House of Representatives
8 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 3233

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 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 Dobie, Mr Martin, and Mr Neil.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

That Animal Welfare Societies are disadvantaged by sales tax and by donations not being tax deductible.

Your petitioners urge that donations to Animal Welfare Societies be recognised as being eligible for Income Tax deductibility and that Animal Welfare Societies be recognised as charities qualifying for exemption from Sales Tax.

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

Petition received.

Aurukun and Mornington Island Communities

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

The Queensland Legislation regarding Aurukun and Mornington Island is not in accordance with the Agreement of 1 1 April; and state it is necessary that the Federal Government honour its promise and acquire the land for the Aboriginal people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government honour its promise and acquire the land for the Aboriginal people.

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

Petition received.

Phosphate Mining

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, citizens of The Monument, do humbly beseech the Honourable Member for Kennedy, Mr R. C. Katter, to hear this petition on our behalf to forward same to the Federal Government Parliamentarians:

We, the citizens of The Monument, are very proud of our precious township and have come to regard it as our home over the 2½ years of its existence. Even though this town was built by the Company we believe we have succeeded in making it a model town consisting of a wide spectrum of nationalities, living together harmoniously.

In personal income tax. The only contribution by any level of Government has been the supply of two school teachers. The continuation of The Monument as a town will be of benefit to the area both economically and socially. What would these citizens have been worth had they been on the dole?

There is speech after speech given in Parliament as to the state of Australia’s northern defences and how Australia needs to populate the north. Well, Mr Fraser here we are living and liking it in the area in question- we are about to be deprived of house and home and we are going to have to travel thousands of miles to relocate and find jobs in areas of poor employment opportunities. Where does the Government stand in this respect?

The Federal and State Governments have assisted various big foreign companies e.g. Mary Kathleen Uranium, Queensland Nickel, the Motor Vehicle Industry and Mt Lyell- big multinationals. Here we are out in the middle of North West Queensland with one of the last few remaining Australian companies. What do Governments give us- The Cold Shoulder? How can this be allowed to happen?

When the Federal Government encouraged BH South Limited to commence phosphate mining operations was it not the intention of the Government to encourage people to come to this area for employment. Where does the Government stand now?

BH South Limited asked the Federal Government for assistance to continue operations until an inquiry could be held into the phosphate rock mining industry. The Government has seen fit not to comply with this request. Why does the Government give $200,000 towards the cost of redeveloping the Suez Canal Zone. Where does the Government stand?

The continuation of The Monument as a town would contribute to the Governments decentralisation policy, or are the citizens being nominated by the Government to become the next recruits to the ‘Dole Bludgers”? And we hasten to add that our industrial record stands at one and a half days lost to industrial action in2½ years of operation.

The Government is insisting on 85 per cent local content in the Australian Vehicle Industry. Why doesn’t the Government insist on a reasonable percentage of local phosphate rock for the fertiliser industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that BH South Limited be assisted to continue phosphate mining operations to enable the survival of The Monument.

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

Petition received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30th June 1978.

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

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

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

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

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

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

Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

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

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 to 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 Report of the Review of International Civil Aviation Policy be released and the introduction of reduced international air fares be no longer deferred in order to end the confusion and concern of the travel industry and the public. byMrWallis.

Petition received.

page 3234

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3234

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that a number of Ministers took a decision in October of last year to suppress certain information concerning the redistribution of Federal electorate boundaries in Queensland? Is it also a fact that the Minister for Administrative Services subsequently misled the Parliament in answering a question on this matter in the Senate last November?

Mr Yates:

– I take a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. I thought the matter about which the question was asked was sub judice and part of a royal commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When evidence given at a royal commission has been published and a question is asked about that evidence it is rather difficult for the Chair to say that the media is able to report it and comment on it but the national Parliament is not. On the other hand, I think it is perfectly proper for the Minister asked the question to indicate that he chooses not to answer it as he does not wish to say anything that may interfere with the deliberations of the Commission. I will allow the question.

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

-Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me help as to how I should answer this question. Certain evidence has been given before the Royal Commission. The hearings were completed last night. The findings will now be prepared and recommendations will be made by that Commission. Until those recommendations are made I have no comment to make.

page 3234

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS TO AMERICA

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the right honourable gentleman yet able to give the House any information as to the outcome of the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Carter’s special trade representative, Mr Strauss, concerning the prospects of the United States importing more beef?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am very pleased to answer this question because I have received information this morning that a decision has been made by the United States Administration to permit a substantial increase in the quantities of beef to go into the United States. I understand that the President of the United States will make an announcement on the actual figures shortly. I do not want to address myself to the figures that are likely to come forward, except to say that the figures that have been suggested do indicate that this is equivalent to a major new market for Australian beef exports and it means a major new market at top prices.

It can radically change the meat situation in Australia. It has the potential of bringing into balance the supply-demand situation, which means that beef producers may have a chanceand I only say may have a chance- of getting prices which are reasonable and equitable to them as comparable Australian producers. This, of course, will have consequences on domestic meat prices and I hope that, if people have to pay higher prices for meat, they recognise that the beef producers of this country have been on a very low income or in a negative income situation for about three or four years. It is most pleasing that we have the opportunity now of exporting more beef. It will be a quota arrangement, I am told. That quota will apply to the second half of this year. If one takes it on an annual basis, whatever figure comes out will mean quite a substantial difference.

I have noticed a lot of carping criticism in the newspapers in the last few days about the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States. Let me say that his efforts in talking to the President’s special inflation adviser and international negotiator, Mr Robert Strauss, and the result of this decision to increase quota more than compensate for a Prime Minister’s visit right round the world. This is a major achievement and one for which I think beef producers in this country will be grateful for a long time. It does verify statements that I have been making during the course of this year that America’s voluntary quota restraints have been too restrictive and have had the effect of increasing beef prices in the United States. We are fortunate in that if the United States is to increase its global quota we are in a position immediately to meet whatever that quota might be; and of course, it has the advantage of helping the Australian beef industry to try to get itself out of the quagmire of disastrously low prices that it has been in for the last few years.

page 3235

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-In directing my question to the Acting Prime Minister I refer to the advice tabled in the House on 7 April by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General relating to the electoral redistribution in Queensland. Will the right honourable gentleman acknowledge that as at 7 April he had advice himself that Senator Withers, his ministerial colleague, had made direct contact with the Chief Electoral Officer relating to the change of name of the Gold Coast electorate in Queensland? Is it further a fact that in January last the Minister for Administrative Services told the Acting Prime Minister that he had–

Mr Anthony:

– When was that?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-In January last. Did he tell the Acting Prime Minister that he had contacted Mr Pearson and that in reply the right honourable gentleman had said: ‘So what?’

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the nature of the question is an examination of the Acting Prime Minister in a way that runs the risk of making it appear that the Royal Commission would take into account matters which were not evidence before the Commission but debate in this chamber.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will put it another way. In relation to matters stated in January last by the Minister for Administrative Services, did the right honourable gentleman have a conversation with his ministerial colleague in which his ministerial colleague advised him that he had contacted Mr Pearson, the Chief Electoral Officer, suggesting a change of name for the Gold Coast electorate in Queensland?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– The Opposition continues to try to prise out of me comments regarding the findings -

Dr Everingham:

– Facts, not comments. You are responsible to this Parliament for those facts.

Mr ANTHONY:

– If the honourable member who interjects is so brilliant in his knowledge relating to these affairs, why did he not go before the Royal Commission and give information? Of course, he has no evidence.

Dr Everingham:

– I have not the facts. The Commission gets the facts, not me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Acting Prime Minister to resume his seat. This matter is not going to be advantaged by loud interjections. A question has been asked which I have permitted. I ask honourable members on my left to hear the answer in silence.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I repeat what I have said previously: I do not intend to comment about these matters. I have not been involved with them myself. If the Royal Commission had felt that I had information that would help it in reaching whatever findings it might reach, it would have asked for me to appear before it.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on the point of order that the matters now raised have nothing to do with the Commission but have everything to do with whether this Parliament was given information on or about 7 April or 10 April that was correct. I have requested information from the Minister as to what he knew of the position as at 7 April or 10 April, and his answer should be related to that and have nothing to do with the Royal Commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have permitted the question to be asked, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that although a question is ruled in order and may be asked, the answering of the question is within the discretion of the Minister.

Mr ANTHONY:

-We will have to agree to differ if the honourable member keeps claiming that it has no reference to the Royal Commission. These dates and facts have been debated before the Royal Commission during the course of the past week and I am not going to enter into that debate because it has no relevance to me.

page 3236

QUESTION

ETHNIC TELEVISION SERVICE

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I ask: What progress, if any, has been made towards the implementation of the Government’s election promise to provide an ethnic television service?

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

-Let me say that the Government regards its commitment to introduce an ethnic television service as a very important commitment. It has asked a group of officials to advise Ministers and the Government parties on the ways in which an ethnic television service could be introduced in this country. I remind honourable members that there are not a lot of precedents from around the world because this is a trail-blazing venture. What has happened so far is that the officials have been drawing up a list of options for the consideration of the Government and the Government will soon be invited to look at those options. I would make it quite clear also that we will ensure that full consultation is undertaken with ethnic communities. This does not mean just a few selected representatives. It means that we will be interested in the views of ethnic communities throughout this country.

page 3236

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Acting Prime Minister attend a meeting on 17 January this year where information was given by Senator Withers that he had made contact with Mr Pearson concerning the name change of a Federal electorate?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– If it pleases the honourable gentleman, I have no recollection of being present at any such meeting when such matters were discussed.

page 3236

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the announcement this morning by the Acting Prime Minister that the United States is now prepared to receive additional quantities of beef, can the Minister advise whether, if other countries which may be offered a quota of this amount cannot supply the meat, Australia will be in a position to supply extra quantities to make up the global quantity which the United States is now prepared to accept?

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

– The honourable gentleman will be aware that, for some time, we have been anxious to try to find markets. The availability of meat in Australia is such that we felt we would be able to service them but, unfortunately, the prices available in most alternative markets to the preferred markets- that is, the United States of America, Canada and Japan- have not been satisfactory. Indeed, my colleague, the Minister for Special Trade Representations, has been endeavouring in his discussions with the European Economic Community to see whether we might be able to reopen access to that market. Additionally, sales have been concluded to other countries but not at a price level that has been satisfactory. As a result of that low price, the diversification has reached the peaks that have been set in the last few weeks. The Australian beef industry certainly has the capacity to supply other markets. Although in Australia there has been a decline of nearly four million cattle from the peak in cattle numbers, there are still a lot of cattle, particularly in the northern part of the continent, which are available especially for the frozen beef trade. One aspect is of concern: I would hope that those people who are involved in the industry right through to the point of shipment co-operate in order to ensure maximum returns to the Australian community. Over the course of time considerable industrial disputes have affected the capacity of meat works to kill cattle to meet orders. Not only do those industrial disruptions prejudice returns to the men involved but they also affect Australia’s capacity to meet orders when they are capable of being negotiated. Accordingly, the whole question of our being able to meet additional markets lies not only in the availability of beef, for that is certainly sufficient to meet any expected demand, but also in the preparedness of those people involved right through the chain- slaughtering, handling and shipping- to co-operate in order to ensure the maximum possible benefits for Australia and for those people involved in the Australian meat industry.

page 3237

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL MISCONDUCT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that for a period of three months from mid-January there were almost weekly meetings held at the Lodge at which senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, discussed allegations of ministerial misconduct? In view of the serious nature of public disclosures on these matters, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that these Ministers, including himself, will appear before the Royal Commission to respond to allegations of a ministerial conspiracy to subvert Parliament and the Royal Commission? Will he inform the Prime Minister that he should return to Australia immediately to respond to these matters before the Royal Commission?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition is obviously now making himself the laughing stock of Australia. We have all been prepared to sit back and see him perform during his first parliamentary session as Leader of the Labor Party and hope that he might give some sort of inspiration to a declining Labor Party which seems to be riddled with ali sorts of problems, such as whether it will follow the course of socialism being followed by the trade union movement. The Labor Party seems to be quite leaderless at the moment. I hate to say this, on the last day of this session, but when we compare the performance of the Leader of the Opposition with that of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition is in a very secondary position. He cannot be much encouragement to his Party. When we hear questions like this being asked at Question Time by the Leader of the Opposition we realise that he is harping and carping. He is scraping the bottom of the barrel. He cannot bring up any decent national policies but tries to make implications about the behaviour of Ministers and secret meetings. It just shows how desperate members of the Labor Party are to present themselves to the Australian public. All I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition is really not displaying himself as a very credible alternative Prime Minister of this country.

page 3237

QUESTION

DANGER OF WEEDICIDES

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Health advise the House whether he and his Department has the matter of dangers associated with the use of the chemicals 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D under close scrutiny? Is his Department carrying out any special investigation into these chemicals? Is he aware of the concern expressed and stance taken by the Queensland Minister for Health, and that the South Australian Government has set up a special committee to investigate the possible link between the use of the chemicals and birth deformities?

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

– The concern of the Queensland Government, the South Australian authorities and the Victorian Minister for Health about recent suggestions that there is a relationship between the chemical weedicide 2,4,5-T and human birth defects has been conveyed to me. Top scientists in this country, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, and in other parts of the world have been investigating for some time the suggestion of a link between congenital defects in humans and 2,4,5-T. To the present time none of those investigations has established any link between the chemicals involved and congenital defects. But I am sufficiently concerned to respond to the wishes of the Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Houghton, in particular, who rang me last night about the issue, and to ask the National Health and Medical Research Council to undertake a reexamination of all the additional evidence that may be available to it. I understand that the National Health and Medical Research Council will be meeting in Adelaide next week. I have been having discussions with the chairman of the Council and he informed me this morning that he will refer this matter to the Council for consideration. The Council has a sub-committee of scientists eminent in this area who are quite competent to re- examine all the available evidence.

I noticed in one of the newspapers that I read this morning that the honourable member for Prospect said that my attitude to this matter was depressing. I hope he was misquoted. Until this morning I have not really expressed one view or another on the issue. I did call for a report from my Department. I have read a lot and I have heard quite a lot through the media about suggested links between congenital abnormalities and 2,4,5-T. I have consistently received reports from my departmental advisers that there is no established link between the two. However, because of more recent expressions of concern I feel that it is absolutely imperative now that people who are highly qualified to give an opinion should re-examine the whole issue. I notice that the Victorian Government has decided to take -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr HUNT:

– Do you mind if I finish my sentence, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am asking the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr HUNT:

– I just wanted to finish my sentence because there is a lot of public interest in this serious matter, particularly in the State of Victoria. The Victorian Minister has indicated that he will withdraw 2,4,5-T from use in State Government departments until such time as an inquiry by the National Health and Medical Research Council has been completed. That is the current position.

page 3238

QUESTION

FOREIGN RESERVES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that Australia’s underlying level of foreign reserves- that is, excluding official borrowings and gold revaluations- has fallen in each of the last five weeks and that in the last 40 weeks increases have been recorded only 1 1 times? Is it also a fact that in the same 40 weeks the Australian dollar has been devalued by stealth by 4.8 per cent and that contracted borrowings by the Australian Government have amounted to more than $2, 000m this financial year alone? To overcome the weakness of the balance of payments problem, does the Government intend further to devalue the dollar by stealth and to seek more loans overseas? If so, what is the target that the Government has set forks borrowing programs overseas?

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

– The honourable gentleman, like other honourable gentlemen, would have available to him statistical information published from time to time by the Reserve Bank of Australia regarding this country’s international reserves. I do not propose here or elsewhere to engage in comments upon movements so far as those reserves are concerned over and above what I said in February of this year concerning this country’s external account, and I certainly do not propose to make comment in this

Parliament of the particular kind invited by the honourable gentleman regarding the exchange rate of the Australian dollar.

page 3238

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of recent reports which suggest that the Prime Minister’s address to the United Nations special session on disarmament indicated a significant change in government safeguards policy relating to the production of fissionable material? Can the Acting Minister assure the House that there has been no such change in this very important area of government policy?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– I can so assure the House. There has been no change in Australia’s safeguards policy on reprocessing and high enrichment of material which we supply. The Prime Minister clearly expressed the Government’s policy in two statements to this House, one on 24 May and the other on 25 August. This policy governs material supplied for peaceful purposes. The proposal that the Prime Minister was talking about was for a halt to the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. That is an entirely different matter. It relates essentially to the military reprocessing and enrichment plants of the nuclear weapons states which, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are not required to be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

The international discussion among nuclear weapons states which the Prime Minister has endorsed could lead to a recommendation that these states agree to convert these facilities to peaceful uses and place them under safeguards. International agreement in this sphere would place a limit on the quantity of fissionable material available to the nuclear weapons states for weapons production. Thus it would be a more effective way of halting the nuclear arms race. It would be a further barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries by preventing the development of untested nuclear weapons. The suggestion of an early discussion of this proposal is therefore entirely consistent with the well-established Australian policies of support for the cessation of all nuclear testing in all environments and support for measures which will eventually lead to nuclear disarmament.

page 3238

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to the public opinion polls that indicate that 85 per cent of Australians believe that the unemployed should work for their benefits? Leaving aside the question of such benefits being a right and that such an imposition would be a contravention of International Labour Organisation conventions, will he tell the Australian people again that the introduction of job creation schemes has been rejected by the Government on the grounds that for any useful jobs to be created the cost would be four times the benefits paid?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is debating this issue. He is entitled to seek information. I ask him to ask a question or resume his seat.

Mr COHEN:

-I will ask the question. Will the Acting Minister point out the impracticality of having 400,000 people sweeping up leaves?

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

– It is interesting to receive a question about unemployment from a member of the Opposition- a member of the Party which, when in government, created the worst unemployment in Australia since the great Depression.

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. I asked a question about unemployment benefits. The Minister’s remarks have nothing to do with this subject. I asked a serious question about a very serious matter in Australiaabout 400,000 people who do not have a job.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. I call the Minister.

Mr FIFE:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I submit that there is relevance between the fact that unemployment exists and how people who are unemployed are to be put back into the work force or how they are to be treated between now and when they are put back into the work force. If unemployment did not exist at the level that exists today, the honourable member for Robertson would not be asking this question. It is well known to honourable members and, indeed, to the people of Australia that it was the Labor Government which when in office took policy decisions that created the unemployment levels that exist today. This Government, in the relatively short period that it has been in office, has taken decisions in the economic areas and in the business areas to recreate jobs and to create a climate conducive to employment. It ill becomes the honourable member for Robertson and any other Opposition member to ask a question of this nature when, I submit, they are the guilty men.

I want to emphasise while I am on my feet that the Goverment is extremely concerned about the level of unemployment and it is taking positive steps in this area to recreate the conditions in the community generally and the confidence in the business community that will lift the level of employment. Further evidence of our efforts in this field will be given when the Treasurer presents his Budget in August of this year. Each Budget -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr FIFE:

-I will, Mr Speaker. Each Budget that has been introduced by this Government has been designed to lift the level of confidence in the business world and to make it possible for employers to soak up the unemployment created by our political opponents.

page 3239

QUESTION

PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Health ensure that if health insurance funds make an application for increases in premiums for medical insurance the estimated 46c a week family reduction is passed on to the contributor? Is it likely that some funds may have to increase premiums for health insurance notwithstanding the 10 per cent reduction of medical benefits payable?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The changes in health insurance previously announced by the Government should mean a saving- I repeat the word saving’- of 46c a week to the individual insurance funds in respect of each contributor. I expect all funds to take this into account fully in assessing their present insurance rates. In fact, I have instructed my Department to ensure that the full flow-on benefit to contributors is effected. However, I am informed that this does not necessarily mean that all funds will reduce their premiums by 46c as such. I understand that some funds have had a higher usage rate of their medical tables than they had anticipated which could well result in an application for an increase in their medical tables.

Dr Klugman:

– Without bulk billing.

Mr HUNT:

-This has nothing to do with bulk billing. My Department will ensure that in every case where a health insurance fund makes an application for an increase in the premium payable on the medical table, the 46c on average- that is, the calculated difference between the present benefit and the smaller benefit that is payable as from 1 July- will be taken into account and will be passed on to contributors.

page 3240

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Dr KLUGMAN:

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Health and refers to the Government’s decision to increase from $2 to $2.50 the patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits items. Is the Minister aware that one of the by-products of this will be that those items for which the Goverment now pays chemists an amount of between $2 and $2.50 will now become much more expensive to the patient as the dispensing fee charged by the chemists will increase? Is the Minister aware that such common items as Penicillin capsules and tablets for children, Butazolidin, Mogadon, Fergon and many others will now cost well over $3? Does he know how many items will be affected?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I cannot give a detailed answer to the honourable gentleman. I shall obtain the information and shall make sure that he receives it during the course of the day.

page 3240

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In answer to a question I previously asked in this House the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that the projections for France relating to the use of nuclear sources for electrical energy were that by 1985 France would be 60 per cent dependent on nuclear energy for generating its electrical power. In view of this startling revelation, is the Minister in a position to inform the House of comparative figures for other industrialised nations regarding the use of nuclear energy in the future?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– One of the principal areas of difference between the Government’s approach to the whole matter of the utilisation of Australia’s uranium resources and that which is advanced by some of our opponents is that we see uranium as a means to help to overcome the critical shortage of energy to meet energy requirements in an energy-hungry world. There is no doubt that in a number of countries the use of nuclear power is becoming more and more significant. There is no doubt that a country reliant upon nuclear power for its energy needs obviously would have the greatest reluctance to place its sources of supply and its nuclear industry in jeopardy. There are safeguards to check that nuclear material in peaceful use is not diverted to the manufacture of weapons. Australia ‘s policy is particularly stringent in that respect.

With respect to the detail of the figures for which the honourable gentleman has asked, I refer him to a document entitled Nuclear Fuel

Cycle Requirements, which was published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and is dated February 1978. This document contains projections on a regional basis, which show for example that by 1985 on present trends the nuclear share of electrical capacity in OECD member countries will be 20 per cent in Europe, 1 7 per cent in America, 14 per cent in the Pacific region and 18 per cent on average. In other words, already there is a very significant dependence on nuclear energy in order to meet the needs of the economies of most of the countries of the OECD group. If we include non-OECD countries, the share of nuclear energy in the electrical capacity of the world is estimated at 16 per cent by 1985. Of course, outside those figures the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries also have large nuclear power programs. Figures for those countries, while not included in these figures, could well lead to an indication that the percentage share of nuclear energy in electrical capacity will be greater than the 16 per cent to which I referred a moment ago.

So it can be seen that the extent to which Australia can get its uranium exported and contributing towards this generation of nuclear energy is significantly going to help the power needs of an energy-hungry world. Therefore, I think that suggestions that there should be anything but an acceleration of our development of our uranium resources need to be put properly in perspective.

page 3240

QUESTION

PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry is in relation to plant breeders’ rights, now known as plant variety protection. Is it a fact that Austalian plant breeders have been attempting since 197 1 to get the Commonwealth Government to introduce legislation to provide for plant variety protection? Has the Australian Government received legal advice that it is within its constitutional power to introduce such legislation? Did the Australian Agricultural Council, at its meeting in August 1977, give support to the proposed legislation? In view of the benefits which will flow to Australian agricultural and horticultural industries, will the Government bring down the necessary legislation in the forthcoming Budget session?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I believe quite strongly that there needs to be legislation in this area. There is no doubt that the development of new plant varieties can bring tremendous advantages to all Australians. By producing new varieties we are contributing towards producing species which can generate greater productivity under our own agricultural conditions as well as creating a vehicle by which significant exports can be obtained. The Australian seed industry would, I believe, contribute very significantly as a result to Australia’s export earnings. Unfortunately, as in so many other fields of agriculture, the capacity of the Federal Government is restricted by the degree to which State governments have significant powers within their own State borders. Western Australia has lodged a strong objection to the Commonwealth proceeding without some form of complementary legislation. Accordingly, whilst it is true that there was an earlier agreement to proceed with national legislation, the States now are suggesting that we ought to change that procedure and look to a form of complementary legislation.

I am hopeful that, by the time the Australian Agricultural Council next meets, these differences can be resolved. Whether or not I will be able to introduce legislation in the Budget session is in doubt. Certainly it is the intention of the Government to proceed in this area as soon as possible. There is no doubt that the overwhelming advantage of plant variety protection legislation will not be just for the development of new plant varieties but to everybody involved in agriculture.

page 3241

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S CREDIT RATING

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, concerns an article in the Australian Financial Review which states that the Australian/United States dollar rating has been classified as triple A. What consequences does this have for economic management?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before the Treasurer answers the question, I point out that the question is ambiguous. Does the honourable gentleman ask what consequences there will be from the fact that this information was published in the Australian Financial Review or from the fact that the Australian dollar has been given a tripple A rating? I think the Treasurer needs to have that information. I leave it to the Treasurer to interpret the question.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-My attention has been drawn to an article in, I think, the Melbourne Age which referred to a report from the Morgan Stanley banking group regarding Australia’s international credit rating. The honourable gentleman is correct to draw the attention of the House to this reference by that reputable group to this country’s international credit rating. I think it is important, when honourable gentlemen from both sides of the House, particularly the other side of the House, talk about the extent to which this Government has borrowed funds to supplement its reserves, to recognise just what an outstanding credit rating this country has in international financial markets. The truth of the matter is that this country has been able to secure terms for its international borrowings which are the envy of other countries which would like to have a similar classification. This country’s credit rating is extremely high. Its triple A rating, as mentioned by the honourable gentleman, is thoroughly deserved and indicates strongly international investor and economic confidence in this country.

page 3241

QUESTION

ENERGY CRISIS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to the recent report of the International Energy Agency which confirms authoritative predictions of a world liquid fuel crisis in the 1990s? Is he further aware that the parliaments of the United States of America, the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom all have policy committees to monitor and report upon their fuel and energy needs? Whilst 1 am grateful to the Attorney-General for intimating that he will set up a parliamentary committee to monitor the Family Law Act, I venture the proposition that fuel and energy has a far higher priority than the Family Law Act. As the critical problem of fuel and energy will be no less acute -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman must ask his question.

Mr JACOBI:

– I am coming to that, Mr Speaker. Have a bit of patience. As the critical problem of fuel and energy will be no less acute in this country -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 3241

QUESTION

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. He will be aware that total government capital expenditure within Australia has been in some decline over recent years.

Mr Bryant:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member is now giving information, which is against the Standing Orders. Will you, Mr Speaker, apply them in the same way as you applied them to the honourable member for Hawker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lilley will start his question again.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The Treasurer will be aware that total government capital expenditure within Australia has been in some decline over recent years compared with recurrent expenditure. As it is clear that capital expenditure can have a greater impact multiplier effect on economic activity in the private sector and on the demand for labour, will he undertake at the next Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting to make these facts known to the State Premiers and Treasurers as well as seeking to make an appropriate Loan Council total target?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I am aware of the argument advanced by the honourable member for Lilley and the propositions which surround that argument with regard to Budget policies and other policies. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at a time when the Government is reaching its decisions in respect of the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council, to respond further to the honourable gentleman’s question. The type of argument that is implicit in his question will be kept in mind when the Government is reaching decisions on its approach to the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council.

page 3242

QUESTION

TAPE RECORDING OF CONVERSATION

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Can the Minister for Defence repudiate General Stretton ‘s claim that his conversation with the Chief of the General Staff was secretly recorded and that the tape was tampered with in Watergate fashion? Does the Minister approve of the practice of recording the conversations of senior officers? Does he believe that the use of such tapes should require the consent of the parties concerned?

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

– I assure the honourable gentleman and the House that I do not approve of the clandestine use of tape recording machines. My clear understanding is that the General to whom he referred was informed in the most specific of terms that the conversation he was having with the then Chief of the General Staff was being taped and that he clearly understood that fact. As evidence that he understood it, he thanked the then Chief of the General Staff for taping the conversation.

page 3242

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs. Is it a fact that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, currently servicing thousands of Australian ex-servicemen and women, will not reach its peak workload for a few years yet and that therefore its national importance is increasing rather than decreasing? If these facts are correct, what is the Government’s reaction to claims that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs is losing significance, that it could be reduced or even abolished, and that it does not warrant its own Minister?

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

– I thank the honourable member for Denison for his question. I believe that the preamble to his question is correct, that is, that the peak workload for repatriation matters is yet to come. I can also say that this Government firmly believes in having a veterans’ affairs department. There is no question about that. In fact, we made that clear right from our return to office in 1975 and after the receipt of the Toose report into the repatriation system. As evidence of that fact my colleague the present Minister for the Northern Territory will be taking over the Veterans Affairs’ portfolio as from July of this year.

I can only take the honourable member’s question as being directed to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday when he was engaging in a debate on, I think, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1978. 1 think it was an important speech. Certainly I found it an astonishing speech. I think it would be well for the nation- particularly ex-servicemen and exservice women- to note what the Leader of the Opposition said in that speech. The Leader of the Opposition made two points very clear: Firstly, that he did not believe that there should be a department of veterans’ affairs and, secondly and more importantly, by inference that if he ever had the opportunity- heaven help the nation if he did- to take charge of the government of this country he would abolish the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. That is the clear inference that must be taken from his speech. As the Leader of the Opposition is sitting silently, which is most unusual for him these days, he affirms that by his silence.

page 3242

QUESTION

BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL LICENSING HEARINGS

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It concerns those public radio stations presently licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and due shortly to come before the Broadcasting Tribunal for licensing hearings. Will the Department of Post and Telecommunications be allowed to pass on to the Tribunal reports of complaints received about those stations right up to the time of the hearing? If so, would this put complainers at a considerable advantage over people who wish to make commendations and who, under the provisions of the Act, must meet a deadline some six weeks or so before the hearing?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– I will check the precise cut-off time for the registration of complaints with the Tribunal which might come via the Department and let the honourable member know. I would point out that the process of public inquiry, which is a new feature of the grant of licences, is a very important part of the Government’s approach to the grant of licences by the independent body so authorised, the Broadcasting Tribunal.

page 3243

QUESTION

WORLD WOOL SUPPLIES

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen newspaper reports indicating that there will be a fall in world wool supplies next year? Can the Minister say what effect this will have on the Australian wool industry insofar as stocks are concerned and the general effect on returns to wool producers? When does the Government plan to announce the wool floor price for the coming wool season?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– I have seen such a newspaper report. I understand that the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation made a statement in the United Kingdom and in addressing the International Wool Textile Organisation in Munich in which he commented about the degree to which there should be, as a result of an interaction of supply and demand, fairly favourable conditions applying for wool throughout the 1978-79 season. I believe the overall result will be to the benefit of not only Australian wool growers but also the Australian economy. As I have remarked in this House on another occasion, in the current wool selling season wool has once again achieved preeminence amongst Australian commodities in the value of our exports. In other words, wool is again taking Australia very much into a position of helping to solve the overseas balance of payments difficulties. At the same time, wool does suffer from the competition of synthetics and it is hard to know to what degree price rises will be sustained. The present market indicator of 309c a kilogram clean is significantly above the present reserve price, which is 284c, and indicates the overall strength of the market. Unfortunately, there is still not the demand at the superfine or fine wool end of the fibre that one would like.

However, on the Australian Wool Corporation predictions, the whole of the wool market scene looks very sound for the year ahead. The decision on next year’s wool price reserve will be taken at the end of this wool selling season. I know that the Australian Wool Corporation and the Australian Wool Industry Policy Committee have already had discussions on this matter, and they have both discussed the issue with me. However, no decision will be taken, and indeed no recommendation will be made to the Government, until the wool selling season is closed. It is very good to hear the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation projecting future market conditions in the way that he has and I hope that that, allied with the improvement in expected returns for the beef industry, augurs very profitable conditions for Australian primary producers next year. Of course, this contrasts markedly with the nonsense carried on by the Leader of the Opposition in his motion yesterday.

page 3243

RETIREMENT OF PRESS CORRESPONDENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this will be the last day in the Press Gallery for Jack Fingleton, who has been a member of the Press Gallery for more than 25 years. He will be remembered by people older than I am as a great cricketer with great skill and courage during the bodyline series of the 1930s. I hope that the House will join with me in wishing him a very happy and long semi-retirement

Honourable members- Hear, hear.

page 3243

CENSURE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

The Clerk:

– The Leader of the Opposition has given notice that at the next sitting he will move:

That this House censures the Government for entering upon a conspiracy to mislead the Parliament and the Australian public in relation to the information given to the Parliament by Ministers on the matter of the last electoral redistribution.

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I have only just heard the censure motion but I would query whether or not it runs in any way contrary to the proceedings and purport of the Royal Commission that has been constituted by this Parliament. I suggest that this House is not in a position to take action of that sort at this time when a Royal Commission has to complete its deliberations, in particular because this is the last day of the sitting of the Parliament and therefore the matter cannot be dealt with until the House resumes, unless it is dealt with now. I suggest that the motion should be considered very seriously in relation to the terms of reference of the Royal

Commission and I suggest also that it is outside the Standing Orders as the matter is sub judice.

Mr Hayden:

– It is perfectly understandable why the Government would want to avoid debating the issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will not permit the Leader of the Opposition to attribute motive to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House. He has raised a point of order and I will hear the honourable gentleman on the point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– If one looks at the terms of the motion, which is a motion of censure against the Government, one will see that it refers to the House being misled as a consequence of a conspiracy which was consciously set upon by senior Government Ministers- the Government is mentionedand the Prime Minister is implicated. The succession of evidence that is available establishes that beyond any doubt, and I would expect that if the Government had any sense of honour it would want to debate this matter forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not debate the matter. I have looked at the terms of the notice of motion and, in its terms, it is not out of order. My recollection of the Standing Orders, without refreshing my memory, is that it is a matter for the Government to make an announcement at a time the Government chooses as to whether it will take the matter as a motion of no confidence. If it does, the motion will have priority over all other business.

Mr Sinclair:

– In those circumstances, I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition as a motion of censure of the Government for the purpose of Standing Order 1 10.I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Leader of the Opposition to move forthwith the motion of censure of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

Leave granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) moving forthwith the motion of censure of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

This is a most serious charge which has been levelled against the Government.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

The bells being rung-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The conversation between persons in the Gallery and honourable members will cease.

Question put:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 0

NOES: 24

Majority….. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I second the motion. On 7 April this House was given information.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith be not further heard.

Mr Sinclair:

– Time will be given to the Parliament to debate the Royal Commission report. I believe it is out of order for us to consider it at this time.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I rise on a point of order. In answer to what the Minister just said, the matter that we are now attempting to raise in the Parliament is what happened in this Parliament. It has nothing to do with the Royal Commission. The evidence given to the Parliament is what we want to discuss. That is the reason for the allegations of conspiracy and misleading of Parliament. This has nothing to do with the Royal Commission. On that basis, perhaps the Minister will revise what he has proposed and allow us to debate the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Anthony:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– There is no substance, but there is plenty of truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House moved a motion and then continued to speak to it. He did so with my indulgence. I allowed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak, also with my indulgence. I must now ascertain from the Leader of the House whether he wishes to proceed with his motion.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes.

Question put:

That the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden )

AYES: 66

NOES: 24

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

An Opposition member- Sit down, you clown.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 66

NOES: 25

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 25

NOES: 66

Majority…… 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3247

PRIVILEGE

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of parliamentary privilege with you. Succinctly, it is that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has committed a breach of parliamentary privilege by entering into a conspiracy with other Ministers to mislead the Parliament on the matter of the last electoral redistribution. I draw your attention to what is stated at page 1 4 1 of the 19th edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. In the paragraph headed ‘Conspiracy to Deceive either House or Committees of either House’ it is stated in the final sentence:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

I now wish to quote what is stated in Standing Order 95 and Standing Order 96. Standing Order 95 states:

Any Member may rise at any time to speak upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising, and he shall be prepared to move, without notice, a motion declaring that a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed . .

Standing Order 96 states:

A matter of privilege at any time arising shall, until disposed of, or unless the debate on a motion thereon is adjourned, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question . . .

The main thrust of the argument that there has been a breach of privilege is that the Prime Minister had been well aware for some time of the circumstances whereby Senator Withers misled the Senate and the Parliament. It is clear from the pattern of evidence, which is extensive and available from public sources, that the Prime Minister maintains stoney silence in spite of the fact that, if he had divulged his own knowledge on this matter, findings by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who clearly was misled as a consequence of that, and the Solicitor-General, who equally was misled on this matter, in reports dated 9 and 15 February respectively on allegations made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) about the last electoral redistribution would have been substantially different. There is important material detail referred to in, for instance, the report of 9 February made by the AttorneyGeneral. It states:

There is indeed no evidence of any communication with them -

Them’ being the distribution commissioners- outside the statutory procedures.

I think that it was only yesterday- it was certainly within the last few days- that the Attorney-General pointed out in the Senate that it was not until the period between 10 April and 23 April of this year that he became aware of Senator Withers’ approach to Mr Pearson, the Chief Electoral Officer of Australia, and the circumstances that followed from that.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Whilst I would accept that in raising a matter of privilege certain matters need to be raised to canvass the argument, I submit that the matters the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is now raising are matters which could well have been debated before the Royal Commission. There is a royal commission extant covering an identical area with respect to electoral redistribution. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to advance arguments with respect to a question of privilege he needs to relate his case specifically to that cause and not to matters which are at issue outside this Parliament and which are not before us in the matter that he is now raising.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a counter point of order. It is very simply, that I am seeking to establish that the Prime Minister, by his silence when he had full knowledge of the behaviour of Senator Withers, create d a situation in which the Attorney-General was misled and accordingly arrived at findings which would have been obviously quite different from those which he did arrive at and which he submitted in a report on 9 February and confirmed on 15 February. These reports were subsequently presented to the Parliament as a rebuttal of allegations made by the honourable member for Fadden, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for

Bowman (Mr Jull). Senator Durack has made it clear that he was not aware of the circumstances of Senator Withers’ approach to the Australian Chief Electoral Officer in September of last year; nor was he aware that the Prime Minister was aware of this at least as early as 17 January of this year and probably earlier- in October of last year- when clearly the conspiracy was formalised. Senator Durack made it clear in the Senate yesterday -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to use the word conspiracy’.

Mr HAYDEN:

-With respect, Mr Speaker, I would seek your guidance. It says in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees . . .

We are arguing and earlier moved a censure motion against the Government on the basis that a conspiracy has taken place and that we are in a position more than to allege, but to mobilise the evidence which substantiates this beyond any doubt. That is why the Government is taking the unprecedented action of seeking to suppress any discussion on this matter in this Parliament. The Government is guilty.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Has the honourable gentleman concluded his submission?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I was speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point of order raised by the Leader of the House is partially correct. I uphold part of it, that is, that the Leader of the Opposition must confine his remarks to the issue of privilege and must not argue the issue relating to any matters which are before a royal commission.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am not seeking to relate the matters to the Royal Commission, although I acknowledge, as you acknowledged earlier, Mr Speaker, that it would be very difficult not to merge along the edges of some of the matters raised at the Royal Commission because inevitably some of those matters impinge directly upon this Parliament and establish that the Parliament has been misled.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have given a ruling. I ask the honourable gentleman to proceed with his matter of privilege.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I shall relate the evidence which in my view establishes that there has been a breach of privilege on the part of the Prime Minister. It is incontestable that on 17 January this year- that is the first occasion we know of, but I suspect it was much earlier than that- the Prime Minister became aware that Senator Withers had made direct communication with the Chief Electoral Officer of Australia and that the purpose of his -

Mr Anthony:

– What is your evidence?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Newspaper reports.

Mr Anthony:

– From what?

Mr HAYDEN:

– From newspaper reports of evidence which has been given.

Mr Anthony:

– To the Royal Commission. So you are debating the Royal Commission?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Sure, but this matter relates to the misleading of this Parliament. The Parliament has been misled. Let me try another tack. On 4 November last year in the Senate Senator Withers said:

I have never telephoned Mr Coleman about the naming of electorates. I have been asked why the names were changed. I do not know.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now canvassing evidence given before the Royal Commission. I ask him to direct his attention -

Mr HAYDEN:

– That is not right. I am quoting what Senator Withers said in the Senate on 4 November. There was no royal commission then. I am sorry I did not make it clear enough.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I apologise. The honourable gentleman is speaking about matters referred to in the Senate. I ask him to return to the issue which he is raising as a matter of privilege and not to use the privilege procedure as a method of debating a separate issue. If he does that he will endanger the whole question of privilege.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, may I put it to you that it is impossible not to explore some of these issues if one is to substantiate the argument that the Prime Minister has conspired with other Ministers to mislead the Parliament. For instance, there is evidence that a succession of meetings was held, almost weekly, from the beginning of this year involving senior Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not want to interfere unduly with the presentation of the matter by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to resume his seat for a moment. I must point out to him that a question of privilege of a member of parliament or of a parliament relates to the question of whether a member of parliament is being prevented from carrying out his duties as a member of Parliament.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Let me come back to the points I was trying to make earlier. Those reports of 9 and 15 February were submitted to this Parliament. I am sorry, perhaps I should have said that first and then worked back. I thought it would be better to commence somewhere near the beginning and to work to that point to establish the credentials of this argument. That report, which was tabled in the Parliament, stated:

There is indeed no -

Mr Ruddock:

– You are not making specific allegations.

Mr HAYDEN:

– If the honourable member does not mind, I am trying to talk to the intelligent people in this place, which would exclude him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should concentrate on his argument. Interjections should cease.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The report of 9 February from the Attorney-General and Mr Byers, the Solicitor-General, which was tabled in this Parliament on 10 April with the report of 15 February stated:

There is indeed no evidence of any communication with them -

That is, with the Commissioners- outside the statutory procedures.

In fact, there is evidence. The Minister for Administrative Services has confessed that in fact there was such communication. He was responsible for it. So if the Attorney-General had known that, it is quite obvious that the comment which I have quoted would not have been included in the report which was submitted to the Government and tabled in this Parliament. It is equally obvious that the conclusions would have been materially different. More than that, it is equally obvious that the Opposition would have been much more concerned- if we are not worried about the Opposition being concerned about it, the public and the media would have been alarmed- to have discovered that at an inappropriate time the Minister for Administrative Services made these approaches. This is what we are saying. Those reports were tabled in the Parliament on 10 April. The Prime Minister knew at the time that the reports were tabled that the statement I quoted was materially wrong because at least on 17 January, in the presence of witnesses, and on two subsequent occasions he was made aware of this communication.

Mr Sinclair:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is now canvassing events which took place in the other chamber. He is talking about arguments and knowledge within the capacity of the AttorneyGeneral. He is talking about actions and statements made by the Minister for Administrative Services. To the degree to which those matters are involved, they are not the responsibility of this chamber. I suggest therefore that those matters are quite outside any question of privilege which might pertain to matters of this House. The honourable member for Blaxland should just sit down and be patient.

Mr Keating:

– I will not sit down.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Blaxland will sit down.

Mr Sinclair:

– The assertion of the honourable member for Oxley is that the Prime Minister, as I understand it, and other members of this chamber have in some way misled the Parliament and hence have been party to a conspiracy. I suggest that that therefore requires the presentation of only evidence pertaining to this chamber. Matters pertaining to the other chamber are not matters for this House, nor can they be concluded within this matter of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition. Is he speaking to the point of order?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Primary Industry is dead wrong again. I am relating this issue directly to the Prime Minister who is Leader of the Government. We must see the Government as a corporate whole, although I do not want to become involved in the question of whether we should be discussing the Senate. I am talking about the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Prime Minister, as head of the Government on this most important matter about which he has been involved in extensive continuing discussions, in arranging for the presentation of this report in the Parliament knew, as the evidence establishes beyond any doubt, that the report was based on wrong and misleading information. The Prime Minister in doing this was responsible for a conspiracy with other Ministers with whom he was meeting and discussing this matter, to mislead the Australian public and to mislead this Parliament. It is a clear case of deception. It is a clear outrage against the privilege of this Parliament. It goes to the very top of government. It reaches beyond the most senior Ministers to the Prime Minister of this country. This is a very serious matter, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hodgman:

– I raise two points of order, Mr Speaker. The first point of order is that it is a serious breach of privilege of this House to raise a matter before this House as a breach of privilege when it is not. I refer you, Sir, to page 162 of Erskine May ‘s Parliamentary Practice. The passage upon which I rely states:

Frivolous complaints of breach of privilege are discouraged in the Commons by a resolution of 1 1 February 1768 (which prescribes that if a complaint is adjudged groundless, costs and expenses may be awarded to the person complained of).

My respectful submission is that in this case what the Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to do -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has not made a point of order.

Mr Hodgman:

– I suggest with the utmost respect, Mr Speaker, that my point of order is that, as you are well aware, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that privilege in this House, until this Parliament legislates to the contrary, is the privilege which applies in the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition should be warned that if this question of privilege is adjudged groundless he may be subject to an order to pay costs and expenses to the Prime Minister for raising a frivolous point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Our case is simply this: The Prime Minister set about a course of conduct which he knew would mislead the Parliament. It is clear that it was his ambition that we should not have full information on matters related to the behaviour of the responsible Minister in electorate matters. If we had that sort of information not only this Parliament but also the Australian community would be gravely concerned. Accordingly, it is argued without any embarrassment at all, because the evidence is so substantial, that the Prime Minister has conspired to mislead the Parliament. He alone was not the respository of this information. There was his colleague the Minister for Administrative Services. There was certainly the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) and undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and perhaps even the Attorney-General had at least some knowledge of these matters. It is clear that in October last year there were discussions about this matter and the Prime Minister was implicated in them. Decisions were taken that allegations had to be ignored and evidence suppressed. The relevant evidence in this matter is that the Prime Minister was well aware that the reports which were prepared by the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral following complaints by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) and which were tabled in the Parliament on 9 February and 15 February were misleading. I repeat that it is a very serious matter for the Prime Minister to have been well aware, for Vh or nearly three months, that the report of 9 February was wrong when it said-

Mr Yates:

- Mr Speaker, I suggest, if you are following Erskine May at page 141 that the documents do not have to be just misleading; they have to be proved by the Opposition to be forged, falsified or fabricated documents.

Dr Klugman:

– That is right.

Mr Yates:

– Take it steady for a moment. If the Leader of the Opposition intends to produce evidence that those documents are falsified and forged -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He is speaking to the substantive issue. I am still hearing the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the matter of privilege. I must hear him before I hear contrary arguments.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I repeat the point I had partly developed: The report of 9 February 1978 prepared by Senator Durack as Attorney-General and Mr Byers as Solicitor-General would not have said that there is no evidence of any communication with the Electoral Commissioners outside statutory procedures. The communication did take place. Those reports were tabled in the Parliament some three months later despite the fact that the Prime Minister knew nearly a month earlier, presumably when the reports were supplied to the Government, that they were wrong and based on false information in that, inadequate information was knowingly provided. Some three months later they were still wrong when the Prime Minister sought to dilute the atmosphere of concern in this place about serious allegations raised by the honourable member for Fadden- a supporter of the Government, not the Opposition- supported by the honourable member for -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman now is arguing the issue.

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order. The provision concerning conspiracy on which the Leader of the Opposition relies relates quite clearly to persons who are not members of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will deal with the matter of whether or not there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege after the Leader of the Opposition has concluded.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, there are only a couple of other points I want to make. I ask you to bear in mind the points I have made. There is clear evidence that in October -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has made those points already.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I was helping you to recall them. There was no evident determination on the part of the Government to be forthcoming on this matter. There is this misleading element in the report of 9 February of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General perpetuated in the Parliament on 10 April. That is the crux of the argument that the Parliament has been misled. But it goes beyond that. In fact, it was not until 22 April, if my recollection is correct, that the Prime Minister decided to set up a royal commission. This is important because it was on 2 1 April that an official acknowledgement, perhaps not the first one, was sent to Senator Durack on a ministerial letterhead by the Minister for Administrative Services acknowledging that he had had this communication with the Chief Electoral Officer. That was only done some three weeks after Mr Pearson, the Chief Electoral Officer, reminded Senator Withers of his obligation. The Prime Minister acted the following day and announced a royal commission. He did not do so before and he was reluctant to act in this manner until then. It is still significant that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission were extremely restrictive and did not include members of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The terms of reference of the Royal Commission are not relevant to the issue of privilege.

Mr HAYDEN:

– With respect, I suggest that the fact that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission were so restrictive is further evidence of the conscious determination of the Prime Minister to limit as much as possible the opportunity to explore this matter properly. The terms of reference were restricted to the Electoral Commissioners and the Minister for Finance. They did not include the man who was at the heart of this matter, Senator Withers; nor did they include the Prime Minister and these other senior Ministers in the Government. These matters are highly relevant and I suggest without any hesitation at all that there has been a conspiracy to mislead the Parliament -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable gentleman now is making about members of Parliament assertions and allegations which have no substance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will cease doing so.

Mr HAYDEN:

– That is the case that there has been a breach of privilege. The Prime Minister, who holds the highest office in the country, has, in an unprecedented way, crudely and consciously with premeditation sought to mislead the Parliament. Having set himself on that course, he persisted with it until he was forced, step by grudging step, to make decisions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman need not argue the matter.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I regret having to raise this matter as a matter of privilege. We could have debated this matter if Government supporters had any confidence in their own honour. They do not. They know that they are collectively guilty in this matter. They know that their case cannot stand.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has concluded.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the issue of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will not call the right honourable gentleman for a moment. The Leader of the Opposition has raised an issue of privilege. He has not moved any motion in relation to it. I need to consider the question and I draw the attention to the House to Standing Order 95 which states:

Any Member may rise at any time to speak upon a matter of privilege suddenly arising and he shall be prepared to move, without notice, a motion declaring that a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed, or referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges;

Standing Order 96 states:

A matter of privilege at any time arising shall, until disposed of, or unless the debate on a motion thereon is adjourned, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question:

The issue that arises here is twofold. Firstly, is there a breach of privilege?

Mr Hayden:

– I have moved a motion. I did so at the beginning of my comments.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question that arises here is whether or not there is a breach of privilege. The second question is whether or not it amounts to a prima facie case of breach of privilege and, therefore, should take priority over all other business until disposed of. The Leader of the Opposition informs me that he has actually moved the motion. I was not aware of it. Is there a record of the motion?

Mr Hayden:

– I moved the motion at the beginning of my comments. That might not have been understood. It states:

That the Prime Minister has committed a breach of privilege by entering into a conspiracy with other Ministers to mislead Parliament in the matter of the last electoral redistribution.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman so move now?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I second the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the House wishes to speak to the motion.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion now.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

- Mr Speaker, briefly and strictly in accordance with the facts, I submit to you what has happened in the Parliament in the chronological order of events. On 4 November last year, the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) said, as a fact, in the Senate that he had had no contact with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer or any of the Distribution Commissioners. On 26 May this year, the Minister said in the Senate that he may have misled the Parliament at that time because he had made contact with the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Pearson. It is relevant to this House that on 7 April this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) arranged through his own Minister to table in the Parliament the advice he had received from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and the Solicitor-General. That is a document of record. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) indicated, it said that there was no evidence of any communication with the Distribution Commissioners. That is not in accordance with the facts as we now know them.

The only defence for the Government would be that it did not know that fact on 7 April. There is strong evidence now that that was not the position. The matter was debated on 10 April in this House. The only factors available for the Parliament to consider were the matters which had been considered by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. It is very significant that yesterday in the Senate the Attorney-General said that he first became aware of the representations made by his colleague on or about 10 April. That is the same day as we were discussing the matter in this House. It is also a matter of record that on 10 April we were discussing the matter in this House at about 8.23 p.m. -

Mr Hodgman:

– I take a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is repeating in essence what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to the heading ‘Conspiracy to Deceive Either House or Committees of Either House’ which appears on page 141 of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. I should like to read the paragraph to make the point that such a breach of privilege concerns conspiracy by persons who are not members of the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall deal with the substantive issue at a later point.

Mr Hodgman:

– With respect, Mr Speaker, may I be heard on this one point? If Erskine May is correct that the matter concerns conspiracies by persons who are not members of the Parliament, what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now saying is totally irrelevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourble gentleman will resume his seat. I shall make the decision whether there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, as I am bound to do under the Standing Orders, when the time arises. In the meantime, I will not prevent any honourable member from raising an issue of privilege. Whether he is correct remains to be seen.

