12 January 1978- Proposed construction of an aluminium smelter on Boyne Island near Gladstone, Queensland (Comalco Ltd). 8 February 1978- Crocodile Development Project, Edward River, Queensland (Applied Ecology Pty Ltd). 15 February 1 978- Extension of Arnhem Highway, Northern Territory (Pancontinental Mining Ltd). 21 February 1978- Metallurgical Research Plant at Kalgoorlie, Western Australia (Western Mining Corporation). 27 February 1978-North West Shelf Natural Gas Development, Western Australia (Woodside Petroleum Developments Pty Ltd ). 30 March 1 978- Residential Development of Section 100, Yarralumla Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Environment Inquiry on Uranium Development in the Northern Territory: Direction notified in the Gazette on 16 July 1975.

Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry: Direction notified in the Gazette on 1 6 July 1 975.

Value of Australian Dollar (Question No. 821)

Mr Stewart:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many fluctuations have occurred in the value of the Australian dollar since December 1975.
  2. What was the extent of each of these fluctuations and the date on which each occurred.
  3. Who makes the decision to revalue the Australian dollar.
  4. What is the basis on which a revaluation is made.
  5. ) What was the official exchange value of the Australian dollar for the currencies of (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) Canada, (d) Japan, (e) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (0 West Germany and (g) the People’s Republic of China (i) in December 1975 and (ii) as at 4 April 1 978.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The following changes have taken place in the Index of the trade-weighted value of the Australian Dollar (May 1970 = 100) since December 1975:
  1. and (4) Since November 1976, management of the Australian dollar exchange rate has comprised a variable link to a trade-weighted ‘basket’ of currencies. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet keep the level of the exchange rate under review. When the assessment of all relevant economic factors indicates a need to move the level of the exchange rate, this is done by means of more frequent and smaller shifts in the relationship of the Australian dollar to the ‘basket’ of currencies than had been the case in the past. I am responsible for these arrangements.
  2. The exchange rates for the Australian dollar against the following currencies as at 3 1 December 1975 and 4 April 1978 were:

Volume of Money: Variations (Question No. 967)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 2 May 1 978:

What was the rate of variation in the volume of money broadly known as M3 at the end of each month since 31 December 1969.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The rate of variation of M3 for each month since 31 December 1 969 is shown in the table set out below:

This series is affected by breaks in the series Tor M3 which occur at July 1 974 and July 1 975.

Immigration: Skilled Migrants (Question No. 431)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he say on 1 March 1978 that 41 per cent of migrants in the present intake are in the occupationally eligible group.
  2. If so, how many of the 41 per cent were (a) skilled workers and (b) dependants.
  3. How many of these migrants went to pre-arranged jobs requiring their special skills.
  4. Of those not going to pre-arranged jobs, (a) how many are employed and ( b) how many are still looking for a job.
  5. Of those employed, (a) how many have jobs that require their specific skills and (b) how many are employed in jobs in which their skills are not utilised or are under-utilised.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. I ) Preliminary figures for settler arrivals during the first seven months of 1977-78 indicate that 40.9 per cent of migrants were in the occupationally eligible category. This is based on the count of persons who on arrival carried visas indicating that they were selected at Australian overseas posts as coming within occupational eligibility criteria compared with the total number of settlers arriving who either had visas permitting residence or in the case of those not requiring visas (e.g. New Zealand citizens) indicated intention to settle.

    1. Of the 40.9 per cent or 18,880 persons, 31.9 per cent (6,026) were stated to be workers in occupations on the approved occupations list, 9.6 per cent (1,815) were accompanying workers (family members), and th’ remaining 58.5 per cent ( 1 1 ,039) were classified as dependents of the principal breadwinners.
    2. Nominations from employers for 1,862 workers were forwarded for overseas post action during the period 1 July 1977 to 21 April 1978. Of these 1,032 were listed on the approved list of occupations for migration. Details of arrivals under these arrangements are not readily available. In other instances migrants may arrange employment before arrival in Australia.
    3. and (5) It is administratively not possible to monitor the movement and employment history of all individual migrants following arrival in Australia.

The situation of assisted migrants in Commonwealth Hostels admitted on the basis of occupational skills showed a total of 3 16 awaiting initial placement at 28 April 1 978, compared with 354 at 7 April 1978. Of the 316 some 131 had been waiting less than 2 weeks and 27 were seeking alternative placement, having been placed previously in employment.

Department of Finance: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 661)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 1 5 March 1 978:

  1. What are the interdepartmental committees of (a) a permanent and (b) an ad hoc nature on which his Department is presently represented.
  2. ) What subjects are presently being investigated by each of these interdepartmental committees.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It has been the practice of successive governments not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in answering questions, such as this, which seek generalised information on interdepartmental committees. However, if the honourable member wishes to seek information concerning the Department of Finance’s involvement in any particular interdepartmental committee, I shall be happy to see if the requested information can be provided.