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

-When I was interrupted I was making the point that the AttorneyGeneral had said that he was not aware of any representations made to the distribution commissioners on 10 April. That is a very significant date for this House because that is the day we were debating in this House an opinion of the Attorney-General that there was no evidence before him -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is repeating the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I have already been apprised of them by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I appreciate your point but I was not aware that you were apprised of the fact that yesterday in the Senate the Attorney-General said that he was aware of this matter on 10 April. I did not know that that fact was before you. If you want me to tender that statement. I shall do so. Perhaps you have not had a chance to address your mind to this matter because it was adverted to in the Senate only yesterday. The significant point is that on 10 April, when this House was discussing what appeared, to be the evidence given to the Attorney-General he himself knew that his opinion which was given to this House was incorrect and misleading. I do not know whether it has been put to you before, Mr Speaker, but the Attorney-General would be included in the group of Ministers to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred. There was a course of conduct which leads to the fact that this House was being deceived. In other words, if on 10 April we were informed of what we say the Attorney-General then knew we would not have debated the matter in the fashion in which we debated it. There would have been a judicial inquiry immediately on 10 April. There was no judicial inquiry until 24 April. It is misleading the House to suggest that on 10 April there was no other evidence. I make this point quite succinctly. It has now been established by the independent evidence of Senator Withers and Mr Pearson that the Parliament was misled. For that reason prima facie involved in thé deception of this House were the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and certainly the Minister for Administrative Services. That is enough to get the alleged crime of conspiracy considered. It is prima facie evidence. We ask you to consider it, Mr Speaker. We ask you to look at the facts submitted to this House by the Government and further identified in evidence by Senator Withers. In our view, these facts are enough to establish a prima facie case.

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

~-This matter is being raised and the language of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) was in such a form to contravene completely the resolution that was just passed by this chamber. A good deal has been said about the personality of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the actions and knowledge of Ministers of this Government which is not substantiated by facts before this House. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that newspaper reports give certain indications upon which he now calls on this House to take action. I suggest that all the evidence has been tendered before the Royal Commission to a very large degree. One area in which there seems to be some dispute is in respect of an answer that was apparently given in the other chamber yesterday by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack). There is no evidence before this House that the Prime Minister knew of any of the facts before 10 April or even on 10 April. The purpose of this motion is not genuinely to canvass the privileges of this place. The point of order raised by my colleague, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), has substance. The whole intention of the Opposition is to try to cast doubt upon the meaningfulness of a Royal Commission that is currently inquiring into these matters.

It is true that it was found, as a result of evidence tendered, that it was desirable to ensure that no stones were left unturned and that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission should be extended. They were extended by this Government on two occasions, intentionally and deliberately, so that there would be no suggestion that any matters raised before that Royal Commission could not be canvassed by His Honour, Mr Justice McGregor. Mr Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to suggest in some way that your own responsibilities and those of this chamber will take pre-eminence over a Royal Commission pursuing an inquiry into very much related fields. I believe that no question of privilege has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, the motion should be defeated. In terms of the evidence before this House the whole question is a matter of hearsay. It is not a matter of fact. The honourable gentleman referred to a number of newspaper reports, most of which are matters which have been canvassed before the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission itself is pursuing extensive inquiries into the whole matter. The tactic of the Leader of the Opposition is to try to use the procedures of this House to legitimise an exercise that has no substance whatsoever.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I take up the point raised by the Leader -

Mr Sinclair:

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Under the Standing Orders I would not accept a motion that an honourable member be not further heard while he is moving a motion which he is entitled to move or while he is seconding the motion. That applies to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But it is a course open in relation to any other honourable member speaking to the motion. It is a course available in relation to the honourable member for Blaxland. But I ask the Leader of the House not so to move at this stage because I called the honourable member for Blaxland to find out whether he wanted to raise a point of order or whether he wanted to speak to the motion. He obviously wants to speak to the motion. I think it is time that I indicated my attitude to the House. I have a duty to ascertain in my own mind whether there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. If I so find, the motion takes precedence over all other business until it is disposed of. On many occasions, I have adopted the practice of deferring such a matter so that I could consider it and decide whether a prima facie case existed. I do not find it necessary to defer the matter in this instance because I am convinced in my own mind that no issue of privilege arises.

The fact is that for an issue of privilege to arise the matter concerned must relate to the conduct of a member’s duties as a member; it must either seek to influence him or it must, on the other hand, attempt to prevent him from raising issues or voting as he chooses. It is a very precious privilege that we all possess so that we may be not concerned about fear or favour. Therefore the question of privilege has to be guarded very strenuously by the Presiding Officer. I believe that on this occasion there is no issue of privilege arising.

I have been directed by the Leader of the Opposition to a paragraph headed ‘Conspiracy to Deceive either House or Committees of either House’ at page 141 of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. The Leader of the Opposition read the final sentence only but I will read the paragraph. It states:

It has already been seen that the giving of false evidence, prevarication or suppression of the truth by witnesses while under examination before either House or before committees of either House is punished as a contempt; and that persons who present false, forged or fabricated documents to either House or to committees of either House are guilty of a breach of privilege. Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

In relation to the reliance that the Leader of the Opposition puts on that paragraph- and it would only be upon that paragraph that he could rely, for I am not satisfied that there is any breach of privilege in terms of interfering with the exercise of a member’s duties in the House- it does not apply in this case. That is designed to deal with persons who are not members of the Parliament and, specifically, to deal with matters of evidence that are put before committees or the House.

I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if there is a complaint raised by any member of the House as to the conduct of a member within the House, it is open to the honourable member to take the courses of action available to him under the Standing Orders. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition attempted such a course of action. In fact, the Leader of the House, using the forms of the House, prevented discussion of the matter. Really I think it is obvious that the honourable gentleman has raised the question of privilege in order to ventilate what he wished to say but was unable to say on the previous motion. I have been patient in listening to him but I now rule that there is no prima facie case of breach of privilege. That means that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition can be disposed of now, either by being put to the vote of the House, or being adjourned, or some other method being adopted. I call the Leader of the House to move for the motion to be put or for the matter to be adjourned, or whatever other course he chooses.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 26

NOES: 65

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3255

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT: QUARANTINE OFFICER

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I table a statement by the Public Service Board regarding action taken in relation to the report of Messrs R. J. Perriman and G. P. Temme into the case of Mr W. F. Toomer. Mr Toomer has been, since January of this year, employed as a quarantine officer at Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne. It is to be hoped that the move to Melbourne will signal a turning point in Mr Toomer ‘s relationship with his Department.

page 3255

NATIONAL POPULATION INQUIRY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a supplementary report of the National Population Inquiry entitled ‘Population and Australia- Recent Demographic Trends and Their Implications’.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 3255

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Stevedoring Industry Acts (Termination) Act 1977 I present the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the period from 1 July 1977 to 26 February 1978.

page 3255

AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OFFICE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Survey Office for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 3255

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-During Question Time the Minister for National Development (Mr

Newman) said that I proposed last night that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs should be abolished. I said no such thing. If you will bear with me, Mr Speaker, I said that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was being administered as a part time responsibility by a Minister who spent most of his time outside this country and, accordingly, it was being administered from the other side of the world. I said that there was no justification in those circumstances for having a full time Minister and that, with the termination of the Northern Territory portfolio in the very near future, instead of providing the portfolio of Veterans’ Affairs as a full time responsibility to the incumbent of the Northern Territory portfolio it would be a very good opportunity to save the taxpayers’ money by reducing the size of the Ministry.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-Mr Speaker, on the sixth of this month I commented on a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his speech on disarmament to the United Nations. I said that he had announced a major change in the safeguards policy. I said that nuclear fissionable material is either highly enriched uranium or pure plutonium and that the Government had hitherto said that it wished to approve all such enrichment or reprocessing but that the Prime Minister had said that, from this point on, he would have a complete prohibition. In his speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister said that Australia welcomed the prospect of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that ‘such a treaty would be reinforced by an international agreement to halt production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons’. I said at that stage that, if the Prime Minister meant what he said, it was a major change in Australia’s safeguards policy. Today the Government has said that I misunderstood, because the Prime Minister did not mean to make any change in the safeguards policy. Of course, he did not say that to the United Nations. He said that he favoured a halt in production, which is a complete prohibition. It now appears that what he said in the United Nations was not what he meant.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-The Minister for Health ( Mr Hunt), in answer to a question from an honourable member opposite at Question Time today, referred to a newspaper article in yesterday’s Melbourne Herald where I was alleged to have said that I found him depressing. Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with that, what I said to the newspaper was that I had asked a question on 8 May arising out of a Four Corners program shown during the previous weekend where an officer of his Department representing the National Health and Medical Research Council had performed rather badly in regard to questions dealing with pesticides. I said that in reply to my question on 8 May the Minister had said that he would provide me with a fuller answer. When asked about the matter yesterday by the Melbourne Herald reporter, I said that I found it depressing that the Minister had not yet given me a fuller answer on the question of the use of these pesticides.

page 3256

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 978

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1978.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1978.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1978.

Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1978.

Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1 978.

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1978.

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Amendment Bill 1978.

page 3256

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 August at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker or, in the absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Speaker, may I express a point through you to the right honourable Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) concerning the times of meeting? As I understand, in the next session we will resume on a three-day week basis. From our experience in this Parliament it would be worthwhile giving some serious consideration to a full debate here at some stage after the resumption of business so that all members can contribute to it in order to determine whether there is a more rational way in which we could use the time of the Parliament and the time of members. On my calculations it is 178 days since the last election. Today is the thirty-ninth day of meeting; so we are meeting for about a quarter of the time available. I take it that most members of the Parliament, like myself, feel at this stage that we have been meeting every day since the election but we still have not done as much as we would have liked to have done.

Therefore apart from the legislation committees, which I hope will be adopted by the House shortly, we ought to give more serious consideration directly to the form of meeting, the times of the day we meet, and the rest of it. I would think at the moment that we are probably meeting less than most other deliberative assemblies of a national sort, such as we are, and that is a serious reflection on the way we are running the place. I think it is also a part of the pattern of thinking in the community which is making the Parliament appear irrelevant to the people. I hope the right honourable gentleman will follow my advice on this matter and get the Parliament to sit down and deliberate on it. In case he finds it a bit too difficult to handle the matter himself, if he wishes I will draw up the schedule for him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3256

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has been here for a long while and therefore he is given some dispensation from admonition for behaviour that other members are not given, but I ask him not to carry that privilege too far.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3256

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-On behalf of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate, I present its report entitled ‘Inquiry into the Publication of Commonwealth Acts, Statutory Rules and Legislation of the Territories’.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HODGES:

-by leave-This is the fifth special report which the Joint Committee on Publications has presented to the Parliament since Standing Orders were amended in 1970 to give the Committee investigatory powers. It is the second special report which has been presented during this Parliament. The inquiry arises out of the Committee’s concern regarding the delay in the publication of Commonwealth Acts, Statutory Rules and other Commonwealth and

Territory legislation. It finds that the availability of most Commonwealth legislation in a readable updated form is in a most unsatisfactory state. I give the House examples: Very few pamphlet reprints of Acts and Statutory Rules, as amended, have been produced since 1973; the latest issue of the annual Acts volumes relates to 1974; the last issue of consolidated volumes of Statutory Rules covers the period 1901-1956; the latest volumes of consolidated laws of the Australian Capital Territory cover the period 1911-1956.

I could go on further; however, I think the point has been made. It is almost impossible for members of parliament, the judiciary, members of the legal profession and the individual citizen to be aware of the Commonwealth legislative provisions which exist in this country. The Committee regards this inquiry as one of an interim nature and at a later date will undertake a more complete investigation into further .matters which relate to the Commonwealth’s legislative publishing program. The Committee felt that, as a first step, it was more desirable to report the current parlous situation to the Parliament and to make recommendations designed to set in motion action to improve the situation.

In the short time available to the Committee it interviewed officers from the Attorney-General’s Department, who are responsible for the Commonwealth legislative publishing program. In addition, officers from the Australian Government Publishing Service presented evidence on production and selling procedures. The officers from the Attorney-General’s Department advised that in the near future they intended to publish consolidated volumes of laws of the Australian Capital Territory, consolidated volumes of Statutory Rules and some annual volumes of Acts and Statutory rules. For reasons which are more fully explained in the report, the optimism suggested in the Department’s publishing program was not shared by the Committee. The officers explained that they were having difficulty in filling vacant positions within its publications branch. They also stated that new procedures at the Government Printing Office which required additional proof-reading contributed to the delay.

The Committee is of the opinion, however, that the delay in publishing the Commonwealth’s legislative program is mainly due to the lack of forward planning. The Committee has made recommendations designed to rationalise the publishing program of the Department and laid down what it feels to be a satisfactory publishing timetable. This is to be found in paragraph 16 of the report. Basically, the Committee has asked that greater priorities be attached to the reprinting of Acts and Statutory Rules when substantial amendments have been made. Also, the Committee has suggested that, in future, all consolidated volumes of legislation, whether they be Acts, Statutory Rules or laws of the Territories, be produced on a regular basis at fiveyear intervals. The Committee is aware that the Department with its present establishment will have difficulty in meeting this suggested timetable, and therefore, it has recommended that a Public Service Board review of the branch be undertaken to ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to the Department to enable the Department to adhere to the Committee’s recommended publishing timetable. In the interim, it suggests that a task force of officers be employed to overcome the present backlog.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Attorney-General and officers of his Department, and officers of the Australian Government Publishing Service, for the prompt assistance which they provided to enable the Committee to complete this inquiry. Finally, I draw attention of the House to the support and diligence which I received from the Committee in completing this inquiry. Without this, the investigation which was carried out at such short notice would not have been possible. I would like also to attract the House’s attention to the fact that two members of the Joint Committee, namely, Senator Donald Cameron and Senator Tehan will not be with the Committee after 1 July, due to their retirement from the Senate. I wish to thank these gentlemen for the support which they have given me and the Committee over the years. I wish them well in their retirement. I believe it is worthy of comment that this inquiry was commenced only a fortnight ago. I wish to place on record my thanks to the secretary, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, Mr Tom Wharton, who of course operates as secretary of this Committee in only a part time capacity. I commend the report to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the honourable the Treasurer (Mr Howard), I have to remind honourable members, especially because the previous speaker was on my right, that it is against the Standing Orders to move between the person who is on his feet addressing the House and the Speaker in the Chair. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) tried to comply with that requirement and fell over the rail. But other members seem to be quite unaware of the standing order and I just want to draw their attention to it. It is a courtesy to the member who is on his feet speaking.

page 3258

FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY AND EXCHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– by leave- It is now just over two years since my predecessor announced the Government’s foreign investment policy in a statement to this House dated 1 April 1976. In the light of experience gained in that period, it is timely that the policy be reviewed. The Government recognises that, despite Australia’s high level of domestic savings, we will continue to require overseas capital to assist in the development of our industries and resources. A primary objective of the Government’s policy remains therefore to encourage foreign investment in Australia. It is against this central consideration that the Government has undertaken a review of foreign investment policy. The Government has decided that there should be no fundamental changes to the basic objectives of the policy, as announced by my predecessor. In arriving at this decision the Government has been mindful of the fact that the present policy has achieved widespread acceptance from the business sector, including both Australian and overseas companies, and from the Australian community at large. This has led to the establishment of a stable investment climate in which overseas investors can plan their future operations in Australia.

Nevertheless the Government wishes to relax procedural requirements wherever experience has shown this to be possible. Accordingly, the Government has decided that forthwith: Firstly, proposals for foreign investment in new projects will not require government approval under the foreign investment guidelines unless the project involves an investment of $5m or more- this does not apply to investment in the financial sector and uranium; secondly, in the case of investments coming within the scope of the Foreign Takeovers Act, the Government will not normally seek to intervene if the assets of the company being taken over are less than $2m, unless there are special circumstances or the business is in the financial sector or some other area where special considerations apply; and, thirdly, individual real estate acquisitions of less than $250,000 will no longer require approval.

The Government has also referred for detailed legal study certain possible amendments, essentially of a technical kind, to the Foreign Takeovers Act. The principal proposal under consideration would remove the need for compulsory notification to the Government of acquisitions of substantial shareholdings in Australian companies, many of which do not change the ultimate ownership and control of the enterprise, being corporate re-arrangements, and acquisitions of shelf and shell companies, which are of no policy significance. It was never intended that the Act cover these proposals. Repeal of this provision, section 26, would eliminate a large number of proposals which are currently notified as a technicality but which are not subject to action under the Act. It would not reduce the Government’s capacity to examine takeover proposals which would result in a change in control. The possible legislative amendments will be the subject of further detailed examination by the Treasury in conjunction with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.

I turn now to another aspect of the foreign investment guidelines which the Government has had under examination. We have been assisted in our consideration of it by recent consultations with a number of companies and have taken into account the range of views expressed. The Government’s policy is to welcome opportunities for Australians to participate in the ownership and management of foreign-owned companies operating in this country. A number of largely foreign-owned companies have expressed a willingness to increase the level of Australian ownership in their operations. Some have already achieved significant levels of Australian ownership.

A concern which has arisen under the present policy is that, short of a company becoming majority Australian owned and Australian controlled, it remains unable to develop a new mining project on its own within the Government’s guidelines so far as the mining area is concerned. The guidelines provide that there be, as a general rule, at least 50 per cent Australian equity and joint Australian /foreign control, although there is provision for flexibility. This reduces the incentive for foreign-owned companies to embark upon the long-term objective of introducing majority Australian equity. It may be some years before the level of Australian equity could be increased to 50 per cent. Even then, unless a company were Australian controlled it would not normally be able to develop a new project in its own right within the existing guidelines. The Government does not believe it is in Australia ‘s interests that foreign companies which are already substantially Australian owned and which are prepared to introduce majority Australian ownership should suffer such a disability. It believes that Australia can gain from the development of jointly Australian and foreign-owned companies which bring together in partnership the skills and resources of overseas interests with Australian investors.

The Government has therefore decided to modify the existing guidelines in a manner which will enable partly Australian-owned foreign companies to proceed more easily with their investment plans, by providing an incentive to them to increase Australian ownership. The modifications, which I am announcing today, are designed to provide a framework for the ‘naturalisation’ of” foreign-owned companies over a period of time. The broad arrangements are consistent with the Government’s policy of administering the 50 per cent guidelines flexibly, with provision for the gradual phasing in of Australian equity. These modifications do not affect the policy in relation to uranium projects or the requirements of the Foreign Takeovers Act. In announcing these modifications, the Government is in no way suggesting that companies should feel that they are expected, or have an obligation, to proceed to Australianise. I emphasise that it will be for individual companies to decide, on the basis of their own commercial judgments, whether they would wish to do so.

A company wishing to take advantage of the benefits available under the arrangements will be required to meet certain pre-conditions: Firstly. a minimum 25 per cent Australian equity; secondly, amendment of its articles of association to provide for a board a majority of which are Australian citizens; and thirdly, a public commitment to increase Australian equity to 5 1 per cent subject to agreed understandings between the company, major shareholder interests and the Government, and regular discussions with the Foreign Investment Review Board on progress towards achieving 51 per cent Australian ownership. A company as outlined above which achieves 5 1 per cent Australian ownership and has an Australian board would be classified as a naturalised company. It would be able to proceed with new projects in its own right, in partnership with an Australian company, a naturalised company or a naturalising company, within the Government’s guidelines for new projects. However, a naturalised company would, in the absence of special circumstances, be precluded from undertaking a project as a joint venture with a wholly overseas-owned company, as this would involve a departure from the 50 per cent guidelines.

A company in the process of naturalisation would be given prior credit for achieving 5 1 per cent Australian ownership and would therefore be able to proceed with a new project on the same basis as outlined above. The Government would expect the naturalisation process to take place primarily by way of new share issues to Australians to fund new projects and expansions, rather than by takeovers which will remain subject to case-by-case examination under the Foreign Takeovers Act. The rights of a naturalising company would be withdrawn should it not adhere to the agreed understandings. A company wishing to participate in these arrangements would be required to reach an understanding with the Government on practical arrangements for achieving 5 1 per cent Australian ownership. The Government does not believe that it would be realistic to impose a strict timetable because of commercial considerations outside the company’s control. As part of the arrangements there would need to be a general understanding with the major shareholder interests of the company on the process of naturalisation and the exercise of voting powers in re,spect of the Australian business.

I would make it clear that the Government remains of the view that the objective of 50 per cent Australian equity in new mineral projects is a reasonable one. It will continue to administer this policy flexibly to ensure that new investment is not prevented from proceeding where Australian equity capital is not available or Australian participation in the circumstances of a particular project is not commercially practicable. This policy has to date served well Australia and foreign investors alike. It has created a favourable climate for foreign investment while providing opportunities for Australians to participate in new projects. The Government believes that the changes which I have announced today are consistent with its desire to encourage foreign investment in this country while at the same time preserving the fundamental elements of the existing policy. I add that we will be keeping policy in this area under review in the light of experience and changing circumstances.

I turn now to the question of exchange control. As part of the overall review of factors which could inhibit foreign investment in Australia, the Government has also examined the present exchange control procedures impinging on capital inflow. It has concluded that basically the present procedures are appropriate and serve essential policy purposes. Nevertheless, a number of decisions have been made which will streamline the exchange control procedures. The Government has decided that the embargo on overseas borrowing for periods of less than 6 months and certain related indirect forms of overseas borrowing is no longer required in present circumstances and the embargo will therefore be suspended as from 9 June. This will include the suspension of: firstly, the embargo on non-resident deposits with a maturity of less than six months, placed with banks, finance companies and other financial institutions; secondly; the restrictions which prohibit nonresidents from investing in fixed interest securities with maturities of less than six months; and, thirdly, surveillance over movements in intercompany indebtedness. Companies which are indebted to related companies overseas will no longer be required to furnish certificates to the Reserve Bank related to variations in such indebtedness.

The Government has reviewed the present arrangements whereby the Reserve Bank does not grant exchange control approval to a foreign investment proposal until after the Treasurer has decided that there is no foreign investment policy objection to it. In future, foreign investors who submit applications to the Reserve Bank that satisfy exchange control requirements will be able to receive exchange control approval in advance of foreign investment approval by the Treasurer. The exchange control approval will be subject to the condition that any necessary foreign investment approval is obtained. The effect of this change in the procedures should be to minimise delays to the foreign investor. At present, decisions taken on exchange control and foreign investment matters are subject to the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The implications of using the provisions of this Act in relation to exchange control and foreign investment matters will be reviewed in the context of the review of the Act which is taking place at present. The result of the review will be announced in due course. In commending the statement to the House, I thank the honourable member Gellibrand (Mr Willis) for his courtesy in agreeing to a short abridgement of the time normally available to the Opposition in respect of these statements. I present the following paper:

Foreign Investment Policy and Exchange Control Procedures- Ministerial Statement, 8 June 1978.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I am pleased that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is happy that there has been an abridgment of the time available. I wish I had had a bit more. However, we were preoccupied this morning. The Treasurer has been kind enough to acknowledge that there has been a fair degree of bipartisan support on the matter of foreign investment guidelines. I recall clearly when the Government introduced its guidelines in 1976 the debate which followed. It seemed to me that in some ways on both sides there were some participants in the debate who were beating at each other with rubber sticks. I did not see a great deal of difference between those guidelines which we introduced in late 1 975 and those which were presented in 1976. Perhaps that observation is more relevant to the nature of political debate in this country than the substance of matters which are applied in administration.

I wish we had more time to debate this matter because there are implications in this statement which we find a little worrying. Perhaps the Treasurer might be kind enough to reflect on these matters. The spirit of what is being proposed is, of course, entirely acceptable. The spirit as enunciated is that the Government seeks to create a situation where a greater Australian equity holding will occur in enterprise in this country and that there will be a policy whereby there will be a reduction in the proportion of foreign control in certain industries. That is the implication of these guidelines. What the Government is really doing, however, in effect, it seems to me, because of weaknesses in the methodology which is being used, is to back well away from the 50-50 requirement which had been explicit in the guidelines of both the last Labor Government and the present Government. It has moved to a situation where effectively it becomes a 75-25 per cent holding- the 75 per cent being overseas or foreign holding. If there were explicit guidelines which clearly defined time scales when that 25 per cent Australian equity could be increased to 50 per cent Australian equity, there would be much more enthusiasm for what has been proposed than is evident from the Opposition. I draw the Treasurer’s attention to page 7 of his statement where he said:

The Government would expect -

I stress the use of the word ‘expect’ rather than require’, according to clearly laid down guidelines with discernable time scales:

  1. . the naturalisation process to take place primarily by way of new share issues to Australians to fund new projects and expansions, rather than by takeovers which will remain subject to case-by-case examination under the Foreign Takeovers Act.

We would not only expect but we would require that the naturalisation process should take place, not primarily, but exactly by way of new share issues, and that that should be achieved within a certain time scale. As the guidelines stand at the moment, we .find them altogether too vague, too unspecific’, in these important matters. There can be no total satisfaction in the country that such a large proportion of Australian enterprise is foreign owned and that this is growing. I recognise the benefits that come from foreign investment and I have made my view on that matter, as have most of my colleagues, clear enough often enough. But we should not lose sight of the fact that there are also costs which are involved in foreign investments and we are paying a fairly substantial cost right now.

Foreign investment is not coming into the country in quantities which we would prefer. The Government obviously would prefer this- so would I- because it would ease the pressure on our balance of payments. It is not coming in in those quantities yet, at the same time, net invisibles, flowing out of the country, are flowing out at quite disturbingly high rates. For instance, in 1975-76 the rate was about $2,500m. The next year it was over $3,000m. It looks like being something of that order this year. It would appear that a great deal of capital is being repatriated and not a small amount of these repayments are servicing the debt on past investments. It is flowing out in appreciable quantities. So capital is not coming in but is going out as a cost for investment in earlier stages, and that in turn is putting pressure on our balance of payments. So, I repeat, it is not unalloyed joy to have foreign investment coming into the country over the long term. There are problems.

It is therefore desirable that there ought to be a policy designed to maximise Australian participation in holdings in companies established in Australia. That I believe is what the Government wants to achieve, but I do not believe that it is tight enough for the community to feel any satisfaction about the proposals. I know that people in business who have criticised these proposals have some self-interest, but so too do certain business interests which have supported them. I note that there is a number of important Australian companies that are obviously very concerned about these new guidelines. I am not overwhelmed by the arguments of the Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd because I suspect that that company has been sheltering for too long behind various forms of comfortable protection. I am not thinking just of tariffs, but in various ways. It has become a fairly inefficient steel producer. On the other hand, I am quite impressed by CSR Ltd as an Australian enterprise which gives every sign of being an efficient organisation, well conducted, expanding to the benefit of the community within this country. I do not believe we can just write off their reservations.

We could quickly achieve a much greater proportion of Australian holding in foreigncontrolled organiser companies or enterprises in this country if we harnessed the support of the Australian Industry Development Corporation so that it could take out shareholdings forthwith or in a fairly short time in a foreign-controlled organisation and then progressively release these to the market as new expansion took place in new enterprises undertaken by that particular foreign-controlled organisation. That seems to me to be something that ought to be explored. Perhaps rather than moving away from the 50-50 rule that we have at the present time to this sort of vague, non-specific, too-open-ended set of proposals, we would be better off if we had some sort of registration process; that is, special exemptions are provided for certain companies established in this country, which are substantially foreign owned, and which want to engage in investment in new development in the country, the exemption being that once registered as such they are able to proceed very much as the Government is proposing in these new guidelines. But I am concerned about the blanket nature of the guidelines which have been put forward. We must accept, in my view, as our fundamental position that we have to explore all opportunity to enlarge the stock of Australian companies able to take on new development projects in this country. We need to do some practical things about that and one of the ways which has appealed to the Labor Party- we proposed this in our last election campaign manifesto- was that there should be a major, high level, comprehensive inquiry into the capital market in this country. It is riddled with all sorts of restrictions. It is a fragmented sort of market.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for the luncheon adjournment, I was making the point that in my view there is a need to have an inquiry into the structure and operation of the Australian capital market. I say that because the question in my mind is this: What is the problem when we are talking about foreign investment? Is it a shortage of capital or is it a problem involving our external account? The evidence quite clearly is that it is a weakness in our external account. More than 90 per cent of the resources used- manufactured or raw- in the development of the infrastructure of a major mineral development project are provided domestically. It is not a matter of mobilising resources from overseas but rather credit resources overseas. They are very largely required, given the structure of our balance of payments, to meet pressure on our balance on current account.

If government were to borrow more overseas on its own account and borrow less domesticallythis would call for a restructuring of the domestic capital markets- there would be no need to sell out the resources of this country on a perpetual basis to foreign investment. Government could borrow on a shorter term basis. There would be clear welfare implications as a result of such a change, especially in the housing area. Adequate responses could be developed to changed circumstances so that people did not suffer. That is why we need an inquiry into the structure and operation of the Australian capital market. I said that there is no real shortage of domestic capital, especially at the moment. The Sydney Morning Herald of 1 9 December stated:

The AMP Society has an investment problem on a large scale- it has almost $500m to invest in 1978 but is having difficulty in finding suitable investments.

The Treasurer, on the ninth page of his statement, refers to changes in relation to restrictions on overseas borrowings and that is further evidence of that.

I will move away from that area and make some observations, in the short time remaining for me to speak, about the actual statement. These remarks will concern matters that worry the Opposition. On the second page of this statement, in dealing with certain principles the Government has enumerated, the Treasurer said:

Proposals for foreign investment in new -

The emphasis is on ‘ ne w ‘- . . projects will not require Government approval under the foreign investment guidelines unless the project involves an investment of $5m or more.

That seems to me, on the face of it, to be quite compatible with corporations expanding by discrete operations at a limit of up to $5m at a time. This sort of incremental development would subvert the principles that have been enumerated. The Opposition is concerned about the generous ceiling of $250,000 that will apply in respect of real estate acquisitions. Further points are enumerated on the sixth page, of the Treasurer’s statement. The pre-condition for a company wishing to draw the advantage of the changes would be a minimum 25 per cent Australian equity. That really is a derogation of principles which have been adopted largely on a bipartisan basis so far. If the change that the Government is talking about takes place, that is well and good. But on the face of it, especially in relation to the third point on this page- that a public commitment is required of companies to increase Australian equity to 51 per cent- the Opposition feels concerned that the objectives set could be subverted by a company dragging its feet and that we might evolve a never-never sort of system.

The second point made on the sixth page of the statement refers to the amendment of the articles of association of a company to provide for a board of which the majority are Australian citizens. That does not mean a great deal. We would hope that Australians would show a greater predisposition towards an Australian outlook and Australian aspirations. But that does not necessarily follow. I mention these things to indicate that alone, or even collectively, they do not give the sort of reassurance that the Government seems so firmly convinced that they do, that is, that Australian equity in projects can be accelerated by this process. For example, the Treasurer said in his statement:

A company which achieves 5 1 per cent Australian ownership and has an Australian board . . . would be classified as a naturalised company.

But a very small proportion of ownership in a large corporation these days is able to control that corporation. That is why 50 per cent ownership, or I think it is 45 per cent ownership collectively in the hands of an overseas person or persons, was regarded as overseas control. There is no definition of the word ‘control’ in the Treasurer’s statement. It is not unreasonable that the Opposition should have some worry about how we control the destiny of this country.

The Opposition has worrying reservations about this proposal. We have not had enough time to consider it. As legislation will be required, we would expect by the time of its introduction to have had more time to consider the matter. We sincerely trust that the Government will not seek to proceed in some provisional, and therefore improper, way in the absence of that sort of legislation. What we really suspect is that this is further evidence of major policy undertakings being made on the run by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The rush is because he wants to say something overseas and is prepared not only to risk the bipartisan nature of the attitude towards foreign investment which has been developed by this Parliament but also the confidence that has developed behind the guidelines enumerated by an earlier Labor Government and laid down almost in mirror fashion by the present Government in 1976. I agree with the Treasurer when he says that the Government has been mindful of the fact that the present policy has achieved widespread acceptance. This new set of guidelines accordingly could cause problems. The Opposition prefers the existing guidelines.

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3263

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 McMillan (Mr Simon) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for this House to uphold the principle of human rights and freedom for all people and accordingly to condemn any nation which denies human rights to its people or to any individual.

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 SIMON:
McMillan

-No individual should be deprived of his rights or his freedom in the terms in which they have been defined by a number of international charters and treaties and, in particular, as they were defined 30 years ago, on 10 December 1948, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the resolution which is now known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is significant that the debate today is being supported by all political parties in this chamber. I would like to outline generally the history of the development of human rights over the last 40 years. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) will develop those arguments. I wish to record at this stage that unfortunately many honourable members on this side and on the other side of the House will not have an opportunity to speak in this debate. I include the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), a very even-handed man, who has taken an approach on human rights in this chamber.

We should not turn away from any opportunity to influence the leaders and people of a country that does not respect human rights. If by peaceful means, by complaint, by public identification, by criticism or by example we can break down the bigotry, prejudice or denial of human rights in another country, we must act accordingly. It is now accepted internationally that by so doing a country is not unjustifiably interfering in the affairs of another soverign state. Indeed, it is recognised that we have a responsibility to so act. The events prior to and during the Second World War had a substantial influence on the awareness of and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the preparation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 26 signatories to the declaration of the United Nations made on 1 January 1942 expressed their commitment that complete victory over their enemies was essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands.

At Dumbarton Oaks in 1 944 the leaders of the governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America met and agreed upon proposals to establish an international organisation to replace the League of Nations and which was to be called the United Nations. The conclusions reached at Dumbarton Oaks included the belief that the United Nations should ‘facilitate solutions of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems and should promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedom’. The Charter of the United Nations which was subsequently adopted refers to the problem of human rights in its preamble and in a number of Articles. For example, in the preamble the peoples of the member nations expressed their determination ‘to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small’. Article 56, when read with Article 55, provides that ‘all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organisation for the achievement’ of a number of objectives which ‘the United Nations shall promote ‘. The objectives include the following:

Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

As I stated earlier, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted as a resolution of the General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Accordingly, 1978 represents the thirtieth anniversary of the passing of that resolution. It would be appropriate to highlight the terms of the Declaration. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the terms of the Declaration.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 2 17 A (III) of 10 December 1 948

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Chaner reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, binh or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-selfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has, the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

  1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

  1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
  2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

  1. . Everyone has the right to a nationality .
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

  1. . Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
  2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

  1. . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

  1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether bom in our out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religions groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Mr SIMON:

– Whilst some of the language in the Declaration is a little outdated, the whole tenor and concept and the principles therein embodied are as relevant in 1 978 as they were in 1948. It is also sadly true that many nations have failed to abide by the principles which are enunciated in that Declaration. Honourable members will be aware that the preamble to the Declaration provides that ‘the peoples of the United

Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights’. It then proceeds to state in clear and unequivocal terms the rights which every member of the world society should enjoy. It is worthwhile quoting Article 1, which states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The Declaration is not an international bill of rights. The decisions taken in 1947 and 1948 were not to spell out one international bill of rights but to have a number of instruments to define and state a bill of rights applicable to all nations, the first of which was the Universal Declaration of Rights.

The other parts of the international bill of rights are the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. They were adopted by the General Assembly and open for signature, ratification and accession on 16 December 1966. The covenants, which are binding on all governments which accept them, expand the principles stated in the Declaration in greater detail and provide mechanisms for implementation of the several principles in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Australia ratified the economic, social and cultural covenant in December 1975. It came into force in this country on 10 March 1976. We have not yet ratified the covenant on civil and political rights. On 28 September 1977 the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) addressed the thirty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. In the course of his address he stated:

The question of human rights is too important a matter to be dealt with in terms of rhetoric and gesture; too important to be subordinated to political manoeuvre or made a matter of public relations.

It is related in the most direct way to questions of human suffering, human dignity and freedom. It we cannot take it seriously we would be better to stop talking about it at all.

On 9 May 1978 the Foreign Minister made a statement in this House on foreign policy. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer in the course of that statement to the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Minister went on to say:

The Government is conscious that we have not yet ratified the covenant on civil and political rights. This is a matter we hope to rectify- like most things, human rights begin at home. New legislation will shortly be introduced to give effect to the Government’s election commitment to establish a human rights commission relating to Commonwealth laws.

In an article in the Dyason House papers published by the Victorian branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs the author advanced five reasons why Australia should sign the civil and political covenant. Briefly, those reasons are as follows: Firstly, the importance of human rights in the interrelationship of people throughout the world. Secondly- perhaps the most fundamental of all- that Australia must be seen to be concerned within its own country before it examines the state of liberty in other nations. An example of that is the status of Aborigines in Australia in 1978. Their contact with the white people of Australia has devastated so many of them. I think it is time that we had another look at the position of Aborigines generally in this country. Another example is in very close proximity, namely, the action of the New South Wales Government in continuing to close its eyes to the denial of basic human rights to Noel Latham of Broken Hill. By their blanket refusal to give him justice by granting to him the right of appeal to a court of law the Premier and the Government of New South Wales must stand condemned in the eyes of the citizens.

A third reason is that the covenant is now becoming a litmus test for governmental sincerity over human rights. As at January of this year 45 nations had ratified the covenant. It is becoming evident that any government which does not ratify the covenant will have its credibility challenged if it seeks to make comment on the human rights issue in other countries. Fourthly, we are now represented on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This is the first occasion since the mid-1950s on which Australia has been so represented. Finally, Australia cannot have a member on the Human Rights Committee unless we have ratified the covenant. Since 1948 much has been done to implement the terms of the human rights covenant. For example, the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran in 1968 substantially advanced the cause of human rights in the world. This was recognised at the twenty-third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations when it was resolved that the conference had made an important constructive contribution to the cause of human rights and that its results should be translated into effective action by all states, by the competent organs of the United Nations and by other relevant international agencies and instrumentalities.

Over the past 30 years the United Nations General Assembly has considered and passed a number of resolutions on a wide range of subjects using the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights as its basic reference. For example, there has been action on the problems of discrimination, the status of women, the right of asylum, the administration of justice, freedom of information and so on. The Universal Declaration has also been quoted extensively in considering particular issues which arise in states. One such example relates to the practice of apartheid in South Africa. For example, in December 1963 the Security Council made the following urgent request:

The Government of the Republic of South Africa to cease forthwith its continued imposition of discriminatory and repressive measures which are contrary to the principles and purposes of the Charter and which are in violation of its obligation as a member of the United Nations and of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Government of the Republic of South Africa has done nothing to lessen the impact of its apartheid policy. I refer to the overwhelming evidence of the continued application of apartheid in South Africa, which I outlined to this House on 8 March 1978. Notwithstanding South Africa’s position, the influence of the original Charter of the United Nations and more particularly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the covenants and the proclamation have been significant. It is evident that many states still choose to ignore the terms of these human rights documents and to deprive their citizens of one or more of the basic human rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled. Many examples of this are contained in the annual report of Amnesty International for 1977. Honourable members will recall that that organisation was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize. The Commonwealth parliamentary group of Amnesty International is comprised of members of this House and members of the other place and those members are from all the political parties. They work to have men and women released from prisons where they have been incarcerated because of their beliefs, colour, ethnic origin, language or religion. It should be emphasised that Amnesty International supports no one who has used or advocates violence and under no circumstances are these basic tenets waived or ignored.

This Parliament has been engaged in the defence of human rights and the propagation of the belief in freedom and in rights for all people. For example, in October 1977 the sub-committee on human rights in the Soviet Union of the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence widened its initial terms of reference to include the following: . . human rights in the Soviet Union bearing in mind Australia’s support for the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the final act of the Helsinki Agreement.

We have recently witnessed the sentencing of Yuri Orlov, one of the group formed in 1 976 to promote observance in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the Helsinki Agreement following the 1 975 signing of the Helsinki Declaration by Mr Brezhnev.

One of the co-founders of the Helsinki group in the USSR, Ludmila Alexeyeva, in the paper The Orlov Defence ‘ stated:

From the beginning the Soviet authorities knew exactly what we were doing. On 13 May 1976 Orlov was interrogated by the KGB about the formation of the group. He was told that no one could doubt that the Soviet Union was sincere about the implementation of the Helsinki Declaration and he was warned that the formation of the group was unconstitutional. Orlov rejected this warning and stated that it was absurd to suggest that a group designed to promote the undoubted policy of the Soviet Government would be unconstitutional.

It is now well known in every democratic country that the Russian authorities saw fit to sentence Orlov to the maximum penalty for his so-called unconstitutional behaviour. The sub-committee on human rights in the Soviet Union will shortly prepare a report on the subject of human rights in the USSR. I respectfully suggest that every member of this House should read that report thoroughly.

The Ukranian Dr Leonid Pluysh appeared before the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and gave evidence publicly. Honourable members will recall that Dr Pluysh was a leading mathematician who was arrested for his human rights activities and for his efforts imprisoned for approximately four years in a psychiatric institution. I refer honourable members to that part of the evidence which will be published in the report of the Committee. Another example of the actions of parliamentarians is the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I refer honourable members to the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Council in a number of cases. Because of the time factor, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document dealing with one such case, the case of John Marie Seroney of Kenya, as an example of the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in this area.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Case No. KEN/0 1 -JOHN MARIE SERONEY-KENYA

Sources of communication:

Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists, International Association of Democratic Lawyers

b ) Outline of the case:

It emerges from the evidence that Deputy John Marie Seroney, Vice-Speaker of the Parliament, was arrested on15 October 1975, in the precincts of Parliament. He has been detained since then without charges and without having been brought before a court, under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Act. On 9 October, while presiding over a sitting of Parliament, he refused to call Deputy Martin Shikuku to order since he considered that the latter was stating only obvious facts.

Previous treatment:

This case, which the Special Committee examined at its first session (February 1977), was the subject of a report to the 120th and 121st sessions of the Inter-Parliamentary Council and of unanimous resolutions by it.

At its 121st session, the Council unanimously approved the affiliation to the Union of the Kenyan InterParliamentary Group. In the resolution it then adopted concerning Deputy Seroney, the Inter-Parliamentary Council urged ‘the Kenyan authorities not to delay the release of Deputy John Marie Seroney any longer’.

Report on the implementation of the resolution adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 12 1st session:

The Secretary General has contacted on various occasions

the President of the Kenyan Inter-Parliamentary Group,

the Minister of Foreign Affairs and (iii) the AttorneyGeneral of Kenya, and has transmitted to them the report of the Special Committee and the resolution of the Council.

Reply of the Kenyan authorities:

By letter dated 9 January 1978, and entitled ‘Human Rights of Parliamentarians’, the President of the Kenyan Group informed the Secretary General that discussions had been started between the Group and the authorities, and that he would keep him informed in due time of the progress made. When this report was issued, no such information had reached the Secretariat.

f) Decision of the Special Committee:

The Special Committee,

Recalling the contents of its two previous reports to the Inter-Parliamentary Council on the case of Deputy John Marie Seroney,

Referring to the resolutions adopted on this case by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 120th session (15 April 1 977 ) and at its 1 2 1 st session ( 30 September 1 977),

Referring to the provisions of Chapter V of the Constitution of Kenya relating to the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and particularly Article 83 thereof which sets limits to derogations which may be brought into operation under the Preservation of Public Security Act; Section 3 of the Kenya National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act; the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Kenya on 1 May 1972), and the provisions of Articles 9, 11(1) and 1 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Convinced of the arbitrary nature of the detention of Deputy John Marie Seroney in view of the above provisions,

Considering that the Kenyan parliamentary, governmental and judicial authorities have not responded to the request for release made by the Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Recommends the Inter-Parliamentary Council to:

Urge the Kenyan authorities to release Deputy John Marie Seroney at the earliest possible date;

State its firm belief that the Kenyan Parliament, as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, will use its best endeavours to secure the release of Deputy Seroney.

Mr SIMON:

– We in Australia can play a much greater role than we have in the past in ensuring that more nations subscribe to and practice human rights. Until we take a much more active role as a nation and as individuals, through organisations like Amnesty International, we cannot really claim standing in the world as a country fully committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its covenants.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance. I endorse the words of Robert Shelton which appeared in the Saturday Review. He stated:

Most amazingly, the ninety countries known to hold political prisoners run across all sociopolitical lines. There is nearly as much use for the jailer of ideas in the ‘ free world ‘ as there is in the Communist Bloc. The supposedly idealistic emergent group of Third World nations is not only not immune to the jailing fever but also is in fact heavily into the business of locking up dissenters. In many such nations, to paraphrase the German military theoretician Karl von Clausewitz, the imprisonment of dissenters is simply the continuation of state policy by other means.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard charts, ranked by nation, showing a comparative survey of freedom and giving details of political rights and civil liberties published by Freedom House in the United States.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Notes to the Table 1 The scales use the numbers 1-7, with 1 comparatively offering the highest level of political or civil rights, and 7 the lowest. A plus or minus following a rating indicates an improvement or decline in the rating since the last survey. A rating marked with a period (o) has been changed since the last survey due to revaluation by the author. This does not imply any change in the country. For further information on the scale and survey see Freedom at Issue, January-February 1973, p. 2ff. 2 A free state is designated by F, a partly free state by PF, and a not free state by NF. 3 A positive outlook for freedom is indicated by a plus sign, a negative outlook, by a minus, and relative stability of ratings by a zero. The outlook for freedom is based on the problems the country is facing, the way the government and people are reacting to these problems, and the longer run political traditions of the society. A judgment of outlook may also reflect an imminent change, such as the expected adoption of a meaningful new constitution. 4 Formerly the French Territory of the Afars and Issas. 5 Formerly Cambodia.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I want to talk in particular about the Bhutto trial because I believe that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, currently under sentence of death in Pakistan for conspiracy to murder, must be regarded as the outstanding single case of a political prisoner in the world today. He is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and of Oxford University, is a barrister, Foreign Minister of Pakistan from 1963 to 1966, founder of the Pakistan People’s Party and a democratic socialist who said that his policies were ‘along the lines of the British Labour Party and Willy Brandt’. After being imprisoned in 1968-69 under the military regime of Field Marshal Ayub Kahn, Bhutto’s party won the elections of 1970. After East Pakistan rose in insurrection with Indian support and was recognised as independent Bangladesh in December 1971, the Pakistani Military Government fell. Bhutto became President of a reconstituted Pakistan from 1971 to 1973 and later held the position of Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977. In 1977 he won another general election which his opponents claimed was rigged and in July 1977 a bloodless army coup overthrew the Bhutto Government.

Early in 1 978 Bhutto and four others were sentenced to death in Lahore by a full bench of five judges. Bhutto and two others were condemned for conspiracy to murder and two others for murder. The allegation was that Bhutto had arranged to assassinate Ahmed Raza Kasuri, an Opposition member of Parliament, culminating in a machine gun attack on his car in Lahore on the night of 10 November 1 974 by two members of the Federal Security Force, a trigger-happy para-military group. The intended victim escaped unhurt but his father, Nawab Mohammed Ahmed Khan, died of his wounds. A document entitled ‘Summary of Judgment in Murder Trial State v. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and others’ published by the Government of Pakistan sets out an account of the trial. It makes disquieting reading. The prosecution seems to have thrown out a very wide net, as is generally the case in conspiracy charges, with the result that two of the seven originally accused, both members of the Federal Security Force, turned State’s evidence in order to incriminate the others.

The document sets out a series of somewhat unconvincing propositions, of which this seems a fair summary.

  1. Ahmed Raza Kasuri was a strong political opponent of Bhutto.
  2. Bhutto expressed extreme irritation at his opposition and denounced him in Parliament, although the reported words, ‘I have had enough of you’ and ‘Absolute poison; I will not tolerate your nuisance’, would not have seemed very remarkable even if used in this Parliament.
  3. Bhutto was in a powerful position to exert influence over the Federal Security Force.
  4. The attempt on Ahmed Raza Kasuri was by members of the Federal Security Force.
  5. Bhutto was extremely critical of the court proceedings during his trial.

He accused the judges of bias, protested that the trial was held in camera and after the withdrawal of his counsel ‘since he had other professional business to attend to at Sargodha ‘-one can only wonder what it was- denounced the conduct of the court and refused to defend himself. The judges, fearlessly rejecting the adage that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause, took the view that the trial was exemplary; that his actions proved that Bhutto was a liar, confirmed his guilt and invalidated his defence.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard sections 23,31,32 and 33 of the Lahore High Court Summary of Judgment which illustrate the points I have made.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. The account of motive was furnished by overwhelming evidence given by the son of the murdered man and Masud Mahmood, the approver, and the same was corroborated by the documentary evidence. The motive of the crime was to eliminate Ahmad Raza Kasuri who had become a strong and virulent critic of the principal accused and whose political attitude and activities offered provocation to him day in and day out. This fact was corroborated by documentary evidence placed on record consisting of official debates and speeches in the National Assembly. In the National Assembly, Ahmad Raza Kasuri queried why the Members from East Pakistan were not present and then himself furnished the answer that they were not present because the leader of the minority party had decided to overthrow the majority party. He used such epithets about the principal accused as a leader obsessed with power, a leader who destroyed this country for the sake of power. He said that ‘it was that leader who on 14 February, 1971, in Peshawar said that the PPP would not be attending the forthcoming sessions of the National Assembly’ because they would be treated as double hostages’. He continued that ‘again, the same leader on 28 February, 1971, in Lahore, said that whosoever would go to Dacca, his legs would be broken and whosoever would be going to Dacca, he would be going on a single fare’. He also referred to the speech of the principal accused, made on 14.3.71, in which he had demanded separate transfer of power in West Pakistan after he had failed to secure an agreement from Sh. Mujibur Rehman on his plan of sharing power. He also criticised the concept of equating the stability of the country with a strong centre and denned ‘strong centre’ as meaning ‘self-centres’. He referred to the principal accused as Machiavelli and stated how Hitler became a dictator through a ‘terrorised Parliament’ and compared the conditions of the country to the conditions in Hitler’s Germany. He said that witch-hunting was going on in Pakistan similar to the witch-hunting which took place after the burning of the German Parliament. Bhutto’s victims were Ch. Zahur Elahi and Madam Tufail Mohammad. It was also clear from the official reports of the debates of the National Assembly (Ex. PW 1/8) that while dealing with the fundamental rights and guaranteeing protection and privacy of home, the complainant stated that: … our telephones were tapped. Our talk was checked. We were being chased by the CID Agencies, and in this particular Assembly in the lobbies and in the Cafeteria are less visitors, more CID people. Now is this right of privacy being given to us?’. He also remarked that the regime was talking of Roti (bread), Kapra (clothing) and Makan (Housing) and although the Country’s economy was virtually in shambles and the country was dying of poverty, Jashans (celebrations) were being held in Larkana and Bahawalpur. He further remarked that a dishonest man had become a Prime Minister in this country. Surely under these powers, he can ruin the country and can become virtually a ‘civilian dictator’. At another place, he said that the principal accused had become the strongest Dictator in the world and would be so powerful that he would not go out of the House as a living person. In this context of the attitude and the behaviour of P. W. 1 , an episode took place in the National Assembly on 3.6.1974. The principal accused remarked ‘You keep quiet’. ‘I have had enough of you; absolute poison’. T will not tolerate your nuisance ‘. These remarks followd an exchange of hot words. The principal accused once again said ‘I have had enough of this man. What does he think of himself?’
  2. Dealing with the role of Mr Bhutto, the principal accused, the Full Bench remarked that the principal accused is the arch culprit having the motive in the matter. He has used the members of the Federal Security Force for personal vendetta and for satisfaction of an urge in him to avenge himself upon a person whom he considered his enemy. For his own personal ends, he has turned those persons into criminals and hired assassins and thus corrupted them. Indeed, it is paradoxical that the ruler of a country, with Islam constitutionally declared as its State religion, enabling the Muslims to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah as its declared objective, and guaranteeing to the citizens their life and liberty, should play with the valuable life of a citizen so whimsically and tyrannically. The constitutional provisions presuppose that before a person ventures to seek election to the office of the Chief Executive of the Federation, he would order his own life in accordance with the law, injunctions and teachings of Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Before undertaking to observe the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, he should inculcate these qualities in himself. Before a person embarks upon swearing to strive to preserve the Islamic ideology he should bring himself to believe in that ideology and test his firmness in that belief. Before presuming his ability to guarantee to the citizens the enjoyment of the protection of the law and their treatment in accordance with law, he should be a believer and a true adherent of law. He should consider himself to be as much subject to law as he would wish others to be. A person who considers the Constitution and the law as the handmaid of his polity is neither qualified to be elected to the high office of the Prime Minister nor can ever be true to his oath.
  3. The Bench also dealt with the conduct of the principal accused in the course of the trial. The Bench observed that he had been hurling threats as well as insults on the Judges and, at times, had been unruly. In addition, he had proved himself to be a compulsive liar. He was allowed thrice to dictate his statement directly to the typist and he dictated nine pages on -25.1.1978, more than eleven pages on 28.1.1978 and about eleven pages again on 7.2. 1 978 without the least interference by the Court. All the three statements are full of repetition of false and scurrilous allegations against the Court. The first two statements were made, although they were absolutely irrelevant in answer to questions under Section 342, and the last statement was allowed to be dictated after the close of the defence evidence when all legal avenues for the making of such statement before the Court were legally closed and yet he came out with allegations that the statements were not fully recorded. Out of the five accused, the Bench remarked that he is the only person who had been levelling all sorts of imaginary and false allegations against the Court.
  4. The Full Bench found all the five accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The Court sentenced all the five accused persons under Section 120-B PPC read with Section 1 1 S PPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each. The Court also sentenced Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mian Mohammad Abbas and Ghulam Mustafa, accused under Section 302 PPC read with Section 301, 109 and 1 1 1 PPC to death. The Court also sentenced Arshad Iqbal and Rana Iftikhar Ahmad, accused under Section 302 PPC read with Section 301 PPC and Section 34 PPC to death. The Court ordered that all the five accused shall be hanged by the neck till they are dead. The Court further sentenced Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mian Mohammad Abbas and Ghulam Mustafa, accused under Section 307 PPC read with Section 109 PPC. to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each. The Court sentenced Arshad Iqbal and Rana Iftikhar Ahmad under Section 307 PPC read with Section 34 PPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A Cr. P.C. or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The compensation amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the heirs of Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan, deceased. The sentences of imprisonment under each head shall be concurrent and these sentences, as also the sentence to be undergone in default, shall be effective in case the sentence of death was commuted. The Court informed the convicted offenders that they could appeal to Supreme Court against their sentence within 7 days of the announcement of their judgment.
Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. It is not a convincing document. No direct evidence whatsoever is published in the report linking Bhutto with the murder. This gives rise to the presumption that Bhutto’s trial, conviction and death sentence are the carrying out of an essentially political sanction, rather than a normal civilian criminal trial. I hope that the President of Pakistan will exercise both judgment and mercy and commute the death sentence on Z. A. Bhutto. I hope that all honourable members share this view and that the Australian Government will pass on these views to the Government of Pakistan

I do not believe in human infallibility- my own or anybody else’s. However, a reading of history shows how often actions which can seem completely justified at one time may seem hollow and irrational in hindsight. I have little doubt that Mr Bhutto did terrible things, as do all politicians with supreme power. I am not here to condemn him or to condone what he has done. But we should all give pause to the way in which essentially political judgments are carried into execution. Australia is in no position to take a self-righteous posture on the subject of human rights. It is less than six years since young Australians were serving sentences of two years in gaol for matters of conscience while others who protested on a matter of conscience- the Vietnam War- had their civil liberties interfered with. Since my friend the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) made some reference to the Noel Latham case, it is worth pointing out that that case began when one man was sacked by Latham without any right of redress. When we examine Latham’s case, we should look also at the case of the man who was sacked.

The position of civil liberties has improved somewhat in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and most eastern European states in recent years but there are some disturbing examples to the contrary. The recent trial of Yuri Orlov and the sentence imposed on him have damaged the Soviet Union because it appears that Orlov has been tried for the holding and disseminating of unpopular opinions, something with which we in the Australian Labor Party are all too familiar. Similarly, the long harassment of

Dr Andrei Sakharov, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a man of very great eminence and notable moderation, has caused harm to the USSR, as has the compulsory detention in psychiatric institutions of political dissidents. The greatest danger to human rights in our quarter of the globe is unquestionably in Indonesia. It is estimated that the total number of TAPOL- that is a contraction of Tahanan politik: political prisoners- in Indonesia is somewhere between 55,000 and 100,000. 1 draw the attention of the House to a report given to the United States Congressional Committee on International Relations by representatives of Amnesty International in which the following evidence was given.

Amnesty International estimates that there are more than 53,000 political prisoners in Indonesia and that, in fact, a more accurate total is probably 100,000. They were arrested after an attempted coup in 1965, when a number of middleranking army officers tried to destroy the leadership of the Indonesian Army and assassinated six senior army generals.

Amnesty International found that only 800 of these people had undergone any form of trial. The report continued:

The Indonesian Government has given up long ago trying to establish before the courts that the tens of thousands of untried prisoners were in any way personally involved in the attempted coup of 1965. In the eyes of the Government their only offence was that they were once members of a trade union, a peasant association, a cultural association, or of some organisation which was operating legally during the period of the Sukarno administration and which was subsequently proscribed by the administration of President Suharto because it was regarded as Communist or left wing.

The majority of these prisoners have never been members of the Indonesian Communist Party, This fact has been readily conceded in private conversations with Amnesty International by leading Indonesian officials. Even regarding those who have been members of the Indonesian Communist Party, it is now clear that the Government has no intention of establishing in the courts that they were personally involved in the attempted coup.

Honourable members will recall that in January 1975 Amnesty International sent a distinguished Australian deputation under the leadership of Mr R. E. McGarvie, Q.C., who is now Mr Justice McGarvie of the Victorian Supreme Court. The deputation came back with a very disquieting report. Other countries are similarly involved. The situation in Chile, Uruguay, South Africa, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Cuba and Kampuchea also gives rise to very grave concern.

This is a problem that ought to affect all people irrespective of political persuasion. It is a human question which affects us all. I quote one more example. Very recently Amnesty International has been organising a world-wide campaign for the release of 15 young Argentinians seized in Buenos Aires over Easter. The 15 people include three doctors, a teacher, a metal worker, two building workers, a carpenter and two maids. They have not been seen or heard of since their sudden arrest by Argentinian authorities. Most of them were arrested on Easter Day as they left San Juste Cathedral in Buenos Aires after attending a special Mass for another political prisoner. One of the doctors- Jorge Eurman- was shot while being arrested at his surgery. The 15 people come from a slum settlement in Buenos Aires, Complejo 1 7, which has been trying to improve its conditions by self-help building projects.

One of the terrible things about these matters affecting human rights is that they remind us that the State can be and often is a destructive force fuelled by a passion for orthodoxy and uniformity. Imprisonment and exile are common forms of political control but they are not exclusive. Conformity can be enforced in other ways such as selective reporting, selective trivialisation of what is reported or total omission of what reasonably ought to be reported. The power of the State is enormous. Not only does it have the power of life and death but it also has the power to confine, to deprive of liberty and to send into exile. It has the power to deprive of the right of fair trial, to suppress and silence fair reporting, to falsify truth by mutilating the historical record, to ridicule or isolate, to deprive of employment or the means of economic support and to deprive of the right of communication.

I often remember the story that was attributed to Mr Gomulka when he was secretary of the Communist Party in Poland. Somebody said to him: ‘Why do you spend so much time improving conditions in the prisons?’ He said: ‘Given the history of past secretaries of the Communist Party in Poland, any man in my position would be extremely unwise not to improve the conditions in the gaols’. That is absolutely right. Perhaps the best thing I can do in conclusion is to remind the House of the words of the English metaphysical poet, John Donne. They will be very familiar words to many honourable members but they deserve to be remembered. They remind us of the universality of our humanity. We cannot destroy, hurt or damage individuals anywhere in the world without destroying the whole cause of humanity. John Donne said:

  1. . No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea. Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were . . . Any man’s death diminishes me. because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)The discussion is concluded.

page 3274

PRESENTATION OF MACE TO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

– I move:

Honourable members will be aware that it is the Government’s intention that responsible selfgovernment be conferred on the Northern Territory from 1 July 1978, as signified in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill and associated legislation which was recently passed by the House. As the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory and its successor, the Legislative Assembly, were created by the Commonwealth Parliament, it is appropriate that a gift should be made by this Parliament to the Legislative Assembly. Following my suggestion, the Presiding Officers have agreed that the gift be in the form of a mace to be presented to the Legislative Assembly by a delegation from this Parliament. A mace brought into use with royal approbation or presented by royal direction is regarded as having great significance. With this in mind this joint address from both houses of the Parliament is commended for consideration by honourable members.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition associates itself with the conferring of self-government on the Northern Territory. The symbolic presentation of a mace is appropriate. I say that in the context of the debate we had in the Parliament as to whether the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will have the desirable democratic autonomy that should be associated with that symbol. In our view the legislation makes the Legislative Assembly a little subservient to administrators and governments generally. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Government. The Opposition joins in wishing the Assembly every support and encouragement in the problems of selfgovernment.

In Australia we are still developing towards our own independence. It is important that we establish reliability and confidence in all segments of our nation. Where communities are striving to benefit the national interest the best way to help them is by delegation of responsibility to them. We hope that the future of the Northern Territory will be one of the great contributions to the national effort. Today’s expression by the Government is worthy of support.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I would very much like to support the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in this motion. In so doing, I mention that on such an historic occasion- the legislation will come into effect on 1 July -I would be remiss if I did not recall the efforts that have been made by Territorians in the past to bring about a semblance of self-government and to achieve a say in their own affairs, which have virtually resulted in the self-government legislation which has passed through this place and I would hope would pass through the Senate this afternoon.

Really, I am on my feet to say how glad I am that this motion has been put to the House- and I hope it will be carried unanimously- and to mention the great stalwarts of the Northern Territory who fought continually, regardless of their party affiliations, for the people of the Northern Territory to have a say in their own affairs. I start with the late Mr Justice Ward, who was a tremendous Territorian. Regardless of all else, he fought for people in the Territory to have a say in their own affairs. His actions transcended his party politics. I do not throw any insult at any of the people on my right–

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Left.

Mr CALDER:

– You are a long way left of me, and thank you for the cue. In this place they are on my right. But please do not treat this matter lightly. Mr Justice Ward was not only a great Labor man in the Northern Territory but also a great Territorian. He fought until his death for this development. In fact he advanced the argument further. He said that there should be virtual statehood- complete self-government. He fought for that cause constantly.

I have mentioned the late Dick Ward. I mention also Ron Withnall, an independent member of the Northern Territory legislature since its inception. He has supported neither one party or the other. He has fought straight down the line for self-government and self-expression for the people of the Northern Territory.

Then there is Dr Letts, who lost his seat at the last Territory election, but who spent a great deal of time fighting for this cause, regardless of the local politics of the situation. I think that is probably why he lost his seat. He spent time seeking to bring self-government into being. Of course I must refer also to the present Majority Leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Everingham. I mention these persons- there are many others who have backed them up- because they are the ones who have fought for recognition of the people of the Northern Territory as an entity, as a collection of people, and not as second class citizens, for that is what happened for many, many years. I am very thrilled to be able to speak to this motion. I hope to be at the presentation of the Mace.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-On one occasion at least I can be on the same side as, and give full support to the remarks of, my colleague from the Northern Territory -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is on your left.

Mr Calder:

– He is on my left and on your left.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has his moments in which he needs correction and even fewer moments when he does not need correction; and this is one of them. I pay a tribute to some other people, one of whom was here when I came to the Parliament, Mr Jock Nelson, who was the member for the Northern Territory, as I understand his father was before him.

Mr Calder:

– Did they actually fight for selfgovernment?

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. Mr Jock Nelson, for instance, put up a long campaign simply to get the right to vote in this House, which was part of our platform for a long while. I am a firm believer in representative government. I wish the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory well in its deliberations and I hope it will carry into those deliberations the principles upon which the parliamentary system is built. We want to remember that it was the parliamentary system, based primarily upon the English system, which created the answerability of Ministers to the representative assembly and which abolished slavery. An Act of the British Parliament did that; and it was one of the great dramatic humanitarian movements of history. The parliamentary system, because of its accessibility, its responsibility and so on, 1 think is the only hope for reasonable government in a troubled world. 1 hope the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory will develop along those lines.

I speak here this afternoon, as I have no doubt honourable members will be surprised to know, as one who has probably had a longer association with the Northern Territory than almost anybody sitting in this House at the moment.

Mr Calder:

– I was up there before you were.

Mr BRYANT:

– I was up there in 1 944 with the Australian Army. I have been going backwards and forwards to the place ever since. Sometimes I have been welcome; sometimes I have not.

Mr Calder:

– I was then overseas, fighting in the war. Do not try to short-change me.

Mr BRYANT:

– I thought you went there after the war.

Mr Calder:

-I went up there in 1939. 1 left to fight the war before you ever went to the Northern Territory.

Mr BRYANT:

– Oh, good. I pay a compliment to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He has had long and distinguished service, sometimes in grievous error and sometimes, as I say, in due process of justice. This is an important occasion. However, I do hope that in setting this path for the Northern Territory we are not creating more troubles inside the Australian constitutional situation. We are a much less effective federation than, say, Canada or even, I think, the United States of America because great areas of conflict have developed between ourselves and the so-called sovereign States. I hope that the honourable member for the Northern Territory will bring some ‘soothing syrup’ to relieve the troubles that are bound to develop between the people of the Northern Territory and the people in Canberra who happen to be responsible for the Government of this country.

So, to reiterate what I had to say, there are people whose names cannot be remembered now but who have carried the Northern Territory forward over all these years. I pay a special tribute to my former colleague, Mr Jock Nelson, who was the member of this House for the Northern Territory for so many years and was an ardent advocate of equality, politically speaking, of the Northern Territory in this place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3276

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Dr Klugman had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude (a) the concept of optional deductibles, (b) the banning of bulk billing arrangements for medical services, other than those provided to eligible pensioners and their dependants and (c) an increase from $2 to $2.30 in the patient contribution for a pharmaceutical item, and be reintroduced immediately to include the other measures ‘.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Last night, I had spoken for less than a minute when the debate was interrupted. As I was saying then, when the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) spoke, he was a bit upset and he implied that them members of the Labor Party did not agree that there should be a subsidy provided in the National Health Amendment Bill for isolated people. I might say that I agree with that provision and the Labor Party agrees that it should be there. I must say, too, that my colleague, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick), has been worried about this matter for the last two or three years. He has had discussions with the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on some taxation reductions. In my electorate of Sydney there are many hospitals, and the honourable member for Riverina has talked to me about the possibility of a reduction for the people who go there from his electorate, and this would apply to people from many other country electorates also. I believe it should be possible for people from the country who are looking after children or close relations who are ill to get some out of pocket expenses. It costs them many thousands of dollars if someone in the house is sick. I congratulate the Minister for introducing that benefit. I think he has done a remarkable job. Later on in my speech I will be attacking other aspects of the Bills, but in fairness to the Minister I thought I should let him know my thoughts on that matter.

I support the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) in opposing the changes in the health scheme. The Opposition has proposed two amendments and last night we spoke against the Bills. The first of the three Bills under discussion is the Hospitals and Health Services Commission (Repeal) Bill which repeals the Commission established in 1 973. The former Chairman of the Commission, Dr Sidney Sax, has taken control of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat which is to coordinate and absorb most of the functions of the Commission and its relationship to the Department of Social Security. We on this side of the House think that Dr Sax is a good man who has done a good job. We think that he will do a good job in the Secretariat and we congratulate him.

The National Health Amendment Bill 1978 proposes four major changes. Firstly, it proposes the introduction of travel and accommodation allowances to residents of isolated areas requiring a professional service by a specialist more than 200 kilometres from the person’s residence. The travel allowance will be the cost of approved travel less a patient contribution of $20, and there is also provision for an overnight accommodation allowance of $15 a night. That is the provision on which I congratulated the Government in my opening remarks. Secondly, the Bill provides that private funds will be prevented horn entering into bulk billing arrangements other than for eligible pensioners and their dependents, that is, those eligible for fringe benefits including the pensioner health benefits card. At present the permissible total income is $77.85 for single pensioners and $ 1 3 1 .80 for a married pensioner couple. The Bill also provides for an increase from $2 to $2.50 in the patient contribution for each pharmaceutical benefit item, and I will be saying more about that later on in my speech. The honourable member for Prospect has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill in the following terms:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude (a) the concept of optional deductibles, (b) the banning of bulk billing arrangements for medical services, other than those provided to eligible pensioners and their dependants and (c) an increase from $2 to $2.30 in the patient contribution for a pharmaceutical item, and be reintroduced immediately to include the other measures’.

The third Bill being dealt with in this cognate debate is the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1978. It is to amend the original Act so as to provide that certain persons- Australian residents overseas and overseas residents in Australia having foreign health cover- will be exempted from the health insurance levy and will be ineligible for benefits. It provides also for the exclusion of certain health screening services from payment of benefits. The Minister will be able to exclude payment of medical benefits in respect of medical services rendered by a person specified in the Gazette, such as Milan Brych, to Australians temporarily overseas where the Minister is satisfied that the person is not a proper person to render such services. Under the Bill, Australian Capital Territory hospitals will be brought under similar cost sharing agreements as those applying in the States. Provision is also made for the rectification of an anomaly which could have enabled doctors attending standard ward patients to charge a fee for service. There will be a reduction of the level of benefits payable under the Act from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the schedule fee and an increase of the maximum gap from $5 to $ 10 a service. This will not apply to fees received for the treatment of eligible pensioners. Bulk billing for Medibank for all except eligible pensioners will be abolished, and I will be saying more about that later. Provision is made for persons covered by optional deductible schemes to be exempted from payment of the levy. The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill in the following terms:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude (a) reduction of the level of benefits from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee, (b) the abolition of bulk billing for all except eligible pensioners and their dependants and (c) the introduction of optional deductible schemes, and be re-introduced immediately to include the other measures’.

I might say, because this is a cognate debate, that for the chronically ill, the poor in our community, the family man and his wife and children, the migrants and the Aboriginals that the changes being made by the Government to the system that has operated for the last 18 months or two years represents a retrograde step and will save only approximately 1.5 per cent of total medical costs. The Minister has been told by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to make these savings because of the Budget deficit. We all know that this is the fore-runner of a black* Budget in August. I have always had respect for the Minister for Health, but I think that this is a case where he did not have the numbers in Cabinet. I put a case to the Minister in relation to domiciliary nusring care for a couple of elderly people, one of whom was 85 and the other 89. We discussed the matter and the Minister agreed that if it were possible he would do something about old people and their dependants. In the case to which I referred there were two daughters looking after the women. I am pleased to say that the Act is being changed to give everyone of 1 6 years of age and over an opportunity to receive the benefit. Again, I congratulate the Minister for that, but I am very perturbed that he had to take these other steps because I think he is a humane man. However, as 1 have said, he has not got the numbers and he has to do what he is told.

When questioned by the honourable member for Prospect about the injustice to the needy of the proposed scheme relating to the abolition of bulk billing and of the future changes to the national health scheme, the Minister stated that the medical profession would show compassion for individuals in needy circumstances. Under the heading ‘Doctors Charging More’, a report in the Sydney Sun on 25 May 1978 states:

A recent survey by The Sun found that 80 per cent of doctors in all suburbs were charging above the Government recommended fees.

On the average, doctors in the northern suburbs charged the highest at $9.70, but some as high as $ 1 1 .

The doctors’ fees were even higher than those recommended by the Australian Medical Association which was $9.40 for a standard visit to a general practitioner.

Doctors in the inner city areas were found to be charging the lowest average at $8.60.

However, the lowest consultation fee was charged by a western suburbs doctor at $6.50.

The survey also found that 50 per cent of doctors ignored the recommended fee of $14 and AMA’s own recommendation of $13.20.

We found one doctor in the southern suburbs was charging $30 for a visit- $16.80 more than the AMA’s recommended fee.

The AMA said that doctors were not obliged to charge the scheduled fees set down by Mr Justice Ludeke, which were mainly for the benefits of funds to set their refunds.

The AMA claimed today low income groups and the chronically ill faced hardship following yesterday’s changes to Medibank.

Large families would also be adversely affected, the AMA warned.

The Association’s general secretary, Dr George Repin, said the changes could also increase health costs in the long run.

The Minister believes that the medical profession will accept a reduction in profits as a result of reducing the benefit from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the fee charged. I have outlined a survey conducted by one newspaper, and there are many other examples around New South Wales, which indicates that 80 per cent of doctors in all the suburbs around the electorate of Sydney are charging above the recommended fee. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) said when the Minister was discussing the proposed charges, the Minister believes in fairy tales. There is now to be no bulk billing except for pensioners and their families because some doctors have made great financial gains from bulk billing, thus interfering with the system. But the Minister cannot name those doctors. I ask the Minister, who is in the House at the moment, to bring the matter out into the open. If doctors are interfering with the system and fraudulently taking the Commonwealth Government’s money, I think we should name them. The Minister has agreed to give the people of Australia a fair go. The people who are listening to this debate today should write to him telling him which doctors are not carrying out their jobs and which doctors are not agreeing to bulk bill.

In many instances throughout New South Wales- it must be so in all States- signs are displayed in doctors’ reception rooms which state, in effect, that a patient who has no money will not be looked after. I know many people who do not have ready cash to pay doctors’ fees. I remember what happened one Saturday when one of my first three children had influenza. I rang a doctor and he said that he would call in to see the child later. When he did not arrive I rang him at his home. He had forgotten about me. He said that he had had to go out. He is entitled to go out just as politicians are entitled to go out. He came to my place at approximately 8.15 that night. By then my three children were sick and he asked for fees for treating the three of them. I will never forget that. In those days, before decimal currency, I had to pay approximately £1 1 to the doctor and the prescriptions cost £3 10s. to fill. Luckily I was able to borrow £20 from my mother and father the next day. But many people do not have ready cash and many people cannot get credit. I wish that in those days I had as much credit as I have now. As members of parliament we are given credit because, I suppose, we will receive superannuation when we retire. Credit is usually available to most people at the wrong time. Will we be allowed to use our Bankcards to pay doctors’ accounts? Will we be allowed to use other credit cards? The way things are going, I think the goose that lays the golden egg has been worked too hard. I think the people will reject any further approaches by doctors for increases in fees.

The AMA must be one of the strongest unions in Australia if not the world. If a deputation from the trade union movement asks for wage justice the National Country Party and the Liberal Party say a few words about what is going on and claim that the unions are breaking the country, but they do not stand up to the AMA. The AMA must have the greatest lobbyists of all.

Mr Bryant:

– They are crook.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would not say that they are crook because I do not know about that. Some crf my friends are doctors and they are remarkable people; they worry about the little people and the people who are sick. Some 600 students in New South Wales who completed their Higher School Certificate last year undertook medicine at university. I think it costs approximately $40,000 to $50,000 to put a medical student through university, but when he graduates he seems to forget where he came from. There will come a time when doctors will pay dearly for this because I think the people of Australia will reject their demands. At the conference of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party at the Sydney Town Hall last Saturday the Leader of the Australian Labor Party (Mr Hayden) stated:

The Government is determined to cling to its view that living standards must be cut, that those in need should be abandoned in even greater numbers.

The Government is forcing the union movement towards confrontation with its policy that real wages must be reduced and wage rates compressed further.

It continues to hack away at Medibank, a Labor innovation which removed the fear of sickness from countless thousands of Australians.

Let me say this plainly; Labor will restore Medibank.

It remains one of our highest priorities.

Consistent with responsible handling of the economy, the restoration of Medibank as a universal protection for all Australians will be achieved as quickly as we can manage it.

It is a commitment we will not back away from.

At the conference of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, said:

Health care will undoubtedly be a key issue once again at the next election. It is a matter deserving close attention before the next Federal Conference.

Certainly, this Government has reduced Medibank to a confused mess. Remember Malcolm Fraser’s pledge in his 1975 policy speech?

We will maintain Medibank and ensure that the standard of health care does not decline. ‘

In half a year he tried to kill Medibank!

Two weeks ago the Government took its latest step to maintain’ Medibank and health care. It abolished bulk billing, thereby disadvantaging the unemployed, the low income family, the person on sickness or special benefits, the supporting mother and many pensioners. A total of 676,000 people on social service benefits can now expect to have to pay cash in advance when they visit their doctor.

Not only that, they will have to pay up to a dollar more per consultation.

The abolition of bulk billing and the reduction of rebate from 85 per cent to 75 per cent will have the effect of placing community health centres without salaried doctors in an almost untenable position to provide effective primary health care.

By 1980, the National Health Scheme will again be in tattersas it was before Labor was elected to Government on the promise of Medibank in 1972.

Health care goes well beyond health insurance. But guaranteeing that doctors will have no bad debts does not necessarily mean proper care for the sick. Labor’s program of community health services was a highly effective one where we were able to implement it. This Government has done little to expand that service. It is a course of action a future Labor Government could apply vigorously.

What effect will the cost changes in regard to health insurance have on Aborigines? Many Aborigines live in the electorate of the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition- that is, KingsfordSmith and in my electorate of Sydney. An article from the Sydney Morning Herald entitled Health services for Aborigines fear effects of cost changes ‘states:

A deputation from the services told the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, on Tuesday that abolition of bulk billing, reduction of the benefit rate from 85 to 75 per cent of scheduled fees, and increased charges for medicines would have serious effects on Aboriginal health and the operation of the services.

I am pleased to say that the Minister has stated that he will examine the effect on Aborigines of cost changes. The new changes are likely to cost the Aboriginal Medical Service at Redfern most of the $100,000 it expects to raise from medical fees in 1978-79. It could be in trouble with regard to keeping its services going. I know it is doing a remarkable job in that locality. I am pleased to say that the Minister is willing to allow it to continue bulk billing until he makes a decision.

Mr Hunt:

– Until we have made alternative satisfactory arrangements.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Until he has made alternative satisfactory arrangements. The national cost of health care is $7,000m and the Commonwealth’s share of the bill is $3,000m. This change to the scheme will mean a cost saving to the Government in a full year of $24m. The Government did not worry about the cost of the VIP aeroplanes it decided to purchase.

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– r think this debate on health care costs reflects the contradictory attitude of the community generally and the general nature of the debate that is taking place in the community. Some people are saying that they are opposed to the increasing percentage of the gross domestic product, or their incomes, being devoted to paying for the escalating health care costs. Before I go on to the contradictory part of their beliefs, I want to acknowledge the success that the present Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has achieved through the Medibank Mark

II arrangements of October 1976. For the first time in several years of continuing inflation he has been able to slow down the rate of increase. That is no mean achievement. Some people are saying that we can not afford to devote an increased percentage of our income, national or individual, to health care costs, and something must be done about it, but when the Government does something about it the Government is roundly condemned for doing it. That is the impossible contradictory situation that I believe any Minister for Health would have to face at present.

I believe also that, if the Australian Labor Party was still in office, by now it would have introduced modifications to the original Medibank concept because of the escalating cost factor built into it. One can look for supporting evidence of that in the very cautious statements made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in which he stopped short of saying that the Labor Party would automatically and immediately re-introduce Medibank as it was known. So when one listens to the criticisms made by the Labor Opposition one can speculate with some interest as to what it would have done had it still been in government.

I commend the Minister on the result of the review that the Government and the Cabinet have undertaken with Medibank. For some time there were all sorts of wild assertions and rumours about the Parliament that there were to be massive transfers of health care costs from the government sector to the private sector, to the patient. This has not occurred. I think that the Opposition is rather disappointed about all this because it has stolen its thunder and the extravagant claims that it was making have failed to materialise. I believe that the Minister has achieved a good balance between long and short term modifications. He has made it quite plain that before any more significant alterations can be made to Medibank the Government will have to have more information on which to base its decisions. I want to quote from a ministerial statement made in May entitled ‘Health Care Costs Control Program’ in which the Minister for Health stated:

Accordingly the Government has decided to seek the authority to obtain and analyse information from and about the health insurance system in greater depth. As well, a number of specific pilot surveys covering usage and costs of health services in individual areas will be undertaken. This action, together with a basic review now under way on the health data available for policy evaluation, will provide the Government with a more accurate information base which is an important requirement of a continuing review.

Until an improved data base becomes available the Government believes that it would be premature to proceed further with the consideration of major adjustments to the health insurance system.

I believe that is a most important recognition. So many of the decisions that have been made by both forms of government in this House have been based on less than adequate knowledge. I think the longer term proposals announced by the Minister are really more significant than the short term ones and that they will be more significant and important in cost containment. I think they have been overlooked so far in this debate. The Minister mentioned in that statement that he will be discussing with the Health Ministers of the States various ways of better controlling costs in hospitals. It is in hospitals that the major cost of our health care system lies. He talked of a more accurate classification of beds and patients- I want to return to that subject later- and of proceeding on an accelerated basis with the accreditation of hospitals.

Over 12 months ago he laid a challenge before the Australian Medical Association to do something about peer review in the medical system. My understanding of the recent AMA Congress in Sydney is that the AMA has accepted that challenge and will on a self-regulatory basis introduce a peer review system. That is a tremendous breakthrough in the containment of costs and, I believe, the more accurate quality control systems in this country at doctor level. I believe that this breakthrough is a credit to the Minister and to the AMA. However, I believe that if there is a failing by the profession to carry out this undertaking a government of either political persuasion will be forced to do what those doctors fail to do.

The discussion paper on health care by Dr Sax forms the basis for the Government’s review and the amendments which are now before us and I believe that the decisions made by the Government largely follow the recommendations of that document. In the medical area and in relation to the major decision which has been announced and which we are debating, the 75 per cent to 85 per cent rebate level, the question of identifying health care costs at the patient level is stated clearly by Dr Sax as an important issue. We are criticised for increasing this gap but we have to look only as far as New Zealand to see in that country- a country where some of us may think there is a greater degree of socialised medicine, of an egalitarian approach to health care- a far greater patient contribution gap for ordinary medical services. That fact is either not known or is conveniently overlooked by those who contradict us at this time. The Minister in one of his Press statements summarised what he hopes to achieve by these changes. He said they were designed to:

  1. . encourage responsible use of one of the best health services in the world; ensure that overuse and abuse were reduced to a minimum; obtain the best value for taxpayers’ dollars spent on health care: and to promote competition and innovation in private health insurance.

I note that another aspect of medical payments, the doubling of the patient gap from $5 to $ 10, is not referred to in the amendments proposed by the Labor Party. In other words, the Labor Party agrees with doubling the gap from $5 to $10. Logically, if it did not agree it would have included that point in its amendments. So it should agree. If one compares the average wage at the time that the $5 gap was introduced some eight or nine years ago with the average wage now one will find that $5 at that time was probably a higher percentage of average weekly earnings than $ 10 is now. The first of the two exceptions to which I referred in relation to Dr Sax is the provision of optional deductibles. I do not believe that he is necessarily opposed to that but he certainly is opposed to the provision of front-end deductibles. The private health insurance companies and the AMA are also opposed to, and I must confess that I am concerned about, the provision of front-end deductibles. However, I am reassured by the Minister that he has specific criteria which will have to be followed by the health funds before any approval is given for a front-end deductible scheme. That gives me some reassurance.

One curious and I believe damaging aspect of the Labor Party’s proposed amendment is the statement that it would not allow optional deductibles. It means they would effectively prevent those people in our community who do not believe in the payment of medical benefits for the termination of pregnancy from being given the freedom of choice to opt out of it or to gain membership of a scheme that gives them that option, which I believe they have every right to expect. I wonder whether the Labor Party Caucus has really discussed that point and whether it is aware of all the implications. I would be interested to know whether such people as Mr Stewart, Mr Keating, Mr Martin or even Mr Les McMahon would be completely in favour of a scheme which prevented a significant percentage of the Australian population from having the freedom and the right to opt out through private health insurance of the payment for a medical benefit or rebate for the termination of pregnancy when they on moral grounds do not believe in it.

Mr Corbett:

– They are entitled to the option.

Mr LLOYD:

– I agree with that. The honourable member for Maranoa is quite correct. In Australia we have a plural society. I believe that it is right for those who do not see the termination of pregnancy in the above terms to have the right to be covered for the termination of pregnancy- abortion. But there is a significant percentage of our population which does not believe in it. I want once again to commend the Minister for providing that freedom of choice, which I believe should be there for those Australian citizens who do not believe in the provision of medical benefits for abortion, to opt out of paying for it. I think that is one of the commendable features of the amendments which have been introduced. I only hope that the Australian population at large will become aware of the attitude taken by the Labor Party in denying that freedom of choice to a very significant percentage of the population which is very upset by the fact that at present it is forced to pay through the private health insurance funds for the termination of pregnancies which it on moral grounds cannot support. I only hope that the electorate will become fully aware of the Labor Party’s attitude.

One other side effect is that the amendments proposed by the Labor Party would actually increase health insurance costs. On a number of occasions I have heard Labor supporters say that costs are increased because of the provision of cosmetic surgery, that that is an automatic payment at present. One of the other benefits that I see of optional deductibles is that such provision would allow funds to put up schedules which do not include cosmetic surgery and hence should reduce the cost of the premiums for those funds. The other exception is in relation to gap insurance where there appears to be a contradiction. Reducing the rebate or increasing the gap from 15 per cent to 25 per cent brings home to the patient to a greater degree the actual cost of health insurance services that he is incurring while at the same time gap insurance is allowed to continue. I must confess that that concerned me also until I was told in fairly blunt terms that there was no legal way by which the Government could completely block the provision of gap insurance. If this involved only health insurance people, perhaps the Government could; but one must consider the whole range of possible insurance arrangements, including State insurance companies which would not necessarily go along with a request from the Commonwealth not to cover gap insurance.

The other curious aspect of the Labor amendment is that members of that Party are against increasing the patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits from $2 to $2.50. 1 well remember 1975 and the Hayden Budget which increased the patient contribution gap from $ 1 to $1.50. That was a 50 per cent increase as opposed to a proposed 25 per cent increase. They were all in favour of a 50 per cent increase- a 50 per cent slug, if you like- on the ordinary person going along to obtain his national health scheme j.r ascription; yet now they are opposed to an increase of half that size.

Mr Corbett:

– Politics; they are playing politics.

Mr LLOYD:

– I agree. That increase was far more significant than this proposed one. Let us look at the increase in the consumer price index in the two gap periods. Between November 1971, when the coalition Government increased the contribution to $1, and September 1975, there was an increase of 48.66 per cent in the consumer price index. So Labor can argue that its increase in the patient contribution more or less matched the increase in the consumer price index. However, the difference between when the patient contribution was last increased and now is 22.9 per cent. This is not taking account of the last quarter so the actual difference would be very close to 25 per cent. It would appear to me that both Labor when in government and we now in government have done virtually identical things. Seemingly it is right to criticise when in opposition things done when in government. According to the amendment that must be the case.

I now move to one of the other great innovations of this series of measures; namely, the isolated patients travel and accommodation allowance. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) covered this completely last night. He spoke from his great experience of the needs of people in isolated areas. I make the point that this has been National Country Party policy for a number of years. The present Minister had it included in the joint government policy for the last election. At last it is a reality. It is the most significant recognition that I can think of to cover one of the many disabilities faced by country people. I emphasise that this is only one of the disabilities country people face with regard to the provision, cost and proximity of services. When one considers some of the complaints made by people in this House and outside about reducing the medical benefits from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the schedule fee, increasing the maximum patient contribution from $5 to $ 10 or increasing from $2 to $2.50 the maximum amount that approved chemists may charge for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit, these are insignificant compared to costs faced by rural people, particularly in isolated areas, for services. I believe the Minister has overcome this disability well. He has done it properly. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and others have acknowledged that rather than do it through the tax system-because that really does not help the people on low incomes- he has done it on a grant basis. To be eligible, a person must be referred for specialist treatment more than 200 kilometres distant. He will pay only the first $20 of the fare and will receive a maximum accommodation allowance of $15 a night. What is significant is that there is provision to pay for the accommodation of a person who is obliged to accompany such a patient. I think in particular of the mother who has to accompany her sick child to a distant city.

There are some other implications for rural health in the Minister’s statement. One concerns long-stay pensioner patients in hospitals. In some cases payments to such patients will no longer bc on a hospital basis- the Medibank basis- but on a nursing home basis. This has particular significance for patients in country hospitals, particularly small country hospitals. The Minister for Health is very much aware of this situation because he has many of these types of hospitals in his own electorate. I ask the Minister to adopt a flexible and cautious approach to this problem. In Victoria this proposal is of particular concern to the Bush Nursing hospitals. We have to ensure that no injustice results to patients because of their transfer to a nursing home category, especially if there is no nursing home bed available within a distance of 150 kilometres. In many cases it will be better to administer this on a patient basis, particularly in very small hospitals, than on a ward basis. Even if it is done flexibly, considerable problems of a financial and managerial nature will be created for many small country hospitals. I know the Minister is very much aware of this aspect and I remind him of the need to keep this uppermost in his mind when he is discussing these matters with the State Health Ministers.

I return to my original point: The community in Australia cannot have it both ways. People cannot on the one hand claim that taxes are too high- that somehow or other the individual should be allowed to retain a bigger disposable income than he has now- and on the other hand criticise health costs to which too high a percentage of the tax dollar is going, especially as health care is a highly paid labour intensive area. People must accept that the Government must respond to the high charges and make changes. I believe that on this occasion the Government has acted moderately. Australia will continue to have one of the best and most accessible health care systems in the world. People will still have a reasonable freedom of choice and the basic universal health care coverage will be retained.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– There are, as members on both side of the House have acknowledged, considerable benefits coming forward in the series of Bills we are debating but, of course, as the Minister has conceded, there are areas of concern too. He has even, I would say, conceded certain concern in similar areas to those at which the Labor Party amendment is directed. I want to analyse some of these areas of concern in the light of the stated aims of the amending legislation. It is said to increase competition and innovation and to deter over-use but, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has admitted, there is not enough data collected to establish to what extent this will be achieved by these measures. In fact, in some respects the reverse may occur. The simplest, example, I suppose, is where there is an increase in the so-called deterrent charge, the gap- the amount paid direct out of the patient’s pocket when he seeks medical care. We have to look carefully at what this extra charge will deter. On the one hand it may deter over-use; on the other hand, it will certainly deter legitimate use by persons of limited means. This was the principal concern not only when Medibank was introduced but also when the system of national health insurance was launched by Sir Earle Page- the very scheme which the Labor Party modified with the introduction of Medibank by making it more universal and more equitable.

The only figures that I have seen referred to an area in Canada where some of these deterrent charges were applied and removed. Assessments were done before and after by a series of doctors practising within the scheme. They were asked to assess in their view what percentage of under use occurred with the imposition of the deterrent charge in the case of people who ought to be going to a doctor and what percentage of over use occurred when the deterrent charge was removed. The average estimate of those doctors was that where a deterrent charge was applied, something like 2Vi per cent under usage occurred. People were deferring or delaying the consultation of a doctor when they really needed to see a doctor. When the deterrent charge was removed, the percentage of over use was estimated at 1 lA per cent.

Let us weigh what that gains the Government. It has gained a four per cent saving of costs by applying a deterrent charge. However, most of that saving is made in respect of people who ought to be receiving treatment and who feel that they cannot afford it or who are trying to save the cost. The long-term costs of this position were not assessed and it is very difficult to assess them. With very little data coming forward now under the modified Medibank- Medibank Mark 2- it will be a lot longer before any data of that kind will be forthcoming so that people can form some assessment whether this deterrent charge really achieves cheaper health care or better health care, or whether it has the reverse effect. The mere acknowledgement by all political parties in this Parliament that the majority of the load of health care costs ought to be carried by the community or ought to be under a scheme of national insurance surely is an acknowledgement that it is far better to run the risk of over use by subsidising the majority of these costs than to run the risk of under use that will occur if they are not subsidised. What percentage of subsidy ought to take place is a matter of judgment and it is the sentiment of the Opposition that the 85 per cent refund of standard fees- not the 75 per cent refund- is far more equitable, far more practicable and, of course, is the only one acceptable to the Australian Medical Association in certain cases.

I pay a brief tribute to Dr Sax, to the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and the people who work with him, not only in the field of national health insurance but also in the fields in which they first entered the federal scene. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission was not concerned with health insurance but with other functions within the Department of Health. It was my privilege as Minister for Health, after appointing that Commission, to work closely with Dr Sax and his colleagues on schemes such as the community health program which has given a new dimension to public health concern and involvement in Australia. Dr Sax’s ability, expertise and great capacity have been acknowledged by his increasing involvement in the field and he has now been appointed to a completely new policy secretariat dealing with health and welfare. Dr Sax left the Republic of South Africa for reasons which will strike a cord of sympathy in many of us. South Africa ‘s loss is Australia ‘s gain.

The subsidy paid in respect of travel and accommodation costs- within 200 kilometres- for people from isolated areas who must travel to see a specialist or to have medical treatment which they cannot receive in their area has been endorsed by the whole Parliament. I pay a tribute again to the Department of Health which, while I was Minister for Health, assisted me to call wide-ranging discussions and conferences on the problems of rural health. The Department produced reports, after I and other Ministers were dismissed from office, on the matters of health transport and rural health. I feel that they contributed greatly to the working out of this formula to assist patients with travel. One belief in the mind of the then Labor Government was that it ought to be doing something along those lines. I commend the present Minister for Health for having done so. Of course, we can all regret that it was not done sooner.

Of course, many other areas of health care have been left uncovered. In the three short years of Labor Government, although we introduced subsidies in areas that had formerly been neglected such as the provision of artificial limbs, renal dialysis, colostomy appliances, hearing aid batteries for pensioners provided without charge and many other services, we were unable to achieve some objectives. But I think that this proposal represents a further step forward. I do not think that it is the last one that can be taken in this direction.

I strongly urge the Minister, when he is negotiating with the States, that he point out that this travel arrangement will take substantial loads off State governments. In my State of Queenslandand I have no doubt in other States- provision is made for free travel on State railways and, where there is a strong enough medical indication, by aeroplane for specialist care for patients who cannot receive that care in their local public hospital. The States ought to have it brought home to them that, if the Federal Government is to pick up the tab to the extent that it is in respect of these travel costs, this action will greatly relieve the State treasuries and that some offset expenditure ought to be forthcoming. If not the whole amount that will be saved, at least some of it should be spent in other areas. Not only would the patient who has to travel to receive treatment benefit by perhaps having a wider range of choice of doctor but also the load removed from the State public health system would be acknowledged by the States so that they could provide other services with the money saved. Perhaps that money could be spent on some of those services that the Labor Government was unable to introduce during the three short years of its administration. I refer to matters such as the provision of splints, surgical footwear and other appliances which are available in a very limited way to patients in public hospitals only in the State scene. If the Federal Government is to step in and take over some of these costs from the States, it is good enough for the States to take over some of the costs that have been borne 100 per cent by patients, other than patients in public hospitals. In fact, many of the services are not available even to patients in public hospitals.

One of the areas of concern that I had when we set up the committee to look at health transport costs was the matter of ambulance transport. I urge the Minister not to delay too long in following up that matter. At the moment, there are two areas of concession only from the Federal Government to the user of an ambulance. They both relate to tax deductions which benefit only the person who is on a high enough income to pay tax. They benefit most those people who have the highest incomes and are taxed the most. There is tax deductibility for outright donations to ambulance services. Contributors to ambulance services receive no credit for that kind of contribution which makes them a member of an ambulance scheme and entitles them to use ambulance services, unless they happen to opt for one of the Medibank extras or one of the optional areas of cover provided by private health funds which are not subsidised by either State or Federal governments. In other words, the only subsidy that is coming from the Federal level in respect of ambulance services is that made by way of tax deduction for voluntary donations. The Queensland Government meets half the cost of ambulance services. It matches on a dollar-for-dollar basis money which is raised privately or from contributors.

I strongly suggest to the Minister that this is an area which does cause hardship, and not only for the people who use the ambulance services. Some of these people are pensioners who are too proud to ask for time to pay or to ask for some concession in respect of an ambulance charge which is many times the cost of a taxi service. Indeed, in many cases this puts great strain and hardship on ambulance committees which have to raise funds by conducting benefit functions, raffles and so on. I believe that the day has arrived when the Federal Government ought to put its shoulder to the wheel and contribute something towards ambulance services.

The funding of chemists was taken up during the Whitlam years. We took up the matter of the inequity of the extra payments given to isolated pharmacies. I think I suggested to my advisers at the time- the Minister might well take up this possibility- that there ought to be some sort of points system whereby a chemist is credited for the hours of service he provides- the hours his shop stays open, his availability after hours, the availability of delivery services to people who are unable to come to the pharmacy, or whatever. I realise that it might be difficult to carry that points system to its logical conclusion.

I think that before very long we will have to ask pharmacies to do some kind of peer review, such as the Minister mentioned with respect to doctors, so that an assessment can be made of the quality of care a chemist is giving, particularly in the area of counselling. If chemists really did what their code of ethics suggest that they should do- in fact in many cases what the statutory provisions state that they should do- I am sure that this would do far more to slash the frightening and dangerous level of drug use and the very costly drug bill of this country than any other single measure. Chemists should make it clear to patients how to use drugs properly, whether prescribed or not. They should explain painstakingly to a patient and make very clear in his mind his responsibility for his health as it relates to his use of drugs, whether prescribed or not.

As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) rightly said, hospital costs are the major cause of escalation in health costs. I want to nail the insinuation which was made by many supporters of the Government that a major proportion of the growth of health costs was due to the introduction of Medibank or due to the Labor Government. Certainly the major percentage of escalation occurred during the time of the Labor Government but let us not run away from the reasons for this. Let us look at those costs. One honourable member on the Government benches interjected to claim that the escalation in health costs was due to wage increases. If there was one sector of the Australian community which was underpaid and overworked for more years and more scandalously than any other sector when Labor came to power it was that of the nurses and nurse trainees. We moved swiftly to overcome this. We introduced equal pay for the sexes. These two factors, more than any other, greatly escalated hospital health costs. We make no apology for that. We think it was a legitimate increase in hospital costs.

There have been other escalations in costs which are still occurring and which will occur increasingly in the future. With new technology we face the rapidly escalating cost of modern medicine. I submit that the main thing which ought to be done about this is not to provide more of the same. We have seen repeatedly in the care of Aborigines, in the care of North American Indians, in the care of groups of people of all ages who are disadvantaged in North America and elsewhere, that the provision of more of the same, when health costs are going through the ceiling due to modern technology, does nothing to improve health. It only improves the incomes of the professionals.

In the Whitlam years we introduced a measure which was a radical departure from this by promoting the community health program and other programs of its kind, such as the school dental scheme, family planning grants and so on. But basically the concept was that we ought to be funding preventive services, early intervention services, shop front and home care domiciliary services by the sorts of teams which usually are available only after entering the doors of the hospital. Physiotherapists and other types of health aids and professional people ought to be out in the community where the general practitioner is. The general practitioner should not be left on his own with nothing but a telephone and a prescription pad to achieve access to the other resources of health care teams. The community itself is the key factor, not the professionals. There ought to be community health care committees and regional administration should be made the responsibility of the representatives of that community. I believe that unless the Government moves more in that direction and less towards fiddling with systems of payment it will do nothing to stop the escalation of health costs.

The matter of abortion charges was raised by the honourable member for Murray. He suggested that the Australian Labor Party would not give people free choice in this respect. We do not object to free choice at all. What we object to is a blank cheque. Nothing in the proposal for deductibles which the Minister has announced spells out whether the proposal will refer to abortions, cosmetic surgery, front end deductibles to which the honourable member for Murray objects- or whatever. It is for that reason that we want the proposed removed, not because we have any specific attitude on the matter of abortion. The honourable member for Murray suggested that if we do not provide that free choice the funds will be forced to charge more. That is wrong. Without abortions the costs will rise.

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

Mr LLOYD (Murray)- I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LLOYD:

– Yes, grieviously, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) alleged in his concluding remarks that I claimed that the costs of health funds would rise because of abortions. I did not say that. I was referring to cosmetic surgery. The point I was making on abortion was that the Australian Labor Party, by moving its blanket amendment which seeks not to allow any optional deductibles- it might or might not have meant to refer only to the front end deductible section of optional deductibles- in effect seeks to prevent freedom of choice for that significant percentage of the population which does not believe in paying for abortions from private health insurance funds.

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

– in reply- In closing the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill I thank honourable members who have participated. Some very interesting points have come forward. It was quite obvious that the Opposition, predictably, supports the attractive aspects of the proposals but opposes those aspects which will impose additional responsibility upon the people who use the services. Some honourable members opposite have said that the proposal to widen the gap- to reduce the benefit to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee- will in fact only hurt the patients and will not really go to the source of the problems. They said that basically doctors are the people who initiate all the services- that they are the ones who make the decisions and who admit people to hospitals.

Perhaps on the surface that might appear to be correct; but I cannot completely agree with the contention because in many instances the doctors, particularly in some of our country areas and in some of our suburbs, will be affected by the reduction of the benefit. Clearly in many cases the doctors will receive only the benefit; they will not receive any cash payment, nor will they receive what is represented by the gap. So to some extent the doctors will be expected to make a contribution and certainly will be taking a reduction in income in certain circumstances. As I have said to the House on other occasions, I would expect the medical profession to treat each case on its merits and where hardship obviously exists one would expect it, on ethical grounds alone, to accept the benefit and not demand cash before service is rendered. I will be continuing to have talks with representatives of the profession. In all my discussions with them I have not had any view put to me that is contrary to that as being their general approach to professional conduct.

Much has been said about the role of doctors as part of the Australian community. A lot of people quite unnecessarily engage in doctor bashing. We know that there are members of the medical profession who abuse the system but we must remember that there are people in any profession who will abuse the system. It would be very unfortunate if we were to adopt the attitude that, because there are certain people in a profession who flagrantly abuse the system, the whole of the profession is bad. I cannot accept that view. I think that the changes that have been made- they are not basic changes; they are changes of degree- will impose additional responsibility on doctors as members of the community. Undoubtedly the medical profession will react to the attempts the Government is making to achieve a more responsible use of resources and services in this country. No government can stand by and see health costs explode at the rate of 225 per cent in a six -year period and not attempt to come to grips with the problems. I do not suggest for one moment that the answers we have provided in these minor modifications are the complete answer to the problem. In fact, no Western country has yet been able satisfactorily to deal with an escalating health cost system. But we are making a valiant attempt.

The changes made by the Government on 1 October 1976 quite clearly have resulted in a greater appreciation of the health cost problem in the community. I believe that they served to expose the health cost problem generally. They made people more mindful of the problem. When most of our health costs were buried in Consolidated Revenue it was very easy to ignore the fact that health costs were rapidly exploding. The only direct effect on the individual was, of course, the effect of rising income tax. By making the changes that we made on 1 October 1976, quite clearly we have exposed the problem to the people. The people can appreciate the problem of health costs. I think this is terribly important from the public’s point of view. I think it is also terribly important from the point of view of the providers of health services. Since that time the Government has had many discussions with State governments. There have been meetings at the ministerial level. There have been numerous meetings at the officer level relating to the operating costs of hospitals. Already there is some indication that the mechanisms we have set up to achieve a budgeting process for meeting half the net operating costs are in fact working. It is clear that both the Commonwealth and State governments have recognised the dilemma and the need to constrain costs where possible without reducing the level of effective services to the Australian community.

Nonetheless, one does not undertake this sort of task without causing some opposition, concern and protest. But this Government is not in the position of being able to let the whole thing go and of witnessing the crowding out of its opportunity to meet expenditure in other very important areas of public concern. There is a great challenge facing this Government and the community. I believe that we are facing up to it. There are those in the community who have said that the proposals do not go far enough. To those people let me say that a complete review is still in process. The Government has attempted to gather as much data and statistics as is available to it. I expect a better profile of statistics to be available to the Government in the next few weeks.

I would like to reply to some of the comments that have been made, particularly in respect of nursing homes. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) sought an understanding from me that the Government would take into consideration the very real concern that exists in the minds of some pensioner patients now in public hospitals and other pensioners who apparently believe that if they are admitted to hospital now they will have to pay out some of their pension. In view of those representations, I feel that it is necessary for me to reiterate the Government’s intentions in relation to the accommodation in hospitals of long term patients who would normally be under nursing homes care if nursing home accommodation were available to them. The first point is that this is not a new policy. Pensioner patients have contributed from their pensions to board and lodging in registered private nursing homes for many years. During the terms of previous Liberal-Country Party governments, a pensioner in a nursing home registered under the National Health Act retained over $6 a week of his or her pension for personal needs. When the Australian Labor Party came to office this amount was reduced to $4.20 a week. Opposition members should face up to that fact when they are referring to this matter. In 1976 the Fraser Government increased the amount of pension retained by the pensioner for personal needs to over $5 a week. Since then the Government has further increased the amount to $7.20 a week. This year the Government went further by indexing the amount the pensioner retains from his or her pension to 12.5 per cent and ensuring that this amount will not fall below $7.20 a week. In State government nursing homes larger amounts are retained by pensioner patients who also generally make contributions to their board and lodging from their pensions. The Government will take these varying amounts into consideration when negotiating with State governments to rationalise the use of expensive hospital facilities.

Some States have shown a disposition to apply the same rules to nursing home patients in State nursing homes as apply in their own State public hospitals. The Government would take that into account also. The present situation has arisen because of a mal-distribution of nursing home beds. Where there are either no nursing homes or special facilities to care for frail aged people, the hospitals have been providing care for such patients. The average public hospital bed occupancy rate throughout Australia is only about 66 per cent. There is therefore little point in building unnecessary additional nursing homes while unused capacity exists within the hospital system. There is general agreement between the State Health Ministers and me that positive action should be taken to regularise this situation by reclassifying the long-term patients in public hospitals whose situation is similar to that of nursing home patients. The need to reclassify such patients has been recognised for some time and has been the subject of discussions at the Australian Health Ministers Conference over the past few years. In addition, the Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm, in its report issued in January 1977, considered the subject and reported that nursing home type patients in public hospitals should contribute to their upkeep in the same way as do patients in nursing homes.

The Government agrees with this proposal as part of its overall policy of reducing the rising costs of hospitals which, as I nave mentioned on previous occasions, are by far the most costly component of health care. That is the first point. This is not a new policy but a move to regularise the situation of nursing home patients who happen to be in public hospitals. It is a recommendation from an expert committee. It has been agreed to in principle by State Ministers from both parties.

I repeat that where it is possible to use excess hospital capacity to care for nursing home type patients it makes good sense to utilise these facilities to care for these people. However, it was neither logical nor equitable for nursing home type patients to be making their patient contributions to board and lodging while similar patients in hospitals were not being classified in a similar category. The principle of patient contribution towards board and lodging in nursing homes is not new in its applicaton to nursing home patients. Therefore, application of the policy within the hospital system cannot be regarded in any sense as a radical departure from the practice of many years standing provided that it is applied with care and consideration of the needs of the aged people, as it will be.

The second point is equally important. In view of the attempts to confuse the whole issue which are regrettable, there is a clear distinction between nursing home type patients to whom I have just referred and other pensioners. I make it quite clear that the proposals I have repeated will not affect pensioner patients who require to enter hospital in the normal way for illness, injury or other treatment. These patients will be treated as normal hospital patients. They will be entitled to receive hospital treatment as long as they require it. They will not be required to contribute part of their pension towards their care and accommodation. I emphasise that the assessment of the patient’s medical condition as reported by the doctor actually treating the patient will determine whether he or she continues to require hospital treatment or is reclassified as a nursing home type patient.

The important point is that the responsibility for deciding whether a patient is to be reclassified as a nursing home type patient will, in the first instance, rest in the hands of the doctor who is treating the patient. At some length I have endeavoured to put the record straight in respect to some of the rumours that have emanated from radio station 3AW in Victoria and have terrified a lot of pensioners throughout the State into believing that if they become ill they will have to contribute their pension to get medical and surgical treatment in a hospital. That is a lot of rubbish. I regret that the person concerned, whose name is Paul Barber, has indulged in a campaign to scare unfortunate people in such a manner.

Mr Bourchier:

– Is he going to retract it?

Mr HUNT:

-I doubt that he will. He is out on a limb on the issue. I have spoken on a talk-back program with him. I have tried to put the record straight. I hope that no pensioner in Victoria or anywhere else will be deluded by scare tactics designed to promote the cause of individual people in the community or for political motivation. I am very sad that so many people have been disturbed by that action.

Dr Klugman:

– This has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr HUNT:

– It has a fair bit to do with the way in which people have acted. Time is getting on. It is obvious that many honourable members want to get home. There are so many other things I could have said. I conclude by saying that if any honourable member has any further questions he wishes to put to me he should not hesitate to come to me but not today.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 62

NOES: 25

Majority……. 37

In division-

AYES

NOES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)There is no point of order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr LES McMAHON (Sydney)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr LLOYD (Murray)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Labor Party who may be concerned that the Labor Party amendment was so worded.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes. As the spokesman for the Labor Party, the implication seems to be that by opposing front-end deductibles we take some stance on abortion. We no more do so than the Government does by preventing people who belong to Medibank from opting out of abortion -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Dr KLUGMAN:

-And I am sure that the Government does not take any -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Unless a member can show where he is personally misrepresented there is no cause for him to make a personal explanation.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This clause is the first of a number of clauses which deal with the introduction of deductibles. 1 will not speak again to the other clauses. I indicate that the Opposition opposes clauses 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15, some of which deal with deductibles. I would quickly like to summarise the Opposition’s argument on the question of deductibles. Before doing so- because during the division there was all this confrontation dealing with one particular aspect of deductibles- 1 would like just quickly to state the Opposition’s point of view.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member is required to address himself to clause 3 exclusively.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Well, clause 3 deals with the definition of deductibles and bringing in with deductibles what are called approved medical benefits plans within the meaning of section 72E of the Act. One of the approvals which the Minister indicated in his second reading speech is likely to appear in the guidelines will be the question of a fund being able to say that it eliminates cosmetic surgery- I have forgotten what the item number is for termination of pregnancy- and so on.

Can I say quite clearly that the Labor Party does not take a postition on this, as I said during the debate, any more than the fact that Medibank will not exclude termination of pregnancy indicates that this Government supports abortion. It could no more be said or I would no more argue that this Government supports abortion because it continues to pay for terminations of pregnancy for those who are covered by the Medibank levy than the Government could argue that we support abortion because we oppose the introduction of deductibles for other people.

As I understand it, one group in particularone medical benefits fund- because a large proportion of its members or, for all I know, all its members have strong conscientious reasons for opposing terminations of pregnancy under all conditions, feels that its members should not have to pay for them. As I understand it, the secretary or manager of that group has said that during the last six years the fund has only paid for three terminations, so it is not a big issue. But I certainly have no objection to a private organisation, a private group, any more than a private club or any other private organisationafter all, one is not forced to belong to it- laying down certain rules saying that terminations of pregnancy should not be paid for. My criticism of the Minister is that, I think in response to a question referring to this particular deductible, he made the point that the medical benefits contributions of the funds should be reduced. With all due respect, the actual cost to the funds is greater if a pregnancy progresses to full term than it would be if it is terminated. I do not know what doctors charge these days for the termination of a pregnancy, but I presume that it is something of the order of $100 or $120. Certainly the charge for a pregnancy and confinement, with six to ten days in hospital, would be about $ 1 76 for the doctor plus the cost of hospitalisation, depending on the category the patient is in. I do not think that this is an important issue, but I make it quite clear that the Opposition does not have a view on it.

Let me deal now with the deductibles- the more important deductibles because they affect many more people- that are being introduced in clause 3. Again, I should like to say that the Government has foreshadowed the introduction of guidelines. I do not believe that those guidelines can be sensible. A paper was presented to the House some two weeks ago which was to be the basis for these changes. On page 69 of the paper, dealing with deductibles, it is stated:

Unfortunately, no information is available to determine exactly what size of deductible within tolerable limits would begin to have an important effect on the demand for medical care.

It is quite obvious that the Government will be working in the dark on this question. The Minister has said that in a few weeks time he will be able to bring in further legislation because he will have more information. 1 will be interested to see what kinds of changes the Government will introduce. Obviously this information is not available at the present time. I understand that, although we have discussed this legislation today, there is provision for this and other clauses to be proclaimed at a later date. Perhaps the information will be available by then.

The main objection of the Opposition to the introduction of deductibles is that persons who are healthy, persons who are relatively well off, youngish people, single people to a large extent, will opt for the deductibles. In addition to obtaining the benefit of a lower contribution rate, if something does go wrong they can claim their actual health expenditure arising from these deductibles as a tax deduction. Persons who continue to belong to the fund and have full cover cannot claim their contribution as a tax deduction. I do not think that is fair because it imposes a further burden on people who are already handicapped- large families, those with sick people in the family, people in the older age groups and the very young age groups who need medical or hospital attention more often. I should have thought that this Government, because it often talks about helping only the very needy, concentrating whatever resources the community can spare by way of taxation on the very needy, would have taken the opposite point of view. If those people who have a lower risk are given the chance to opt out the net result will be that those who have greater risk will have to pay greater contribution rates. That is the only way that insurance companies can operate.

To summarise the position of the Opposition, we feel that discriminating in favour of those who rarely need medical treatment and against those who need it often should not be the purpose of any national health scheme worthy of the name. Whether the Government admits it or not, it is toying with the idea of moving further and further away from the concept of universal health insurance towards a system of partial insurance which will place an unfair financial burden on those most in need of medical care. It is back to the bad old pre-Medibank days when uncertainty reigned supreme, and I think that that is the most important point in our opposition to deductibles. I have indicated that the Opposition opposes this clause, as it opposes the other clauses I have mentioned, but that we will not take the House to division because of the ridiculous method we have of dividing which takes up a lot of rime. However, we indicate our opposition. That should be clearly recorded in Hansard.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-I wish to say a few words on the clause relating to the option this legislation gives to health funds to exclude benefits for abortions from their benefit .tables. This option is certainly a step in the right direction. People who have a strong moral objection to contributing towards abortion benefits through a fund will be able to join a fund which does not pay those benefits. However, my concern about the matter goes further. One believes that abortion is either morally right or morally wrong. I believe that it is morally wrong. In my opinion, abortion is murder, nothing less. I have to make my position on the matter clear. It is that I will seek an early opportunity to bring the abortion issue to a vote in this House.

I realise that this Bill is not the vehicle for an abortion debate. I also realise that we as a Federal Parliament cannot legislate against abortions as such except in the Australian Capital Territory. Such legislation is a matter for the respective State Parliaments. What the Federal Parliament can do is to ensure that no taxpayers’ funds, at least those collected federally, are applied to payment or part payment for abortions. I imagine that there may be problems with private health funds, which are funded 100 per cent by their contributors, in making it illegal for them to pay benefits for abortions from contributors’ funds. The option now available is probably as far as we can go with the private funds. But there is certainly no problem in relation to abortion benefits paid by Medibank as far as this Parliament is concerned. After all, Medibank is the vehicle by which public funds pay for abortions.

Another reason for the necessity for a debate on abortion is the availability of the report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships. That report puts a figure of 60,000 on the number of abortions carried out in Australia each year. That figure implies that millions of dollars are being paid each year by Medibank and the private funds for abortions. The benefits for an abortion and its associated anaesthetics are in excess of $100, or in excess of $6m per annum in total. A significant proportion of that $6m is paid by taxpayers through Medibank for abortions. I am concerned about this situation and I believe that this Parliament ought to debate it, at least in respect of the use of taxpayers’ funds through Medibank. I do not wish to open up the whole abortion debate at this time but I make it clear that I believe the Parliament ought to go a great deal further in the area of antiabortion legislation. As a first step, it should ensure that no public funding of abortions is permitted. I will be seeking an opportunity to raise the question in the House during the Budget session.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-Let me say, first of all, that I wish to congratulate the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) that in arguing the issue of optional deductibles he has argued for the basic principle on grounds primarily of efficiency and cost reduction. Unlike some of his colleagues, he has not sought to pervert the argument about the principles with which we are concerned. The Labor Party, in opposing optional deductibles, is opposing the principle on the grounds that it compromises the equity of our schemes and threatens their universality. If we can maintain the argument at that level, that is the problem both sides face, rather than some of the perversions that have been introduced in the last half hour.

Let me say that the dilemma of front end deductibles is one of how to make them sufficiently attractive to pull people in without at the same time imposing very heavy costs on those who wish to remain in a full cover within a scheme.

The Blue Cross organisations in the United States of America have experimented with a range of optional deductibles in recent years and increasingly they have moved to abandon them because of this dilemma. It is clear from the Minister’s guidelines that he does not want to make optional deductibles too attractive because that would create problems. So there will be limits on how far companies can go with their deductibles. I think it is this basic dilemma that has made many of the private insurers rather unhappy at the moment.

Secondly, deductibles produce a problem of equity. It is quite clear that there are two groups in the community who, on the whole, can take a risk with deductibles. They are the healthy and the wealthy. The healthy can take the risk. They can gamble on maintaining their health and therefore can take a deductible scheme. The wealthy can also take the risk because if something catastrophic happens at least they have considerable resources to meet the payments. On the other hand, the poor and the sick should in a sense be encouraged not to opt for deductibles. There is a danger for the people who are sick or likely to be sick and of course there is a major danger for the poor if they take out a deductible. But if we encourage many people to take up such schemes, universality would be threatened. If deductibles are made attractive and become terribly successful, if they attract both the poor and other people who take risks with illness, universality may have to be compromised. People may be so attracted by the deductible that they take the risk. As Mr Moon from the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia said, these people take a gamble. It is an extremely dangerous gamble because it may leave them in a very severe financial situation.

For these three reasons I think there is a major problem, a major dilemma, for the private insurers. They have to try to work out a scheme which is attractive but does not place too great a burden on them if they desire full cover. Secondly, there is a major threat to equity because the deductible scheme will really attract the healthy and the wealthy, reducing their costs but placing higher costs on the poor and the sick. Thirdly, there is a problem that if the scheme is made particularly attractive it might compromise the universality of health cover in this country. Those are the reasons why we are worried and concerned about optional deductibles. I hope we can maintain the argument about those principles and not in the way in which I think it has been distorted in recent minutes.

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

– I would just like to respond to those speakers who have addressed themselves to the question of deductibles, particularly to the comments of the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) who quite rightly raised the issue of universality and the dangers inherent in developing a front end deductible type system to confer inordinate amounts of personal patient contribution in return for a very substantially reduced premium. The ultimate result of that, if it were carried to absurdity, would be to destroy universality and the community rating principle in health insurance. So quite clearly one has to be very careful not to allow guidelines to be such that they could in fact distort community rating and also the principle of universality of cover. I think the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) yesterday raised the point of what would happen if a health insurance fund offered a $5,000 deductible. He asked how I, as Minister, would react to that proposition. I would plainly consider it to be unacceptable to allow such an example to be within the guidelines. We would be looking to a health insurance organisation maintaining full non-deductible basic tables where it wishes to offer a reasonably attractive optional deductible table.

Dr Klugman:

– They have to offer the full deductible?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, in fact I would be taking the general view that where an organisation wishes to offer a basic optional deductible table, it could continue to offer and operate a full basic table. The only exception to this system would be where the optional table was equivalent to the full basic table with minor exclusion from benefit of a small number of scheduled medical services, or perhaps restricted to a limited category of services. I am referring, of course, to the obvious applications that the Government is likely to receive with respect to certain items. I will certainly be determining these issues and it will not be open season for the health insurance funds to adopt the exorbitant plan that was cited to me as an example.

I shall conclude by saying that most of the debate on the issue of deductibles seems to have revolved around the concept of front end deductibles; yet there are quite a lot of possibilities with respect to rebates and back end deductibles, for the want of a better word. A back end deductible could be considered where, at the end of a financial year, a person could be eligible to receive a rebate if a certain number of services had not been availed of during that year. We have talked about the deletion of items as a form of deductible. I think a very much more important possibility is where a fund might offer, as a result of the flexibility that is offered to it, a deductible as an incentive to contributors to adopt healthy life styles. Those people who choose not to smoke, those people who choose not to drink alcohol and those people who choose to adopt a fairly sensible life style could use a deductible scheme. How on earth a health insurance fund could administer such a proposal I do not know, but I understand that some health insurance funds are investigating the desirability of offering such tables.

What I think is very important is that this proposal will offer the opportunity for innovation. It will offer the opportunity for experiment and it will offer the opportunity for evaluation. Some countries have adopted the principle. The United States is one such country. But very limited research material is available to us and I would hope that some pilot studies could be carried out from time to time. At least we have provided the opportunity for them. We will be watching them very closely and monitoring the results. They could provide some very useful information on the direction that health insurance should take in the years to come, not only in this country but also other Western countries.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-This clause, which refers to the travel and accommadation allowance, is probably the only welcome aspect of the Bills that are before us at present. Whilst we know that it will be of great advantage to people in rural areas, I think it is probably a sugar coating to cover the less acceptable provisions in these Bills. A number of approaches have been taken to this matter over the years by me, by my friend the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick), and no doubt by other members representing country electorates. They all realise what a problem it has been for people living in country areas to receive medical attention and what a disadvantage it is when the cost involved in receiving that attention is taken into account. It is a fact that in many cases the cost of getting to medical attention is far and above the actual cost of that attention.

As I represent a large country electorate, this problem has been brought to my attention forceably on a number of occasions. I could quote some quite tragic and traumatic experiences of people living in country areas. These people are not very wealthy but they are put in the position where they have to travel to Adelaide for specialist treatment at regular intervals. The financial burden placed on those people is considerable. As I say, people have raised this matter with me on many occasions but I am afraid I have not been able to give them much assistance because to date no government has been prepared to recognise the problem. In the representations I and other members have made in the past we have suggested that possibly the way in which the people could be assisted would be to allow the cost incurred in receiving this attention to become a tax deduction.

Here again I would agree with what the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has done in this case in providing for the Government to pay any amount over and above a certain figure- it is $ 1 5 a day for accommodation and $20 a day for travelling expenses. It is probably a much better and more equitable scheme. There would be a lot of inequity in the situation regarding taxation deductions. The lower wage earner, who was not paying a great deal of tax in the first place, still had to pay the medical expenses incurred. So the amount by which he could benefit from any taxation allowance that was granted to him because of medical expenses incurred would not be a great deal. We feel that this scheme certainly is a little easier to operate and it is a little more straightforward and more effective.

In referring to the people who live in the rural areas this legislation is not referring just to farmers. It is also referring to the people who live in country towns and, in many cases, provincial cities that are more than 200 kilometres from the capital cities. This Bill will help quite a few people in my own electorate, including the railway employees along the east-west railway line and the central Australian railway Une to Alice Springs as well as the people in the isolated opal mining towns of Coober Pedy and Andamooka and the people in the Eyre Peninsular area and other areas distant from the cities. I commend the Minister for including this provision in the Bill. Again I say that of the four Bills before us I feel that this provision is the only one which can be commended. There are some pretty obnoxious provisions in the remainder of the legislation.

Although this clause is of advantage to the people in country areas, I do not think that the remainder of the legislation will be of benefit to country people generally. I think that the contents of this legislation clearly indicate the ideological difference between the manner in which the Opposition approaches these questions and the manner in which the Government approaches them. We know that right from the word go people on the Government side of the chamber- the members of the Liberal and National Country parties- have opposed the Medibank concept. It was first devised in the late 1960s. They opposed it hotly during the 1969 and 1 972 elections. I do not think that basically they have ever changed their opposition to it. The people endorsed the Medibank proposals in 1972 when they elected the Labor Government to office. In the years following the 1972 election the Liberal and National Country parties were divided on the issue. Honourable members will recall that when the Medibank legislation was introduced into this House the Liberal and National Country parties had divided views on the matter. The Country Party finished up by crossing the floor and voting with the Labor Party on this matter. The first Medibank proposal was introduced in 1973. We saw the opposition it received from the people who are now on the Government side of the chamber and we saw the opposition the proposal received from the then Opposition in the Senate, which took a hard line and endeavoured to stop every proposal which the Labor Party put forward. However, because the legislation had been introduced and rejected the required number of times the Labor Party was able to introduce its Medibank proposals after the double dissolution in 1974. When the legislation was reintroduced after the 1974 double dissolution it was allowed to be passed. Of course, one of the problems that we faced was that our Medibank proposals were to be financed by the imposition of a levy on taxation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Grey is getting well away from the terms of the clause.

Mr WALLIS:

– I am relating my remarks to the fact that we spoke earlier about the advantages to country people of the travel and accommodation allowances and saying that I think there will be disadvantages to the country people. I am trying to relate my remarks to the advantages and the disadvantages in relation to the effect of the legislation on country people. I outlined earlier the advantages to country people of the travelling and accommodation proposals, but there are other matters concerning health which will affect them. During the course of the Labor Government’s reign it introduced proposals to create community health centres. About eight of those community health centres were established in the electorate of Grey. The three that come to mind, the three largest, are the ones at Coober Pedy, Port Lincoln and Ceduna. The changes to the bulk billing arrangements and the various other proposals contained in this Bill will have an effect on these community health centres. The one at Port Lincoln employs seven doctors. Right from inception those doctors have bulk billed their patients. Today I had the opportunity of talking to them about what they think of these proposals. They are hotly opposed to them. They feel that they will send up their costs enormously and that the cost of administration will increase greatly. They are not very impressed with them.

I spoke also to certain people at Ceduna about these proposals. The people of Ceduna are country people who would probably gain some advantage from the proposal concerning travel and accommodation allowances. A great proportion of the people at Ceduna whom the doctors are treating are unemployed Aboriginals. There is very little work for Aboriginals in that area. The people there are very concerned as to what will happen if these proposals are implemented. It is felt that unless the people of the area have the money in their pockets they will not come in for medical attention. It will be a shame if this happens because confidence has been built up in the provision of attention by the doctors at the community health centre in this area. It is felt that this confidence will be of no avail if the people will not come in to receive medical attention. These people are quite definite about this matter. They have written to the Minister about it. They feel that if the local people do not come into the community centre it will lose half of its effectiveness. This will be the result of the Government’s decision over bulk billing. The person running the centre at Ceduna has written to the Minister about this matter. I have told him that it is probably of no avail; that the Government will push all the legislation through today and that as from a date to be proclaimed bulk billing will be done away with.

The scheme that the Minister has indicated will overcome the problems of people who may not have the money in their pockets and who are not well off economically seems to be a very vague scheme. It relies on the co-operation of the doctors and one wonders if all the doctors will co-operate. Although most doctors show compassion towards the people who are ill and who do not have the money in their pockets, there are still some doctors about who are not quite so compassionate.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Matters to be taken into account by Committee and by Minister).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I would like very briefly to indicate our opposition to the clause. It again deals with organisations which are proposing to operate the optional deductibles plan. I have already gone through the position regarding the termination of pregnancies but it has just been pointed out to me by one of the Opposition members that maybe it is not clearly understood. I cite as an example the position concerning the Hibernian Society because it is one of the hospital and medical benefit funds that have applied to operate an optional deductibles plan. A woman who belongs to the Hibernian Society does so on the understanding that she will no longer be paid for the termination of a pregnancy. That is fair enough. But the Government is being hypocritical about this matter. It knows very well that if a woman who is a subscriber to the Hibernian Society wants to have a pregnancy terminated all she has to do is allow her financial standing with the Hibernian Society to lapse some weeks before she decides to have that termination. Payment for that termination will then be picked up by Medibank because as soon as one becomes unfinancial in a private fund one is automatically covered by the Medibank levy. So nobody takes any risks. I indicate to the feminists, the women who are getting all excited about the fact that their members will not be paid for the termination of a pregnancy if they belong to a fund which bans payments for such terminations, that if they want to terminate a pregnancy all they have to do is indicate quite clearly that they are no longer financial members of a particular fund which excludes payments for the operation. As soon as their financial membership of that organisation lapses they are covered by Medibank.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That means that the Liberal Party members and National Country Party members are a pack of phoneys.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-No, I am not saying all of them, but some of them who have raised it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Most of them are.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-The ones who raised it. There are only two or three who have raised it. I think most of them realise as well as we do that this is not the big issue on the question of deductibles. The women who are excited about not being able to get paid will be able to get paid by just dropping their membership of a private fund. It will then be picked up by Medibank and, of course, the opposite argument applies to those who want to feel that they are not contributing in a voluntary sense to the payment for termination of pregnancies for conscientious reasons and therefore they want to join a particular fund which does not cover that contingency.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– So if the Government was fair dinkum it would extend it to Medibank.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I am not urging the Government to do that. I do not think that is indicated. I want to conclude by indicating clearly that we oppose clause 5 but we will not divide the House on it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Registation)

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Again, exactly the same argument applies. It introduces the question of optional deductibles. The Opposition opposes the clause but will not divide the House on it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Conditions of Registration).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-In addition to some reference, as I understand it, to the question of optional deductibles in clause 7, paragraph (c) of sub-clause (i) prohibits bulk billing for any except eligible pensioners in the case of private medical funds. Whatever argument can be put up for the elimination of bulk billing, I do not agree with its elimination for private funds and I will raise that point in a broader context on the next piece of legislation where it applies to Medibank patients. As far as private patients are concerned, if this Government believes that bulk billing costs extra money, it is fair enough to knock it out of Medibank where the taxpayer pays for it, but in this case the Government is imposing a condition on a private fund to eliminate bulk billing. We all agree that we do not have enough information on it, whether it is beneficial or the opposite, as far as health insurance and health care costs are concerned. If a fund is prepared to continue bulk billing, obviously it must believe that it has benefits from that fund ‘s point of view and the fund is mainly concerned with financial benefits. We would get some sort of figures from them.

I emphasise that there would be no cost involved to the taxpayer because it is a proposal by a private fund. That particular private fund is not subsidised as far as medical benefits are concerned. So why should we say that we will no longer register a fund if that private fund of its own volition decides to continue with bulk billing? I would like to get a reply from the Minister on this because it seems to me to go in some ways to some of the so-called fundamental beliefs of the Liberal Party, certainly the fundamentally stated beliefs of the Liberal Party that we ought to have competition, free enterprise and alternatives. Why eliminate that alternative? When it does not cost the taxpayer anything, why not allow the funds to do exactly that?

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

– In reply to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), in giving consideration to questions relating to bulk billing- indeed, its abolition- the Government felt, once the decision was taken to abolish bulk billing for all but pensioners and their dependants, that it would not make sense to abolish it for Medibank and leave it available for the private health insurance funds.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Provision of services by organisations).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Again I indicate that this clause deals with deductibles. The Opposition opposes the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Guidelines for medical and hospital benefits plans).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Again, this clause deals with optional deductibles. The Opposition indicates its opposition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 1 1 (Interpretation).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Clause 11 deals with the increase in patient contribution from $2 to $2.50 for pharmaceutical benefits. I asked the Minister a question this morning about the problem in addition to the straight-out problem as the ordinary member of the public sees it- that he will now be paying 25 per cent extra for his pharmaceutical benefits. I asked the Minister this morning how many items are affected, and he has been kind enough to give me an answer this afternoon indicating that about 220 items will no longer be available as general pharmaceutical benefits as from 1 July 1978 with the increase in patient contributions. The point that I want to raise, which has not received any publicity outside, is that on an item which at present attracts a refund to the chemist of between $2 and $2.50, when this Government increases the charge to $2.50, the item is removed from the list of items for the general public! The net result of that is not a charge of $2.50 or, for example, $2.14.

Let us take a specific example- Mogadon tablets. For 25 tablets the present refund to the chemist on filling a prescription is $2.14. That will become a charge to the patient of somewhere between $3.07 and $3.37 instead of the present $2 after 1 July 1978. The reason for that is that the Government, because it is a large contractor with pharmacists, gets a special discount in dispensing fees and mark ups on prescriptions which are issued under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The dispensing fee is increased to $2 when it leaves the pharmaceutical benefits list and the mark up increases. As I understand it there are some chemists who charge a 33 per cent mark up, some 50 per cent and some 66 per cent. To a large extent it varies with the amount of competition in the area and according to the type of area. That is why I say that, as I understand it from a friend who is a pharmacist, the increase will be to $3.07 or $3.37. That is a significant increase, from $2 for a prescription to over $3.

It will apply to a large number of items. The Minister says 220 items. I have not gone through the list completely but I have picked out some of them. One of the important ones is, for example, penicillin for children, in tablet and capsule form. At present the refund to the chemist is $2.27. The payment by the patient, or the mother of the child who receives the medication, is $2. That will now go up to about $3.50 or more. That is a huge increase in the case of a child who is suffering from a fairly chronic condition. I agreed with the Minister yesterday- I am not sure whether it was during the debate on the Bill or in reply to a question- when he emphasised that doctors can give prescriptions for a month in the case of chronic conditions. Many doctors do not take advantage of that. I repeatedly receive letters from people about this matter. I have even gone to the trouble of photo-copying the appropriate page of the pharmaceutical benefits booklet so that when I reply to people who write to me on the matter I can show them just what they can ask their doctor to do. It is important to realise that amongst the 220 items affected are mogadon, lomotil fergon, rectinol, and amitryptiline type of tablets such as tryptanol, clinistix, some antihistamines, eye ointments, many cortisone ointments, butazolidin and, as I said earlier, penicillin tablets and capsules for children. I state again that this will represent a great imposition of extra cost on people who are already bearing extra cost because of the other changes which the Government is introducing as from 1 July 1978. 1 think it is important that members of the Australian community be aware of this and do not blame the chemists for what will happen. There is a tendency on the part of the Government to try to blame chemists for the result of this move. I assume that it is too late to ask the Minister to postpone the proclamation of this clause in the legislation. I strongly indicate the opposition of the Australian Labor Party to this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15 (Consequential amendments).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I very quickly indicate that this clause deals with deductibles. The Opposition opposes the principle of deductibles and therefore opposes this clause and the Schedule to the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3298

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Yesterday when speaking to the legislation I foreshadowed an amendment which I now move. I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate clearly that whilst the Opposition has moved the amendment, it will not force the House to a division on it.

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

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (entitlement to medical benefits).

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-Clause 5 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill deals with the particularly obnoxious proposal to increase the amount of each bill that a patient or a contributor to a health fund must pay. The Government has conceived the brilliant concept of reducing the medical benefit payment from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee, and also to increase the maximum contribution for each service for which the scheduled fee is charged from $5 to $10. The effect of this will be to add 90c to the patient contribution for a standard general practitioner consultation, $1.30 for a home visit by a doctor and $2.60 for a specialist consultation. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) may think that- I use his words- ‘this remains a small additional direct patient contribution’. But I remind him that $2.60 can be very important to a low income earner with a net income of between $ 100 and $ 1 20 a week.

I also remind the Minister that many doctors and specialists charge more than the scheduled fee. Cases have been drawn to my attention where patients have been charged $100, $200 or even $300 in one instance, more than the scheduled fee for major surgery. If the Minister is really serious about containing health costs, he should be seeking to control these parasitic doctors and specialists who seek to earn exorbitant incomes from’ the misfortune of major illnesses.

I think we ought to ask ourselves the reason for the Government’s actions. The Minister says that this will deter people from using health services unnecessarily. But how does one judge in the early stages of an illness whether a consultation is necessary? At any rate, the Minister has pointed out that people who wish to obtain additional insurance cover as a result of this decision will be able to obtain it anyway through the supplementary tables of the private health organisations. That is the position. People who can afford to do so can take the extra cover; people who cannot afford to do so can take the risk. There will be no deterrent for the rich, but obviously there will be a significant deterrent for those people who cannot afford to pay.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I support my colleague, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), in opposing the principles embodied in clause 5 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill. The explicit objection is not so much to increasing the moiety or to increasing the maximum; I think the objection relates to the fact of this increase coupled with gap insurance on the one side and the abolition of bulk billing on the other side. In the pursuit of efficiency and cost cutting the Government has produced a highly inequitable proposal. The gap insurance provisions will enable those people who can afford gap insurance- those people who work for the private insurers- to cover the increase. At the same time bulk billing will be abolished and many sections of social security beneficiaries those estimated 800,000 people who do not lit into the definition of eligible at the moment- will suddenly have this increase imposed upon them. So the efficiency proposals are highly inequitable and will enable the well-off to cover themselves with gap insurance, which almost certainly will now be extended. On the other side, the abolition of bulk billing will throw many poor people into the situation of having to pay these increases.

A further feature of clause 5 which worries me is the implication of proposed new sub-section (2a) (c). We note that under that provision eligible pensioners who will still be able to benefit from bulk billing will receive a medical benefit of 85 per cent. I have worries, therefore, about what will happen to the ineligible poor people. Some weeks ago the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) was rather confident that the medical profession would be prepared in those cases to accept 75 per cent as full payment. It seems to be indicated in the Bill that in the situation of bulk billing 85 per cent will be demanded. Will doctors accept 75 per cent of the fee from the ineligible poor- those people who do not qualify for bulk billing- or in fact are doctors not prepared to accept that lower figure? Does the fact that 85 per cent is mentioned in this clause mean that the optimistic hopes of the Minister will not be realised in relation to the ineligible poor- all those people on social security benefits who do not come within the definition of eligibility?

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I oppose the Health Insurance Amendment Bill. When I spoke on this Bill earlier, I left out a few matters. I appreciate having the opportunity to mention them now. After months of dallying about cutting health costs the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has come out with new proposals which smack of elitism. The Government’s proposals are long on good intention but short of substance. The new proposals show that the Government is not thinking of the health of Australians but is thinking only of its own deficits. Doctors have nothing to be joyous about with these new proposals. As we know, even the Australian Medical Association is divided on this issue. Doctors will be affected by the number of patients who will no longer avail themselves of the services of doctors. By cutting medical benefit rates from 85 per cent to 75 per cent and by increasing from $5 to $10 the maximum patient contribution the Government will force us to pay more for our health.

The national health bill is $7,000m and the Commonwealth’s share of the bill is $3, 000m. The cost saving to the Government under this new scheme for a full year will be $24m. The Government has a miserable system of priorities. It decides that two VIP jets costing $30m to $40m are much more desirable than having a health care scheme for all Australians. The cost of saving $24m will be offset by a cost of $7m to complete the elimination process of bulk billing, so the net saving to the Government will be $17m- a mere 0.5 per cent. The Government’s abolition of bulk billing for all people except pensioners from 1 July is a retrograde step. It will constitute a telling blow to people in the low income bracket who cannot afford to pay for more than basic coverage for medical care. It will severely disadvantage middle income earners, low income earners, the unemployed and the pensioners who have already suffered bad cuts in their fringe benefits and health cards.

The proposal of deductibles will benefit only the healthy young and the very rich. The gap insurance plan is weakening the arguments of the Government as costs will be greater and the low income earners will not be able to afford to take out insurance on the gap. As stated in the 1976-77 report from the Health Commission which was released three weeks ago, the average cost of each medical bulk bill was $2.70 cheaper than individual accounts. In the electorate of Sydney over 56 per cent of practising medicos bulk bill and in New South Wales over 15,000 bulk bill. If doctors enforce the ‘pay now’ rule we will have a shambles. If the public has to pay cash on the spot to receive medical treatment, mothers with children, pensioners, low income earners and the chronically ill will be unable to see their doctors as their costs will be too high. The casualty departments in the State hospital will once again be flooded. The State hospitals will be unable to cope with a new flood of patients and State governments will be responsible for remedying that. Consequently doctors who bulk bill will find themselves in trouble too because most of the beneficiaries who are now eligible for bulk billing will no longer be eligible and the doctors will lose their patients as the cost will be beyond the reach of the Australian public. It will deter people from seeing the doctor and the health of generations of Australians will be jeopardised. Doctors should come out and support the opposition of the Australian Labor Party to these new proposals. People who use doctors ‘ services most will have to pay more and people who use them least will pay less. I should like to ask the Minister a question relating to a statement he made on 24 May, which is recorded in Hansard as follows:

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. In this connection, I would point out that it is a matter for the funds to calculate changed rates of contribution and to then apply to me for approval. This will, of course, take a little time, but applications will be processed as quickly as possible once they are received. In approving changed contribution rates, I will naturally take into account that the reduced benefits are operating from 1 July this year.

I wanted to ask this question of the Minister this morning at Question Time, but I was not called by Mr Speaker. I ask the Minister whether he recalls making that statement, as well as the following statement:

The reduction in the percentage level covered by medical benefits and the increase in the patient gap is expected to lead to a reduction in medical insurance contributions.

I further ask the Minister whether he is aware that in a letter circulated by the General Manager of Medibank to all Medibank staff he stated in the last paragraph:

I regret that I do not see us as being able to offer any reduction in medical insurance rates from 1 July 1978 as a result of these changes.

Can the Minister explain the miscalculation on the part of the Government?

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I want to formalise the opposition of the Labor Party to this clause which reduces the benefit from 85 per cent to 75 per cent and increases the maximum gap for those doctors charging the scheduled fee from $5 to $ 10 per item. I think it is important to emphasise the fact that this gap is applicable to each item. If a person has an operation a number of items could be involved. There is the item for the surgeon, the item for the assistant and the item for the anaesthetist. The surgeon may in fact perform a number of operations and, as I understand it, there is a $ 10 charge for each item. I am not a supporter of fee for service surgery in public hospitals, certainly not in private hospitals, and therefore I cannot get terribly excited about it. If people are silly enough to opt for fee for service surgery, perhaps they deserve to pay $50, $60 or $100 from now on as their contribution. I think they ought to be warned about it and perhaps it will encourage them to enter hospitals as standard patients.

The other point I want to emphasise is a point I made earlier. For some reason the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) either did not hear it or pretended that he did not understand it. It is the point that this really means an increase in the levy. The Government has been emphasising that it has not incresed the levy. But the real cost of the levy has increased. Until now for the 2.5 per cent levy which we paid we recieved a refund of 85 per cent. From now on it will be a refund of 75 per cent. We will receive about 12 per cent less. Therefore, obviously, the levy should have been reduced had the Government wanted to keep the refund at the same rate. In passing I would refer also to the Government’s hypocrisy- although I do not necessarily oppose this matter. It trumpeted very loudly at the introduction of this legislation that doctors would cooperate with the Government and treat eligible pensioners, as defined under the Act, for 75 per cent of the fee. I note that in the legislation which was finally introduced yesterday, the medical benefit will still be calculated on the basis of 85 per cent in the case of eligible pensioners.

Mr Hunt:

– Up to 85 per cent.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It is up to 85 per cent. The Minister says that he will now start to negotiate with the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Optometrical Association and the Austraiian Dental Association- I think they were the three bodies he mentioned- to get them to reduce the rate. I would be interested to see what kind of organisation would agree to a reduction when the legislation provides for a higher figure. Obviously neigher the AMA nor, for that matter, any of the other organisations would agree to a lesser figure once the Government has legislated for a figure of 85 per cent. They would be fairly silly if they did. They are supposed to represent the interests of their members and I have no doubt whatever that they will continue to collect their 85 per cent. The Opposition does not object to that; it objects to the fact that the rest of the population will not be able to receive the same refund.

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

– I will reply firstly to the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) who stated that the Opposition opposes the principles embodied in this clause. Governments of all political persuasions have supported the principle of a gap and of the benefit not being paid in full. In fact, between 1953 and 1970 the gap between the medical benefit payable and the usual fee charged never fell below 30 per cent of the fee. When the Whitlam Government was in office it set the benefit at 85 per cent of the scheduled fee and the gap was left at $5. The $5 gap goes back to 1969. Eight years have passed. If we make a calculation we will find that the appropriate gap is in fact $10. Clearly the principle has been embraced by all parties. I think the reason for the gap has been to encourage a sense of personal responsibility in respect of the way in which both the providers and users of health care use these services.

The matter to which the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) referred concerns a letter from the general manager of Medibank to State managers. I am not aware of the letter but if Medibank is faced with the prospect of increasing its medical benefits premiums, obviously it would be because it set its premium levels too low the last time it reviewed its medical table. One thing is certain: When the benefits registration committee of my Department examines any application from Medibank Private it will be treated in the same way as any other fund. My Department will make certain that Medibank Private, indeed any health insurance fund, confers upon the contributor the benefit from what the Department has calculated to be on average a 46c per week family reduction in the health insurance premium rate.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3301

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978.

Payroll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978.

page 3301

MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Message from the Deputy of the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

page 3301

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present a report from the Standing Orders Committee relating to sessional orders for the operation of legislation committees.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The report of the Standing Orders Committee, which I have just presented, concerns the adoption of sessional orders to provide for the operation of legislation committees on a trial basis. Members of the Committee found difficulty in resolving the question of when legislation committees should meet. The three proposals considered by the Committee have been included in the report. The Committee recommends that, subject to the House reaching a decision on sessional order No. 9, action be taken to adopt the proposed sessional orders.

Notice No. 1- Government Business standing in the name of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), incorporates proposal No. 2 for sessional order No. 9, together with the remaining 18 sessional orders recommended by the Committee. I would suggest therefore, that debate take place on the motion of which the Leader of the House has given notice. In view of the Committee’s problem with sessional order No. 9, it would be proper for any member who would prefer one of the alternatives to move an appropriate amendment. I commend the report to the House.

page 3301

AUSTRALIA AND THE MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Mr ANTHONY:
Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

by leave- During the months immediately ahead, the main trading nations will be making decisions which will be of crucial importance to the future of the international economy and world trade. The Tokyo round of trade negotiations which began in 1973, is now entering its final stages. The United States of America is aiming for an outline package of decisions by midJuly. By the time the Parliament resumes, therefore, decisions will have been taken which will be of far-reaching consequence. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they could set the climate within which international trade will be conducted for the rest of this century. If the negotiations achieve their objective of reducing barriers so that world trade can continue to expand, they will have made a major contribution to the further growth of the world economy and to the raising of living standards in both the developed and the developing countries. On the other hand, if the negotiations fail, there is a serious risk of a world-wide retreat to protectionism. That is what happened in the 1930s and it would be a tragedy if it were to happen again. It is in Australia’s interests, as a country heavily dependent on world trade, to avoid that outcome. We also have a responsibility, as a member of the international community with a special opportunity to understand the interests of both industrialised and developing countries, to do all that is within our power to make the negotiations a success. If they are not, it will not be for any want of trying on our part.

Australia was one of the foundation members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and for 30 years has been amongst the strongest supporters of its principles. As one of the world ‘s most responsible trading nations we have participated in all the GATT rounds of trade negotiations to date. A principal source of disappointment to Australia has been the failure of these GATT rounds and GATT itself to come to grips with all the problems of world trade. Whilst world trade has grown, its benefits have been unevenly distributed. In the Government’s view, the world economic and trade situation is at a critical point. That is why we believe that all countries have a responsibility to seek every avenue to support the continued growth of world trade. There is no section of the Australian economy that does not benefit directly or indirectly from a buoyant world trading economy. Our mineral exports are dependent on the major industrialised nations being able to find expanding outlets for their products. Our objective of a strengthened and more export oriented manufacturing sector geared to our abundant natural resources depends on the availability of a growing world market, particularly in Asia. We have the ability to supply larger quantities of agricultural products to meet the needs of growing numbers of people with improving standards of living. Thus it is not a question of a trade-off between the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. All sectors of the Australian economy stand to benefit from a favourable outcome from the negotiations; equally all would suffer from a major setback to world trade.

Although the multilateral trade negotiations had their genesis in a period of unparalleled prosperity, the subsequent changes in world economic conditions have given them a much different practical and psychological significance. If the MTN do not achieve their objectives the great global effort to free up trade will have left many of the participants in them less than satisfied. Disappointment at such an outcome would undoubtedly encourage the emergence of beggar my neighbour’ policies round the world. The world trading situation would go into decline with all the consequences that has for both the Western and the developing worlds. If this were to happen there is little doubt that Australia as a trading nation would be a net loser. The Government is therefore determined to do all it can, consistent with fairness on all sides, to make the MTN work.

In line with this attitude the Government has decided that Australia should engage fully in every aspect of the negotiations. The negotiations are the most wide-ranging and comprehensive ever undertaken. They are not concerned solely with tariffs. In fact tariffs are becoming increasingly less signficant in many countries’ protective systems. The structure of the negotiations reflect this fact. Apart from tariffs, the negotiations are concentrating on non-tariff barriers both as they apply to specific products and in terms of codes, covering such things as standards, import licensing and customs valuation. The adequacy of GATT to deal with current and prospective trade problems is also under examination. Not the least amongst the questions being addressed in the negotiations is that of special and differential treatment for developing countries where this can be provided.

We have so far stood aside from the formula approach adopted for the negotiation of reduced tariffs on industrial products. Our decision to do so was not taken lightly. It followed agreement among the major industrialised countries, reached in the face of strenuous Australian opposition, that negotiations in the agricultural sector, unlike those on industrial products, should take place on a selective item-by-item basis. The Government took the view that it was entirely appropriate for Australia to adopt a similar itembyitem approach on industrial products and we have made offers on that basis. I am bound to say that, in a negotiating sense, that decision has been well vindicated by developments to date. The offers of concessions so far made to Australia on agricultural products provide little or no prospect of growth for Australian exports.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I have already mentioned and having regard for the determination expressed by the United States that a significant liberalisation of agricultural trade should be achieved in the MTN, it is clear that the Australian stance must be predicted on an assumption that the negotiations will bring benefits to all participants. The Government has therefore been examining closely the implications of adopting the formula approach to the reduction of industrial tariffs taking into account its policy objectives of encouraging the development of a more efficient and productive Australian manufacturing sector in the long run while avoiding short run economic and social disruption. This examination showed that with apropriate exceptions and safeguards the formula approach could be applied in a way which is consistent with the policies outlined in the Government’s White Paper on manufacturing industry.

In the light of these considerations the Government has decided to issue a challenge to the leading participants by upgrading the Australian offer. We will challenge them greatly to improve their own offers, particularly in regard to trade in agricultural products. Subject to full reciprocity and appropriate safeguards Australia will offer to negotiate within the framework of the industrial tariff formula. It is important that it be clearly understood that the use of a formula is merely a convenient way of settling a basis for negotiation. It is an approach which, if it is to be implemented, must be reciprocated if not in this part of the negotiations, then somewhere else. A fundamental principle of the negotiations as stated in the Tokyo declaration is that they should advance on the basis of mutual advantage and reciprocity. Reciprocation can come in two ways- by upgrading offers or scaling down offers.

Most of the developed countries participating in the negotiations including the United States of

America, Japan and the European Economic Community have already decided to adopt a formula approach to the reduction of tariffs on industrial products. The formula is intended to achieve a trade weighted average reduction of 40 per cent in the tariffs on these goods which are denned as all the goods, other than agricultural products, falling within chapters 25 to 99 of the Tariff Nomenclature. This overall reduction is to bc made in eight annual steps beginning in 1980.

There are variations as between countries in the way in which the formula will be applied. The details ;i re confidential to participants but some information is available publicly. The United Slates, for example, is obliged under its Trade Act to exclude products that are subject to emergency import relief action. Canada has announced that its offer is subject to conditions including the possibility of excluding some items. Japan has also announced that its offer is subject to exceptions, lt can be expected that to the extent that some countries depart from the strict application of the formula, other countries will make compensating adjustments during the course of the negotiations. Similarly the offer by Australia to adopt the formula approach will be subject to conditions of this kind appropriate to our circumstances including the following:

We reserve the right to vary the offer at our discretion if less than full reciprocity is gained.

We will specify a base date that will mean that credit is given for the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts.

We will except from tariff reductions items subject to temporary protection.

We will modify the formula for items where tariffs have been increased since 1973.

We reserve the right to rationalise and simplify the tariff.

The offer must, of course, be on the understanding that the existing GATT provisions which allow countries to apply temporary protective measures, such as temporary duties and quantitative import restraints to prevent serious disruption to domestic industries, will be continued on an acceptable basis. The practical effect of all of these conditions is to enable Australia to make adjustments to or withdrawals from its offer during the negotiations. No government participating in the negotiations is committed to implementing offers if, in the light of the circumstances of the time, that action would not be in the nation ‘s overall interests. This is a consideration which goes beyond the particular question of reciprocity.

I reiterate that Australia’s offer is firmly premised on full credit being given for the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts. Australia claimed this in Tokyo in 1973 as the basis of its participation in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. We cannot accept, as has been argued internationally, that Australia should be penalised because it was one of the few countries in the world to make any substantial reductions in tariffs since the Kennedy Round. I have already mentioned that reductions under the formula approach are to be made in eight annual steps beginning in 1980. This, taken with the tariff reductions Australia has already made, means that, even if the offer were to be implemented in full, any further cuts will be much less on average than the overall formula figure of 40 per cent. Moreover, in those circumstances, current tariff rates for most items would not have to be reduced before 1984 or 1985.

Australia’s assistance machinery will continue to operate during the negotiations. As already mentioned, products which are subject to temporary protection have been excluded from the offer and further exceptions will be made where the Government considers temporary protection is warranted following the normal inquiry by the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission. Recommendations in reports received from the IAC on matters other than temporary protection will be considered by the Government in the usual way and adjustments made to Australia’s offer if the Government considers this is warranted.

I must emphasise that there are significant differences between the adoption of this formula approach and the July 1973 across the board tariff cut of 25 per cent:

It is an offer and not a commitment to cut tariffs at this point.

Reciprocity will be required for any further cuts which are implemented.

Quite apart from the question of any further reductions, the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts will now become subject to reciprocity.

Any cuts will be phased in small steps over a period of years.

The reciprocity requirement will ensure that the only conditions under which implementation will take place will be those that will bring overall economic benefit to Australia.

Important opportunities for Australia’s future development structure would flow from a successful outcome to the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In a world with a growing demand for resources Australia stands in an advantageous position. Though our population is small, the nation possesses large resources in its pastoral and agricultural industries, its developed and potential reserves of minerals and energyproducing materials, and the yet un-tapped resources of its surrounding seas and continental shelf. This situation implies new opportunities for our industries to serve world markets.

In its election policy statement the Government foreshadowed various measures which will assist Australian manufacturing industries to take advantage of these opportunities. These included export incentives, a review of industrial research and development and action to encourage the development of export industries processing Australian raw materials. Comprehensive export incentives have already been announced and action is proceeding on the other commitments. The Government is convinced that, in adopting this approach, Australia is supporting the continued growth of international trade which is so vital to the improvement of the standard of living of the people of developed and developing countries alike. I present the following paper:

Australia and the Multilateral Trade Negotiations- Ministerial Statement, 8 June 1 978.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Before the suspension of the sitting the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) introduced into the House a statement by the Government on multilateral trade negotiations, Australia’s attitude, and the proposals which will be submitted during what I imagine will be the final stages of these negotiations, which will be concluded in mid-July but which, as a matter of interest, have been proceding for some five years. I suppose it is significant to mention that although the negotiations, certainly by this Government, have been proceeding for two and a half years we have only now got a statement on the position.It would have been fairer to the Australian people and to the Parliament if a statement had been made a lot earlier than this. From consideration of the contents of the statement, it does not have in it the material we have been seeking for some time. In a nutshell, the statement indicates that the Australian Government will agree to a 40 per cent reduction in tariffs. That is a substantial reduction. But there are qualifications; there are conditions; there are all sorts of hedges that suggest that a 40 per cent tariff reduction may not be as great as it appears on the surface.

I wish to refer to some matters in the statement that I think are worthy of comment. It begins by saying that the Australian economy will benefit from a buoyant world trading economy. With that we agree. The point is then made that we should be orientating our markets towards Asia. With that we wholeheartedly agree. But over the past two and a half years there has been no direction, no incentive, no factual result which would show clearly that our markets are being orientated towards Asia. One would have thought that the statement could have indicated clearly how the Government was going to encourage that sort of trading objective. Again, if one looks at the question of what we are doing in these negotiations, we see that Australia is very concerned about the agricultural sector, and so we should be. For some time now the Opposition has been making the point that our primary producers have no guarantee of a market for their produce. In our view, they are amongst the most efficient producers in the world but they get the worst prices because we have the worst method of marketing those types of resources.

It is significant that during the dinner break an announcement was made of a good breakthrough with a beef contract with the United States of America. That is to be applauded, but it was known certainly last week that it would happen. The messages coming from the United States clearly indicate that food prices have been escalating very rapidly. In the last 12 months the index has increased by 23.8 per cent and the beef price has made a substantial contribution of about 6 per cent to that increase. The reason for that ought to be made clear to our own producers. At the present time there is a problem with the beef producers in the United States being unable to meet demand because they have reduced their herds. There is a buoyancy in that market now but it will not last for all time. It is clearly set out in the statement that it is within what is called the ten-year beef production cycle. It must be made clear that there could be further preventive tariff measures by the United States, particularly at the time of the congressional elections when they want to protect their primary producers. There is no guarantee that any country will allow its producers to be denied protection.

On page 3 of the statement it is stated that the Government is anxious to guarantee negotiations in the agricultural sector. In that respect, we should look at what has happened to our agricultural producers in the past. When we went to the European Economic Community in 1975 to plead a case for our beef producres, all that members of the EEC could say was that they were sorry, they admitted they had done wrong, but they had no intention of rectifying that wrong because they were going to look after their own producers. The Opposition has been saying for some time- and I think it proposes to guarantee that it can be done- that we should get some co-ordination into our production, particularly in the primary area. We could get some stabilisation for the beef producers. Obviously that could happen if we could get together the producer and the person who has the benefit of marketing that product. I make the submission that at present our beef producers are being ripped off by the middle man, the non-producer.

When talking about trade negotiations and the lowering of tarifis, it is significant to raise the question to which I have just referred and in the same breath to refer to what is happening in the United States in relation to sugar arrangements. The swing of the pendulum is apparent. The United States has not ratified the International Sugar Agreement because of difficulties in Congress. Those difficulties have occurred because of political difficulties with about 1 1,000 sugar beet growers in one State. Those growers are anxious to get an even better price and the United States Government is not able to ratify the International Sugar Agreement because the Congress is trying to give the growers a better price for their sugar and more protection. That is a normal political action in terms of world trade at the present time and indicates that we could well be up against many protective devices.

The Opposition believes that we should get into the position of discussing these matters on the basis that our producers clearly understand where the markets are now and where they will be for the next five years. If we can enter into arrangements on that basis, so much the better. Of course, the real sleeper in this statement is what is to happen to our manufacturing base, and that we do not know because the statement does not address itself to that question. As a Labor Government we were castigated- in fact we could almost say that we lost an electionbecause we reduced tariffs by 25 per cent. It was said that we had no regard for what was going to happen to our work force. Let me make it clear that when we reduced tariffs by 25 per cent it was at a time of very buoyant economic conditions and full employment, and advice was given to the government of the day that about 20,000 jobs might be affected. It was felt that that could have been handled in the type of economic conditions then prevailing. Now more than 420,000 people are unemployed, there is a severe downturn in the economy, over 20 per cent of people under 21 years of age are without a job, and there are 60 applicants for every one unskilled vacancy. It cannot be said that the conditions are in any way parallel.

While we understand and say that world trade should be encouraged, that we want to help the underdeveloped countries, in the same context we have to look at what we are doing to our own people. On page 4 of the statement the Minister states that he wants to avoid short-run economic and social disruption. We say the same thing. The one defect in that statement is that the Minister does not say how he is going to do that. If one looks at the manufacturing base for the last two years in which the Government has been in office, the number of people in that sector has been reduced by a further 70,000. It is clear that there is going to be a continual rundown, and that is the problem about this statement. The Government states that there are going to be some safeguards consistent with the policies outlined in the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry. The Government has not announced one policy matter as a result of the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry. The Jackson Committee clearly was in favour of a policy of establishing a benchmark for tariffs-in the manufacturing industry and a slow progression towards that benchmark whereby people in the manufacturing base would know clearly where their future lay.

At the present time, can we imagine an investmentled resurrection in the manufacturing economy if there is going to be less tariff protection, and that is virtually what has been said? Can we imagine people investing in the manufacturing industry on that basis when they do not really know how it is going to affect their industries? Nobody on this side of the House can see that happening. Of course there has to be structural change, and we accept that, but the people have to know where it will be, how it will be planned, what it will do to their businesses and, from our point of view what it will do to employees. In fact, it is very important now for the Opposition to develop brand new policies on the question of manufacturing industry. They have to be developed on the basis of close consultation between the trade union movement, particularly the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the appropriate employers who are interested in structural change; they must be developed on the basis that there are markets for the products; and they also ought to be export oriented.

Some fundamental policies are allowed, but they are not mentioned in this statement. They come in the form that, of course, the Government has announced what it will do. As I said, nothing that we can readily identify has been announced. Again the statement makes the point eventually that what we are about is a reduction of 40 per cent in tariffs. The statement then mentions that there are qualifications by stating that We will reserve the right to vary the offer’. Next, in the classic of all time the statement adds that: We will specify a base date that will mean that credit is given for the 25 per cent reduction’. In other words, the Government will take credit for the 25 per cent tariff reduction which was introduced by the Labor Government. Throughout the world members of this Government have been saying how good that 25 per cent reduction was and have been taking the credit for it. But back here in Australia they say what a damnable measure it has been. It says that any Labor government that considers tariff reduction should be thrown out. This is the sort of duplicity and hypocritical action that we seek to identify this evening.

Admittedly, we have had to bear the political repercussions of tariff reductions. People are still saying that they do not really know why we took that action. The advice given to us at the time was on the basis that the reduction could be made in a buoyant economy. It was never thought that it could have been made in a slackening economy or in an economy on the downturn. As the statistics that I mentioned earlier show, we are now in the depths of a recession.

After looking at some of the statistics which I will give briefly, we are very concerned about what this tariff reduction means. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) what a 40 per cent tariff reduction will mean. He said that it will mean about half a per cent reduction a year because average tariffs are only about 10 per cent. That is not the position, and that has been admitted even by the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland). In a letter to the London Times on 1 8 April this year, in answer to another letter, he said that Australia’s tariffs were averaging about 14 per cent. That figure is about 50 per cent higher than the figure given by the Prime Minister.

How is the average figure obtained? The last Industries Assistance Commission report shows that in the all industrial products the average tariff on dutiable imports is 26n per cent. Let us look at the effect of a 40 per cent reduction on that average figure. As I have identified in questions in this House, the electrical industry, the printing industry and the heavy machinery industry have a tariff protection of more than 30 per cent. Admittedly, that protection is very high. If the average is to be decreased by a 40 per cent tariff reduction, I submit that quite a substantial indentation will have to be made into that protection. That might have to be done but the industries should be told about it. More than 100,000 employees work in those three industries alone. They must be concerned that that could happen. Certainly there would be no investment-led recovery in any of those industries as a result of their profitability.

Mr Hyde:

– No, but there will be in other industries.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable gentleman admits the position that I have given. Can he identify the other industries? That is the first point. I make these points because I am talking about social terms and social consequences. Despite the reduction in employment, it is admitted that there has been a substantial increase in profitability in a number of industries. Despite the reduction in the employment level in the textile industry, profits have increased enormously. But at times it follows that the financial resource allocation is being altered to give more profits to companies that do not need them while the unemployed work force is increasing.

Let us look at the unemployed work force from the point of view of how those unemployed persons are situated in relation to their occupations and the sector from which they come. The highest ratio of unemployed persons- 23.2 per cent- is in the manufacturing base. In other words, it is the most vulnerable sector. With 23.2 per cent of the unemployed, it is the highest. By occupation the proportion of total unemployed persons- 37.3 percent- includes tradesmen, production process workers and labourers. Those are also the vulnerable occupations. That is the point we are making. We do not mind governments making offers as to how they can improve world conditions but surely they ought to be able to tell the Australian people what those offers mean in factual terms. It is wrong, misleading and incorrect for the Prime Minister to say: ‘It does not matter: nothing will happen until 1980 and then it will only mean a reduction of half a per cent a year’. The reduction will be effective at a much greater rate than that. Certainly we can trade as a nation but we have to do it only if we know what we are about. Ad hoc decisions should not be made. The United States of America has made offers to us, but we do not know what they are. Apparently in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations we have been making offers, but we do not know what they are. No evidence was given in this statement.

On this last day of the parliamentary session, belatedly a statement was delivered at a quarter to six this evening to tell us that the tariff reduction will be of some benefit. The statement mentioned that it was an offer, not a commitment. Nobody in his or her right mind could say that it is not a commitment if the offer is accepted. It will be binding; it will not be able to be altered once it has been accepted in the future. This is a matter of serious concern to the Parliament and we object strongly to the fact that the statement mentions none of the matters that we want to see debated here. What it will do for future employment -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hyde) adjourned.

page 3307

QUESTION

LEGISLATION COMMITTEES: SESSIONAL ORDERS

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

– I move:

Time limits on report:

  1. The following time limits shall operate for speeches during the report stage of a bill returned from a legislation committee-

Each question before the Chair-

Minister or Member in charge- periods not specified

Any other Member, two periods each not exceeding 10 minutes.

Report from legislation committee, recommittal and adoption:

  1. When a bill is reported a future day shall be appointed for taking the report into consideration; on then being considered the report may be adopted or amendments to the bill proposed.
  2. 16) A Member wishing to propose an amendment to the bill shall lodge notice of such amendment with the Clerk of the House prior to the consideration of the report; the Clerk shall circulate in the Chamber to all Members a copy of the proposed amendment.
  3. Upon completion of the consideration of any amendment, a motion may be moved forthwith “That the bill as reported (and as further amended), be agreed to”.
  4. On the report from the committee being considered or on the motion for the adoption of the report, the bill may, on motion by any Member, be recommitted, either in whole or in pan, to a committee of the whole or to the committee which previously considered it.

Third reading, passing, etc.:

  1. Standing order 237 be amended to read- “237. When the report from the committee of the whole or a legislation committee is finally adopted, a future day shall be fixed, on motion, for the third reading.”.’.
  2. These sessional orders shall operate from Tuesday, 15 August 1978.

Immediately prior to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) making his statement to the House, the Speaker presented to the Parliament a report of the Standing Orders Committee. In that report, he drew specific attention to one clause which, within the motion which I have just moved, had been seen in several alternate forms by members of this place. As honourable members will notice, the Government has opted for the intermediary version which provides:

A legislation committee shall meet as soon as practicable after its members have been nominated but shall, unless otherwise ordered, meet during the suspension of the sitting of the House arranged for that purpose.

The point that I wish to make is that the Government feels that in this initial stage we need to try to accommodate to the maximum the new forms which will flow from the introduction of legislation committees by adjourning the House for that purpose. Perhaps I might say a bit more about that later.

The purpose of this motion is to establish sessional orders for the operation of legislation committees. Let me emphasise that sessional orders which are designed for modification and adaptation of circumstances prove that the form in which the motion is now moved is not suitable for the requirements of members of this place. Adoption of the motion will represent a further stage in the Government’s determination to make this Parliament more effective and better adapted to modern needs. For democracy in Australia to be effective, Parliament must be effective. As parliamentarians we must make sure that our activities and interests do not become remote from the needs of the people. These principles have guided the Government since it came to office. The record shows that this Government has consistently examined and brought forward innovations in Parliamentary practice and arrangements. At the same time, we have been careful to see that the best traditions of the parliamentary institution are retained. We have preferred to move deliberately, testing new ideas against experience. It is worth recording some of the more important changes in Parliamentary arrangements over the past two years.

Firstly, in April 1976, some four months after taking office, the Government moved to establish an expenditure committee. That Committee has already demonstrated its effectiveness as an instrument of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. Flowing from the Government’s concern to promote the efficiency of the public sector, the Auditor-General will commence efficiency audits as soon as the necessary legislative authority is obtained. A Bill to amend the Audit Act to provide such authority is to be introduced in the Budget session. Reports of these audits will be provided to the Parliament as they become available, assisting it further in its task of scrutinising the administration of public funds. Secondly, as a matter of principle, announcements of Government decisions are made in the Parliament where this is practicable. Thirdly, on 25 May, the Prime Minister (Mr

Malcolm Fraser) informed the House of a procedure the Government will follow in future to make sure that the Parliament is kept informed of the Government’s decisions on reports of parliamentary committees.

Fourthly, draft guidelines for officials appearing before party committees, and on access by members of parliament to public servants, were announced on 9 December 1976. Those drafts have been the subject of some discussion, and final guidelines should be settled shortly, and announced to the Parliament. But honourable members will have noted that, in accordance with the new guidelines, there has already been an increase in the availability of officials to party committees. Fifthly, the Government will also table, early in the next sittings, guidelines on appearances of officials before parliamentary committees.

Sixthly, the Government will make use, in appropriate cases, of the technique of letting Bills lie on the table to assist public comment and discussion of them. Seventhly, Ministers and thendepartments have been encouraged to supply explanatory memoranda with Bills. The Government has under study whether there is further scope for improvements in these arrangements. Eighthly, in the important area of parliamentary privilege, the Government has supported moves to review existing arrangements and the terms of reference for a joint select committee to undertake this task are currently under discussion. All these reforms have served to enhance this Parliament.

The next major reform which the Government wishes to see is the subject of the present motion. The Government proposes to establish as soon as possible a system of legislation committees in this House, as provided for in the sessional orders. Honourable members may recall that, on the last day of sitting of the last Parliament the Prime Minister expressed the hope that early in the next Parliament legislation committees would be established in this House. At that time, and since then, the Government has been closely studying the matter. I now announce the results. The Government is conscious of the need for this House to examine in greater depth much of the legislation which comes before it. The matter has been discussed within the Government parties for some time. By establishing legislation committees, it is hoped that this can be achieved without requiring Parliament to sit even longer hours than at present. It is also hoped that members of legislation committees can and will examine bills in a relatively non-partisan manner.

Those honourable members who have served on Parliamentary Committees will know that such an approach is achievable. The experience at Westminster, and in the Canadian House of Commons, has been that such an examination can significantly improve the quality of legislation enacted by the Parliament. A further benefit of the proposed new system is that honourable members would have more time to consider Bills. It is presently common practice for the House to proceed directly from the second reading debate to consideration of the Bill by the Committee of the Whole. Under the new sessional orders, there would be a break between these two stages while the Bill was under consideration by the relevant legislation committee.

Iri moving this motion may I pay tribute to the work done by the government members’ Parliamentary Reform Committee, chaired by Senator Chaney, particularly the sub-committee, which was chaired by a member of this House, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde). The proposals in which the sub-committee was closely involved represent practical arrangements which I am sure can improve and enhance the workings of the Parliament. The main features of the new system, which will be given effect to by the proposed sessional orders, are as follows: The legislation committees will be in addition to the present Committee of the Whole procedures. Initially the Government envisages two committees being appointed. The sessional orders will provide that each will have been 13 and 19 members. The chairman of each committee will be appointed from Mr Speaker’s panel of chairman of committees. Membership of the committees will also reflect the relative strengths of the parties in the House.

I interpolate here that the Government would intend that about half of its nominees would be appointed on a continuing basis. Membership of the other half would rotate. This arrangement will enable an assessment to be made of the advantages of the system and will ensure the continued involvement of a group of members in legislation committee work. It is understood that the Opposition proposes to adopt a different arrangement in respect of its nominees. The quorum for each committee will be 10, excluding the chairman. The Minister, or in the case of a private member’s bill, the member, will be in charge of the Bill and will thus be one or the members of the relevant committee. The Government does not propose, in the first instance, to refer to these committees any Bill recognised as being of a highly political character. However, it will see that the committees receive a suitable mix of complex and more straightforward Bills. The Committee will be required to report in respect of each Bill by a specified date. As far as possible, the procedures of the committees will follow those of the Committee of the Whole. It is not intended that the committees will hold hearings or otherwise take evidence. Members of this House who are not members of a committee may attend and participate to a reasonable extent in debates. They may move amendments in committee but they may not vote. When the committees have reported to the House, any members will then be able to propose further amendments to the Bill.

The committees will meet at times other than when this House is sitting. That of course is the purport of the difference in clause 9 to which the Standing Orders Committee report referred. The Government believes that at least at this stage we should attempt to operate the new system while the House is adjourned and yet during what would normally be sitting times. For that reason the sittings of this House may be suspended while legislation committees are sitting. I understand that honourable members opposite have a different view on this matter. They would prefer that the House be able to continue to sit while the committees are meeting. That entails a real difficulty. If that were to take place, under our present Standing Orders the functions of the legislation committees could be seriously disrupted by quorums or divisions. I acknowledge that at some appropriate time we may need to amend our Standing Orders in order to allow that to occur. At this stage I believe it is more important that we develop a new system which can be tested, and, if necessary, modified and then finally prepared in such a way that it can operate on a continuing basis. It is our opinion that were we to modify the Standing Orders for the purpose of having the House sit at the same time as the legislation committees there would be such a dramatic change in the conduct of the affairs of this House that frankly it would not justify the legislation committee experiment.

To my way of thinking one of the fundamental problems is that whereas the Government would need to meet quorum calls and meet division calls to ensure that the votes were carried, the Opposition members would be in a position of being able to continue in the legislation committees. A vote in the House could be taken without their presence. That, of course, would prejudice the effective and efficient operation of the legislation committees. It is true that perhaps for the time being the numbers on this side of the

House might enable that particular circumstance not to occur.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Only for the time being.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– No, that situation will continue for a good time. I was really only thinking of the present circumstances. As the honourable member knows, circumstances do vary from Parliament to Parliament. What concerns me is that we should find a way to make a new system work. The Government does not agree with the Opposition’s view that the House should sit while these committees are in process. It believes fundamentally that the system that we are now proposing is worth the experiment. I believe that if the legislation committees meet during the special adjournment of this House we will be able to see whether the system will be worthy of continuation.

The committees’ proceedings will be open to the public and will be recorded by Hansard. It is proposed that the new system be set up on a trial basis, as all honourable members will need the time to gain experience of the new arrangements. Accordingly sessional orders, rather than amendments to the Standing Orders, have been prepared in consultation, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the Standing Orders Committee. They are now submitted for consideration by this House. As experience of the sessional orders is gained it may be that variations or adjustments will be found, to be appropriate.

The new arrangements I have outlined are to be seen as further moves being taken by this Government to expand and enhance the role of the Parliament in this country. In particular we seek to develop further the system of committees in this House and the role and capacity of members of the House to play a significant part in ensuring that the legislation which is passed by the House reflects their views and the contributions which they wish to make on behalf of those whom they represent. I commend to all honourable members this initiative to improve further the operations of the Australian version of the Westminster parliamentary democracy. I commend the recommendation to the House.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingford

– The Opposition agrees with most of what has been said. As has been indicated, this proposal arose from a suggestion in the report of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System on which we were properly represented.

Dr Cass:

– We set it up.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We set it up. It was clearly indicated that there is scope for legislative committees. We want to assure the House that we will co-operate. The recommendation of that Committee was that there be a legislative committee on a trial basis- I understand that that is the Government’s present proposition- and that we alter the sessional orders. It is very significant that when it was first suggested- this is where we disagree- it was proposed that a legislative committee shall meet as soon as practicable after its members have been nominated at a time to be determined by the chairman of the committee. We do not want to downgrade the Parliament but it is very clear that committee meetings can be held while Parliament is in progress. The Opposition gives an undertaking, and our Party decision supports it, that we will grant pairs and that there will be no divisions of the type that would embarrass the Government while committees are in progress. We think this matter is that important.

At present members of this Parliament are working very hard indeed, despite some suggestions that we do not. Honourable members in this House work about 80 hours a week in the cut and thrust of the parliamentary forum. If we are to suspend a fair segment of the parliamentary week for committees to meet, what will that do to the Opposition? Have a look at the situation from our point of view. The committees will have only 13 members at the most, nine of whom will be from the Government side and four of whom will be from our side. At the most there will be two committees functioning so we will have eight members engaged in that work. It is admitted that the Government would have approximately 20 of its supporters so engaged. In addition to that it would have the executive of the Ministryat least another 20 of its supportersengaged in its work. So the Government would have 40 people fully engaged in its work and the Parliamentary process would have to wait until the House resumed sitting. I do not think that is fair and reasonable or democratic. As one could see today from the point of view of democracy in action, there was no real time wasted by having to use the parliamentary procedures to raise matters of national importance.

Surely we are not going to put the committee situation into the position where it will supplant the work of the Parliament. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) said, quite properly, that work is being done now by committees, such as the Standing Committee on Expenditure. But the sittings of this House are not suspended at present and those committees are doing very splendid work indeed.

We welcome the proposition that there should be two legislative committees. We will have eight members involved in their activities. There would be 30 of us left from the point of view of the Opposition. We think it would be most appropriate- in fact it might help the Governmentif we were to continue the parliamentary process here by debating Bills that are not contentious or Bills that are so contentious that there is no point in their going to such a committee. In that respect I want to advert to something that the Leader of the House- not in any deliberate way- did not advert to, that is, if there is a dissentient voice as to whether a matter goes to such a committee it will not do so. So there has to be some co-ordination at the outset. We make it clear that we would be anxious to indicate our position. It arises only at the second reading stage. Our position as to whether we felt there should be committee work would be made very clear. If we do not think there should be any committee work the whole exercise would be pointless, but if we do think it is worthwhile, and that we do in the main, we would certainly cooperate with the Government. We would not embarrass the Government from the point of view of calling divisions and we would grant pairs. But to suspend the sittings of the House to enable these committees to meet is contrary to the whole principle of parliamentary democracy. This is the one forum that we have as representatives of the people. In my view the members of this Parliament cannot work any harder. Those members of this Parliament who live in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and other areas fly thousands of miles a week. I do not know of anybody in the democratic world who works as hard as the Australian parliamentarian. That should be said, because it is often thought that we do not do anything at all. But should the sittings of the House be suspended to allow committee work to be performed? In the main committee work means discussion in a very detailed manner of the issues involved in relation to clauses of a Bill. One does not really get to discuss the fundamental principles. The Government has already made up its mind to introduce the legislation. The principle and the rationale of the legislation has been decided. We are dealing with the words by which that principle is being implemented. There will not be a major change on the Government’s part if it has made up its mind on that principle. But effective work can be done from the point of view of human rights, civil rights, and the liberties of people. Oppositions would be anxious to promote those sorts of amendments. It would not be the major thrust of the Government’s legislation that we would be looking at; it would be merely the refinements that the Government might accept. The Bill still would have to come back into the House for ratification.

It would be of utmost advantage to the Government for its work to be put through the Parliament with the Opposition discussing it and debating it, agreeing or otherwise, and at the same time have committees work on the details of the Bill to which there could be some agreement. It would mean a much faster flow of legislation. The Opposition would be in favour to a man on all the issues that are fundamental to it. But the Government could not reasonably expect the Opposition to agree to a system in which at the most eight members of the Opposition are to be involved. Going back to the first principle, by all means let the committees meet as and when the Chairman determines, but the Opposition does not agree to the suspension of the sittings of the House to enable them to do so. We do not want to be difficult about this matter. We want to co-operate. But I do not think any supporter of the Government would think that it is fair and reasonable to suspend the sittings of the House while a committee- limited as it is; worthwhile as it is- is deliberating. It could mean that virtually five or six hours a day would be taken out of a parliamentary sitting day if the sittings of the House were suspended.

The proposition is that the House resume its sittings, but at what hour? At 10.15 at night. Virtually the whole day would be wasted if he had to wait for committees to report to us. The Opposition works very assiduously on legislation introduced by the Government. We have an expertise of our own that we avail ourselves of in order to enable us to decide whether we agree with it. Our own members already have divided themselves into compartments in which they exercise their expertise. They are very mindful of the fact that they could really make a contribution very quickly to committees. But they could become bogged down on the basis that they are not going to get any agreement on clauses or words. This could go on for hours. Therefore, the rest of the House would be in suspension and most of the Opposition and many supporters of the Government would not really be able to perform their parliamentary duties.

It is for those reasons that we go back to the first principle. We agree with committees. We will co-operate with the Government. We will grant pairs. We will give the Government every consideration from that point of view. That is a party consideration that we have debated. Really what we want is for this House to continue to sit for the three days a week or more that the Government finds necessary. I think the real issue, without trying to raise any old skeletons, is that there are not enough rooms in this place to enable more than two committees to sit and if we were to have more than two committees we would have to use this chamber because there are no other rooms available. That is not good enough from the point of view of parliamentary democracy in this country. Let us have just one committee.- If we have to find room, surely that can be found somewhere else in the building. But let this House keep going. Surely the sittings of this House should not have to be suspended because we want to use this chamber as a committee forum for about 1 3 members. It will look dreadful, anyway, and if one listens to the discussion that goes on in committee it will not be enhanced by the results of that, either.

My point is that the Parliament represents.the people of this country. They come here to look at it; they want to see it in action. They do not want to see a detailed discussion on what might be termed a minute matter in regard to a Bill. The Opposition in the main- 99 per cent- supports the proposition, but we disagree with the Government on the question of suspending the suitings of the House. I would like the Leader of the House to reconsider the position. I move this very clear amendment:

That proposed Sessional Order (9) be omitted and the following be substituted:

A legislation committee shall meet as soon as practicable after its members have been nominated at a time to be determined by the chairman of the committee. ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I second the amendment. We will not set the House alight on this issue because we recognise that it would probably be very difficult for the House to make a decision on the matter tonight, but it is important that we place it before the Parliament. Firstly, I think it is important and it is urgent that the House adopt the procedures laid out. Whilst, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, the Opposition disagrees on the suspension of the House during the sittings of the legislation committees, we agree that it is more important on this occasion that we get started on this operation. The objectives, as I see them, are to bring a closer scrutiny to legislation, which can be done around the table by smaller committees proceeding in a manner distinct from the ordinary procedures of the House. We are all accustomed to such deliberations and practices and that scrutiny is very important. But I believe that the operations of this Parliament now have to get round to a consideration of the economy of time. It would seem to me that we are not saving any time, and I regard that as the most important matter as far as the Parliament is concerned at the moment, by suspending the sittings of the House while we go into legislation committees. If we go into two legislation committees perhaps we will save a little time, but I can think of no real reason why, at the time the legislation committees are deliberating, the House should not be able to proceed with discussion of the policy reports which come before us from time to time.

One of the great disadvantages of the development of our work over the last seven or eight years has been the inability, often through time and sometimes through government attitudes, to discuss policy questions. There are none of the continuous effective debates that we had a few years back on such matters as foreign policy, education and other great matters of moment. It is important that we adopt the procedure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has outlined. I think, too, that it will create an expansion of opportunities. I say to the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that the House is not in any situation tonight to have a proper debate on the matter in the way in which we sometimes do with regard to the Standing Orders. So I hope that we will ensure that the trial nature of this proposal is tested effectively after we have been going for perhaps five or six weeks in the next session and that the matter then will be brought up for deliberation by the whole House when everybody is available to discuss it.

Before I sit down I would like to add to the list of honourable members whom the Leader of the House thanked for the work they had done. Those on this side of the House have been a part of it. As I recall, it was about four or five years ago that the committee of inquiry into the parliamentary committee system was established. As I recall the position, at that stage Mr Scholes, the honourable member for Corio, was the first chairman of the Committee and Dr Jenkins, the honourable member for Scullin, was the subsequent chairman. The other members of Parliament who served on the Committee are listed in the report. I would like to pay a tribute to those honourable members who worked hard and long on this Committee and with due patience for the necessity to change the parliamentary system.

This is one occasion on which honourable members on this side of the House are on side with the Government with respect to the general principles we are after.

Mr Sinclair:

– I am beginning to think we must be wrong.

Mr BRYANT:

– I think that on the law of averages even the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party can say that he must be right one out of 10 or 15 times. I think that this is it. Our parliamentary system is under challenge. Representative government is under challenge. Countervailing forces in the community, both in Australia and abroad, are in continuous .array against us. Anything that we can do to make the system more effective or to make honourable members feel that they are being more effective and to make the members of the community believe that the Parliament is the effective government of the country will be to the advantage of our democracy. In this instance, I am certain that the objectives we were pursuing originally will be better assisted by the House not suspending itself when we go into committee. I recognise that the rule the Leader of the House has placed before the House gives some sort of opportunity for the House to continue by special resolution of the House while the committee is in process. My experience would be that that would be pretty difficult. Operating from this side of the House as I do, I have not very often had the full support of honourable members opposite, no matter how much righteousness has been on my side. But you never know; this may be the beginning of a new spirit in which there is understanding that righteousness and infallibility do not always lie with the members that happen to win the majority of votes placed in the ballot box at an election.

There is a good deal of talent on this side of the House to contribute. I hope that in the consideration of legislation Ministers will be more able to accept amendments which are put by any honourable member and that there is a” greater input by the average backbencher member of Parliament than has hitherto been possible. The Opposition would like to record its view in the appropriate way in the House without forcing the vote to a division or anything of that difficult and dangerous nature. We would like an assurance from the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party that early in the new session of Parliament we will have a thorough examination of the position to see if it is possible to take things a step further.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

– I want to say two things to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). First of all, I say that the Opposition has co-operated with and encouraged this enterprise. I believe that it will work for that reason. The committee system has no opportunity of working effectively unless there is a bipartisan approach to it. The chance that the functions of the plenum will be usurped by the committees to the detriment of the Opposition really does not exist because matters can be referred to the committee only by leave of the House. If honourable members opposite feel that the Opposition is being treated unfairly, the Government will not receive leave to refer the matter to the committee. That was a request put to the Government by the Opposition and we acceded to it. I believe that in that spirit the committee system will succeed. We are determined that it will succeed and I believe Opposition members feel the same.

I do not agree with honourable members opposite who say that the members of the public wish to see the Parliament. That is not really what the members of the public are worried about. They are worried about good sound legislation. Surely this is an opportunity for an Opposition of whatever colour to contribute to sound legislation and to improve it. I submit for that reason that the position of any Opposition is enhanced. We could have committees meeting in gravel pits without any procedural orders and provided there was sufficient goodwill they would succeed. If there is no goodwill from both sides of the House, they have no chance of succeeding. Their success depends entirely upon that goodwill.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I think that the Government is being a little timid in respect of this matter. The Opposition wants to see the committee system work for the very reasons that the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) wants to see it work. I agree that the Parliament is a bit of a circus much of the time. Very few people, iri terms of the total Australian electorate, come to see how we behave or misbehave. Ultimately we are judged on what comes out of the place. I think that the Government is being timid because the Opposition’s grizzle is only that if the Government sets aside the time it is suggesting for the committees, we will have much less time- it could be one day ‘ each week -

Mr Sinclair:

– It is a trial.

Dr CASS:

-I agree that it is for a trial. But I think that the Government could have been a little more adventurous for a trial and still allowed the House to sit.

Mr Sinclair:

– We want flexibility.

Dr CASS:

– I ask the Minister to wait for a minute. While the committees are meeting, nowhere near half the members of the House will be involved in them. As we all know, very few honourable members attend in the chamber most of the time that we meet in serial fashion. We could still afford to be considering many of the mechanical business that we still must go through. Often the Opposition is not disagreeing with it. But honourable members on this .side nf the House want to make speeches just us honourable members opposite want to make a pm.nl. There is no controversy in this. We do not have divisions on such matters. It would nol he difficult to ensure that quorums arc not called and that we do not have divisions in that time. No one would suffer because we have said already that we will provide pairs. So there is no advantage to the Opposition trying to catch out the Government. For these reasons. I thought that the Government would have found it more practicable to do this.

What worries me is that in this trial period we might still fall behind with much of the urgent legislation. Then the Government will bc despairing and saying that the system will not work in the same way I feel that the trial period for the two-week on two-week off sitting program for the House did not succeed. In my humble opinion we did not continue wilh this system for long enough. In the few weeks that we were trying it, it was all disruption. I feel myself, as do a number of my colleagues on this side of the House and some honourable members opposite, that this system might have worked if wo had allowed it to settle down. I am afraid that during this trial period for the committee system, we will slip back with routine work which could have been dealt with in the way that an honourable member suggested. For example, the House could sit during meal times to cope with the business.

Mr Hyde:

– Hear, hear!

Dr CASS:

– I hear agreement from the Government side. In that same fashion. I think that what I am suggesting to the Government would ho worth the effort. Finally. I state with all duc respect that I think this chamber is the v. wrong place for a committee to meet. We will still feci too far away from one another. I can think of three or four other rooms which are smaller and more intimate where we could all sit around the table, not necessarily with all the Government members on one side and all the Opposition members on the other side. We could sit around the table in the way that we do in parliamentary committees in a higgledy-piggledy way. Honourable members tend to forget their party allegiances and for a change use their brains.

Mr Bryant:

– That is what the Government is afraid of.

Dr CASS:

– Hopefully, that will be the result of this committee system. I am sure that is what the Government means to happen, despite the interjection. I am sure, with all due respect to the Government, that without any loss of face it could accept the amendment because I think it would make the experiment well worthwhile. I agree that it would still be an experiment. I am anxious about how the Government will react when it suddenly finds that it is miles behind in its legislative program at the end of the session.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I think that this is an important change that has been introduced. I wish to refer to an important point in clause 5 which deals with procedures in legislation committees. I feel strongly about this matter. I think that there can be some benefit coming out of these committees to persuade us to rational argument and to have some intelligent compromise reached or possibly even realisation on the part of the Government occasionally that some intelligent propositions can be put forward by the Opposition. What I object to is that the procedures observed in the committee of the whole shall be followed with very few exceptions. It worries me that, in effect, the committees will be limited to two set speeches. I think it is an excellent idea to have a time limit. Is that right?

Mr Sinclair:

– There will be no time limit.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Can you speak any number of times?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You can speak any number of times.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I withdraw my opposition.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– But we do not withdraw our amendment.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– No.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will be very brief in my remarks. I want to say as the Opposition Whip and as one who supported this general idea in the Australian Labor Party meeting that as I see the position, the Opposition is being very co-operative. I hope that the cooperation we are extending will be acknowledged and will receive some kind of response from honourable members opposite. I have heard the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and other honourable members talk in such a cooperative way about the processes of the Parliament and the way in which we should all work happily and harmoniously together. I have no doubt that a lot of people outside the Parliament who support my Party will take the view that we are bending over backwards to make this system work- a system in which many of these people have lost faith. They will believe that the Labor Opposition is a lot more co-operative about facilitating the work of the Parliament today, in the lifetime of this Government, than was the Opposition when the Labor Party was in office. It seems to me that we are being very fair in this matter. We are hoping to–

Mr Sinclair:

– Do not introduce politics into it.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The point I made when the matter was before our party meeting was that a great deal of legislation and a great variety of topics are coming before the Parliament now. This was not the case in bygone days. An enormous human resource needs to be accommodated and there is a need to change the system. We acknowledge all the difficulties and problems involved. I just hope that there might be some recognition on the part of the Government that an element of co-operation is in evidence at present which was not in evidence in the past. I hope that there will be some positive response to this. I hope that the Government will not take fine points- under the Standing Orders it is possible to take fine points. No doubt the Government will say that we have had an opportunity to thrash out issues in the legislation committees so why do we continue the debate in the House et cetera. In view of the tolerance which has been displayed by the Opposition I make the point now, as we are in an experimental period -

Mr Bryant:

– And in a friendly mood.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-We are in a friendly mood indeed. Under these circumstances, I make the point that I hope that our situation will be understood. The procedure is under review. There will be a day of evaluation and the chickens might come home to roost if the Government exercises the tendency it often displays to take advantage of the good offices of the Opposition.

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

– in reply- It is certainly the

Government ‘s intention to try the new legislation committees in all forms, shapes and sizes. In view of the assurances given tonight I am not averse to trying them in such a way that perhaps we might on one occasion be able to have two committees meeting while the House is in session. But I am not prepared to lay down the procedures in that form so that it would be obligatory to operate in that fashion. It is for that reason that I have moved the motion in this form. We shall try operating the committees in a number of forms under Sessional Orders. If changes appear to be needed we certainly will be prepared to consider them.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3316

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill that I now bring before the House contains further measures to counter tax avoidance and to improve the equity and balance of the income tax system. It also contains legislation designed to encourage investors to put capital into the production of Australian films. Honourable members will recall that just two months ago I introduced a number of major amendments directed against prevailing tax avoidance practices. I spoke then in a general way about the problems that are posed by tax avoidance arrangements and I have since had occasion to put the Government’s position on the matter and to underline the seriousness of our intent to strike these arrangements down. I shall, however, speak first about the policy initiative concerning capital investment in Australian films.

Capital Investment in Australian Film Rights

The proposal to change the income tax law in this respect was foreshadowed in the policy speech for the last general elections delivered on 21 November 1977 and the key points of the changes were outlined in a statement that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) and I released on 27 April last. Underlying the proposed changes is a belief that if investors could deduct their capital investment in Australian film rights over two years instead of, as at present, over a much longer period of up to 25 years, there would be greater investment by Australians in the production of Australian films. There are obvious tax benefits in a quick write-off of capital costs and, when this new concession is taken together with other assistance such as that provided through the Australian Film Commission, the Government can justly claim to be lending significant support to the Australian film industry and to all engaged in it.

The concession for capital investment in Australian film rights will be implemented by amendments to the provisions of the income tax law that have, since 1956, allowed otherwise non-deductible capital costs of acquiring industrial property rights used in the production of assessable income to be written off over specified periods. For copyrights, which are the relevant property in this context, the costs have been subject to a tax write-off over 25 years, or any lesser period for which the rights subsist or are held. The amendments now proposed will- in relation to rights in Australian films first used for income producing purposes after 21 November 1977- substitute two years for 25 years as the basic write-off period. The longer period will, however, remain for those who wish to use it.

The Minister for Home Affairs will have the responsibility of determining which films are to be classed as ‘Australian films’. The Bill proposes that an Australian film will be one that the Minister certifies has been, or is to be, made wholly or substantially in Australia and is a film with a significant Australian content. It will also include a film that the Minister certifies has been, or is to be, made under an agreement between government authorities of Australia and another country. The Bill contains extensive guidelines for the determination of when a film has a significant Australian content. In amending the relevant provisions, it is necessary also to guard against their misuse for tax avoidance purposes and the Bill contains measures to that end, effective after 27 April 1978, the date on which the amendments were foreshadowed. The antiavoidance measures are directed against arrangements to secure excessive deductions by inflating the cost of rights or by deflating their sale price when they are disposed of.

Current Year Losses

In terms of space- 43 of its 68 pages- the present Bill is mainly devoted to amendments dealing with current year losses that I announced in this House on 7 April when introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978 and that are now expressed to be effective as from that date. Honourable members will recall from my earlier speech that these amendments are to employ and adapt the well-settled principles governing the deductibility by companies of losses sustained in prior years. In the relatively uncomplicated case, the adaptation will mean that, where there is a point within a year of income at which there has been a more than 50 per cent change in beneficial ownership of the company as at the beginning of the year, the net losses sustained by the company in the period before the change will not be available to be offset against the net income of the period after the disqualifying change, unless the company has carried on throughout that income period the same business as it carried on immediately before the change. Similar principles are to apply where an income period of a year precedes a loss period of the same year.

The point of these amendments, as of the provisions governing deductibility of prior year losses, is to prevent income earned by a company under the proprietorship of one set of shareholders being diminished for tax purposes by losses sustained under the proprietorship of a different group of people. The proposed amendments are undoubtedly complex. This is due to the effort that has been made to spell out, in the great variety of factual situations that can exist in practice, how the current year losses provisions are to operate and to guard against the new provisions being themselves made the subject of tax avoidance arrangements.

Much of what is in the measures stems from the necessity to modify provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act that are constructed for application to a year of income as a whole so that they can be applied to separate periods that make up a year. Moreover, the measures must be capable of effecting this modification where a company that has suffered a disqualifying change in shareholdings gets its income or deductions via a partnership or its income through a trust. Of course, the legislation has to comprehend situations where there is more than one disqualifying change in shareholdings in the course of a year and a mixture of loss and income periods.

Dividend Stripping

Here too, I refer honourable members to what I have said on earlier occasions- in this instance in my second reading speech on 7 April last and in a subsequent statement that I released on 7 May. The proposed amendment under this head is yet another legislative attempt to prevent companies that engage in dividend stripping from achieving double benefits. The double benefit, where it arises, is represented by the freedom from tax of the stripping dividend conferred by the rebate on inter-corporate dividends plus a deduction for the loss on the sale of the stripped shares after their value has been reduced by payment of the dividend.

A provision was enacted in 1972 with the purpose of eliminating this double benefit. It specifies that only so much of a dividend received in a straight-forward dividend stripping operation as exceeds the cost to the stripping company of the shares to be stripped may qualify for rebate. That provision is now being amended, effective from 7 May 1978, to make it applicable where a third company, or a trust, is interposed between the company to be stripped and the stripper. The cost of the shares or interests in the interposed company or trust will be offset against the amount of stripping dividend otherwise eligible for rebate. Also effective from 7 May 1978 will be an amendment to the new anti-stripping provisions being introduced by the Bill brought down in April. These new provisions strike at the practices whereby a company receives the stripping dividend but an associated entity suffers the paper ‘loss’ on the purchase and sale of the shares to be stripped. Whilst they guard against a company being interposed between the company to be stripped and the stripper, they do not cater for similar interposition of trusts. That gap now is being closed.

Branch Profits Tax

The Government also proposes by this Bill to give form to the proposed branch profits tax on the taxable income of non-resident companies that was foreshadowed in a statement to the House by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Viner) on 4 November 1977. As indicated then, there is a lack of balance in our tax system as between foreign companies that carry on business in Australia through a subsidiary company incorporated or otherwise resident here, and those that conduct their business through a branch of a company resident, for tax purposes, in another country. In each case, taxable income is computed in the same way and bears the same rate of company tax- now 46 per cent- but whilst the profit remittances of the subsidiary bear dividend withholding tax, there is no further tax in respect of ‘remittances’ of branch profits to head office or of dividends paid to foreign shareholders out of those remittances. The additional tax proposed to be levied on taxable income of non-resident companies is being introduced to redress this lack of balance. It will be at the rate of 5 per cent of the taxable income of the branch. The tax is being levied in this form because it is impracticable to impose a tax on ‘remittances’ of branch profits.

In striking a branch profits tax rate of 5 per cent of taxable income, the Government has aimed to achieve, as closely as is practicable, a reasonable balance in the Australian tax liabilities attaching to profits of foreign-owned subsidiaries and branches, bearing in mind that, in both cases, the companies are likely to plough back some of their profits into further developments in Australia. In last year’s announcement of the branch profits tax, it was indicated that the tax would not fall on dividend income of branches, nor would it apply to film royalties, shipping profits or insurance premiums taxed under special provisions. These exclusions are made by the Bill. Representations made to the Government since the time of that announcement have led to one additional exclusion. This concerns the profits of non-resident life assurance companies that are allocated towards bonuses and other payments due to Australian policy holders. The Government has accepted the point that, if the tax were placed on these profits, it would effectively be borne by Australian policy holders and not, as intended, by the company or its overseas shareholders, if any. The Government has decided that the tax will apply to that part of the 1977-78 tax year falling after 4 November 1977, and to subsequent years. Although the branch profits tax takes the form of a rate increase, it is in essence a new tax. Hence it would be inappropriate to make it retrospective in effect by applying it to the full 1977-78 tax year. Before concluding my remarks on this subject, I mention that, whilst the basic application of the branch profits tax is provided for in this Bill, the Income Tax (Non-Resident Companies) Bill 1978 that I shall shortly introduce will formally declare the rate of the tax.

Private Companies in Liquidation

I come now to measures designed to meet representations from the liquidators of private companies that the undistributed profits tax provisions of the income tax law are so structured as to cause unreasonable delay in the final winding up of private companies in liquidation. An example may be the best way of illustrating the point. Let us say that a private company has earned a taxable income in the first four months of an income year and its liquidator wishes to make an immediate distribution of the income to shareholders, and to wind the company up. The problem is that he must wait six months until May of the income year to effect the distribution because only the dividends paid in the prescribed period of 12 months commencing two months before the end of the income year can be taken into account for undistributed profits tax purposes in relation to the year. To overcome the difficulty, liquidators in this situation will be enabled by the Bill to make a qualifying distribution to shareholders before the commencement of the prescribed period.

That completes my remarks at this stage on the main features of the present Bill. All of its provisions will, as usual, be explained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum. It has not, however, been practicable to complete the memorandum in time for introduction of the Bill. It will be made available to honourable members shortly. I mention at this point that, as might be expected, the Government will not be seeking passage of this Bill until the Budget sittings. Given the complexity of much of it, I think that there should be ample opportunity for interested people to examine it and comment on its technical features. These will, in any event, be subject to review by officials during the recess. The Government plans to bring still further income tax amendments before the Parliament early in the Budget sittings. It seems appropriate that honourable members and others who wish to study the present Bill during the recess should also have notice of other proposals that the Government will later be asking the Parliament to adopt. In addition to the measures I now proceed to outline, these later changes will include the legislation against avoidance through prepaid interest, pre-paid rent and similar schemes that I spoke of in a statement on 1 9 April 1 978.

Foreign Tax Credit System

The point has been made that recent tax measures by the Government are hasty improvisations and that the Government ought to be bringing forward remedial legislation of a more general kind. This is an option open to the Government and one that will, as evidenced by the significant changes I now outline, be exercised. These changes concern the income that Australian residents- people and companiesderive from sources in another country. Shortly stated, it is proposed to tax this income, subject to credit for the foreign tax that has been paid on it. When the Commonwealth income tax was introduced, it was on the basis that Australian residents were taxable only on income from within Australia. Over the years, there has been a movement to make foreign-source income of Australians taxable, but it remains the fundamental position that Australian residents are not taxed on significant categories of overseas income.

The position is in fact a hotchpotch. As a result of amendments made in 1941 and 1947, Australian resident individuals are taxed here on dividends from overseas, credit being allowed against the Australian tax for any foreign tax imposed on the dividends. But, because the rebate on inter-corporate dividends applies to dividends from overseas as well as to dividends from within Australia, foreign dividends received by Australian companies are tax-free in Australia, and this is so even if both the dividends and the profits out of which they are paid are not taxed in the overseas country of source. Another rule introduced in 1967 applies to interest and royalties from another country on which foreign tax is limited by a double taxation agreement. These are taxable in Australia, subject to credit for the foreign tax. The credit system of relief applies also to income, other than salaries and wages, from Papua New Guinea. All other foreign source income of Australian residents is exempt from Australian tax if it is subject to tax, no matter how negligible, in the country from which it is derived.

The Government considers that such outdated, and inconsistent rules cannot be retained. The fact that major elements of the foreign source income of Australians are not taxable in Australia seriously prejudices the equity of the tax system. Two Australians with the same total income can pay markedly different amounts of tax because one gets his income from Australia and the other from overseas. There may even be an incentive for the diversion of economic activity away from Australia to places where the level of tax is lower than it is in Australia. Most significantly, the present rules lend themselves to tax avoidance through the diversion of income to low-tax or no-tax countries. The Asprey Committee has recommended that Australia introduce a credit system of taxing foreign source income of Australian residents, and this lines up with the practice of most major developed countries. Accordingly, with effect from the beginning of years of income or substituted accounting periods commencing on or after 1 July 1 978 the basic rule will be that all foreign source income of Australian resident people and companies will bc taxable in Australia. However, the Australian tax on that income will be reduced by credit for foreign tax according to rules that I shall later outline.

Many Australians travel and work overseas for relatively short periods. As often as not, the level of the foreign tax is about the same as the Australian tax, before credit, that would be payable on the income if it were taxed here. Whether or not that is so, the Government feels that it would impose unnecessary complexity and difficulty on ordinary salary and wage earners to require- that their foreign salaries and wages be dealt with under the credit system. At the same time, it is necessary to guard against avoidance practices that would remain if the existing exemption for foreign source salaries and wages were to be -fully retained. Accordingly, it is proposed that foreign source salaries and wages which are taxed in the country of source will continue to be exempted up to a maximum of $10,000 per annum, Amounts in excess of this will be subject to Australian tax. with credit being available for the foreign tax paid on the excess. The exempted amount will be taken into account for the purpose of determining the rate of tax applicable to the taxpayer’s assessable income.

To return to the main features of the proposed credit system, a credit will be allowed for a tax imposed at one or another government level in the country in which the income is derived if the tax is one comparable with the Australian income tax. The foreign tax must have been paid and must, ordinarily, be a tax for which the taxpayer was personally liable. Credit will, however, be allowed for tax paid on a person’s income by another person, such as an agent or trustee.

As is the case under credit systems generally, the credit for foreign tax paid in respect of a year will be limited to the Australian Tax on the foreign source income of the year and for this purpose the Government proposes to adopt the most generous of available methods by calculating the limitation on the basis of the aggregate foreign-source income of the taxpayer.

Dividends received from abroad by Australian companies deserve a special word. The basic rule will be that once such dividends are made effectively taxable by withdrawal from them of the rebate on inter-corporate dividends, a credit will be allowed for any foreign dividend withholding or other tax paid on them. In addition, a credit for the underlying company tax on the profits out of which the dividends are paid will, on what is known as a ‘gross- up’ basis, be allowed to Australian companies that have a more than portfolio investment in a foreign company. This credit will provide a direct recognition of the payment of any foreign company tax on those profits and will, at base, be allowed where the Australian company has a direct 10 per cent or greater shareholding in the foreign company.

The credit for ‘underlying’ tax will be extended beyond the underlying tax paid by the foreign company in which the Australian company has a direct 10 per cent or greater interest to include such tax paid by a foreign company one further stage removed, if the Australian company has, through the first tier company, at least a 10 per cent shareholding interest in the further company. To guard against avoidance, the relevant 10 per cent or greater shareholding must have been held for at least 12 months prior to the date of declaration of the dividend for a credit for underlying tax in respect of that dividend to be allowed.

There will, of course, be a number of more technical features of the credit system and, unfortunately, there will be both a need for further safeguards against avoidance as well as a degee of complexity in the legislation necessary to implement it. The Government does not shrink from that, having regard to the greater good that will come from the system’s contribution towards tax equity and the reduction in avenues for avoidance. We are announcing our proposals at this stage so that taxpayers concerned will have an opportunity to plan for the pending introduction of the credit system.

Foreign Source Income of Trusts for Australians

I refer now to another structural change that has as its principal purpose the prevention of tax avoidance by the use of trusts through which to derive foreign-source income. As the law stands, Australian residents can defer, or even escape altogether, the payment of tax on foreign source income of trusts accumulated for their benefit. The present situation, which the Asprey Committee has described as ‘unacceptable’, results from a High Court decision some years ago to the effect that the trust provisions of the income tax law have application only to Australian-source income of trusts. Until recently, the decision had not given concern. However, because of the tax avoidance possibilities and’ the plain interest of tax advisers in avoidance through international activities, the Government has decided that corrective measures must now be taken.

The scheme of the amending legislation is to be very close to that recommended by the Asprey Committee. Under it, the existing trust provisions will be extended to the foreign source income of trusts that qualify as Australian resident trusts and also to the share of foreign source income of non-resident trusts to which an Australian resident beneficiary is presently entitled. The effect of the rules relating to resident trusts will be that, generally, the world income of such trusts, like the world income of resident individuals, will be liable to tax in Australia, either in the hands of the beneficiaries or the trustee. Income will be treated as taxable under the trust provisions to the beneficiaries or the trustee according to whether, under the trust deed or for other reasons, beneficiaries are presently entitled to the income. A resident trust is to be one of which at least one trustee is a resident, or which is managed and controlled in Australia.

Income flowing to a resident beneficiary from accumulated foreign source trust income not taxed in Australia while accumulating, for example, such income derived by a foreign trust, will be taxed in the hands of beneficiaries when received by them. Appropriate anti-avoidance rules will prevent beneficiaries escaping tax on a technicality that the amount or benefit is not received as income. In keeping with the basic principle of taxing non-residents only on Australian source income, a non-resident beneficiary presently entitled to foreign source income of a resident trust will not be taxed on it. In addition, provision will be made to refund the appropriate amount of Australian tax paid on accumulated foreign source income of a resident trust which is ultimately distributed to a beneficiary who is beneficially entitled to it and who, when the income was derived by the trust, was not a resident of Australia. Appropriate credit will be given under the new foreign tax credit system for foreign tax paid on foreign source income which is taxed in Australia to a trustee or beneficiary. As an aid to administration, a trust carrying on business in Australia or deriving income here from property and which does not have a resident trustee is to be required to have a public officer in Australia responsible for ensuring observance of the trust’s taxation obligations, in the same way as a company.

I add that the partnership provisions of the income tax law are to be amended so as to remove any possible doubt arising from the court decision to which I have referred as to their application to partnership income from sources out of Australia. These amendments to the trust and partnership provisions of the income tax law will apply to the 1978-79 and subsequent years of income. I commend the present Bill and the Government’s plans for future tax reform of a most important kind to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 3321

INCOME TAX (NON-RESIDENT COMPANIES) BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill formally imposes, at a rate of 5 per cent, the branch profits tax to which I referred earlier in some detail in introducing the Income Tax Agreement Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, which creates the liability to the tax. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 3321

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

)-I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is related, but only in a formal way, to the proposed branch profits tax. -Its sole purpose is to make it clear that the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Act 1977 is not the Act imposing the Branch profits tax and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 3321

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

)-I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This also is a formal measure related to the proposed branch profits tax mentioned earlier. Its sole purpose is to make it clear that the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976 is not the Act imposing the branch profits tax and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 3321

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Persons entitled to medical benefits).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Clause 7 abolishes bulk billing for Medibank patients. In the piece of legislation that was passed earlier by this House the Government abolished bulk billing as a condition for registration in regard to the private funds, but here we are dealing with Medibank patients. I would like to read an editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald is a newspaper which does not normally support the Opposition, but on this occasion we have convinced it of the merit of our case. I feel certain that the Minister is also convinced of that. It is a pity that the author of this legislation is overseas and is probably not reading the editorials of the Sydney Morning Herald. The editorial is headed ‘Bulk billing queries’. It reads:

When the Federal Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, announced his latest package of changes to the health insurance system a fortnight ago, he had little to say in justification of his announcement that direct (or bulk) billing arrangements were to be abolished, except for people entitled to pensioner health benefits. He merely said that the move was designed to reduce fraud and the over-provision of health services. It was part of his broad plan to control the rapidly rising costs of health care.

Since then, criticism of the decision to abolish bulk billing has mounted- and with good reason. To begin with, Mr Hunt was forced into the damaging admission that the move would cost an extra $7m- a strange way to cut costs. Then it was pointed out that, although some fraud had been found in the bulk billing process, it was relatively easy to detect. In addition, it was seriously questioned whether the process had been responsible for over-use of medical services. There is some evidence that the exact opposite is the case.

On what, then, does the Government base its decision? If Mr Hunt has facts to back it, he should produce them. He has at his disposal a commissioned report on bulk billing, but so far has refused to release it on the ground that it is an internal working document. That is simply not good enough. There are now serious doubts whether the decision can be justified, and four Sydney doctors have gone so far as to see Mr Hunt and put their arguments to him. They report that they have had a good hearing.

Their case is impressive. It points to those who will be badly hit- migrants, large families, Aborigines and the unemployed. It claims that many will be deterred from seeking early treatment and thus will need hospital treatment later on at much greater expense. And it maintains that the geographical pattern of general practitioners will be distorted. The Government says it is concerned to help those who cannot help themselves. It is? Why, then, make life much harder for the unemployed, Aborigines, migrants and large families?

That is the full editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald today. I think it expresses the point of view which we have expressed and which I expressed last night. I did not think the Sydney Morning Herald had read my speech last night. It certainly did not give it any run in its news pages.

But I am quite happy if it uses it as the basis for an editorial. I appeal to the Minister for Health that clauses 7 and 9 of this Bill, which deal with bulk billing by medical practitioners and optometrists, not be proclaimed.

Mr Hunt:

- Mr Chairman, can we take those two clauses together?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– That is the only reference I will really make to them, if it presents difficulty. We oppose clauses 7 and 9, which seek to remove the bulk billing arrangement.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee would have to take clauses 7, 8 and 9 together.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It would be difficult because we oppose clause 7, agree with clause 8 and oppose clause 9. So I think it would be easier to go along in the way we are going. Clause 2 of the Bill, which has just been considered by the Committee, provides that proposed sections 7 and 9 shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Hopefully that date will not arrive. I think that it is important for the Minister really to be sure that what he is doing here is worthwhile. Once the Government has done it, it will be very difficult to revoke its decision and to change what it has done. I am sure that the Minister has some reservations and that these reservations have been emphasised or made greater still by some of the submissions he has received since he actually introduced this legislation or referred to it in a speech last week.

There has been no evidence whatever, apart from general slogans about abuse, which could in any way have been taken as significant enough, worthwhile enough, to lead to this very significant change in the method of carrying out health insurance and paying for health care. I have been pleasantly surprised, as a member of the Opposition who does not get many telephone calls from medical practitioners or pharmacists supporting our view, by the number of them who have contacted me over the last week. They all feel strongly about this matter. Again I appeal to the Minister, in his reply about clause 7 or clause 9, to give us some undertaking as far as the proclamation of these two clauses is concerned. The Opposition will not divide the Committee but indicates its very strong opposition to these clauses.

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

– Firstly, I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government has taken quite a firm decision in respect of the abolition of bulk billing for all but pensioner patients and their dependants. I must quote from the report that was produced by the Hospitals and Health Services

Commission, which quotes Dr Cummins as having said:

The one system most devoid of incentives to induce efficiency in the production of health care services and to encourage economy in the consumption of those services happens to be bulk billing.

There is quite a body of thought that believes firmly in that. Nonetheless the Government does recognise that bulk billing confers very real advantages on low income families, to ethnic groups and to Aboriginal communities and the Government will certainly not abolish bulk billing until satisfactory arrangements have been made. That was embodied in my statement.

We are investigating what alternative arrangements need to be made, for instance, for the Aboriginal medical centres. There is one well known centre at Redfern, for instance, that has been financing its operations to some extent out of bulk billing to Medibank. It does get grants from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs but it has in fact been employing salaried doctors and they have been bulk billing for services rendered to those patients and then the benefits have been coming back to help run the medical service. Quite clearly this is a practice that we cannot allow to continue. The service needs and requires funding and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, and I, as well as our departments, are in discussion at the present time to ensure that alternative funding arrangements are made. The Government has taken a firm decision but has also made it quite clear that bulk billing will not be abolished until satisfactory alternative administrative arrangements are made to replace bulk billing for all but pensioner patients and their dependants.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Medical Service Outside Australia).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-May I raise one point on this clause? The Opposition does not oppose clause 8, which deals with the Minister declaring in the Government Gazette that a person is not acceptable because he has not got the training or because proper medical or surgical facilities are not available to him. When such a person is practising as a medical practitioner in an overseas country Australians temporarily resident in that country shall not get refunds. The clause is aimed obviously at Milan Brych in the Cook Islands. The only point I wish to emphasise on behalf of the Opposition is that, although we do not disagree with the aim of the legislation, it is terribly important that people receive adequate warning before they leave for the Cook Islands that they will not get a refund.

As I understand the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), once the Gazette publishes the name of a person who is no longer acceptable as a prescribed person, in other words as a medical practitioner for whose service a patient is entitled to a refund, 30 days warning will be given. There ought to be a method of notifying people and ensuring that if the person is carrying out some son of practice which takes more than 30 days, as Brych may be doing in the Cook Islands, the time is extended. This would ensure that people who are already there would not be harmed.

Mr Hunt:

– I will take the point aboard and see whether that is possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Common form of undertaking).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This clause deals with bulk billing for optometrists. The Opposition indicates its opposition to the abolition of bulk billing in this case as it did for medical practitioners.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3323

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I do not want the House to have to go into Committee on this Bill but I wish to make two points. The Opposition supports the propositions in this legislation which looks at the matter from the Treasury point of view and corrects some anomalies, although some still exist. I am sure that other honourable members have received letters from persons who have been recently married or for some reason, having been married already, still take out separate health cover. One takes out a health cover with a private fund and the other is covered by levy. They get a shock at the end of the year when, even though the wife, say, has been covered by a private fund, the husband receives an assessment at the family rate when they have no children. I think that sort of anomaly ought to be avoided. It ought to be possible for married people to take different sorts of cover. The husband may want to take one form of cover and the wife another. The difficulty would arise in the case of children because it would be possible for people to pay only a single levy under those conditions. I know that it is difficult. It was an anomaly that was brought in by the Government’s introduction of the new system back in October 1976.

The other point I wish to make relates to the question of declaring that persons do not have to pay the levy if they are overseas visitors to Australia and belong to an overseas health fund which gives them adequate health care cover in Australia. One of the interesting points that raises is what is adequate health care cover, because it varies from State to State. In answer to my question on notice No. 843, the Minister’s reply on 1 June showed that the different States charged different amounts of money. My question asked:

Are visitors to Australia charged for treatment as hospital patients in recognised public hospitals? If so, what is the daily charge?

Obviously whether one has foreign health cover that is adequate depends on the charges, and the charges vary from State to State. Basically, the States subsidise overseas visitors, charging them only $40 or $60 a day. Remarkably enough, a State which I do not usually support in this House, the State of Queensland, is the only one that actually charges what it ought to charge; that is, the daily average cost per in-patient for the previous financial year in the hospital concerned. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. I think that the Northern Territory does something approaching that but no other State does it, including the Australian Capital Territory. The same situation applies as far as compensation cases are concerned.

The Minister may well have difficulty in coming to a conclusion about what is adequate health care cover. I know that Australians overseas have that difficulty when they have a cover from the Medical Benefits Fund, let us say, with an entitlement to $40 a day. If they are admitted to a hospital in Europe that country charges them the actual cost of a hospital bed. In Holland and West Germany, which are the only two examples I can give with certainty, the cost of a hospital bed is the same as it is here, about $140 a day. Australian visitors to those countries who are admitted to hospital are charged $ 1 40 and get a refund of only $40. The West German and Dutch governments and hospital authorities are well aware of this and insist that, for example, if a patient goes in for a appendicectomy, he must pay $1,000 before he enters hospital to ensure that he will not disappear back to Australia without having paid his fee.

That is very difficult for many Australian visitors overseas, and I therefore urge the Minister to look at the problem of Australians having what is really inadequate cover for hospitalisation because we subsidise hospitals to such a large extent. Secondly, I ask the Minister to look at the charges imposed by the States on people covered by foreign health schemes to ascertain whether the States should collect the full cost of hospitalisation. After all, the deficit is being picked up by the Australian taxpayer.

Mr Hunt:

– I will take note of the point.

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 Hunt) read a third time.

page 3324

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION (REPEAL) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Hunt:

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 Hunt) read a third time.

page 3324

MARITIME COLLEGE BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 April, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Bill before the House is for the establishment of a Maritime College at Launceston. It is the final stages of a project which was first announced on 3 December 1974 by the Australian Labor Government. On 10 June 1975 Prime Minister Whitlam announced that the College would be located in Launceston. Later that year the Labor Government introduced a Bill designed to give effect to that decision and for the establishment of an interim council for the College. That Bill lapsed on 1 1 November 1975. In 1976 new legislation to establish an interim council for the College was passed and received royal assent on 1 1 June 1976. In announcing the decision in 1974, the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), noted that the decision was in accord with the principal findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry. The Commission set up in 1974 concluded among other things that:

There should be a central maritime college, set up as part of a college of advanced education.

The Commission went on to state that the college should be located ‘close to a major centre of population with shipping and fishing operations’. The Bill is welcomed by the Opposition; it is a long overdue measure. The decision to locate the College near the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education and near the city of Launceston with a broad harbour and closeness to the sea carries through the Commission’s expressed wishes. The report went on to state:

  1. . present training is not going far enough within the type of courses that are provided, is not giving a full range of types of courses, nor does it equip those who take the courses with a standard of education that has a general application.

The report continued:

Moreover, it is doubtful that the present standard will continue to attract the type of men whose knowledge allows them to adjust without great effort to changes in the type of shipping and cargo handling that are developing.

Clearly, the Commission saw the College as the means for overcoming these limitations and gaps which exist in the present system of maritime education. The main purpose of the College’s courses will be to train deck, engine and radio officers to Department of Transport standards for the Australian merchant fleet. It is also expected that the College will provide for higher educational studies to a degree course level, this being one of the reasons for locating the College near the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. The site provides College students with the opportunity to carry on theoretical study, while at the same time allowing a fair degree of practical work.

Until now Australia has been without one tertiary institution to provide such training. This has been at a time when there has been a dramatic change in the operations, technology and nature of goods carried. Like nearly every industry, the shipping industry is becoming more technical and is placing heavier emphasis on the use of specialists. In general shipping alone, accelerated technical change has meant that tramp and cargo liners of years ago have been replaced with ships designed to carry cargo in vehicular, containers and barge loads. Cellular container vessels, Ro/Ro- roll-on, roll-off- and lash carriers- lighter-aboard-ship or barge- now carry Australia ‘s cargo trade which was once carried in ships with sails.

These developments have only emphasised and added to the need for improved maritime education. Other countries have been actively pursuing maritime education for a number of years already. There are at present some 20 nautical colleges currently operating in the United Kingdom offering courses for deck officers and cadets. California has had a maritime college since 1929. The college is situated on a 67 acre site on San Francisco Harbour and offers courses leading to a bachelor of science degree in nautical science or marine engineering. The New York nautical school dates back to 1874. These are in addition to some five United States Naval Service Academies. There are also some five nautical colleges operating in France.

Yet it is worth while noting that the benefits of mariners with such an education will extend to all Australian shipping- costal, international, and fishing. The Bill before the House provides the College with a permanent Council. It also represents a step towards bringing the College together in one building and in one city. Courses have already been held in Melbourne and Sydney. The College building is expected to be completed by 1979, so that it can commence admitting students for the 1 980 academic year. It is hoped that the College’s Principal, Captain D. W. Walters and key staff will be located on the College site at Newnham by the end of the year. The significance of the College to Australia ‘s maritime industry is clearly shown by the number of applicants for the position of principal. When the position was advertised, some 100 applications were received. More recently advertisements appeared in our local newspapers for senior positions at the College including business manager, assistant academic registrar, librarian and buildings officer.

The Bill, as the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) pointed out, will allow for the appointment of senior academic staff to proceed. Some staff, I notice, are being sought from all over the world. It is envisaged ultimately that the College’s courses will range from three-year degree and diploma courses to two-year associated diploma and certificate of technology courses. The degree courses will provide basic training for those wishing to move to senior positions in the maritime industry, covering the academic qualifications needed for certificates of competency, including training in subjects, such as commerce and management, not covered by certificates of competency. Short courses which I understand are to be offered will cover areas such as tanker safety, survival, specialised hazardous cargoes, fire-fighting, ship-handling, pollution control, management and fishing technology. They will range from a few days in length to a few months.

I am also encouraged to see that the College will offer short refersher courses for mariners already on current service in the shipping and fishing industries, and in the marine and port authorities, to allow them to keep pace with modern technological advances. The College will allow us to train our mariners at home and will check the situation as pointed out in the maritime industry report where some 30 per cent of our merchant marine crews and some 50 per cent of the officers are trained overseas. The development of an Australian Maritime College coincides with an increasing number of spillages of oil at sea and an increasing need for additional expertise in the handling of such occurences. I want to emphasise that the decision to establish the Australian Maritime College was taken by the Whitlam Labor Government. However, it is pleasing to see that there is a bipartisan attitude to the establishment of the College.

In speaking to the Bill, it is important to give consideration to the number of Australians presently employed on Australian ships, the opportunities presently available for the training of entrants to the industry and the state of the Australian shipping industry. As at the 30 June 1977 there were 3,795 sea-going berths available. If we add to this number, those seamen who would have been on recreation leave, sick leave, standby or roster at that date, the direct workforce is something in excess of 8,000. Analysis of the 3,795 sea-going berths shows that they comprise: 133 masters; 340 certificated deck officers; 407 certificated engineer officers; 270 uncertified engineer officers, which includes electricians, et cetera. To this must be added deck crew including 1,206 able seamen, apprentices and deck boys, 392 engine room ratings, that is, greasers, donkeymen and others, 685 catering department staff of stewards, cooks and, surprisingly, one stewardess, and finally 362 miscellaneous staff comprising crew attendants or ………:– , radio officers and shipwrights. The grand total is 3,795.

As I said earlier, these sea-going berths attract a total direct workforce of something in excess of 8,000. Criticism is often made of industrial action by sea-going unions to secure a greater participation by Australian manned ships in our export and import trades. Much of the criticism is based on misinformation and given that Australia is an island continent distant from most of its major markets and suppliers the criticism is short sighted and against the national interest in terms of long term economic security and defence needs. The reasons for the unionists’ actions are quite clear. They recognise the advantages to our balance of payments if greater utilisation can be made of Australian vessels with a consequent reduction in outgoings on invisibles such as freight and insurances. They also see declining employment opportunities for their members resulting from the world wide trend to larger, more sophisticated and automated ships needing smaller crews. In the decade 1964-1973 the number of Australian ships fell by 23 per cent. However, gross tonnage rose by 9 per cent and deadweight tonnage rose by 1 1 per cent. At the same time there is little opportunity for new personnel to enter the shipping industry despite the fact that in the same 10 years there has been an increase of 15 per cent in the numbers employed due mainly to improved leave conditions since 1 964.

The Australian National Line told the Summers inquiry that the ratio of applications to annual deck cadet positions available was 10:1. The other four companies who employ deck cadets seem to be able to fill their vacancies easily from casual inquiries. The inquiry found also that 10 out of 12 of each year’s cadet intake represent the ANL’s cadets. The 1977 annual report of ANL shows that of its total seagoing personnel of 2,081 only 100 comprised apprentice deck or engineer officers spread over all periods of training, that is, less than 5 per cent.

It is appropriate briefly to note the method of entry of other seafaring personnel. Marine engineers come from two general sources, that is, trade based or cadetship. However, because of the present requirement for workshop experience it is not possible for engine room ratings to progress to marine engineer positions. Electricians are recruited from a trade based background, namely, electrical fitters and likewise shipwrights must have first served their time in their trade. In respect of radio officers 90 per cent are not employed by the shipping companies but by Amalgamated Wireless A’asia Ltd which provides radio officers and supply and service radio equipment under contract. There are limited training courses available to those wishing to number in the remaining 10 per cent of radio officers.

Recruitment of deck and engine room ratings is normally at the deck boy and engine room junior levels. There are few opportunities and boys are selected after interview by a panel comprising representatives of the Department of Transport, the shipowners and the Seamens Union. For cooks, the Navigation Act requires that before a seaman can be rated as a cook, other than an assistant cook, he must have reached a prescribed age and had certain experience, including sea service. Surprisingly there is no requirement for cooks on Australian ships to hold formal qualifications or are there any specialist marine training courses for ships ‘ cooks in Australia. Finally, the criteria for employment of stewards are that the applicants must have had previous experience as a steward or in similar work or have an apparent aptitude for the work. As with cooks there are no formal training courses in Australia for stewards. Some years ago the Government recognised the oversupply of labour to the shipping industry thus entry is tightly controlled by the Chief Mercantile Officer of the Department of Transport through the General Register of Seamen.

In my remarks I have not mentioned the entry of overseas seamen to the Australian Register despite the fact that a large proportion of personnel, particularly officers- as I mentioned earlier, 50 per cent- have been drawn from overseas. I have dealt only with the entry and training of Australians because the function of the Australian Maritime College will be to train Australian seafarers. I am concerned however, at the number of seamen the Minister in another place has indicated to be the total expected enrolment at the College. Recently, he has forecast 500 trainees and obviously this is based on exclusion of any entrants to the industry from overseas. This can be seen from paragraph 2.3.1. on page 68 of the Summers report. If the Minister’s forecast that in excess of $25m will be expended on the establishment of the College- this figure includes simulators and associated equipmentAustralia will need to expand its shipping industry on a sequential basis. That certainly is not the policy of this conservative Government.

As a nation we need to examine our shipping industry and identify those areas in which with properly selected vessels we can be competitive. The Australian National Line has shown on the Australia-Japan liner trade that our ships operating at Conference rates and Australian standards can be quite profitable. Responsible comparisons of shipping costs are extremely difficult to make because of the paucity of accurate information made available by shipping companies. The

Government’s opposition to greater use of Australian ships is based on distorted claims in respect of crewing and accommodation costs and old fashioned ideology. Mr N. K. Aggawal of the Department of Transport at a seminar in Sydney last year analysed the annual costs of operating a 72,000 hypothetical dead weight tonnage bulk carrier on long term charter operating between Australia and Japan as follows: Debt service charges, 60.0 per cent; insurance, 5.4 per cent; manning costs, 17.0 per cent; repairs, maintenance and administration, 1 1 .4 per cent; and overhead expenses, the balance of 6.2 per cent. Mr Aggawal said on that occasion:

The major cost problem for the Australian shipping industry stems from the lack of institutionalised credit facilities developed by other shipping nations as indispensable to meeting the long term financial and investment needs of shipowners . . .

By comparison ANL’s 1977 annual report shows vessel manning as 16 per cent of total expenditure, a continuing decline from the 21.5 per cent of a few years ago. Crewing costs then are an important factor in total shipping costs, but a minor one. I am confident that the manning scales could be further reduced by negotiation if consensus could be developed between government, the unions and shipowners on an expanding role for Australian ships in our trades.

We need to remember too that in Norway, because of the special facilities made available for the financing and purchase of ships, the shipping companies make their money not from the actual freighting of goods but from the profit on sale of the vessel at the end of a 10-year life term. We on this side of the House believe that more Australian ships with smaller crews will create more jobs for Australians than does the present stand-off attitude of the parties concerned. Last year I inspected the AnN Australia at Kobe and the Selwyn Range at Newcastle dockyard. Both ships were almost completed. I took the opportunity to compare their crewing accommodation with that of the 20-year-old Lake Boga. May I say that there was no comparison. If those who complain of the accommodation standards of new Australian ships took the trouble to have a look at the level of accommodation and realised that the main determinants in constructing a ship are the weight and the nature of cargo and the engine required to power that vessel they would find the accommodation to be placed on top of the superstructure, on top of the hull, is one of the minor factors to be taken into account.

If those who complain of the accommodation standards in ships have a look at the quality of accommodation, they will see that, given that seamen spend half of their lives at sea, their ship becomes their home and that the current standards are comparable to those of an ordinary motel room in Canberra which I am sure honourable members opposite do not regard as luxurious, for three or four nights a week, claims of socalled luxury accommodation afforded seafarers are arrant nonsense. I suspect that the Minister questions my reasoning about structure and determinants in the nature of designing a vessel. I will repeat them for him. The important point to determine first is what one wants to carry and the distance over which one wants to carry it. That then determines the volume and capacity of the vessel. Then one has to select an engine to power the vessel. They are the main determinants. Accommodation is a much lesser factor in the construction of the vessel.

Mr Deputy Speaker, from the Summers inquiry report it is obvious that training facilities for Australian seagoing personnel are inadequate and outdated with restricted opportunity for entry to the shipping industry and with little or no emphasis on management and commercial skills. In fact the Principal of the College, Captain D. W. Waters, pointed out last year that the principles on which much of the present certificates of competency are based were derived from the British Navigation Act of 1850 and its 1854 consolidation. He said:

Our present system is thus based on principles established in the mid-nineteenth century, and this explains why our training curriculum is more narrowly structured and examination orientated, than those of many other maritime countries.

Hopefully this will be remedied by the updated courses to be provided by the College and by the amendments to the Australian Navigation Act in respect of competency certificates and qualifications now under consideration by the Department of Transport.

The establishment of the Australian Maritime College at Launceston will be a new and important industry for Tasmania and a major facility to improve the efficiency and saftey of the Australian shipping industry. It represents the fulfilment of an undertaking given by the then Minister for Transport in 1974 and Prime Minister Whitlam in 1975. As I said earlier, it also represents the bipartisan attitude in this place and, as I detected, in another place towards the project. I emphasise again that to achieve utilisation the College must be linked to an expanding and increasingly efficient Australian shipping industry. The Opposition wishes the College success in its operation and a speedy passage to the Bill.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– I thank the previous speaker for his comments. I will make mine rather brief because we have two northern Tasmanian members in the House tonight- the Minister for National Develpment (Mr Newman), representing the electorate of Bass, and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). From the outset I want to say. quite clearly and concisely that thank goodness the parochial attitude that prevails in Tasmania goes out the door tonight. I could easily have got up and said that Hobart is the. far better port and that is where the Australian Maritime College should be, but I am not going to do so. The College is to be in Launceston. It will be of great benefit to the city of Launceston and to the men and women who in future will sail our ships and be involved in the College.

The purpose of the Maritime College Bill is to establish the Australian Maritime College at Launceston as a corporate body. The Bill stipulates in detail the functions and powers of the College and provides for a council to govern the College and administer its affairs. As a college of advanced education it will be subject to general oversight by the Tertiary Education Commission. The College will be concerned with the education and training of maritime and fishing industry personnel. It is the only college in Australia to be established solely for this purpose. Since the College is being established to serve Australia-wide needs, the Government intends that it will develop standards of education and training which will be acceptable at international level. The Bill provides the necessary framework for the College to achieve this aim under the guidance of its governing council. The council will be appointed and its membership announced as soon as possible after the passage of this legislation.

The College will develop into an important educational institution in Australia. It is to provide maritime-related education and training for people who wish to become, or who are, officers of merchant or fishing vessels. The College will have as its principal role the instruction of fishermen, an industry which is vitally important to Tasmania as well as to Australia. It will also provide a major new industry. It will employ over 200 staff and it will have more than SOO students, plus 100 temporary students at given times. This is important to Tasmania because its industries are decreasing. Industries are leaving Tasmania. The fact that we will have 200 people there plus 500 students over a period of time will generate income and assist the service industries in Launceston. Those people will find Launceston a delightful place to be in.

Honourable members should be aware that Tasmania is steeped in maritime history. It was discovered in 1642 by Abel Tasman and since that time some of the most remarkable explorers that have ever circumnavigated the world have come to Tasmania. I believe they have left in every Tasmanian a trace of a love of the sea. It is imperative that the College be in Launceston because it will be of extreme benefit to the State for the economic reasons thai I have mentioned. But more, it will give Tasmania another industry- an industry that the Tasmanians will love.

Mr Bradfield:

– Do not forget that the newly proposed economic sea zone increases the importance of the College.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-That is most important. The economic reasons that I have mentioned are important. I do not know whether honourable members are aware that Tasmania is approximately 190 miles wide and 180 miles long. It is between the 40th and the 43rd parallel of the Southern Hemisphere. Launceston, with a population of about 120,000, is, I repeat, a delightful place. It is situated at the confluence of the North and South Esk rivers and is the second city of Tasmania. It is surrounded by beautiful land and is near beaches. It is best known as the birthplace of the plan to found Melbourne in 1835. John Batman returned to Launceston after buying 1,600 acres of land on Port Phillip Bay where Melbourne is today. It is most significant that it is only 150 miles from Melbourne.

I commend the College to all honourable members and would like to give the members from Launceston the opportunity to express their views tonight. I am not adopting the parochial attitude that it should be in Hobart. I think tonight it should be in Launceston and for that reason I give them the opportunity to talk in this House and tell the people of Launceston the reason why and what it will do to the economy of Tasmania.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I would like to thank the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) for the bipartisan approach that the Opposition has taken to the Maritime College Bill during all stages of its passage through the House as well as prior to its introduction. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) for his condescending attitude in agreeing that Launceston is the best site for the Australian Maritime College. The people of Australia, and particularly those in

Tasmania, should thank the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), the Minister for National Development, for the way in which he conducted the lead up to the College and the way in which he has conducted the BUI through this House. The honourable member for Bass has spared no effort in his endeavours on behalf of the people of Bass to get the College located in Launceston. They have been successful.

This matter was first brought to light in the heat of the 1974 Bass by-election when both of the major Parties made a promise that the Maritime College would be sited at Launceston. Since his election to this place the honourable member for Bass has worked very enthusiastically to ensure that the Government honoured its promise. This Bill brings that promise to fruition and we will see the Maritime College located at Launceston. Irrespective of where the College is sited, whether it be at Launceston, Hobart, or any other place in Australia, we should acknowledge that it represents a major step forward by the Australian Government. This Government is looking to the future of the maritime industries of Australia and the additional training that crews will need. It is a very far-sighted approach by this Government and I am delighted that the Opposition has approached the Bill in such a bipartisan manner.

We need only look at the increase in technology, in this day and age, not only in relation to merchant shipping but also fishing vessels, to understand why there is a great need to have crews of all capacities additionally trained. They must be trained in the technology they will face when they are on board vessels. We in Tasmania are particularly conscious of the need for increased training in view of some of the maritime catastrophes that have happened in recent times. I think particularly of the disaster involving the Blyth Star which capsized off South West Cape and, more recently, the disaster when the Lake Illawarra collided with the Tasman Bridge. These illustrations exemplify the need for people serving on board vessels to be properly trained. They need to understand modern technology and navigation. I think the College will play a very important part in training crews for the future to serve on the Australian coastline.

I think that the establishment of the Australian Maritime College will have a particular impact on the blossoming fishing industry around the total Australian coastline, As the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) mentioned earlier in the debate, Australia will declare a 200-mile economic zone around the Australian coastline. This will open up an enormous new fishing capacity for the Australian fishing industry. In this respect, we need to realise that if the Australia fishing industry is to move into the trawl fisheries which are available in enormous quantities those people who will be serving at sea will need to man vessels of a far greater size than they have in the past and will need to be trained specifically to utilise the industry fully. The Maritime College will be particularly important in training those people.

I might say also, perhaps in contradiction to what was stated by my friend the honourable member for Franklin, that I think the siting of the College on the Newnham campus is particularly appropriate. We should understand that the College will be sited adjacent to the Tasmanian college of advanced education at Newnham and that there will be a joint usage of the facilities of both the Tasmanian college of advanced education and the Maritime College. I think that this demonstrates the far-sighted thinking of those people who have sited the college at Newnham. We should have joint usage of the facilities which are available at both colleges.

In conclusion, I would like to say, as my friend the honourable member for Franklin has said already, that the impact on the economy of Tasmania will be quite significant. The honourable member mentioned that there will be 200 full time staff at the College, together with 500 full time students and 100 part time students. In Tasmania we view the College as being an industry which will have an impact on the economy of northern Tasmania in particular and Tasmania generally. I think that this move, viewed together with the siting of the Antarctic base in Hobart, represents a major step forward by the present Government in decentralising government services and extending the opportunity to Tasmania to help its economy by siting the Public Service and Australian Government services in the State. I am particularly pleased that the maritime training centre will be located at Beauty Point, which is in my electorate. It will have an enormous impact on that area of the Tamar River. We are conscious of the need to boost the economy in the area because of the downturn in the fruit industry over recent years. The siting of the training centre at Beauty Point will give an enormous boost to the area at the mouth of the Tamar River.

I congratulate the Government for proceeding with the introduction of this Bill. I congratulate the Minister for National Development, for the conscientious way in which he has guided it through the Parliament. I am delighted at the bipartisan way in which this legislation has been accepted by honourable members on both sides of the House.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– in reply- I will not take up very much time of the House but I would like to summarise the debate that has taken place tonight. I would also like to associate myself with the general thanks that have been expressed by the two honourable members from this side of the House who have spoken in the debate about the bipartisan approach that has been taken on this matter, both in the other place and in this place. I thank the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) for that. Points have been made about the importance of the Australian Maritime College to the maritime fleets in this country and the fishing industry in general. I will say no more about that. I would like to make one point about the progress that has been made in the establishment of the College. The original Act was passed in June 1976. Since that time, steady progress has been made in getting the establishment of the College moving. For that we should thank the Department of Transport, the Department of Education and, in particular, the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick.

Since June 1976 an interim council has been appointed. Land has been purchased at Beauty Point and negotiations have taken place in respect of the Newnham site. We have seen the administrative back-up for the interim council proceed. A principal has been appointed and short courses have been conducted already. Senior academic posts have been advertised worldwide. The point I am making is that already the reality of the Maritime College is there. It is happening now and it will continue to happen in the future. The work will culminate in 1980 with the first courses actually being conducted at the Newnham site. By 1984 the College will be in full bloom. As other honourable members have mentioned in the debate, at that stage approximately 150 to 200 staff and 500 students will be attending the College.

This College will be important nationally to our maritime fleets and our fishing industry. More than that, it will be very important to Tasmania, particularly Launceston. Tasmania suffers great difficulties in maintaining employment opportunities. Manufacturing industry is passing through hard times. The Government’s initiative in establishing the Maritime College in Tasmania has great significance because of the benefits that it will bestow on the island. It will establish extra jobs for the people of Tasmania. The presence of the students who will come to the College and the staff who will teach at the

College will have ramifications far beyond the confines of the College itself. Other jobs will be created in retail businesses and other service industries. I have great pleasure in being associated with this Bill and in seeing it go through its final stages. The establishment of a permanent council for the Maritime Council represents an important milestone in its evolution.

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 Newman) read a third time.

page 3330

ADJOURNMENT

Australia’s Relations with China-Botany Bay Development- Acceptance of Gifts by Ministers- Transport Facilities : MacKellar Electorate- Payments to Local Governments- Trade Unions- Coal Loader in Port Kembla District- Telephone Services to Remote Areas

Motion (by Mr Newman) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-For a few moments this evening I would like to refer to Australia’s relations with the People’s Republic of China. Normally it would be possible for honourable members to take part in a debate on foreign affairs lasting some considerble time. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) recently spoke for some 75 minutes in the Parliament about foreign Affairs, but for some unknown reason it has not been possible for us to have a major debate on foreign affairs, which is a matter of regret. When an honurable member visits another country as the guest of the institute of international affairs of that country it is only good manners and courtesy for him upon his return to Australia to say something to the Parliament about what he discovered and learnt in that country and to point out the valuable things that have occurred in our relations with that country over past years. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ambassador of the People ‘s Republic of China, Mr Chou Chiu-yeh, for inviting me and my wife to go to China and spend 10 days in that country observing the changes that have taken place there over the last 10 or 20 years.

In 1956 I went to China with the first mission of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Therefore, I was in a good position to be able to observe the changes that have occurred in China over a number of years. I must tell the House that they were remarkable. The whole of the railroad system has been reorganised completely. Remarkable changes have been made in the petrochemical industry and in many other manufacturing industries in China today. They were all so kind enough to allow me an opportunity to talk to Mr Hua, the Director of the Institute of International Affairs, and to Mr Li, the Vice-president of the Institute. It was interesting to see how seriously China takes defence. Remarkably, I walked into a shop where my hosts pressed a button and the whole noor disappeared. My wife and I were taken for a walk for two and a half miles under the city of Peking to observe and see at first hand China ‘s defence in the event of a nuclear war.

I was impressed too with the view of leading experts in international affairs in China when they said that the Western world today does not appreciate the threat posed by the Soviet Union through its activities in Africa. It is therefore very good news that recently at the United Nations China decided that she too should be consulted about the changing pattern of world events. Any country in the world which thinks it can conduct foreign affairs without consulting the People’s Republic of China is indeed making a mistake. People who think they can do so cannot classify themselves as statesmen.

It was a pleasure to visit the University of Peking and to hear about the damage which had been done by the Gang of Four, who thought that learning was nonsense and that passing exams was a joke. Amazingly, these people taught children to believe that their elders were of no consequence. The Gang of Four did nothing other than keep the Chinese people in a complete and utter revolutionary confusion. Therefore, how could the Chinese people advance and continue to make their way in the world with a series of revolutions? We can do nothing but congratulate the Chinese People’s Government in realising that they are now anxious to establish themselves, to work with the rest of the world and to improve China’s technology.

I noticed an enormous contrast in their hydroelectric industry and their agricultural industry. In the ten days I spent there nothing was more, impressive than the way in which the Australian governments under both the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), had improved relations. We can be proud of our relations with China. We hope that the Chinese people agree with us and want us to work together. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a Press release by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), which is an important document.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

VISIT TO CHINA

The visit which I made to the People’s Republic of China between 25 April and 4 May had two main purposes- to maintain and develop contact and communication between the Australian and Chinese Governments, and to explore the prospects of increasing and diversifying an economic relationship which is highly important to both our countries.

These two purposes are, of course, inter-related.

The good political relationship which has been developed between China and Australia has under-pinned a substantial growth in trade.

Australia is now China’s fourth largest trading partner and China was Australia’s fifth largest export market in 1977. In three and a half days of intensive discussions which I had in Peking with the Ministers of Foreign Trade and Commerce, the Acting Ministers of Finance and Metallurgical Industry, the Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, and most particularly with Vice Premier Li Hsien-Nien, the approach throughout was frank, friendly and businesslike.

The Chinese Government regards the Prime Minister’s visit in 1976 as having been a great success and is pleased with the reception which the National People’s Congress Delegation, led by Vice Chairman Ulanfu, received in Australia last year.

Indeed in 1977 China sent more high level visitors to Australia than went from here to Peking- an unprecedented development in our relations and an unusual fact in China’s relations with any country.

The Chinese Government is aware, as a result of my visit, that the Australian Government had noted the significance of Chinese high level visits to Australia in 1977 and fully reciprocates China’s interest in the maintenance of contact and dialogue at a high level.

My discussions with Vice Premier, Li Hsien-Nien, took place against this background and were therefore able to deal with a wide range of subjects in a candid way.

We noted that as countries with different governmental and social systems we do not see eye to eye on all matters, and specific areas of disagreement which had been canvassed two years ago during the Prime Minister’s visit were again discussed.

The discussions were open and relaxed, reflecting our mutual interest in clarifying understanding of the other’s positions and in keeping in proper proportion the matters on which we agree and the matters on which there is disagreement.

Amongst the views and interests we share are that there should be global and regional power balances, that no one country should dominate the South Pacific, South East Asia or the Indian Ocean, that ASEAN ‘s concept of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in South East Asia has this as its objective, and that ASEAN can make an important contribution to regional stability and warrants our continuing support.

China sees global balance and regional stability as being in its interests because it is seeking to direct the energies and talents of its vast population into the monumental tasks of modernisation.

Despite its great achievements the People’s Republic of China is very aware that it is still a developing society.

The Chinese leadership frankly acknowledges that it faces a multitude of uncertainties in moving along the road to becoming a developed society.

These include problems of resources allocation, the balance between food production and population growth, employment of the work force as agriculture is progessively mechanised and more labour saving devices are adopted in industry, gearing the educational system to the requirements of industrial growth, preserving self-reliance while looking more to other countries for machinery and technology and instituting incentives for production without impairing principles of equality.

The timing of my visit to China was connected with the plans for China’s modernisation which were announced by Premier Hua Kuo-Feng in his report on the Government to the National People’s Congress on 26 February.

This statement has not attracted the attention it deserved in Australia and should be the starting point for examination of our future relations with China and the opportunities open for developing them.

Premier Hua Kuo-Feng announced that China has embarked on programs which aim to take it to the forefront of world economies by the turn of the century and he announced with some specificity ambitious targets to be achieved by 1985.

Included among the objectives of the ten year plan for achievement by 1985 are: a ten per cent annual industrial growth rate allocation of 60 per cent of government expenditure on economic construction a steel production target of 60 million tons per annum or 2.4 times last year’s production rate development of 120 large scale plants, including ten iron steel plants and nine non-ferrous metal plants.

Indeed, as I have already described it in China, the Chinese have now embarked on their second long march.

If China succeeds in the aims it has set for itself for modernisation, or makes substantial progress along this road, the implications will be significant for the world and for Australia.

The program and the policies of Premier Hua Huo-Feng’s Government have opened up new opportunities for the development of closer relations between China and Australia at the government level, at the commercial level, and in the highly important area of technical exchange.

The Australian Government has already indicated in practical ways its wish to strengthen links with China by encouraging people to people contacts through its cultural exchange programs and, most recently, by its decision to establish the Australia-China Council, by financial support of scientific exchanges and by taking the initiative in arranging with China programs of potentially great importance to both countries to exchange experience and expertise in the fields of agriculture and minerals production.

The Chinese Government has made clear the value it sees in these exchanges and has also, in a direct way, informed me of its requirement for natural resources from Australia in addition to technology and plant equipment.

I received assurances at the top level from those directly concerned in both Peking and Shanghai that as long as prices are competitive, China will import considerably larger quantities of iron ore on a long term basis from Australia, which it looks to as its main supplier.

China will require significantly increased quantities of iron ore to meet its steel production targets and has indicated that Australian ores are suitable for blending with domestically produced ores.

During my visit to Shanghai I inspected unloading facilities and was informed of plans for construction of a new port unloading area to handle the expected increase in iron ore imports.

China is an important market for Australian iron and steel. I was assured by Chinese authorities that although China planned to rapidly increase its own production of steel the planned rate of production would be insufficient to meet their needs. I expect that there will be continuing export opportunities for Australian iron and steel in the Chinese market.

Apart from iron ore and steel I discussed the possibility of the export to China of other Australian minerals and nonferrous metals, including aluminium, copper, lead, zinc, nickel and mineral sands.

My visit to China also opened up prospects for Australian industry in new fields.

China is interested in acquiring advanced mineral and metallurgical technology and in developing its infrastructure to support its modernisation program, in this regard Australian techniques in the extraction of minerals, their transport from the mine and the construction of deep harbours are of direct relevance to China ‘s conditions.

It is possible that further official exchanges will indicate other areas of opportunity for Australian consultancy expertise.

The Chinese Government informed me that it now seeks to buy patents and this removes an obstacle which has existed in the past to the sale of advanced Australian technology.

I am confident that much Australian technology is suitable for China’s conditions and requirements, an obvious example being our agricultural machinery.

In this context it is relevant that China’s agricultural modernisation objectives include: achievement of 85 per cent mechanisation in all major processes of farm work by 1 985 a four to five per cent annual increase in agricultural output over the next eight years.

Australia manufactures a full range of agricultural equipment and it was indicated to me that there are good prospects for use of Australian technology and equipment in the further mechanisation of China ‘s agriculture.

Accordingly, Australia will be giving high priority to its participation in the agricultural machinery exhibition which is to be held in Peking prior to the end of 1978.

Plans are also under way for an early exchange of missions between China and Australia which will initiate an ongoing program of exchanges of agricultural expertise and information.

My discussions with Chinese leaders also covered in some detail the question of people to people contact.

It is a remarkable fact that Australia ranks second only to Japan in the number of tourists visiting China.

Around 4,000 Australians visited China last year and I was informed that some 10,000 will be visiting China in 1978.

China has an overall plan for tourist numbers including quotas for individual countries, and the very significant increase in the number of Australians visiting China reflects the importance China attaches to our bilateral relations.

The possible involvement of Qantas in servicing the big increase in tourist traffic to China was discussed.

There are other indications of growing people to people contact.

For example, our teachers and students in China on government exchange programs, some of whom I met, and over 20 teachers directly recruited by the Chinese authorities, are making an important contribution to better understanding.

My first task on my return will be to report to my colleagues on my discussions in China so that appropriate consideration can be given to follow up action.

I will also consult with industry in order to ensure that industry leaders are fully aware of the significance of China’s long term plans for modernisation and of the opportunities and challenges for participation by Australian industries.

The potential for increased trade with China, combined with the recently announced arrangements for expanded export incentives should provide a stimulus to business expansion in Australia.

It is appropriate that I should put on record in Australia as I have expressed directly to my Chinese hosts, my appreciation of the warm reception which I received in China ‘s three major cities and of the positive and practical approach taken by Chinese leaders in all my discussions.

I return from my visit to China with a heightened awareness of the scope which exists for the further development of Sino-Australian relations.

page 3333

QUESTION

SYDNEY, N.S.W

9 May 1978

Mr YATES:

– I thank the House for its attention. I am grateful for being able on this occasion to give an address for a few moments about our relations with China. I hope they will proceed amicably.

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-In the very near future Botany Bay in Sydney will become a battleground as a by-election takes place following the retirement of Sir Eric Willis. As a Federal member from that region with an electorate bordering on Botany Bay, I want to sound to honourable members who are listening in the House tonight and to whoever might read the Hansard record of the debate just a word of counsel and warning about the very grave consequences which are at stake in this election campaign. In recent times we have heard from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) a contention that the State Government has made a mistake, that the State is suffering from an inability to export coal because of the Government’s failure to develop Botany Bay. I am sure that that attitude would be echoed by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), who I see in the House at present.

It is true that there is a bottleneck of coal. The ships are stacked up outside Port Kembla, another area which is a neighbour to the electorate which I represent. Of course, this situation is related to the fact that there is a crisis in the steel industry. Instead of coal being used for steel production in Australia a great effort has been made to stimulate the export of coal and to upgrade its export from this country. Naturally, the port facilities are maximised in their utilisation.

I make the point that it is the Liberal Party in New South Wales- I do not say the Liberal and National Country parties because the National Country Party does not know what the matter is all about- which has taken a very deliberate decision in respect of this matter. The Liberal Party in New South Wales is the firm upholder of the idea that Botany Bay can be sacrificed and jettisoned as if there is no other plan. I want to sound out some of the consequences. If the byelection takes place and brings about a result which is anti-Labor or anti-Wran it could be regarded as an imprimatur to go on with the development of Botany Bay as a coal loading port. That is not begging the question at all, as I think the honourable member for Macarthur and the honourable member for St George who sit opposite will agree.

There will be three storage silos, each with a capacity of 47,000 tonnes. Eventually 35 silos will be stacked up in Botany Bay, each as high as 17-storey buildings. They will be serviced by 23 trains with open waggons each day. Open elevated wharf conveyors will pour coal at the point of discharge at the rate of 8,000 tonnes an hour or 25 million tonnes a year. There will be a heavy emission of coal dust over the St George area and, indeed, over parts of the Sutherland Shire, depending on how the wind is blowing. There could be intolerable noise, possible disruption of rail passenger services and the like. This is the real issue which is at stake in the State election which is to take place there in the very near future.

I want to let the people know that it is the Australian Labor Party which is saying that Botany Bay has been ruined too much already with the runways, the development of the oil refinery facilities and all the rest. It is a little Mecca for the people from the great surging metropolis of Sydney. For God’s sake, save what is left of it. The Liberals in the St George electorate are anxious to make a quid for the people who buy out Australian coal reserves and are prepared to jettison any bit of Australiana. I am simply making the plea to the parliamentarians here and to the electorate that they might have regard to the fact that Botany Bay was the birthplace of this country. We do not want the natural features which are left and the very nice bit of suburbia which is the St George area and the Sutherland Shire around Botany Bay to be destroyed.

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

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– I have just listened to the speech by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). Although I agree with him about Botany Bay being a beautiful area which we must preserve, I must correct some of his claims, which were entirely incorrect. First of all, Botany Bay is not in the area of St George. I have the greatest admiration for my colleague the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil). If the honourable member for Hughes would look at the electoral map he would find that the water in Botany Bay is part of the electorate of Barton, so he is wrong about that for a start.

Let us turn to another claim he made. Let us go back to what happened prior to the New South Wales Labor Government coming into power. Before it came into power in New South Wales the Liberal Government conducted exhaustive environmental studies on the development of Botany Bay. I can assure the honourable member for Hughes and anyone who is listening tonight that I endorse the suggestion that any development in Botany Bay must be environmentally acceptable. Botany Bay is a beautiful place and it must remain so. I will do all in my power to make sure that it does. Before the last State election in which Mr Wran came to power he promised the people that he would stop any work on any port development in Botany Bay and institute an environmental study. The study took a mere few weeks and when the Wran Government came to office the development went ahead. After promising the people that he would stop any development, Mr Wran went ahead -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable gentleman virtually is saying that I have made statements that are untrue. The Premier has decided that there will be no coal mining at Botany Bay.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– The honourable member for Hughes is only politicking. Before it came to power the Wran Labor Government of New South Wales promised the people in the area that all work would cease until an exhaustive environmental impact study had been carried out. That study was a fraud. It took a mere few weeks and off again went the development of Botany Bay. The honourable member for Hughes stated at great length that if the coal loader was established there, it would throw dust all over the area. I do not want the coal loader there either. Honourable members should bear in mind that the plans for that coal loader provided for it to be enclosed in a vacuum situation. There was to be no coal dust. But look at what has happened. Look at what the Premier of New South Wales has done now. He has decided that the coal loader will be situated at Port Kembla but what the honourable member did not tell the people is that all the rail trucks that go to Port Kembla must go through the electorate of St George and through my electorate of Barton. They will spill coal dust everywhere. I do not think that the people of the area will wear that.

We do not want Mr Wran putting all these rail trucks over the railway lines at Tempe, Rockdale and all the other stations. We do not want the coal dust. Mr Wran has hoodwinked the people of the area. He is putting more dust into the area, as a result of his action, than would have occurred before. I will be watching the development at Botany Bay very closely. I have the interests of the Bay at heart. I have lived there for 35 years. I do not want to see it destroyed and I am not going to let the Premier of New South Wales, with his harebrained schemes, put coal dust on the people in my electorate of Barton. I know that the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) will not allow that to happen to his constituents either. I do not think that Mr Wran will be returned as Premier. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the people of New South Wales, that he is not. I know that if it does happen that he is returned the coal loader will be developed straight away and the people in the area will suffer. I think that the people of the area are awake to this. They are a wake-up to Mr Wran and to the honourable member for Hughes and that this will not happen.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

-Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. The honourable member for Shortland has a most persuasive argument to convince me that he was on his feet. I call the honourable member for Shortland

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-My remarks this evening relate to the question I asked of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) yesterday in relation to the acceptance of gifts by Ministers of the Government and the abandonment of the guidelines on this matter. I refer honourable members to pages 3150 and 3151 of yesterday’s Hansard. At the conclusion of my question, I asked:

Finally, where is the gold bracelet recieved as a gift for launching the Australian Progress and what is its value?

The Acting Prime Minister replied that he did not know who launched the Australian Progress. He then asked who launched it. I replied:

I think it was your wife. I am not sure. I will check.

The Acting Prime Minister went on to infer that I was in some way demeaning the recipient of the gift. He said:

It is clear that anything that comes to the honourable member’s mind is good enough. It does not matter whose name he damages in the process.

I did not use anybody’s name; nor did I demean anybody’s name or character. I asked the question following an answer I had just recieved from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I had asked the Prime Minister who was the recipient of a gold bracelet presented as a gift for launching the Australian Progress. I reject completely the inference of the Acting Prime Minister yesterday. He did not answer the question. As it turned out, when I had a chance to check I found that the recipient of the gift was the Prime Minister’s wife. That did not concern me at the time I asked the question.

Mr Shipton:

– You did not know.

Mr MORRIS:

– I did not need to know. I was concerned only with the gift received by the person who launched the vessel. I did not want to mention the name of the person involved. I did not do so. I reject completely the inference of the Acting Prime Minister. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Government, when in Opposition, waged a virtual crusade against the acceptance by Ministers of gifts, their location, their disposal and their value and the cost of overseas travel by Ministers of the then Government. From the answers given to me by the Prime Minister it is clear that there has been a complete abandonment of the Prime Minsiter’s own guidelines. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say in reply to a question that Mr Whitlam said something in November 1975. The fact is that the guidelines for the acceptance, valuation and disposal of gifts recieved by the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Government and their families in association with their duties were laid down in March 1976. It is useless to pretend that the guidelines have any value, any impact, are in any way open to scrutiny if the recipient, the location, the value and the method of disposal of gifts are not available for public examination.

In addition the Prime Minister replied to a question I had asked of him with regard to the advisability of acceptance of free travel by Ministers. In his answer to question No. 426, the Prime Minster stated:

It is expected, however, that Ministers not accept for themselves or their families, offers of free overseas travel from commercial sources, whether the commercial activities involved are connected directly with Ministers’ responsibilities or not.

That was a direct repudiation of the statement issued by the office of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in January of this year. At least the Prime Minister has been clear and forthright. We on this side of the House reject completely the abandonment of the guidelines and we call on the Government to adhere to its own guidelines on the receipt and disposal of gifts.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that I perhaps, overshadowed the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I did not observe that he was standing at the table. I apologise for having almost usurped his right to speak. I think that this evening, when we are all about to depart until the Budget session commences, there should be a certain measure of goodwill in what is said in this House. Therefore I am able to make a small acknowledgment in relation to a matter I raised on an adjournment debate about two months ago. At that time I raised a matter which was of great concern to my electorate of Mackellar- the question of the provision of adequate transport into the electorate. I drew the attention of the House to what I thought was a very bad decision by the New South Wales Labor Government to stop the construction of all inner urban freeways within the city of Sydney.

Unfortunately that decision still stands but I am happy to report to the House that there has been some small concession on the part of the New South Wales Government in that with regard to the area in which the State Government had purchased over 40 per cent of the properties necessary to construct an adequate freeway- the Warringah Expressway- into the electorate of Mackellar, it has now reversed its decision to sell that land. Had it sold that land, it would have been an irrevocable decision. It would have been impossible for future Liberal governments within the State of New South Wales to construct adequate transport facilities into the electorate. This is a concession not wrung easily from the Premier of New South Wales. In fact it required quite a considerable publicity effort and a meeting of and a visitation from mayors and presidents of the municipalities and shires within the northern region. They were able to prevail, I am happy to say, on the New South Wales Government and stop it from selling off this land. Unfortunately, the Minister for what passes for transport in New South Wales, Mr Cox, has made a statement that although the land will not now be sold there is no positive plan as to what will be done with it. An investigation will now be held to decide what is the next step.

I suggest that the New South Wales Government has to face up to the fact that in Australia, with an urban and suburban population which is rather spread out and where the economics of public transport are generally bad, it is essential to provide adequate facilities for private motoring. Private motoring, whether by petrol engines, diesel engines or electric engines in the future, will stay with us for very many decades. I believe that it is totally short-sighted of the New South Wales Government to deny this proposition. Within the electorate of Mackellar- in fact, within the whole of the shire of Warringahthere are only three avenues from Sydney, via the Mona Vale Road, the Roseville Bridge or the Spit Bridge. There is no train service, nor is there any likelihood of any railway ever being built because the economics of railways do not apply to the sparse population of that area. Therefore, there is a pressing need for the New South Wales Government to make forward provision for roads which will provide the necessary space for the number of vehicles that will carry people into that area.

The population of Australia is not growing at the rate we previously thought it was growing at. The recent statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has made that clear, at least over the next triennium. Therefore, there is not that overwhelming fear that we will be totally inundated with the motor car. As a matter of practical economics, we have to face up to the fact that adequate expressways must be provided within our major cities. They must certainly be a matter of immediate policy concern within Sydney for the New South Wales Government.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As an alderman of the Parramatta City

Council, I am very disturbed by the shrinkage in the percentage of the personal income tax levied by the Federal Government and transferred to local government.

Mr Goodluck:

– It is better off than it was before.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Don’t you believe it! Contrary to the popular mythology surrounding Commonwealth payments to local government, grants will have shown a real decline for the third year in succession at the end of this year when measured by the 1975 experience. That rather puts to sleep the theories oft propounded by honourable members on the Government side that grants to local government have kept pace. They have not kept pace. They have gone backwards. As an alderman I know that probably better than honourable members opposite do. This situation appears to be ignored by the Commonwealth Government which has often reiterated its commitment to continued financial support.

The 1978 Federal Budget is a critical one for local government. The real decline in Commonwealth funding, compounded by the restraint in rate collection which local government at the request of the Commonwealth has adopted, has resulted in an unavoidable and increasing gap between revenue and expenditure. The Fraser Government has promised to increase the share of personal income tax to 2 per cent during the life of the current Parliament. I quote from the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in 1977. This is one of the many unfulfilled promises:

A further increase of united grants to local councils is planned for the benefit of local ratepayers. The Government’s objective is to move towards an allocation of up to 2 per cent of personal income tax collection for local governments.

The truth is that that has not happened. If grants increased to 2 per cent we would be very pleased but this would be too little too late. The 2 per cent is needed now if the services delivered to people direct by local government are not to be diminished.

Local government also requires a definitive statement that this tax share will be coupled with additional full compensation for any further loss of specific purpose grants. Actually, the 2 per cent requested is a very modest amount. A new public finance study identifies an expenditure sharefall in local government for the current financial year of 4.3 per cent of income tax. Local government recognises that the present national economic situation is such that it cannot expect more than 2 per cent in the forthcoming Budget.

However, the case for the immediate implementation of the Government’s promise of 2 percent is totally irrefutable.

I think it is important to look at the categories of service delivered by local government throughout the nation. They include public works and services, recreation facilities, council properties, car parking, health and welfare, fire prevention, town planning, inspection licensing, tourist promotion, libraries, et cetera. Sir Billy Snedden who is not exactly an unimportant authority said at a meeting of local government councillors in Melbourne in 1974:

The rating system not being a growth tax offers little flexibility in endeavouring to match the current substantial cost increases. In fact many councils have reached saturation point in their rating capacity.

I am sure that all of us as ratepayers will agree with that. It is unreasonbale to expect property owners to bear the full burden of people related services. Local government is facing a new era of demands for increased and new services. These new demands have far outstripped local government’s ability to pay. The situation is critical. In the last year of Labor’s administration in 1 975 it made 2.89 per cent of income tax available to local government. All we are asking on behalf of local government is for the availability of 2 per cent of tax revenue to local councils- the most direct instrument of government in the nation. That figure of 2.89 per cent included funds allocated for the Regional Employment Development scheme. If we take the component for the oft-condemned RED scheme away from the grants to local government, the proportion is still 2.34 per cent of the previous year’s income tax revenue. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Government to think about giving local government a 2 per cent share. We are all ratepayers. We all put our garbage bins out each week. I guess we all wonder how the council do the work they do for the money we give them.

Mr Thomson:

– We put ours out twice a week.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member is very lucky. We put ours out twice a week in Parramatta but we are one of the most advanced and forward thinking councils. I suggest that the Government should immediately implement a scheme whereby 2 per cent of tax revenue this year will be transferred to local government so that it can get on with its job. I am sure that it is a job we all appreciate.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I raise tonight an alarming example of an extortion racket, a union ripoff. Large amounts could be involved. This abuse by some union officials at the Melbourne Exhibition Buildings is an attack on the freedom of individuals to carry on business and an attack on the liberty of the subject. At the recent Australian Furniture Fashion Fair held at the Melbourne Exhibition Buildings, standholders were preparing and building their stands. Apparently officials from the Operative Painters and Decorators Union and the Building and Industrial Workers Union checked all people working on stands to see whether they were union members. If they were not members and did not join up, they were told that work would stop. They were given the opportunity of joining the Painters and Decorators Union for $43 and the BWIU for $37. This is union blackmail.

I am told this is not the only show at the Exhibition Buildings at which these standover tactics are used. There are over 20 exhibitions planned at the buildings in 1978 and one. can assume by taking an average number of stands and a proportion of shows that a total figure to the order of $ 100,000 could be involved. What the unions are after is the money, the fast buck. Officials visited standholders every half hour to check that only union labour was involved. The threat is that, if one does not pay up the show will not go on.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right.

Mr SHIPTON:

– The honourable member for Parramatta said: ‘That is right’. He is proud of it. He ought to be ashamed of himself. They are clever enough to stay away from shows like the recent yachting show because clubs and other community type organisations are involved. I imagine they will be at it again before the next motor show.

The are subtle. They attack in those critical days just before the show. I understand that other unions could be involved and I have reports that the Amalgamated Society of Joiners and Carpenters is involved. If a family business is involved it makes little difference. Family companies can have one director work free but the rest have to join up or else. If a small business has four or five people working on a stand a blackmail payment can be over $200. This is an attack by unscrupulous union officials on small businesses- businesses which at the time of that show were just recovering from the crippling power strike and looking for new business.

Businesses are not allowed to prepare, paint or erect their own stands. They cannot even do it themselves. The next thing will be that if we are mowing our own lawns they will want us to join a union. It is a disgrace that this is happening in the centre of Melbourne. I call on the Trades Hall Council and responsible union officials to have this disgraceful behaviour stopped. I am sure that responsible union officials and unionists alike would be as horrified as I am of this frightful behaviour. I say to responsible unionists that this is what irresponsible union officials are doing in their name; they are bringing the union movement into contempt.

I call on responsible unionists to recognise these corrupt actions being done in their name. I call on them to remember them at union election time. I ask the rank and file to exercise the opportunity this Government has given them, under our secret ballot legislation, to get rid of these sorts of officials that give unions a bad name. I also call on employers who are threatened to stand up and take action under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. This is the type of abuse of power by union officials that brings the union movement on the whole into disrepute. I call on responsible unionists to act.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I rise tonight because ever since I have come to this House I have been sickened by the attempts of a number of Government backbench members, including the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), to turn the needed construction of a new coal loader in the Port Kembla district into a political football. Once again I note that this evening they have been up to their same old tricks. I have been prompted to rise to try to educate these people. If they listen for the next four minutes they might learn something about the coal loader situation in the Wollongong district.

It is true that there is a need for a new coal loader on the South Coast of New South Wales. There has been for a number of years. The Wran State Labor Government has already lifted the capacity of the Port Kembla loader by one million tonnes, from five million tonnes a year to six million tonnes. It did this in the last two years. It was originally thought that this loader might be constructed off-shore but that decision was changed for a variety of reasons. Now it is to be an on-shore loader. I agree with that decision and I will tell the House why.

For some time there have been plans- in my view the plans are wrong- to alter the whole harbour construction at Port Kembla by constructing a very large off-shore loader. This involved linking the five islands by means of an underwater breakwater. I reason that if an off-shore loader were constructed it would mean that the whole thrust of future harbour development in Port Kembla would irreversibly be towards an off-shore harbour development. I say that for the simple reason that the sea, when there are heavy swells and so on, will make that off-shore loader, without the appropriate breakwaters, unusable for at least three or four months of the year.

If one is opposed to that sort of environment destroying proposition, as I am, obviously one would be in favour of the construction of an onshore loader inside the Port Kembla inner harbour. For that reason I totally agree with the decision of the Wran Labor Government to construct the loader not at Botany Bay- Government supporters can forget about Botany Baybut inside the inner harbour at Port Kembla.

As I have said, there is a very great need for this loader to be constructed with the utmost speed. One of the main problems associated with this project is the transport of coal. Let us look at how the coal is being transported to Port Kembla. At the moment the coal from the north, particularly from the major mine at Coalcliff, is being transported by rail, but the coal that comes into the area from the Burragorang Valley, the new mine at Westcliff and also the South Bulli mine, is carted by road. That means that every day some 1,000 road trucks lumber through the heart of Wollongong and we do not like that very much. So there are a number of needs associated with this new coal loader at Port Kembla and I will briefly outline them.

First of all there needs to be a new rail line constructed from the tablelands to Port Kembla. There needs to be an overhead conveyor at South Bulli to make sure that the coal from South Bulli gets to the main Illawarra line. And last but not least, the stock piles need to be covered to stop wind blown dust polluting the City of Wollongong and Port Kembla.

It would be a darn sight better if this Government had meaningful financial discussions with Mr Wran at the Premiers Conference in several weeks time about the funding of these operations rather than allow its supproters to get up in this Parliament and try to turn the issue into a political football for their own personal political gains in their electorates. That is what the honourable member for Macarthur does. It is very likely that the coal loader at Port Kembla will be constructed by means of a levy on tonnage throughput but I do not think that would be an appropriate means of financing the railway line and the upgrading of the new roads to the tablelands. I think that at this stage the Federal Government had better come to the party.

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

Mr THOMSON:
Leichhardt

-I want to speak tonight on an election promise which has not been honoured by the Government. I quote from the election speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 21 November 1977. He said:

Other measures to assist people in remote areas will include extension of the limit to provision of free telephone line plant from 12 kilometres to 16 kilometres.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said at the same time:

The provision of free telephone line plant, which we previously extended to 12 kilometres and which Labor reduced to eight kilometres, will now be extended to 16 kilometres.

I quote now from an answer given by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) on 2 May 1978. He said in part:

There is a difference between myself and the Commission over the nature and extent of the Government’s commitment made at the last election where the Commission believed that the promise to extend the free line plant entitlement from 12 kilometres to 16 kilometres should be with respect only to those areas which are programmed for conversion to automatic within two years or where there is already an automatic exchange. The Government’s view is that the commitment should be fulfilled without qualification. I have put that view in writing to the Chairman of the Commission, and I await a reply.

I quote now from the charter of Telecom Australia. Telecom is responsible to: . . plan, establish, maintain and operate telecommunication services within Australia and has a duty to perform those functions in such a manner as will best fit the social, industrial and commercial needs of the people of Australia. To the extent that it considers reasonably practicable it is required to make its services available throughout Australia to all who reasonably require them.

The Telecom position is that only lines which are due to be connected to automatic exchanges within two years should qualify for the Government’s electoral promise. In fact, the Government’s promise was quite unequivocal, as the quotes from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister make clear. I believe there is a matter of grave principle involved in this problem. Telecom is an independent statutory authority but it appears that the Minister and the Government have no authority over it so far as government commitments are concerned. There was an unequivocal commitment to extend the free line entitlement from 12 kilometres to 16 kilometres. That commitment has not yet been honoured. It is being withheld by Telecom.

I think it is time that the Government took a very firm look at the duties and responsibilities of Telecom. I believe that Telecom is overly influenced by the needs of the metropolitan areas of Australia and is neglecting the needs of the isolated and remote areas of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 15 August at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker, or in the absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3340

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated

Employment in Construction Industry (Question No. 1055)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

What was the total estimated number of persons (a) employed and (b) unemployed in the construction industry in (i) Australia and (ii) each State and Territory during each month since January 1977.

Mr Street:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

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

The following tables provide statistics on employed and unemployed persons in the construction industry during each month since January 1 977 for which data are available.

The data presented to cover ‘unemployed in the construction industry’ are the number of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for employment in occupations related to the construction industry. The occupational categories covered in this instance are skilled building and construction workers, builders labourers and other building and construction workers.

Table 1

page 3340

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BY STATE FOR EACH MONTH SINCE

JANUARY 1977(a)

C000)

Table 2

REGISTERED UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY' (AS REPRESENTED BY PERSONS REGISTERED WITH THE CES IN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OCCUPATIONS) BY STATE AT EACH END-MONTH SINCE JANUARY 1977(a) {:#subdebate-57-0} #### Labour Force Surveys (Question No. 1072) {: #subdebate-57-0-s0 .speaker-EH4} ##### Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What have been the total approximate costs incurred by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in undertaking (a) the unemployment survey of February 1978 and (b) the unemployment survey of March 1978. 1. What is the approximate projected cost of the monthly Australian Bureau of Statistics unemployment surveys to (a) December 1978 and (b) December 1980. 2. Which previously existing social and economic household surveys have been temporarily discontinued as a consequence of the introduction of the monthly Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of unemployment. 3. What plans are currently in progress to allow for an expansion of the sample size of quarterly labour force surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4. What plans are currently in progress to provide a more detailed breakdown in Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force surveys of industry, occupation and level of skill or semi-skill. 5. What plans are currently in progress to provide a more detailed breakdown in Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force surveys of the ethnicity of employed and unemployed persons. {: #subdebate-57-0-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total approximate costs (including salaries of permanent officers directly engaged in this survey, but excluding costs in the form of overheads not directly attributable to the project) incurred by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in undertaking the following labour force surveys were: $360,000 for the February 1978 survey. $345,000 for the March 1978 survey. The February survey was more costly because, unlike the March survey, it included occupation and industry questions with a resultant increase in data processing costs. These questions are also asked in the May, August and November surveys. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The projected costs, at current prices, of monthly labour force surveys is $360,000 in the months of February, May, August and November and $345,000 in other months. On this basis the approximate cost of monthly labour force surveys to December 1978 is expected to be $3.9m (no survey was conducted in January 1978) and $12.3m to December 1980 (i.e. from February 1978 to December 1980). The above figures relate only to the labour force statistics component of the monthly population survey and do not include additional costs attributable to supplementary questions on particular topics to be asked in conjunction with the labour force topics. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 3 ) No pre viously existing social and economic household surveys have been temporarily discontinued as a consequence of the introduction of monthly labour force surveys, but certain surveys that were planned to be conducted as supplements to the labour force surveys have been deferred. These surveys would have covered the following subjects: labour force experience; persons looking for work; leavers from schools, universities and other educational institutions; sight and hearing defects; and dental health. Supplementary surveys will be reintroduced in July 1978, and all of the subjects mentioned will be included in the forward program. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. There are no current plans to allow for an expansion of the sample size of the quarterly labour force surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1. The amount of detail that can be published is restricted mainly by the size of the labour force survey sample, and generally information on industry and occupation is limited to major divisions or groups of the classifications. However, more detailed information on the occupation of employed persons (63 minor groups) is published each year in the May issue of *The Labour Force* (6203.0), but the present classification cannot provide precise details in respect of skilled and semi-skilled workers. The feasibility of the publishing a wider range of industry details is being considered. 2. Information regarding the birthplace of persons in the different categories of the labour force is published regularly. The extent of the detail is determined by the size of the sample. {:#subdebate-57-1} #### River Murray Waters (Question No. 1086) {: #subdebate-57-1-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention be drawn to a report in the *Australian Dried Fruit News* of April 1978, that the New South Wales Government has decided to proceed alone with the construction of five tube wells in the Boeill Creek area, after months of procrastination by the River Murray Commission and State and Federal governments. 1. If so, does this provide yet another indication that fragmented control over the Murray River and its catchment areas is not in the best interests of effective management of the Murray River system. 2. Is he able to say whether the report prepared by Maunsell and Partners into the standardisation of the Port Pirie-Adelaide railway line in the late 1960s has been ignored by his colleague, the Minister for Transport, and that the same Minister called for another report by a different engineer into this project in 1976; if so, will he give an assurance that the report currently being prepared by Maunsell and Panners into salinity and drainage problems in the Murray River will be treated more seriously by him than the earlier Maunsell report was treated by the Minister for Transport. {: #subdebate-57-1-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) A River Murray Working Party, comprising representatives from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, identified in its October 1975 report certain proposals to mitigate salinity problems along the river; it noted that they were State responsibilities and recommended that they be carried out by the States concerned. The New South Wales Government informed the Commonwealth in November 1976 of its acceptance of the recommendations of the River Murray Working Party, and works are now in progress as indicated in the news report referred to by the honourable member. 1. ) It must be recognised that irrigation and associated development within the Murray Valley is constitutionally the responsibility of the respective State governments. Nevertheless, the honourable member would be aware from my recent statements to the Press (3 March 1978 and 20 April 1978) of agreement between the Commonwealth and the three State governments on the development of a valleywide plan of action to mitigate salinity and drainage problems in the Murray Valley. My Government is firmly committed to this co-ordinated approach to these serious management problems. (3)I cannot speak for the Minister for Transport on matters within his area of responsibility. I give an assurance that the consultants' report on Murray Valley salinity and drainage problems will be given urgent consideration as I have stressed on a number of occasions. {:#subdebate-57-2} #### Aborigines: Aurukun and Mornington Island (Question No. 1125) {: #subdebate-57-2-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Can he say whether recent Queensland legislation (a) excludes (i) from Aurukun Shire, traditional Aurukun tribal land to the south of the former reserve, and (ii) from Mornington Shire, Bentinck Islands and Sweers Island, thus reflecting the State Government's concern with the phosphate and bauxite industries rather than with Aboriginal sacred land and traditional land ownership, (b) fails to enable Aborigines or the Church to own or set up buildings or business projects within the leased Shires or the Council to acquire property anywhere, (c) fails to define who is to fill vacancies on the Councils, (d) provides administration under a complicated Local Government Act thus ensuring that Aborigines cannot manage their affairs and enables the State Minister for Local Government to appoint an administrator in place of the Councils, (e) provides for an externally appointed committee to assist the State Government in control and management of the communities which are supposedly run by Aboriginal representatives according to published statements, (f) excludes Church representatives from providing services other than religious instruction by persons ordinarily employed by the Church for that purpose and (g) gives the State Minister veto power over Council decisions to advise or exclude persons from their Shires and to appoint the Shire Clerk, who need not be qualified and is to be assisted in financial matters by the appointed committee. 1. If so, which of these provisions is acceptable to the Government. {: #subdebate-57-2-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) The new Shires of Aurukun and Mornington include the whole of the two Reserves as they existed before they were revoked by the Queensland Government on 7 April 1978, together with certain areas within the boundaries of those Reserves which had been previously set aside for government and official purposes. Bentinck Island is included in the Mornington Shire, but Sweers Island was not part of the Reserve area revoked on 7 April and remains an Aboriginal Reserve. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The legislation will not inhibit the operation of Aboriginal projects and, under Section 32 of the Act, the Shire Councils are empowered, subject to approval by the Governor in Council, to acquire or hold land. 1. Any vacancies occurring on the Councils before the elections to take place in March 1 979 will be filled in accordance with Section5 of the Act and any subsequent vacancies will be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Queensland Local Government Act. 2. I believe the Aboriginal Councils are fully capable of managing their affairs under the Local Government legislation. 3. The Co-ordinating and Advisory Committees will have the function of advising and assisting the Councils, not the Queensland Government. 4. The Councils and other Aboriginal organisations will be free to seek assistance from whatever sources they choose and the Uniting Church will enjoy the same freedom to provide services it enjoys elsewhere. 5. The Act provides that the entry of persons not specified in the Act to the Shire areas is to be regulated by by-laws made by Shire Councils; by-laws made by Shire Councils are subject to approval by the Governor in Council. The Act provides for the. appointment of Shire Clerks to be subject to the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Commonwealth and Queensland Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs. 1. See my Press statement of 17 May 1978. {:#subdebate-57-3} #### Assistance to Small Business (Question No. 1174) {: #subdebate-57-3-s0 .speaker-KD4} ##### Mr Aldred:
HENTY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1978: >Which sections of his Department can be of assistance to small business, particularly in the provision of services and research. {: #subdebate-57-3-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >A considerable range of assistance is available to small business, aimed mainly at helping individual firms, or groups of firms, by advice and collaborative programs to improve their efficiency and productivity. Research facilities as such are not provided, except to the extent necessary to support the various programs in which the Department and firms are together involved. > >One significant channel of contact for small business is the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia (PPCA), through which the Working Environment Division of my Department (located in Melbourne), supports enterprise productivity improvement without discrimination as to the size of firms. Indeed, a number of programs are specifically oriented toward assisting the small firm, especially in services designed to promote the development of small business management skills and techniques for unit cost reduction. > >Specific programs available through the PPCA are: productivity improvement team service, to help small companies plan cost reduction, industry sector working circles, aimed to identify cost and productivity factors beyond the capacity of individual firms to deal with alone, an information service, included in which are specific small business management publications, audiovisuals and films, et cetera, small business management training programs, productivity achievement programs for supervisors and operators, small business liaison, with State Government small business agencies. > >The Working Environment Division is represented in my Department's offices in each of the capital cities, and is available for consultation and inquiry on any of the above services. > >Other services are provided by means of: the National Materials Handling Bureau, located at Ryde, New South Wales, which encourages and assists industry at all levels, through project and ad hoc advisory services, to achieve productivity improvement through better handling, packaging and distribution practices, inter-firm comparison studies which enable firms to compare their performance with other firms, consultative services to industry to complement the inter-firm comparison services, development of a computerised simulation model to help the small business operator, encouraging labour/management co-operation, development and dissemination of Codes of Practice in the field of Occupational Safety and Health, specific industry productivity programs to identify and implement ways of improving the productivity and competitiveness of particular industries, development of a model cost reduction program for adoption by medium to small businesses. > >This latter group of services, including the activities of the National Materials Handling Bureau, is the responsibility of the Productivity Development Division in my Department's central office in Canberra. {:#subdebate-57-4} #### Income Equalisation Deposits (Question No. 1179) {: #subdebate-57-4-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is there a delay in the payment of Income Equalisation Deposits and in the postage of withdrawal application forms. 1. Will he ensure that applications are processed more expeditiously in future. {: #subdebate-57-4-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) There is no undue delay in the repayment of an Income Equalisation Deposit of more than 12 months standing if the withdrawal application form is correctly completed. Repayment is usually made within 3 weeks of receipt of the application. It may take longer if the correct withdrawal form is not used or the form is incorrectly completed and further information has to be obtained from the applicant. An application for the withdrawal of a deposit of less than 1 2 months standing may be made on the grounds of serious financial difficulties. Establishing that the ground exists may involve extra time. Withdrawal application forms are obtainable at any Taxation Office. They are forwarded to depositors on request or where an intention to withdraw a deposit is otherwise indicated. No undue delay in posting is evident in these cases. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Applications for repayment will continue to be processed as expeditiously as possible. {:#subdebate-57-5} #### River Murray Waters (Question No. 1181) {: #subdebate-57-5-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the arrangement between New South Wales and the River Murray Commission to guarantee water to South Australia through the Murray River system. 1. What pan do the Lachlan and Macquarie Rivers play in this arrangement. {: #subdebate-57-5-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) New South Wales is party to the River Murray Waters Agreement along with Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth. The Agreement provides for the distribution of water between Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. 1. 2 ) Neither the Lachlan or the Macquarie River plays any part in the River Murray Commission's arrangements for conservation and regulation. The Lachlan River is a tributary of the Murrumbidgee and the Macquarie River flows *into* the Castlereagh River which is a tributary of the Darling. The Murrumbidgee and the Darling are themselves tributaries of the River Murray but, through them, the Lachlan and Macquarie rivers do not contribute any appreciable flow to the River Murray system except in times of extreme high flood. {:#subdebate-57-6} #### Official Gifts (Question No. 1187) {: #subdebate-57-6-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he state in answer to question No. 753 *(Hansard,* 24 May 1977, page 1790) that the recipient of a gold bracelet as a gift for launching the *Australian Progress* on 6 April 1977 would be given the opportunity to purchase the bracelet if the valuation was greater than $ 100. 1. Has the valuation of the gift been completed; if so, (a ) was the value of the gift greater than $ 100 and (b) did the recipient take the opportunity to purchase the gift. 2. 3 ) What is the present location of the gift. {: #subdebate-57-6-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) I direct the honourable member's attention to my answer to Question No. 1188. {:#subdebate-57-7} #### Official Gifts (Question No. 1188) {: #subdebate-57-7-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many gifts have he, his wife, his Ministers and their wives received in carrying out Government business since 1 1 November 1975. 1. How many gifts (a) have been valued, (b) had a value in excess of $ 100 and (c) have been paid for by the recipient in accordance with the guidelines he announced in March 1976. {: #subdebate-57-7-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) In answer to a question on notice on 6 November 1975 the then Prime Minister, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, said: As has been the practice of successive Governments, long before I came to office, Governors-General and Ministers and /or their wives may retain personal gifts they are given in the course of overseas visits. No record is kept of such personal gifts. ' When my Government came to office, new procedures were instituted in relation to gifts. Under these guidelines significant gifts received by Ministers or their families in the course of their official duties are declared and valued. Where a gift presented by another government is valued at $230 or a gift from any other source is valued at more than $ 1 00, the gift is surrendered unless the .recipient pays the determined valuation. On the matter of disclosing the value of individual gifts or lists of gifts I believe that such a practice would breach the rules of courtesy. This was also the view of the Whitlam Government (see *Hansard,* 6 November 1975, page 2911) and previous Governments. {:#subdebate-57-8} #### Commonwealth Transport Business Undertakings (Question No. 1194) {: #subdebate-57-8-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he state in answer to question No. 284 *(Hansard,* 2 1 April 1977, page 1 184) that he envisaged discussions of the report of the committee of inquiry into the 4 Australian transport undertakings with the chairmen of those business undertakings would be completed in the near future. 1. If so, have these discussions been completed and what were the results of the discussions. {: #subdebate-57-8-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes, the views of the chairmen of the Transport business undertakings were taken into account in consideration of the committee 's recommendations. {:#subdebate-57-9} #### Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1207) {: #subdebate-57-9-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Government committed to give freehold title in perpetuity in traditionally owned land to Aboriginal communities along with a substantial control over and share in mineral exploitation of that land. 1. If so, will this eventually entail acquisition of land and some share in mineral rights from the States by the Commonwealth Government. 2. Did a meeting of over 150 delegates from Aboriginal communities in the Pilbara region in April 1978 write to the Prime Minister asking for more land ownership and control and retention of the right of West Australian Aboriginals to issue mining exploration permits for their land. 3. Did the meeting also complain of the extensive social damage and sparse benefits to Aborigines from mining which has been undertaken without consulting them. 4. When will Aboriginal people in Western Australia and Queensland have the same land rights as those in the Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-57-9-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Government was committed to recognise the rights of Aborigines to the lands located within the reserves in the Northern Territory' and gave effect to that commitment by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Government is also committed to 'make lands available, either by grant or through the provision of funds, to tribal Aboriginals living on or near their traditional areas which are not on reserves and to detribalised Aborigines in rural or urban areas', by making regular allocations to the Aboriginal Land Fund. This commitment is also being met. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. This is a matter of policy affecting the responsibilities of State Governments as well as the Commonwealth Government. {:#subdebate-57-10} #### Hospitals Development Program: Ipswich Hospital (Question No. 1208) {: #subdebate-57-10-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have any projects at the Ipswich Hospital, Queensland, attracted financial support from the Australian Government under any cost sharing programs. 1. ) If so, what is the nature of the program. 2. 3 ) What is the nature of the works attracting support. 3. What is the total cost of these works. 4. What sum is being provided by the Australian Government toward the total cost. {: #subdebate-57-10-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Under the Hospitals Development Program the Commonwealth makes funds available to the States to assist them in their hospital capital building and refurbishing programs. Commonwealth funds are in the form of block grants to supplement an overall State Program and are not directed towards individual projects. 2. and (4) Projects at the Ipswich Hospital which have been included in the approved schedule of works for Queensland for which Hospitals Development Program grants are provided are as follows: Total Description of project estimated cost $m New ward block......... 10.013 Renovation of ward kitchens..... .036 Improvements to nurses quarters . . . .204 Additional X-ray equipment..... .077 {: type="1" start="5"} 0. See (2) Assistance to Queensland is in the form of a block grant to supplement a total program. Queensland has the final responsibility for managing total funds both Commonwealth and State. The decision to alter funding priorities by bringing forward or deferring projects rests with Queensland. Since the Hospitals Development Program commenced in 1974-75 the following block grants have been made to Queensland: $m 1974- 75............ 5.084 1975- 76............ 15.280 1976- 77............ 17.000 1977- 78............ 7.130 44.494 The honourable member will also be aware that Ipswich Hospital is a recognised hospital included under the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland in relation to the Provision of Hospital Services (1976). Under this Agreement the approved net operating costs of the hospital are shared equally. {:#subdebate-57-11} #### Specific Learning Difficulties (Question No. 1212) {: #subdebate-57-11-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: >What progress has the Government made in implementing the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. {: #subdebate-57-11-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: >The report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties, Learning Difficulties iti Children and Adults, has been closely examined by my Department and in other agencies in my portfolio. There is now a number of projects addressed at the national level to problems in the areas the Select Committee studied. > >An important recommendation of the Select Committee was that the incidence of learning difficulties should be determined at regular intervals by a nationwide survey similar to the study of 'Literacy and Numeracy in Australian Schools' conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research. The Education Research and Development Committee (ERDC) now has a study group reporting on the feasibility of instituting a regular program of national assessment of educational standards and progress. ERDC has also supported several research projects in the area of specific learning difficulties including aspects of screening, diagnosis and remediation. > >The Schools Commission has set up a Special Education Advisory Group and during 1978 intends to conduct a national survey which should show up students with special needs and possibly throw light on the question of when children with special needs should be educated in regular classes. The Commission hopes the survey will enable it to make recommendations concerning provision for children with learning difficulties. The Curriculum Development Centre is also interested in special education and is planning a project in the area. > >In pan as a direct result of the Select Committee's report, the former Universities Commission surveyed and reviewed in 1977 the development of teacher education programs in special education in Australian universities. It was found that these courses do in fact concentrate on learning difficulties rather than on physical and mental handicaps. > >In the area of adult literacy, which was a major concern of the Select Committee, my Depanment has provided secretariat and support services to assist the Australian Council for Adult Literacy during its first year of operation. > >In addition, the Government 's continued support for the education and welfare of Aborigines and migrants is contributing significantly to combating learning difficulties within those groups. > >When the Select Committee 's report was presented it was pointed out that the classroom teacher must be the key to the attempt to overcome learning difficulties. As the majority of teachers are employed in the States and the State education authorities are substantially responsible for establishing their own priorities in the allocation of resources for primary and secondary education, the report was referred in 1 977 to the Australian Education Council. It will be discussed again at the Council 's next meeting in July 1 978. > >The Select Committee's report was concerned with teacher education, and its Chairman has spoken of unsatisfactory elements in the training currently being offered to teachers. I am myself concerned about the quality of teacher education and I am consulting with the State Ministers in preparation for instituting a national inquiry into teacher education. The inquiry will examine the field of teacher education in general, taking into account the whole range of needs. The latest information on learning difficulties will be made available to the inquiry and it is my view that a wide ranging teacher education inquiry is necessary to produce effective changes that will be generally adopted and lead to the improvement of learning opportunities of children throughout Australia. Review of Family Law Act (Question No. 12SS) {: #subdebate-57-11-s2 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 May 1978: >In view of the urgent need to review the Family Law Act when will the Attorney-General recommend to the Government the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee to review the Family Law Act (Question No. 240, *Hansard,* 4 April 1978, page 972). {: #subdebate-57-11-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >This matter was considered very recently by the Government, and, as a result, I shall be putting to the Government a detailed proposal regarding the establishment of a parliamentary committee to review the Family Law Act in the very near future. {:#subdebate-57-12} #### General Revenue Assistance to Local Government (Question No. 1299) {: #subdebate-57-12-s0 .speaker-PD4} ##### Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP wn asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are there any restrictions on the uses made by local government authorities of the share of personal income tax made available for local government purposes; if so, what are they. < 1. When the Government legislates to provide 2 per cent of personal *income* tax for local government purposes, will it ensure that no pan of those funds made available to local government authorities is spent by them on purposes other than proper local government purposes. {: #subdebate-57-12-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Payments of general revenue assistance to local government authorities, on the recommendation of State Grants Commissions, are completely untied. Councils are under no directions concerning the use of these funds. Section 7 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1 976 specifically states that payments to local Government bodies under the tax sharing arrangements are 'unconditional '. The grants are intended as a supplement to Council revenues to assist Councils in forward budgeting and to provide for their greater independence of action. > >) When the Government introduces increases in general revenue assistance to local government above the present 1.S2 per cent of personal income tax collections, it does not intend introducing any changes to the unconditional arrangements that exist now. > >The Government's federalism policy seeks to ensure that local government autonomy is not eroded and that local government is given continued access to revenues of known or predictable dimensions. {:#subdebate-57-13} #### Sugar Price (Question No. 1393) {: #subdebate-57-13-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he made a decision on domestic sugar prices, which he said in his letter to me of 10 April may be expected shortly. 1. If not, has the Prime Minister intervened to delay this decision. {: #subdebate-57-13-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) See answer to 1032. {:#subdebate-57-14} #### Aboriginal Land Fund Commission (Question No. 75) {: #subdebate-57-14-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: >Has there been any correspondence between the Queensland Premier and himself on the purchase of properties near Aurukun and Cardwell by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission since his answer to me on 24 February 1977 *(Hansard,* page 4 1 3 ); if so, with what result. {: #subdebate-57-14-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Details of correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister are normally regarded as confidential. {:#subdebate-57-15} #### Teaching of Migrant Languages (Question No. 110) {: #subdebate-57-15-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which recommendations has the Government accepted in the Report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools which was presented to the Minister in March 1976 and tabled by him on 8 December 1976 (Senate *Hansard,* page 2787) and for him on 9 December 1976 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 3576). 1. Which recommendations has the Government rejected. 2. Which recommendations is the Government still considering. {: #subdebate-57-15-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) The Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools was set up by the Commonwealth Government with the agreement of the State Ministers for Education. It was always intended that the Committee's Report would be of use and guidance to State and non-government education authorities, to individual schools and to the community generally, as well as to the Commonwealth Government. The Report emphasises (in recommendation 8, page 120) that schools themselves should decide whether, to what extent, and in what ways, migrant (community) languages and cultures should be studied and that there should be consultation in this respect with parents and the local community. The recommendations have however received individual consideration in the context of a comprehensive analysis of a number of inter-related reports recently completed by u review group within my Department. The report of the review group, which is an internal working document and therefore not intended for publication, will provide the basis on which further action can be taken in consultation with the other authorities concerned in influencing the greater development of community language teaching which the Commonwealth Government supports as a matter of policy. The recently tabled Report, 'Migrant Services and Programs', gives also major attention to multicultural issues. Its recommendations, including those on multicultural education and the teaching of community languages, have been accepted by the Government and will be implemented expeditiously. {:#subdebate-57-16} #### Teaching of Migrant Languages (Question No. Ill) {: #subdebate-57-16-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: >When does the Minister now expect to receive and table the comprehensive analysis and consolidated report of all the related reports on the teaching of migrant languages *(Hansard,* 27 April 1977, page 1279). {: #subdebate-57-16-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: >The consolidated report referred to is not exclusively devoted to the teaching of migrant languages but covers a number of areas of relevance to education policy. It was prepared as an internal working document and was not intended for publication. {:#subdebate-57-17} #### Aboriginal Health (Question No. 187) {: #subdebate-57-17-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What progress has been made with implementation of the recommendations of the workshop on Aboriginal medical services at Albury in 1974. 1. What steps have been taken to provide training certificates for Aboriginals as health aides, nursing assistants, public health assistants, clerical administrative assistants. Aboriginal health practitioners or other health team roles. 2. What visits or exchanges of staff and students in such training have been arranged with Papua New Guinea or other developing countries. 3. How many Aboriginals are involved in sessions on Aboriginal health in medical and nursing schools. 4. What funding has been granted for specialist visits to Thursday Island from Cairns. 5. What local, regional, State and national assemblies have been set up to collate and develop Aboriginal health policies. 6. What (a) Aboriginal controlled and (b) community controlled groups have received Aboriginal health funds from governments for disposal at their discretion, and what evaluation has been made of the results and by whom. 7. What integration has occurred between indigenous and western medical practice. 8. What funds have been provided for formally recognised training courses in Aboriginal health, which medical schools, nursing colleges and Aboriginal controlled health services have received such funds, and how much has been provided in each case in each of the last 5 years for which data is available. 9. Which governments and academic institutions require experience or training at Aboriginal health centres, in what form and for what periods in each case. 10. What steps have been taken to reintroduce bush nursing on Cape Barren Island. 11. Which local hospital boards include Aboriginals. 12. What special arrangements have been made for enrolment of those Aboriginals eligible for subsidised health benefits. 13. 14) What recommendations have been prepared for him on alcohol problems. 14. What Aboriginal social workers from local communities are available at hospitals, and are they supported by others in cases where totem and kinship tabus hinder their direct contact with patients. 15. What supervision is given of Aboriginal dental services. 16. Which recommendations of the Monash seminar of May 1 972 on Aboriginal health have been implemented. 17. What steps have been taken to fund Aboriginals willing to train Aboriginal teams to erect pre-cut homes as a co-operative project. {: #subdebate-57-17-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to ( 1 8 ) The Workshop on Aboriginal Medical Services held in Albury in 1 974 was convened by the Commonwealth Department of Health, and was designed to allow those involved to exchange experiences gained in the operation of Aboriginal Medical Services, to discuss the provision of similar services in other communities, and to suggest training programs. A total of 22 recommendations was made by the Workshop, many of them matters which fall within the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. The recommendations have, however, been taken into account in the planning of the programs of my Department and direct action has been taken on a number of them. Reporting on action taken on individual recommendations, several of which are separately referred to in this question, would entail an unjustifiable amount of the time of officers of my Department and the Department of Health. Similarly, the 1972 Monash seminar made many recommendations which have been taken into account in subsequent Government planning. I remind the honourable member that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is at present enquiring into Aboriginal health problems and existing health care programs. {:#subdebate-57-18} #### Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 322) {: #subdebate-57-18-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Whitlam Government accede promptly to the recommendation of the first report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission calling for Land Councils based on Darwin and Alice Springs. 1. Was the second report addressed to the GovernorGeneral on 3 May 1 974. 2. If so, what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the report, and what are the reasons for any delay. {: #subdebate-57-18-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) **Mr Justice** Woodward presented his first report on 19 July 1973 and the two regional Land Councils which he recommended should be convened as soon as possible held their first meetings in the last week of September 1973. These interim bodies have now been formally established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. 1. Yes. 2. The recommendations of **Mr Justice** Woodward in his Second Report were given effect to by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which was proclaimed on 26 January 1 977. Complementary legislation was recently introduced into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Other measures to give effect to **Mr Justice** Woodward 's recommendations include: the purchase by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission of land for Aboriginals, including several cattle stations; the provision of village areas for communities on pastoral properties; the provision of land in towns for Aboriginal community housing, hostels and camping places; the provision of grants and advice to help Aboriginal groups to make good use of their land. {:#subdebate-57-19} #### Aboriginal Art Forms: Copyright (Question No. 375) {: #subdebate-57-19-s0 .speaker-KEO} ##### Mr Falconer:
CASEY, VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When was the interdepartmental working party established to examine the possible issue of licences and collection of royalties for the use of Aboriginal motifs and folklore in the production of such items as decorative objects and souvenirs. 1. Which departments and other bodies are represented on the working party. 2. When will the working party report to the Government on the matter. {: #subdebate-57-19-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The working party was set up in late 1975 to examine ways in which traditional aboriginal art forms, including music, painting and dance, can be more effectively protected in the context of Australian and international copyright law. 1. The working party comprises representatives of the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Depanment of Home Affairs, The Aboriginal Arts Board of the Australia Council and the Australian Copyright Council. 2. I am informed that the preparation of the report of the working pany is well advanced. {:#subdebate-57-20} #### Offers of Overseas Travel to Ministers (Question No. 426) {: #subdebate-57-20-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Do the guidelines governing the acceptance of gifts by a Minister and his family apply to acceptance of offers of overseas travel by the Minister's family from persons or organisations whose day to day commercial activities fall within the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister concerned. 1. If so, what is the course of action to be followed by the Minister concerned in these circumstances. {: #subdebate-57-20-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The guidelines governing the acceptance of gifts by Ministers and their families do not specifically mention offers of free overseas travel. It is expected, however, that Ministers not accept for themselves or their families, offers of free overseas travel from commercial sources, whether the commercial activities involved are connected directly with Ministers' responsibilities or not. As the most recent example of this approach, I mention that when **Senator the Hon.** Margaret Guilfoyle travelled to Japan to launch an ANL ship in April 1978, her fares were paid from the ministerial travel vote. 1. -- {:#subdebate-57-21} #### Departmental Libraries (Question No. 533) {: #subdebate-57-21-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representating the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many libraries are in the Depanment of Education, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each. 1. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1 977-78. 2. 3 ) What is the annual cost of running each library. 3. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the past 3 years, or are contemplated. 4. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Depanment of Education last reviewed by the Depanment and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time. 5. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage. {: #subdebate-57-21-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) A total of 7 libraries and Information Centres exist within the Commonwealth Depanment of Education. The Central Depanmental Library is supported by an Information Centre in each of the six State capitals. These depanmental libraries are relatively autonomous and of varying sizes and provide information and research material for Education Depanment officers. The Depanment has direct responsibility for government pre-schools and schools in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Education Division's Media Centre provides teachers, principals and depanmental officers with library material and information and also carries out some processing of materials for schools within the Territory. Currently 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 held {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The annual cost of acquisitions for each library is as follows: (4)- >Central Library, Woden, Australian Capital Territory 1 Librarian Class 2, 1 Librarian Class 1 (part-time), 1 Library Officer Grade 2, 1 Library Officer Grade 1, 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 4, 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 3, 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 2. Branch Offices- Sydney, New South Wales- 1 Library Officer Grade 1. Melbourne, Victoria- 1 Library Officer Grade 1. Brisbane, Queensland- 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 3 (83 per cent duties), 1 Education Officer Class 2 (part-time), 1 Education Officer Class 1 (part-time). Adelaide, South Australia- 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 3. Perth, Western Australia- 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 3. Northern Territory Education Division- 1 CTS Band 3 Officer, 1 CTS Band 2 Officer, 3 Seconded Teacher Librarians, 1 Librarian Class 2, 1 Assistant Library Officer,1 Clerical Assistant Grade 1, 1 Librarian Officer Grade 2. Staff of the Central Office Library has been reduced by two in the past three years. No other changes are contemplated. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. No overall review of libraries within the Department of Education has been carried out. However, individual libraries or Information Centres have been necessarily examined during staff and organisation reviews of particular sections or State offices. Such appraisals were conducted as in State offices in the early 1 970s and the Central Library in 1969. 1. The public has limited use of the larger libraries for reference purposes only. Books are not lent directly to nondepartmental personnel, and loans may only be arranged through another library. However, the Media Centres in the Northern Territory do lend to the public but find little demand for their specialised teaching-oriented collections. {:#subdebate-57-22} #### Equine Rhinopneumonitis (Question No. 537) {: #subdebate-57-22-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention be drawn to the reports in the *Sydney Morning Herald* of 3 August 1977 concerning an outbreak of an equine disease known as viral abortion. 1. If so, has this disease been reported previously in Australia; if so, when and where. 2. How many properties are currently known to be affected by the disease, and where are they located. 3. What is the source or sources of the current outbreaks. 4. Is the statement in the report that the viral abortion must have been brought into Australia from overseas accurate; if so, how was the disease brought to Australia. 5. What action has been taken following discovery of the disease in Australia and will he detail any changes in procedures or regulations covering importation of horses to Australia since the outbreak was reported. {: #subdebate-57-22-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The *Sydney Morning Herald* has advised that no such article appeared in that newspaper on 3 August 1977. 1. The disease known as Equine Rhinopneumonitis has been present in Australia as an equine respiratory disease for many years. The disease is caused by Equine Herpes Virus Type 1 (EHV1). Abortions due to the disease have been reported only recently, the disease first being suspected as a cause of abortion in 1975 when virus was isolated from an aborted equine *foetus* in *Western* Australia. In Tasmania the disease was confirmed as the cause of a single neo-natal mortality in December 1976, but has not been diagnosed as a cause of abortion. The disease has not been confirmed previously as a cause of abortion in other States or the Northern Territory. However, the disease (with or without abortion) has never been notifiable in Australia until it was made so in New South Wales in November 1977 and in Western Australia in December 1977. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Since August 1977, the disease was confirmed as the cause of abortion in single cases on two properties near Melbourne and in New South Wales, 1 property near Bathurst, 3 properties in the Scone area and 1 property at Cobbity have been affected by EH VI abortions. A further property near Scone is suspected to have been affected but the diagnosis of EHV1 abortion has not been confirmed. 1. Source of the virus causing these outbreaks has not been determined as yet. 2. There is a difference in scientific opinion on whether the abortions are due to the Equine Herpes Virus which has been present in Australia for many years or whether an exotic biotype of the virus has been introduced. As horses have been imported for many years and there is no serological test which can differentiate between the suggested types of this virus, it is difficult to determine the source of the virus which is causing these abortions. 3. Equine Herpes Virus Type 1 abortion has been gazetted as a scheduled disease in Western Australia, and made a notifiable disease in New South Wales. Changes to import requirements are not currently under consideration, having been considered in depth in consultation with State authorities in 1977. There is no serological test, for use on horses before export to Australia that would differentiate possible strains of this virus. The importation of an inactivated vaccine from the United States for trials has been considered. However, the information available from the manufacturers, to this time, is not adequate to ensure inactivation to Australian requirements. Incomplete inactivaton of vaccine would carry the risk of introduction of diseases which do not at present occur in Australia, through vaccine contaminants. {:#subdebate-57-23} #### Staff Canteens Question No. 593) {: #subdebate-57-23-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department. 1. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77. 5. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Depanments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-57-23-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed that there are no staff canteens operated by the, Department and nor are there any arrangements made by the Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise. {:#subdebate-57-24} #### Queensland Aborigines: Privy Council Appeal (Question No. 610) {: #subdebate-57-24-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What part has the Government played in the Privy Council case between Aboriginals and the State of Queensland. 1. What steps are open to the Government to solve this dispute by purchasing land for Aboriginals. 2. What discussions has the Government initiated in this matter. {: #subdebate-57-24-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Government was not directly involved in the action or the appeal to the Privy Council but I authorised the provision of additional grants to the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service to meet the costs of the action. 1. and (3) Following the Privy Council decision in this matter, it is my intention to seek further discussions with the parties to the Aurukun Associates Agreement and with the Aurukun Community- Tertiary Institutions Receiving Commonwealth {:#subdebate-57-25} #### Grants for Research (Question No. 627) {: #subdebate-57-25-s0 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What tertiary education institutions received Commonwealth Government grants for research in 1977-78 and what was the amount involved in each case. 1. What specific matters are being researched with these funds. {: #subdebate-57-25-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Tertiary Education Commission does not have an established program for the funding of specific research projects in tertiary education institutions. However, the Commission does recommend special research grants for universities which are used, in part, to finance their research programs. Special research grants are for general research support, particularly to those members of the academic staff of universities who have promising research projects which are as yet unsupported by outside funds or who have responsibilities for the training of research students. Apart from these general conditions, the Commission does not impose detailed conditions on universities regarding the distribution of special research grants and it is not involved in the detailed administration of these grants. Universities have adopted a variety of methods to allocate special research grants and all involve an assessment of the merit of individual research projects proposed for funding. The estimated special research grant for each university for 1977-78 is set out in the attached table. It should also be noted that tertiary education institutions, especially universities, finance research from general recurrent funds recommended by the Commission, although there is considerable difficulty in measuring the amount of expenditure from this source devoted to research activities. The Department of Education and other agencies such as the Schools Commission and the Education Research and Development Committee (ERDC) may provide funds to tertiary education institutions for education research. Funds obtained from such sources may be in the form of research grants for specific projects and are usually in response to proposals initiated by individual researchers or by way of research 'contracts' relating to policy research and program evaluation studies commissioned by an agency. Details of grants for education research may be obtained from the annual reports of the relevant agencies. It is possible for tertiary education institutions to receive funds for research from other Commonwealth departments and authorities. {:#subdebate-57-26} #### Warrants to Enter and Search Premises (Question No. 674) {: #subdebate-57-26-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 March 1978: >Which Federal Acts and Statutory Rules and Territory Ordinances and Regulations permit the issue of warrants to enter and search premises. {: #subdebate-57-26-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Acts listed below contain provisions that permit the issue of warrants to enter and search premises: Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act 1 976 Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Act 1 976 Apple and Pear Stabilization Act 1971 Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Act 1971 Bankruptcy Act 1966 Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955 Crimes Act 1914 Customs Act 1901 Dairy Industry Assistance Act 1977 Dairying Industry Equalization Act 1970 Dairying Industry Levy Collection Act 1 970 Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977 Dairying Research Levy Collection Act 1 972 Defence Act 1903 Dried Fruits Levy Collection Act 197 1 Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Act 1971 Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Act 1971 Health Insurance Amendment Act 1977 Historic Shipwrecks Act 1 976 Honey Export Charge Collection Act 1 973 Insurance Amendment Act 1977 Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1 973 Migration Act 1958 National Health Amendment Act 1976 Navigation Act 1912 Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1 977 Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1971 Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 Public Works Committee Act 1 969 Reserve Bank Act 1959 Royal Commissions Act 1 902 Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Act 1 977 Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 Whaling Act 1960 Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974 Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 Wool (Deficiency Payments) Act 1971. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Ordinances of the Northern Territory are no longer within my responsibility but, as the honourable member will be aware from a previous answer *(Hansard* for 2 May 1978, pages 1663-4 (those Ordinances were recently examined and I am therefore able to inform him that the Ordinances containing such provisions are as follows: Child Welfare Ordinance 1958 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1977 Firearms Ordinance 1956 Lottery and Gaming Ordinance 1 940 Police and Police Offences Ordinance 1 923. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Examination of the statutory rules, the ordinances and regulations of the other Territories (which have not yet been computerised) would be a substantial task requiring the diversion of staff from more urgent work. This has therefore not been undertaken for the purposes of this question. The legislation is, however, being computerised and, when completed, retrieval of the relevant information from the computer will be a relatively simple task. {:#subdebate-57-27} #### Copyright: Reproduction of Published Works for Handicapped Persons (Question No. 684) {: #subdebate-57-27-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General 's Department been notified by the Department of Social Security of any submissions from the Victorian Council for Handicapped Readers regarding provisions of the Copyright Act and the reproduction of literature and dramatic works for the blind and disabled without infringing copyright; if so, what action does the Government propose to take on this matter? 1. Can the Attorney-General say what OECD Nations provide for reproductions of published works for blind and disabled persons without infringement of copyright? {: #subdebate-57-27-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Submissions on this matter have been received by my Department from the Victorian Council for Handicapped Readers and I have recently had discussions with the President of the Council. In the course of those discussions I indicated that I would give sympathetic consideration to the Council's submissions in the context of my consideration of the proposals of the Franki Committee. 1. Few foreign jurisdictions have legislation dealing specifically with the problem of the handicapped. The United States Copyright Act provides that it is not an infringement to perform a literary work under certain circumstances for the benefit of handicapped persons unable to read or hear. In Sweden legislation provides that the reproduction of Braille Copies of literary or musical works will not infringe copyright. Norway and Denmark also have legislation providing specific exceptions in favour of the handicapped. {:#subdebate-57-28} #### National Energy Policy (Question No. 692) {: #subdebate-57-28-s0 .speaker-FF4} ##### Mr Chapman:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 16 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What action has the Government taken on the reports of the National Energy Advisory Committee. 1. When will the Government be able to present a detailed and integrated policy on Australia's energy situation. {: #subdebate-57-28-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) Four reports of the National Energy Advisory Committee have been published as follows: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. An Australian Conservation of Energy Program (September 1977) {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Australia's Energy Resources: An Assessment (December 1977) 1. A Research and Development Program for Energy (December 1977) 2. Motor Spirit- Octane Ratings and Lead Additives (February 1978). As a direct result of the recommendations contained in the Reports the following initiatives have been undertaken: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Establishment of a consultative committee with the State Governments to plan a national energy conservation program. 1. The establishment of the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council. 2. Consideration by the Commonwealth and State Governments of proposals to halt the phase down of lead in motor spirit, to increase octane ratings of standard motor spirit and to encourage the increased use of LPG in motor vehicles. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Government's energy policy objectives have been clearly stated. The Government is developing its policy in accordance with those objectives. A number of initiatives have already been taken including those listed in ( 1 ) above in the further development of its energy policy. Aborigines: Purchase of Land in Queensland (Question No. 718) {: #subdebate-57-28-s2 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an interview with **Mr Frank** Purcell, a former legal adviser to the people of Aurukun, in the program *This Day Tonight* on 14 March 1978, when he said that the Queensland Government has prevented the Aboriginal Land Funds Commission from buying land in Queensland; if so, is there any substance in the statement. 1. Has he issued any guidelines, instructions or directions to the Commission bearing on this matter; if so, will he table them. 2. Has any planned land purchase lapsed or been deferred on account of this involvement. {: #subdebate-57-28-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. The Queensland Minister for Lands did not approve the transfer of the Archer River and Glenore pastoral leases to the Commission. 1. In a letter in July 1977 to the Chairman of the Commission I commented that the matter of Archer River illustrated the value of discussing prospective purchases with the Queensland Department of Lands in order to obtain details of relevant land use plans and asked the Chairman to ensure that, as a general rule, possible purchases in Queensland are discussed with the Lands Department before final decisions to purchase are made. 2. I am not aware that any directions of mine have resulted in planned land purchases lapsing or being deferred. {:#subdebate-57-29} #### Aborigines, Palm Island (Question No. 829) {: #subdebate-57-29-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has Palm Island about 2,000 residents in 160 houses designed for half that population or less. 1. If so, has this led to sewerage breakdowns, discord, breakages and sickness. 2. Are older houses below standards that most local authorities would tolerate; if so, what estimates have been made of construction and maintenance needs, and on what targets have they been based. 3. Has a population ceiling been set for the island; if so, (a) what is the ceiling, (b) on what grounds is it based and (c) by what date is it to be achieved. 4. Is mainland unemployment accelerating population drift to the island. 5. What employment projects are desired by the population, and what help has been offered to implement them during the last S years. 6. What Federal assistance is available to provide a school bus service for farm children on Palm Island and what criteria are applied to determine whether this assistance is justified. {: #subdebate-57-29-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The matters referred to come within the responsibility of the Queensland Government. Questions on these matters should therefore be directed to the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. {:#subdebate-57-30} #### Aborigines: Employment: Legal Rights (Question No. 831) {: #subdebate-57-30-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What steps has the Government taken to ensure that Aboriginals are paid in accordance with work done and with what effect. 1. What visits have been made in the last 3 years to Queensland's Aboriginal settlements by (a) Australian Government authorities, (b) legal advisers to Aboriginals and (c) representatives of employee organisations of which Aboriginals in those settlements are members. 2. What records of these visits are kept by or for governments or their agents in each State and Territory. 3. What categories of employment require (a) union membership or (b) preference to (i) unionists and (ii) Aboriginals in each State and Territory. 4. What steps have governments taken and when were they taken to ensure that Aboriginals understand and concur with powers of attorney given to officials and to ensure equal facility is available to them to withdraw or suspend such powers. 5. What steps have been taken and when were they taken to ensure that independent informed advice is promptly available locally to Aboriginals subject to State settlement rules, regulations and discriminatory practices, to remove the effect of such rules, regulations and practices where they contravene Australian law, and to ensure that Aboriginal communities are aware of their options to replace State controls by Federal controls, by setting up federally funded cooperatives and otherwise. {: #subdebate-57-30-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am advised that the Government has taken all necessary steps to ensure that all Australian citizens (including Aboriginals), working in employment to which Commonwealth industrial legislation applies, are employed at wage rates and under conditions which are prescribed in the relevant awards. Arbitration Inspectors monitor the observance of these awards and determinations and investigate complaints lodged by parties to them. In other areas which are not so covered, the Government has used its influence to ensure that Aboriginals, in particular those employed on projects funded by the Commonwealth, are paid and employed under conditions appropriate to the work performed. 1. and (3) Information in the form sought is not readily available. To obtain this information would require considerable effort and man hours which I am not prepared to authorise. In any event some of the information sought is and would be unknown to the Government. 2. I have been advised that the question cannot be answered in terms of categories of employment since the situation varies in different awards. Some Federal and State awards prescribe preference in engagement for members of unions which are parties to these awards; some provide that if a non-union member is engaged he shall become a member of the union within a prescribed period; and many have no preference provisions of any kind, so that, in some employing establishments and industries, certain employment categories may be governed by preference provisions while the same categories in other establishments or industries are not so covered. Many Aboriginal organisations and other organisations working with Aboriginals, give preference in employment to suitably qualified Aboriginals. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. and (6) My Department provides finance to Aboriginal legal services in all States and the Northern Territory. A major function of these services is to ensure that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are fully informed of their legal rights. {:#subdebate-57-31} #### Commonwealth Decentralisation Program (Question No. 872) {: #subdebate-57-31-s0 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 April 1 978: >Is it a fact that an amount of $6.2m allocated for a program of assistance for industry to decentralise is to be provided in areas outside designated growth centres, including metropolitan areas such as the outer western suburbs of Sydney. {: #subdebate-57-31-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The 1977-78 budget provided $6.07m for the Commonwealth's new program of support for general decentralisation initiatives in country areas. > >Commonwealth designated growth centres are not eligible to receive assistance under this program, nor are metropolitan areas such as the outer western suburbs of Sydney. {:#subdebate-57-32} #### Aborigines: Possible Racial Discrimination (Question No. 906) {: #subdebate-57-32-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Between what dates has the Commissioner for Community Relations been consulted by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission concerning possible breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, by the Premier of Queensland. 1. What has been the outcome of the consultations. {: #subdebate-57-32-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commissioner for Community Relations has advised that, in the course of an inquiry under the *Racial Discrimination Act* 1975 in relation to an action of the Queensland Government, he sought assistance from several persons including the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. He wrote to the Chairman of the Commission on 29 September 1977 and discussed the matter with him on 28 October 1977. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commissioner's inquiry into this matter is still proceeding. Discussions with Queensland Premier (Question No. 989) {: #subdebate-57-32-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1 978: >When he and his Ministers had their long and earnest discussions with the Queensland Premier and his Ministers in Canberra on 11 April 1978 concerning the Aurukun and Mornington Reserves was there also a discussion on purchases of freeholds and/or leaseholds by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission in Queensland; if so, what was the outcome of the discussion. {: #subdebate-57-32-s3 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Premier and I issued a statement on 1 1 April which conveyed the outcome of discussions between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. > >I believe the details of the discussions should remain confidential and therefore I wish to add nothing to the statement already released. Discussions with Queensland Premier (Question No. 990) {: #subdebate-57-32-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >When he and his Ministers had their long and earnest discussions with the Queensland Premier and his Ministers in Canberra on 11 April 1978 concerning the Aurukun and Mornington Reserves was there also a discussion on ratification of I.L.O. Convention No. 107- Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957; if so, what was the outcome of the discussion. {: #subdebate-57-32-s5 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 989. Discussions with Queensland Premier (Question No. 991) {: #subdebate-57-32-s6 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1 978: >During the discussions on 1 1 April 1978 which led to the Queensland Premier and Ministers agreeing that a local government authority should be created on the boundaries of each of the existing Aurukun and Mornington Reserves, did he or his Ministers raise the question of a Member of the Queensland Parliament and a person associated with local government in Queensland being appointed to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations; if so, with what result. {: #subdebate-57-32-s7 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 989. {:#subdebate-57-33} #### Security (Question No. 278) {: #subdebate-57-33-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: >What provisions exist for a private citizen or public servant to obtain redress from illegal security service activities or harassment. {: #subdebate-57-33-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As the Prime Minister indicated to the House in his speech on 25 October last year the Government had decided to accept the basic judgments of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security was: > >That it operates within the terms of its statute and is concerned only with matters relevant to security. > >b) That it always complies with the law. > >And that it observes standards of propriety by not intruding on the rights and freedom of persons except to the extent that the requirements of the nation's security justify, and the law allows. > >The Government has directed the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to comply with these recommendations. > >Moreover, if a citizen should surfer injury from an illegal activity of the security service, he could obtain redress in the ordinary courts. > >Commonwealth employees and persons in certain 'immigration' categories will be able to have ASIO's security assessment of them subject to independent review by the new Security Appeals Tribunal. **Mr Justice** Hope found that without adequate machinery for review of security assessments of persons . . . grave and permanent injustices can occur'. (Second Report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, AGPS 1977; para. 200). The establishment of the new Tribunal will rectify this and will therefore function as a major civil liberties safeguard in relation to ASIO's security assessments. It is anticipated that the legislation bringing into effect the changes to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, including the establishment of this Tribunal, will be introduced during the forthcoming Budget sittings. {:#subdebate-57-34} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 568) {: #subdebate-57-34-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department. 1. What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (0 replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77. 5. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-57-34-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP -- The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. None. 1. -(9) Not applicable. 2. No. {:#subdebate-57-35} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 582) {: #subdebate-57-35-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department. 1. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1 976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1976-77. 5. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. 10) Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-57-35-s1 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Nil. The Government decided early in 1977 that all Commonwealth employee food services would be operated by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Handover of these services to the Company was completed on 13. 1 1.77. However, in 1976-77 the cafeterias listed in (4) were operated by the Department of Construction. 1. Commonwealth employee food services are required to operate on a self-supporting financial basis, within the division of costs prescribed in Treasury (Finance) Directions Section 8. (3)- (4)- {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Yes- as per (4) above. 1. See answers to Questions (2) and (3) above. 2. The cafeterias are provided for the use of Commonwealth employees only. However it has always been seen as reasonable for persons visiting the Department to be allowed to use the food service facilities on such occasions, at the Department's invitation. 3. Where necessary signs are displayed at the entrances to each cafeteria indicating that the dining-rooms are for the use of Commonwealth employees only. 4. In general, Commonwealth food services are available for the use of any Commonwealth employees. 5. No. See answer to Question ( 1 ) above. {:#subdebate-57-36} #### State Unemployed Relief Scheme, South Australia (Question No. 647) {: #subdebate-57-36-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say whether the South Australian Government has provided the sum of $43,500,000 for employment opportunities for unemployed persons under the State Unemployed Relief Scheme since November 1975. 1. ) If so, and as the amount provided has saved the Federal Government millions of dollars in the payment of unemployed benefits, had the SUR Scheme not been initiated, has any consideration been given to reimbursing the South Australian Government for the amount of unemployment benefits saved. {: #subdebate-57-36-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) According to the Financial Statement delivered to the South Australian Parliament on 6 October 1977 by the Premier, the South Australian Government has provided from its revenue account $22,559,000 for unemployment relief since 1975-76 and proposed to provide in 1977-78 $22, 1 80,000 taking the total to $44,739,000. 1. As with all other State Governments, the South Australian Government has the responsibility for deciding how it will disburse the general purpose monies it receives from the Commonwealth Government under the income tax sharing and Loan Council arrangements and the revenues it raises within its borders by way of State-type taxation measures such as payroll tax, stamp duty and motor vehicle registration charges. Substantial benefits are already being paid to and for the unemployed on a nation-wide basis by the Commonwealth Government. For example in relation to the National Employment and Training System and various other Commonwealth Government assistance schemes designed to lessen the problems of unemployed persons, it is estimated that a total expenditure of $124,690,000 will be incurred during 1977-78. This amount represents a significant increase on actual expenditure on these schemes during 1976-77 ($71,980,062) and 1975-76 ($75,078,913). The following table presents a breakdown of the above expenditures according to the individual schemes involved: If the South Australian Government chooses to provide supplementary assistance in this field, it has every right to do so but it should not beconstrued that this in any way puts an obligation on the Commonwealth to provide reimbursement. In other words, the South Australian Government can decide for itself on the manner in which the funds available to it can be spent- it cannot expect to make those decisions and then have the Commonwealth use its revenue to pay for them. {:#subdebate-57-37} #### Liquid Fuel Conservation (Question No. 741) {: #subdebate-57-37-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: >Has he approached State Ministers responsible for energy use and for road transport to commend to them the removal of legislative impediments to car and van pooling, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, what response has he received. {: #subdebate-57-37-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-38} #### Liquid Fuel Conservation (Question No. 742) {: #subdebate-57-38-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: >What procedures have been established, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee, for State and Commonwealth Departments to review their managerial practices for transport with a view to improving the efficiency of energy use in transport. {: #subdebate-57-38-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-39} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 746) {: #subdebate-57-39-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Government adopted the recommendations of the National Energy Advisory Committee to promote a national publicity campaign informing the public of the need to conserve energy; if so, has the Government approached the States to participate jointly in a campaign. 1. Which body will be responsible for co-ordinating any campaign. 2. At what financial level will any campaign be supported. {: #subdebate-57-39-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-40} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 747) {: #subdebate-57-40-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he approached the Minister for Productivity to seek his co-operation and support in developing training programs in energy conservation, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee. 1. Have any other bodies been approached for their cooperation; if so, which bodies have been approached. {: #subdebate-57-40-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-41} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 748) {: #subdebate-57-41-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his Department established a national energy conservation training group, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, which bodies are represented in this group. 1. ) What priorities have been established by this group. {: #subdebate-57-41-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-42} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 749) {: #subdebate-57-42-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: >Has he conferred with other Ministers to seek their advice on liquid fuel conservation in their areas of responsibility recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if not, is it his intention to do so in the near future. {: #subdebate-57-42-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Government's policy on energy conservation is indicated in a general way by the second policy objective set out in the National Energy Policy Statement of 7 November 1977 viz, for the average rate of growth of energy consumption, particularly in liquid fuels, to be restrained, to the extent that this can be done without reducing the rate of economic growth. The Policy Statement stipulated that to assist in achieving this objective, the recommendations of the National Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) in their report of September 1977 on energy conservation would, as appropriate, be developed into an action program. In his speech opening the present Parliament on 2 1 February 1978 the Governor-General further defined the Government 's intentions as follows: > >A national energy conservation program will be carried out in association with the States, industry and interested groups. > >In pursuance of this policy, I brought the NEAC recommendations to the attention of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting on 10 March 1978. On the basis of these recommendations the Council agreed to initiate a national program to conserve energy with strong emphasis on oil. > >The Council, at its meeting of 10 March 1978, established a Consultative Committee to plan the first stage of the energy conservation program, in which it was agreed the major activity should be a national publicity campaign. The report of the Consultative Committee will be submitted to the Council in the very near future. > >As well as recommendations on a publicity campaign, I understand the Committee will be recommending training programs, advisory services, energy conservation by governments, energy conservation in transport, pricing and tax policies, and energy conservation in buildings and houses. > >I shall be approaching other Ministers and various public and private bodies as appropriate following receipt and consideration of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council Consultative Committee Report. {:#subdebate-57-43} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 750) {: #subdebate-57-43-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have energy conservation officers been appointed within Government departments and instrumentalities, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, in which departments and instrumentalities have these officers been appointed. 1. ) What training will these officers receive. 2. ) What will be the functions of these officers. 3. Will the findings and recommendations of these officers be published. {: #subdebate-57-43-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-57-44} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 752) {: #subdebate-57-44-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: >Has the Government established an energy conservation advisory service for industry, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, what kind of advice will the service offer, and how will the service operate. {: #subdebate-57-44-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. Israeli Settlements in Occupied Arab Territories (Question No. 771) {: #subdebate-57-44-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 April 1978, after amending a question he had asked upon notice on 4 Apiil 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will he bring up to date the information which he gave me on 14 September 1977 *(Hansard,* page 1155) on the Israeli settlements established in territories occupied by Israel during the war of June 1 967? 1. Does Australia's suppon for Israel's right to exist extend to those territories *(Hansard,* 15 March 1978, page 736)? {: #subdebate-57-44-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >According to our information, 12 settlements have been established with the approval of the Government of Israel since my reply to the honourable member's question on 14 September 1977. Of these, 1 1 are in the area known as the West Bank (including one which is only partially beyond the former Armistice Demarcation Line) and the other is in the Sinai peninsula. > >The establishment of these 12 settlements brings to 104 the number of settlements which we believe have been established in the territories occupied by Israel since the war of June 1967. Of these, 25 are in the Golan Heights, four are in the Sinai peninsula, 48 are in the West Bank, 1 7 are in the Gaza Strip, and 10 are in East Jerusalem and the adjoining area in respect of which Israeli legislation was amended to allow the laws of the State of Israel to be applied following the war of 1967. > >The Australian Government's support for Israel's right to exist and its attitude towards the territories occupied by Israel are both encompassed by our endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967. The Resolution affirms that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should be based inter aiia on the principle of the termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignity, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force. In our view, which is shared generally by Governments endorsing the Resolution, this provision amounts to a reaffirmation of Israel 's right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries. The other principle which the Resolution identities as a component of a just and lasting peace is the withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, (i.e. the 1967 conflict). > >It is common for Western Governments, and it is certainly this Government's approach, to consider that these two principles are inter-related. That is, that Israel's withdrawal should take place in the context of the termination of claims of belligerency and acknowledgement of its right to live in peace. It is also common for Western Governments to interpret the reference to withdrawal from territories occupied to mean withdrawal from territories on all three fronts- the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank (and the Gaza Strip). > >As to the status of the occupied territories, Australia, in addition to making known its suppon for Israel's right to live within secure and recognised boundaries, has also made known in international forums its view that the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are occupied territories in the international legal sense of that expression and that the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (that is, the Fourth Geneva Convention) is applicable to those territories. {:#subdebate-57-45} #### Health Insurance, Northern Territory (Question No. 842) {: #subdebate-57-45-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons in the Northern Territory are covered by (a) Medibank levy and (b) Medibank Private. 1. Are claims on Medibank in the Northern Territory dealt with locally or referred to Adelaide. 2. What is the delay on payment for doctors bulk-billing in the Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-57-45-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. -- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. As Standard Medibank operates on a national basis, details of the number of persons resident in the Northern Territory covered are not listed separately and therefore are not available. 1. The Health Insurance Commission in respect of its private health insurance activities (i.e. Medibank Private) is registered under the National Health Act to operate medical and hospital funds in each State, including the Northern Territory. This means that for the purposes of the National Health Act, the Health Insurance Commission represents six separate private health insurance organisations. There is no separate registration of organisations in the Northern Territory. Accordingly, details of the number of persons resident in the Northern Territory who contribute to Medibank Private in respect of a particular State are not available. 1. The Medibank Branch Office in Darwin pays cash benefits up to $100 and hospital benefits by cheque for hospital bills representing not more than 12 days in hospital. The Darwin Branch Office also pays benefits in respect of ancillary tables. Claims falling outside these categories are processed in Adelaide and paid by cheque. 2. The average time from the date of receipt of a Medibank bulk-bill claim to the issue of the benefit cheque is 10.5 days. {:#subdebate-57-46} #### Employment (Question No. 918) {: #subdebate-57-46-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 April 1978: >What were the actual figures obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Force Survey referred to in his answer to question No. 614 *(Hansard,* 5 April 1978, page 1081) which justify the statement made at the National Press Club on 7 December 1977 that in our time total employment has risen by 1 80,000. {: #subdebate-57-46-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Labour Force Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics provides estimates of the civilian labour force aged 15 years and over, and includes employees, employers and self-employed persons. > >The survey estimates indicate that in August 1975- the last full survey period under the previous Government- total civilian employment was 5,688,100. The most recent figures available on 7 December 1977 were for August 1977 and they indicated that total civilian employment was estimated at 5,867,800-an increase of 1 79,700 over the period. {:#subdebate-57-47} #### Public Service: Second Division Positions (Question No. 988) {: #subdebate-57-47-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many positions are there in each level of the Second Division of the Public Service. 1. How many were there in November 1 975. {: #subdebate-57-47-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Public Service Board has advised that the number of Second Division positions at November 1 975 and at April 1 978 is as follows: {:#subdebate-57-48} #### Occupational Safety and Health (Question No. 1010) {: #subdebate-57-48-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Pro ductivity, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Whitlam Government adopt a Code of General Principles in Occupational Safety and Health in Commonwealth Employment in 1 974. 1. If so, what progress has been made with this Code. 2. When will the Government implement the Code. {: #subdebate-57-48-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) The Government has decided to implement the Code of General Principles on Occupational Safety and Health in Commonwealth Government Employment. The Government has also approved procedures for dealing with the associated Codes of Practice. As the Code of General Principles is a complete document in itself, progress continued to be made- prior to the Government's decision- by drawing up a number of Codes of Practice covering particular subjects such as machine guarding, explosives, power tools, materials handling, welding, and cranes. I draw the honourable member's attention to the Press statement of 14 May 1 978 by the Prime Minister which contained further information on this subject. {:#subdebate-57-49} #### Social Security Benefits (Question No. 1050) {: #subdebate-57-49-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: >What proportion of total social security payments is spent on (a) sickness benefits, (b) old age pensions, (c) invalid pensions, (d ) unemployment benefits, (e ) family allowances, and (f) other. {: #subdebate-57-49-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >For the current financial year up to 30 April 1 978, the proportion of total social security cash benefit payments spent on each category is as follows: > >1.9 per cent; (b) 47.8 per cent; (c) 9.7 per cent; (d) 12.5 per cent; (e) 17.0 percent; (f) 1 1.1 percent. {:#subdebate-57-50} #### Wine Exports to Canada (Question No. 1076) {: #subdebate-57-50-s0 .speaker-XJ4} ##### Mr West: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 May 1978: >With regard to his statement on 5 May 1978 that wine exports to Canada had increased as a result of his visit by VIP aircraft to Melbourne on 4 May 1978, will he explain (a) which wine manufacturer or manufacturers obtained these sales and (b) what quantity of wine is involved in the increased export sale. {: #subdebate-57-50-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I do not see a need for explanation of the statement on this matter which I made in the House on 5 May. {:#subdebate-57-51} #### Royal Australian Navy: Pay Levels (Question No. 1169) {: #subdebate-57-51-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Navy seeking to reduce the pay levels of a number of other rank categories. 1. If so, is it proposed to alter the levels of (a) Signals Leading Seaman, pay level 6 to a pay level 5, (b) Aviation Leading Seaman, pay level 4 to a pay level 3 and (c) steward, pay level 3 to a pay level 2. 2. 3 ) What is the reason for seeking to reduce the salaries of personnel in these ranks. {: #subdebate-57-51-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) As part of a major reference I put before the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, an independent advisory body to the Minister for Defence under judicial chairmanship, that Committee has presented its report to me on the allocation to appropriate pay levels of all Service other rank employment categories. The report has been released. The Committee has recommended that certain categories, including those listed by the honourable member, be placed in a pay level lower than that they are now in. The Committee has also recommended that several employments be moved to a higher pay level. The report is currently under detailed examination by my Department and the Services. {:#subdebate-57-52} #### Maternity Leave (Question No. 1272) {: #subdebate-57-52-s0 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977, and (c) in the period January 1 978 to date. 1. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees. 2. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods. 3. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, ( b ) second and (c) third child in each of the periods. {: #subdebate-57-52-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Cost of maternity leave in the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1976-$ 120,993; 1977- $1 17,525; 1978- $35,928 (to 24 May). 1. Total hours of leave in respect of these employees in 1976- 36,404; 1977-32,947; 1978-7,771 (to 24 May). 2. Number of employees who resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in 1976-12; 1977- 5; 1978-2 (to 24 May). 3. There has been only one officer who has been on maternity leave more than once in the period concerned. The cost was as follows: First child born in 1 976- $16,3 10. Second child born in 1977- $8,419. The Department's records do not show whether maternity leave taken by other officers was in respect of the first or subsequent children. Use of Motor Vehicle in Vicinity of Parliament House (Question No. 1293) {: #subdebate-57-52-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he travel in a Ferrari Boxer motor car mentioned in a report in the Melbourne *Sun-News Pictorial* of 9 September 1 977, in which it was alleged that the vehicle was test driven at speeds up to 180 km/h on roads only a few minutes from Parliament House. 1. If so, (a) did he have an opportunity to drive the car and what was the maximum speed it attained under his control, (b) who also drove the car during the journey reported, (c) what was the maximum speed at which the car was driven and by whom, and (d) what was the purpose of his travel in the car. 2. Has his attention been drawn to the maximum speed limit in the Australian Capital Territory of 80 km/h. 3. Was special dispensation sought and granted for the vehicle to travel at speeds in excess of 80 km/h. {: #subdebate-57-52-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) I do not recall the specific details asked in the honourable member's question. Statutory Body responsible to Minister for Construction (Question No. 1362) {: #subdebate-57-52-s4 .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he has responsibility. 1. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions. 2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings. 3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority corporation or undertaking established, and in what year. 4. ) When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out. {: #subdebate-57-52-s5 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. 1. Capital funds have been appropriated in the annual budget for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Appropriations were received as under for the years indicated: 1975- 76-$400,000. 1976- 77-$375,000. 1977- 78-Nil. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. These additional capital sums were one line appropriations. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Commonwealth Auditor-General, Canberra, A.C.T. 1. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act- 1970. 2. There has not been any review or inquiry into the Corporation since establishment in 1 970. Ship Launchings by Ministers' Wives (Question No. 1374) {: #subdebate-57-52-s6 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an item in the *Canberra Times* of 13 January 1978, in which a spokesman for his office is reported as having said that there were plenty of precedents of Ministers' wives accepting free travel when they had been invited to launch a ship. 1. ) If there is any substance in the report, will he detail the many precedents referred to by his spokesman. {: #subdebate-57-52-s7 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. MrsE. G. Whitlam. {:#subdebate-57-53} #### Tax Avoidance: Norfolk Island (Question No. 1397) {: #subdebate-57-53-s0 .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to allegations of tax avoidance schemes involving trust funds on Norfolk Island which have been made in newspaper articles and in the House, and in particular, to the claim that a sum of $30 million was sent by cheque from the CBA Bank at Bourke Street, Melbourne on 30 March 1978, to a trust account on Norfolk Island and returned from the island on the same day for the purpose of tax avoidance. 1. If so, has he investigated the particular transaction referred to in part ( 1 ) and will he inform the House of the details. 2. 3 ) If he has not had the matter investigated will he do so and report to the House. 3. Was the initiative of the Taxation Commissioner to send a team of tax investigators to Norfolk Island vetoed; if so, why and by which Minister. {: #subdebate-57-53-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. The honourable member spoke about these matters in the Parliament on 24 May 1978 and his speech was reported by some newspapers on 25 May 1 978. 1. and (3) The Parliament has vested the administration of the income tax law in the Commissioner of Taxation, and not in any Minister. The Commissioner is bound by the secrecy provisions of the law not to divulge information regarding the affairs of individual taxpayers and this embargo applies as much to the Treasurer of the day as to anyone else. 2. No. In the course of his administration of the income tax law, the Commissioner decided to send a team of investigators to Norfolk Island on 22 April 1978. As a matter of courtesy, and so that appropriate arrangements could be made for the visit, on 14 April 1978 the commissioner informed the Department of Home Affairs of his decision. Because he thought that the visit might arouse some adverse reaction on the Island, and again purely as a matter of courtesy, the Commissioner also informed me. On hearing of the proposed visit, the Minister for Home Affairs brought to my notice that he was about to ask the Government to make important decisions regarding future relationships between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island and that he thought that a visit by taxation investigators at that particular time might be misconstrued by residents of the Island and, therefore, be inappropriate. On being advised of the imminence of these decisions the Commissioner, on the understanding that they were to be promptly made and announced, decided to postpone the visit for a short period. The Government's decisions regarding future arrangements for Norfolk Island were announced by the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 May 1978. The Commissioner sent his team of investigators to the Island on 23 May 1978, that is, before the Honourable Member made his speech and before the resultant newspaper publicity. {:#subdebate-57-54} #### Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Question No. 1431) {: #subdebate-57-54-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government considered the Report of the independent inquiry into Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. 1. Which of the 36 recommendations (a) have been accepted; (b) have been rejected or (c) are still under consideration. {: #subdebate-57-54-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Government has not yet had the opportunity to consider the recommendations contained in the Nossal/Reid report following their independent inquiry into the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories ' internal operations and capital works program. However, I am hopeful that I will be in a position to bring forward for consideration by the Parliament in the Autumn 1979 Session, appropriate amendments for the CSL Act, following Government consideration of the report. {:#subdebate-57-55} #### Qustions Without Notice (Question No. 1486) {: #subdebate-57-55-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Leader of the House, upon notice, on 7 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many questions without notice were dealt with on each sitting day of the 1 978 autumn sittings. 1. Is it considered that this represents an adequate opportunity for members to question Ministers. {: #subdebate-57-55-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 21 February- Questions not asked; 22 February-13 (7); 23 February- 1 7 ( 8 ); 28 February-17(9); 1 March-15(8); 2 March-14(7); 7 March-19 ( 10); 8 March-16 (8); 9 March-Questions not asked; 14 March-18 (9); 15 March-20 ( 10); 16 March-24(13); 4 April-18(9); 5 April-18(9); 6 April-17(9); 7 April-17(9); 10 April-18(9); 11 April-20 ( 1 1 ); 12 April-18(9); 13 April-18(9); 2 May-14(8); 3 May-16(9); 4 May-I7(10); 5 May-19(9); 8 May-15(8); 9 May-19(10); 10 May-16(8); 11 May-19(10); 23 May-Questions not asked; 24May-16 (8); 25 May-12 (6); 26May-14(7); 29 May-Questions not asked; 30 May- 15(8); 31 May-18(9); 1 June-21(11); 2 June-20(10); 6 June-19(10); 7 June-18(10); 8 June-21(10), Total-626 (324). The figures in brackets indicate the number of questions asked by members of the Opposition on each day. It will be noted that they account for more than half of the total number of questions asked. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If the honourable gentleman considers that during the autumn sittings there has not been adequate opportunity to question Ministers, I invite his attention to the following statistics of questions without notice asked during the term of office of the Labor Government. They are taken from the House of Representatives publication, ' Work of the Session '. Autumn Sittings 1973, 527; Budget Sittings 1973, 692; Autumn Sittings 1974, 189; July-August 1974, 155; Budget Sittings 1974, 438; Autumn Sittings 1975, 500; Budget Sittings 1975, 456. It will be noted that the total number of questions without notice asked in the Autumn Period 1978 exceeds the number asked in all but one of the periods listed above (that period comprising 47 sitting days). If one takes into account the number of sitting days per period, the average number of questions asked per day in the sittings just concluded surpasses that average in respect of each of the periods listed above. {:#subdebate-57-56} #### Northern Territory Forestry Program (Question No. 1499) {: #subdebate-57-56-s0 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns: asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 7 June 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the Northern Territory forestry program. 1. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that Ministers should respond to committee reports within a specified time and after considered analysis of the report. 2. Has his attention also been drawn to a report on 3 June 1978 that the Secretary of his Department, **Mr Livingston,** responded to the report himself, stating that he was not particularly disappointed about the performance of the Forestry Branch. 3. If so, is **Mr Livingston's** response to be taken as a Government response. 4. If not, will he indicate whether his response (a) will clarify the obligations of the Government, having regard to the Prime Minister's statement and (b) will be made by 30 June 1978. {: #subdebate-57-56-s1 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Yes. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. See (5) below. 1. (a) and (b) the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the Northern Territory forestry program will receive full and careful attention and a recommendation will be made to the Government on the action proposed to be taken. A statement will be made in the Parliament as soon as possible after these processes have been completed. Meeting of Ministers at Prime Minister's Residence (Question No. 13) {: #subdebate-57-56-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of transport for the weekend of 22-23 October 1 977 for (a) the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and staff, (b) the Minister for Transport and staff, (c) the Minister for Employment and {: #subdebate-57-56-s3 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2)1 presume the honourable member is referring to the period certain Ministers met with the Prime Minister at his residence at Nareen. The cost of the visit for the five Ministers and staff is given in the following table. The information is based on accounts paid by my Depanment as at 23 May 1978. Expenditure Travelling Minister on transport allowance {: .page-start } page 3362 {:#debate-58} ### PERIOD OF VE Industrial Relations and staff, (d) the Minister for Primary Industry and staff and (e) the then Treasurer and staff. {: .page-start } page 3362 {:#debate-59} ### S $ Cotton...... 636.28 94.00 Personal staff .... nil* nil Personal staff .... nil* nil Personal staff .... nil* nil Personal staff .... nil* nil * Any expenditure on official cars used by personal staff during the period is not separately available. f TO NAREEN Commonwealth Commercial Minister cars airlines Charter aircraft Total Details Amount **Senator Cotton** 23.10.77 24.10.77 26.56 98.44 125.00 23.10.77 252.95 (Executive Airlines Canberra-Nareen) 24.10.77 258.33 (Executive Airlines Nareen-Essendon ) 636.28 23.10.77 Canberra-Nareen 24. 10.77 NareenSydneyCanberra 57.00 37.00 94.00 511.28 **Mr Nixon** .. 23.10.77 252.95 502.95 23. 10.77 Canberra 37.00 (Executive Airlines 24. 10.77 Canberra 37.00 Canberra-Nareen)- 24.10.77 250.00 74.00 (Executive Airlines Nareen-Canberra) 502.95 **Mr Street** . . . .22-23. 10.722/23. 10.799.00 99.00 ( GeelongNareenGeelong. Aircraft flown by **Mr Street** himself.) MrSinclair 23.10.77 26.55 .. 22.10.77 740.00 1,029.45 22.10.77Sydney 57.00 24.10.77 52.90 (Flight Facilities 23.10.77 Nareen 57.00 - Sydney-Nareen) 24.10.77 Sydney 57.00 Commonwealth Commercial Minister cars airlines Charter aircraft Total Details Amount (Executive Airlines 171.00 Nareen-Essendon ) 950.00 **Mr Lynch** 23.10.77 45.54 .. 23.10.77 410.00 705.54 24.10.77 Melbourne- 37.00 (Executive Airlines Canberra Tyabb-Nareen) 24.10.77 250.00 (Executive Airlines Nareen-Canberra) 660.00 {:#subdebate-59-0} #### Advertising (Question No. 35) {: #subdebate-59-0-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sum was spent by the Department of Social Security on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d)l July 1977 to date. 1. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken. 2. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated. 3. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign. 4. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign. 5. How was each agency or consultant selected. 6. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78. {: #subdebate-59-0-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) $2,618.45; (b) $3,770.36; (c) $81,959.03; (d) $3,385.47. (a), (b) and (d) reflect localised publicity advertising. No major campaigns were undertaken in these periods. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Reflects advertising in foreign language newspapers dealing with family allowances, pensions and benefits. 1. ) See following table. 2. 3 ) Publicity Vote-590.2. 10. 3. See following table. 4. 5 ) See following table. 5. Advertising was lodged with agencies by the Australian Government Advertising Service in accordance with normal practices. 6. The estimated cost of publicity advertising in 1977-78 is $5,000. Date Agency Amount 11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975 Nov. 1975 Berry Currie....... 1,594.62 Nov. 1975 Insight Advertising..... 104.85 Nov. 1975 Insight Advertising..... 918.98 2,618.45 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976 Dec. 1975 BerryCurrie....... 2,148.29 Dec. 1975 Fortune (Aust.) Pty Ltd . . . 37.60 Jan. 1976 BerryCurrie....... 60.00 Jan. 1976 Insight Advertising..... 864.64 April 1976 BerryCurrie....... 419.83 April 1976 Insight Advertising..... 55.04 May 1976 Insight Advertising..... 184.96 3,770.36 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 July 1976 Insight Advertising..... 105.00 Aug. 1976 BerryCurrie....... 101.43 Oct. 1976 Insight Advertising..... 1,281.86 Oct. 1976 BerryCurrie....... 83.22 Nov. 1976 BerryCurrie....... 7,680.10 Nov. 1976 Insight Advertising..... 2,270.33 Dec. 1976 BerryCurrie....... 472.96 Dec. 1976 Insight Advertising..... 276.91 Jan. 1977 BerryCurrie....... 31.59 Feb. 1977 Insight Ad vertising..... 2,302.99 Feb. 1977 BerryCurrie....... 46.20 March 1977 BerryCurrie....... 563.42 April 1977 BerryCurrie....... 26,080.64 April 1977 Insight Advertising..... 824.96 May 1977 BerryCurrie....... 29,110.37 May 1977 Insight Ad vertising..... 1,127.54 June 1977 BerryCurrie....... 9,361.51 June 1977 Insight Advertising..... 238.00 81,959.03 1 July 1977 to 22 February 1978 July 1977 BerryCurrie....... 332.89 Aug. 1977 Insight Advertising..... 683.85 Sept. 1977 Insight Advertising..... 401.80 Nov. 1977 Insight Advertising..... 1,710.03 Nov. 1977 BerryCurrie....... 161.80 Dec. 1977 BerryCurrie....... 70.10 {:#subdebate-59-1} #### Expenditures on Health, Social Welfare and Education (Question No. 54) {: #subdebate-59-1-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: >As a proportion of (a) Gross Domestic Product and (b) Gross National Expenditure, what was the expenditure by OECD countries on (i) health, (ii) social welfare and (iii) education in each of the last 10 years. {: #subdebate-59-1-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Comprehensive information of the type requested is not available. Varying institutional arrangements and statistical and reporting procedures among OECD member countries render meaningful comparison impracticable. For example, in the case of social welfare expenditure, there is a whole range of policies concerned with social welfare objectives or affecting the distribution of income which require appraisal before valid international comparisons can be made. Account would also need to be taken of social welfare expenditure financed through the private sector, especially where this is organised or subsidised by governments. Similarly, in the case of health expenditure account should be taken of taxation concessions and expenditures financed through private health insurance arrangements. Such detailed data for OECD member countries are not readily available. > >The honourable Leader of the Opposition may find it useful, however, to refer to some studies in resource allocation published by the OECD. The publications, which are available in Australia and contain some data bearing on the question, are: > >Public Expenditure on Health ' (published July 1977) > >Public Expenditure on Income Maintenance Programmes' (July 1976) > >Public Expenditure on Education' (July 1 976). {:#subdebate-59-2} #### Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 57) {: #subdebate-59-2-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he say in answer to question No. 990 *(Hansard,* 1 8 August 1977, page 487) that the interdepartmental committee examining the 6th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum was expected to complete its report in the near future; if so, can he now say what decisions the Government has taken on the Commission's 6th Report. 1. Does the Government intend to take any action to increase the usage of liquefied petroleum gas within Australia, and maximise the benefits derived from liquefied petroleum gas exports, in line with the recommendations of the 6th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum. 2. As the Royal Commission has recommended that the principal areas in which liquefied petroleum gas should be used are Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, will he discuss with State energy Ministers from Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and/or industry representatives, the problems of liquefied petroleum gas usage in those States. 3. Has the Government considered the adoption of an automotive propane specification such as the United States Natural Gas Processors Association Specification HD 5; if not, will it do so. 4. Did he also say in answer to question No. 168 (6) *(Hansard,* 4May 1977, page 1583) that it is the policy of the Government to encourage the use of LPG in commercial vehicles and fleets; if so, what action has the Government taken to give effect to this policy. {: #subdebate-59-2-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 ), (2), (3) and (4). The report of the interdepartmental committee examining the 6th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum has now been received and is expected to be considered by the Government in the near future. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. On 14 March in the debate on the Government's energy policy I outlined action that is under consideration to encourage the use of LPG as an automotive fuel. See page 678 of *Hansard,* 14 March 1978. Building Grants for Schools: Reimbursement upon Sale (Question No. 113) {: #subdebate-59-2-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: >Has it yet been decided whether, following the sale of SCEGGS, Moss Vale and Wollongong, the Government should be reimbursed for the respective building grants of $30,170 and $31,552 made to those schools *(Hansard,* 16 August 1 977, page 260 and 8 November 1977, page 3 145 ). {: #subdebate-59-2-s3 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -- The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: >I am advised that the Chairman of the Schools Commission has recently written to the Crown Solicitor seeking his advice on a number of aspects of the sale and of the possible reimbursement of the Commonwealth in respect of building grants. When this advice has been communicated to me I will communicate further with the honourable member. Federal-State Ministerial Councils and their Advisory Committees (Question No. 114) {: #subdebate-59-2-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978: >Will the Minister bring up to date the information given on 2 June 1977 *(Hansard,* page 2546) on Federal-State ministerial councils and their advisory committees. {: #subdebate-59-2-s5 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member's question: >The information given in answer to Parliamentary Question No. 228 on 2 June 1977 *(Hansard,* page 2546) has been up-dated and is set out below: Council/ Committee Date established Established by Composition Meetings held since September Purpose of 1974 meetings Australian Standing Committee on Tourism (previously Standing Committee to Tourist Minister Council) Representatives of State A nominee of the Government Tourist Authorities. Ministers responsible for tourism in each of the States, the mainland Territories and the Commonwealth of Australia, and a nominee of the Australian Tourist Commission. To develop, co-ordinate and consider tourism policies in Australia, provide advice and recommendations to the Tourist Ministers Council. 28.7.76 30.9.76 11.11.76 18.1.77 30.-31.5.77 16.8.77 As specified in functions. {:#subdebate-59-3} #### Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Travel Costs (Question No. 273) {: #subdebate-59-3-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What amounts of his Depanment's travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77. 1. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent. 2. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977 as question No. 1659 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament. {: #subdebate-59-3-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The amounts expended on travel and subsistence excluding car hire in 1976-77 are set out below. For comparison, figures are also shown for the two full financial years of the previous Government, i.e. 1973-74 and 1974-75: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Overseas 1973-74 $23,855, 1974-75 $47,884, 1976-77 $26,474. 1. Domestic 1973-74$1,070,812, 1974-75 $1,029,341, 1976-77 $947,066. 1. The percentages of the Department's expenditure on travel and subsistence, excluding car hire, were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Overseas 1 973-74 2.2 per cent, 1 974-75 4.5 per cent, 1976-77 2.7 percent. 1. Domestic 1973-74 97.8 percent, 1974-75 95.5 per cent 1976^77 97.3 percent. 2. Yes. {:#subdebate-59-4} #### Customs Control (Question No. 327) {: #subdebate-59-4-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are any of the many points of entry to and exit from Australia understaffed in respect of customs control; if so, what are the particulars. 1. What is the staffing establishment of the Customs Special Services Enforcement Section as designated by the Public Service Board. 2. Has his Department sought an increase in that establishment; if so, to what number. 3. How many persons are presently employed in that section. {: #subdebate-59-4-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No. All Customs posts are staffed at levels considered adequate to cope with normal on-going functions, and when pressures of an ad hoc nature arise in a particular area they are met by redeployment of staff from other areas. 1. There is no 'Customs Special Services Enforcement Section', but if it is intended to mean Preventive staff then the establishment is *864 positions.* 2. No, but 55 new positions have been sought for the Narcotics Bureau. 3. Actual Preventive staff employed is 829. {:#subdebate-59-5} #### Offers of Free Overseas Travel to Ministers' Staff (Question No. 427) {: #subdebate-59-5-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: >Is he able to say which of his Ministers ' staff ha ve received offers of free foreign travel since 11 November 1975 and which of the offers were accepted. {: #subdebate-59-5-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The results of inquiries indicate that no current members of Ministers 'staff have received offers of free overseas travel from any private individual or organisation since 1 1 November 1975. {:#subdebate-59-6} #### Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 504) {: #subdebate-59-6-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department. 1. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of the services within his Department. {: #subdebate-59-6-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Department of the Treasury > >Central Office > >I ) The Department of the Treasury was split on 7 December 1976 to form two Departments, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance. To date the Management Services function for both Departments has, in the main, been the responsibility of the Department of > >Finance. The Treasury did not employ any staff on teamaking duties from 7 December 1976 to the end of the 1976-77 financial year. Currently there are (a) four (4) fulltime and (b) no part-time employees engaged on teamaking duties in Treasury's Central Office. > >The following costs were incurred from 1 July 1976 to 7 December 1976: > >Salaries: $22,804.00 > >Other charges: Nil. > >Other Offices > >Offices of the Australian Government Actuary and the Life Insurance Commissioner. > >1 ) Number of Employees ( 1978): > >None full-time, > >None part-time. > >2 ) The following costs were incurred in 1 976-77: > >Salaries: $6,012, > >Other charges: Nil. > >Office of the Insurance Commissioner > >1 ) Number of Employees ( 1 978 ): > >1 full-time, > >None part-time. > >The cost of providing these services in 1976-77 are included in the costs shown above for Central Office as the Commissioner's staff were accommodated in the Treasury Building at that time. > >Australian Bureau of Statistics > >1 ) Number of Employees ( 1 978 ): > >Full-time, > >nil, > >3. > >Part-time, > >nil, > >nil. > >The following costs were incurred in 1976-77: > >Salaries: $155,266, > >Other charges $26,508. > >Note: As from 26 June 1977 Commonwealth Hostels Ltd took over ABS Cafeterias (in the ACT, NSW and Vic) which provides the tea services. > >Australia Taxation Office > >1 ) Number of Employees (1978): > >Full-time, > >4, > >nil. > >Part-time, > >nil. > >) The following costs were incurred in 1 976-77: > >Salaries: $438,419, > >) Other charges $ 1 4,505. > >Note: As from 1 July 1977 staff engaged on the tea services in Sydney and Melbourne were taken over by the Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. Services in other States are provided by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. {:#subdebate-59-7} #### Department Libraries (Question No. 532) {: #subdebate-59-7-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many libraries are in his Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each. 1. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1 977-78. 2. What is the annual cost of running each library. 3. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the last 3 years, or are contemplated. 4. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Department last reviewed by the Department and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time. 5. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage. {: #subdebate-59-7-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (6) There has been no substantial change in the details provided by my predecessor in response to the honourable member's question (No. 1349) asked in the Thirtieth Parliament *(Hansard,* 8 November 1977, pages 3 166-3 169). It might be noted, however, that the library which was stated as being in the Department of Finance is now formally in the Treasury. The Central Office of the Department of Finance currently utilises the services of this library. {:#subdebate-59-8} #### Vegetable Oil Imports (Question No. 563) {: #subdebate-59-8-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the current tariff quota arrangements for the importation of the various types of vegetable oil suitable for table margarine production. 1. What quantity of each of these types has been imported in each of the last 3 years for which figures are available and what are the names of the companies. 2. What percentage of total table margarine production is provided by imported vegetable oil. {: #subdebate-59-8-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Vegetable oils are not subject to tariff quotas. 1. The Australian Statistician has provided the attached table which shows statistics of imports, cleared for home consumption, of vegetable oils suitable for years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. No details are available on imports of the various types of oils constituting the category 'wholly or partly hydrogenated vegetable oils' in the table. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not record the names of importers. 2. The Department of Industry and Commerce has advised that there are no official statistical data available on the percentage of imported vegetable oils used in the production of table margarine in Australia. However, industry sources have estimated that 80-85 per cent of the total quantity of vegetable oils currently used in table margarine production in Australia would be locally produced oils. It should be noted that the percentage of imported vegetable oils used in the production of table margarine can vary between seasons as the level of local production of vegetable oils depends on the availability of oilseeds supplies which are affected by climatic conditions. IMPORTS CLEARED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION OF VEGETABLE OILS SUITABLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF TABLE MARGARINE- 1974-75 TO 1976-77 {:#subdebate-59-9} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 569) {: #subdebate-59-9-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by the Department of Administrative Services. 1. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices: if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1976-77. 5. What decision has been made by the Department of Administrative Services concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. 7 ) Are the public and relatives and *friends of departmental* staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. 10) Are there any arrangements made by the Department of Administrative Services for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-59-9-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >No staff canteens are operated by the Department of Administrative Services. {:#subdebate-59-10} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 571) {: #subdebate-59-10-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Depanment. 1. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacement of plant, furniture, fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1 976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1976-77. 5. What decision has been made by his Depanment concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. 10) Are there are arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-59-10-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Nil. The Government decided early in 1977 that all Commonwealth employee food services would be operated by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Handover of these services to the company was completed on 13 November 1977. However, in 1976-77 the cafeterias listed in (4) were operated by my Department. 1. Commonwealth employee food services are required to operate on a self-supporting financial basis, within the division of costs prescribed in Treasury (Finance) Directions, Section 8. 2. -- Item Charge for 1976-77 (a) (b) (d) {: type="a" start="e"} 0. (f) (g) Cleaning- Dining-room .... Kitchen..... Electricity and powerLighting and heating Power...... Rent or lease . . . . Repairs and maintenance Replacement of plant and fittings Depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings (4)- Numbers of staff Wages and currently salaries paid in employed by 1976-77 (prior Commonwealth to hand-over to Hostels Limited Commonwealth (includes some Hostels Limited ) staff employed (excludes part-time on beverage cafeteria duties) labour) Queensland- {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Yes. 1. See answers to Questions (2) and (3) above. 2. The cafeterias are provided for the use of Commonwealth employees only. However, it has always been seen as reasonable for persons visiting a Depanment on official business to be allowed to use the food service facilities on such occasions, at the Department's invitation. 3. Signs are displayed at the entrances to each cafeteria indicating that the dining-rooms are for the use of Commonwealth employees only. 4. In general, Commonwealth food services are available for the use of any Commonwealth employee. 5. 10) No. See answer to Question ( 1 ) above. {:#subdebate-59-11} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 577) {: #subdebate-59-11-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 8 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) What staff canteens are operated by his Depanment. What is the pricing policy of each canteen. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1 976-77. 1. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 2. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77. 3. What decision has been made by his Depanment concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 4. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 5. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 6. What staff from other Commonwealth Depanments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 7. 10) Are there any arrangements made by his Depanment for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-59-11-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Nil. The Government decided early in 1977 that all Commonwealth employee food services would be operated by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Prior to 26 June 1977 a staff canteen was operated by the Royal Australian Mint (which comes within my portfolio responsibilities). 1. The Royal Australian Mint canteen was required to operate on a self-supporting financial basis, within the division of costs prescribed in Finance Directions, Section 8. 2. ) The following tabulation relates to the operation of the Royal Australian Mint canteen in 1 976-77: Item Whether included for determination of canteen prices Estimated cost {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Cleaning: Dining-room . . . Kitchen . . . . {: type="a" start="1"} 0. b ) Electricity and power: Lighting and heating Power {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Rent or lease . . . . 1. Repairs and maintenance 2. Replacements of plant, furniture and fittings 3. Depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings {: type="1" start="4"} 0. I am advised that six staff (including five pan-time) are currently employed by Commonwealth Hostels Limited at the Royal Australian Mint canteen. Wages and salaries paid in 1976-77 (prior to handover to Commonwealth Hostels Limited ) amounted to *S* 1 3.645. 1. Yes, they were. 2. See answers to Question (2) and (3) above. 3. No. 4. The canteen at the Royal Australian Mint is located within a restricted area of the Mint and is not accessible to unapproved persons. 5. None. 6. No, see answer to Question ( 1 ) above. {:#subdebate-59-12} #### Staff Canteens (Question No. 578) {: #subdebate-59-12-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department. 1. ) What is the pricing policy of each canteen. 2. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1 976-77. 3. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77. 4. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1976-77. 5. What decision has been made by his Depanment concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for 1976-77. 6. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen. 7. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen. 8. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen. 9. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions. {: #subdebate-59-12-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >My Department does not operate any staff canteens. {:#subdebate-59-13} #### Health Insurance: General Practitioners Consultations (Question No. 618) {: #subdebate-59-13-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What proportion of general practitioner consultations covered by (a) Medibank and (b) Medibank Private during any 3 month periods for which figures are available, were (i) brief; (ii) standard; (iii) long and; (iv) prolonged consultations. 1. ) Are similar figures available from any of the larger private health funds. {: #subdebate-59-13-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)and(2)- >Percentage of total G.P. consultations identified as: > >Brief Standard Long Prolonged > >Notes: (i) The figures cover surgery consultations and home visits. No distinction as between brief, standard, long or prolonged is made for consultations at hospitals or nursing homes. > >The figures for Medibank relate to services rendered during the 3 months ended 31 December 1977 for which benefits have been paid. It is estimated that they represent 90 per cent of the services rendered for which claims on Medibank are expected. > >The figures for other private health funds (i.e. other than Medibank Private) are estimates based on information of medical benefits claims paid supplied by the larger private health funds for the six months ended 3 1 December 1977, or a lesser part of that period. {:#subdebate-59-14} #### Quarantine (Question No. 701) {: #subdebate-59-14-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 6 March 1978: >What action has been taken on each of the recommendations made by the Depanment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in its review of Australian quarantine arrangements. {: #subdebate-59-14-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following numbered statements relate directly to the numbered recommendations appearing on pages 133 to 137 inclusive of the Report 'Review of Australian Quarantine Arrangements' tabled in Parliament on 26 October 1 977. > >The National Health and Medical Research Council has produced a list of recommended notifiable diseases; however, individual State lists differ from this list where a State's particular requirements need to be met. The powers available under the Quarantine Act in relation to quarantinable diseases are not circumscribed in any way by their non-inclusion in the list of prescribed diseases set out in Regulation 8. However, this matter will be kept under review. > >Section 84 of the Quarantine Act provides a penalty for any Quarantine Officer who maliciously and without reasonable cause orders any vessel, person, goods, animal or plant into quarantine. Also, any individual who considers any such action was taken without due cause may seek appropriate legal remedy through the courts. No amendments to the Quarantine Act on this matter are proposed. > >Deletion will be effected at an appropriate future time. > >Present controls have been examined in the light of the Report and no change to the present system of controls is considered to be necessary at this stage. > >New procedures have been implemented which provide that ships which give satisfactory responses by radio to a series of standard questions will be permitted to move directly to berth without the necessity for quarantine clearance at the quarantine line. On berthing a Quarantine Officer will issue a certificate of pratique on being satisfied as to the health conditions of the ship. The normal quarantine inspection for rodent and insect infestation and general sanitary condition of the vessel will then be carried out. > >The matter arose from the fact that, in Melbourne, the operational aspects of control were undertaken by General Quarantine staff whilst in other States this function was performed by the Plant Quarantine Branch of the Service. The function has been performed satisfactorily in Melbourne for many years. However, in view of the comments in the Report and in the interests of national uniformity, arrangements have been made to transfer the functions to Plant Quarantine in Melbourne as soon as an appropriate trained workforce is available. > >No action has yet been taken on this recommendation. There is no objection in principle, subject to retention of powers under the Quarantine Act, to take all appropriate measures in relation to 'domestic' shipping which may be necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of disease. > >The proposal that quarantine clearance procedures at airports be included in the duties of the Primary Customs Officer is being examined jointly by officers of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Health. > >The merger of Plant and Animal Quarantine functions for baggage inspection was investigated in 1975 by the Department of Agriculture, NSW, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The report from this investigation indicated that there were advantages