Tribunals associated with the Department of Industry and Commerce (Question No. 720)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Was his Department requested by the Administrative Review Council to provide information of the type described in Appendix III of the First Annual Report of the Administrative Review Council relating to the operation of tribunals created under legislation administered by his Department and tribunals administered or serviced by his Department during 1 976-77; if so, did his Department respond to that request.
  2. Will he now provide the information referred to in part (1)
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Department did receive such a request from the Administrative Review Council and it did respond to the request.
  2. In responding, the Department advised the Administrative Review Council that there are no tribunals operating within the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Establishment of Australian Refugee Policy Council (Question No. 836)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. Did the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence recommend the establishment of an advisory body to be known as the Australian Refugee Policy Council under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  2. Has a decision been made on this recommendation; if so, what is it.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence recommended the establishment of an advisory body to be known as the ‘Australian Refugee Policy Council ‘ for the purpose of assisting the Government to formulate an Australian policy on all aspects of refugee resettlement and to review and continually assess its implementation and effectiveness. The recommendation proposed that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should be represented on the Council, but did not specify which Department should chair the Council.
  2. On 22 May 1977 the Government decided to establish an advisory body to advise the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on refugee policy and operations. This body is the standing interdepartmental committee on refugees, comprising senior officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (which chairs the committee), Prime Minister and Cabinet, Employment and Industrial Relations, Social Security, Finance, Health and Education, with other departments and the Public Service Board being co-opted as necessary.

The Senate Committee were concerned to ensure that the policy and co-ordinating bodies consulted and participated with the voluntary and other community groups involved in the reception and resettlement of refugees. The present Standing Committee on Refugees meets at least twice yearly with representatives of these bodies and in addition liaises as necessary with other State and Commonwealth Government departments as the occasion requires.

Other of the Senate Committee’s recommendations dealing with follow-up welfare work, English language training, welfare benefits, family reunion, et cetera, are being carried out under the supervision of the Standing Committee, and the Determination of Refugee Status Committee.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Question No. 1041)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. How many officers in his Department at (a) second division level, (b) class 1 1 level, and (c) class 6 level are first generation migrants.
  2. How many of these officers, at each of these levels, come from non-English speaking migrant backgrounds.
  3. How many women were there at the (a) second division level, (b) class 1 1 level, (c) class 6 level and (d) fourth division level in his Department as at 1 January 1978.
  4. What are the ethnic backgrounds and qualifications of the 3 most senior officers in the Ethnic Affairs Branch of his Department.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Department does not maintain information of the kind sought. To obtain it would require considerable research which I would not regard as justified. Moreover, it would require the co-operation and agreement of all officers in the Department. Some staff members might well regard enquiries of this nature as an invasion of their privacy. As employment in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is determined by the capacity of officers to meet the normal requirements for employment in the Commonwealth Public Service, a requirement that a person should or should not be a first generation migrant or should or should not be from a particular ethnic background would appear to be in conflict with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
  2. All of the information is not readily available in the form sought. I shall provide information to the honourable member when it is obtained.
  3. As regards the ethnic background of officers, see answer to ( 1 ) and (2) above. I am able to inform the honourable member that all officers at Class 1 1 level or above in the Ethnic Affairs Branch are graduates and have qualifications and experience relevant to the functions they have to perform.

Immigration Policy (Question No. 1075)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, on notice, on 8 May 1978:

What are the specific statistical bases for the Government’s planned immigration policy in the light of (a) the inadequacy of current Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force surveys in terms of identifying (i) the extent of unemployment at State levels by age, (ii) the incidence of unemployment by level of skill and semi-skill in specific industries, and (iii) the incidence of unemployment among specific ethnic groups and (b) the inadequacy of current Commonwealth Employment Service registration figures in terms of identifying (i) the incidence of unemployment by level of skill and semi-skill in specific industries, (ii) the nonregistration of married women with working husbands, and (iii) the arbitrary accreditation in Australia of qualifications gained overseas by job applicants.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The ‘planned’ component of the immigration intake is restricted to those migrants who possess professional, technical or trade skills recognised in Australia and for whom it is considered there is a strong and continuing demand. Other categories eligible for entry are confined broadly to family reunion Le. spouses and dependent children, parents and fiance(e)s of Australian residents and refugees. For further details, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his question on notice No. 64 1 , Hansard of 3 May 1978, pages 1 1 74-5.

The criteria for the entry of migrants being admitted on occupational grounds are based on labour market assessments prepared by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Australian Bureau of Statistics and Commonwealth Employment Service statistics are used. They are supplemented by a labour market intelligence network which collects extensive information from a wide range of sources. Those selected under occupational criteria are selected against detailed labour market knowledge of the particular occupation in question.

Australia/China Council (Question No. 1171)

Mr Kevin Cairns:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Age of 9 May 1978 that Dr Stephen FitzGerald has been, or will be, appointed the first Chairman of the Australia-China Foundation; if so, is there any substance in the report.
  2. What special qualifications does Dr FitzGerald possess to occupy the position.
  3. Were other candidates considered for this post; if so, who were they.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3): The establishment of the proposed Australia/China Council and the composition of its membership will be announced when the matter has been determined by the Governor-General in Council.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780602_reps_31_hor109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant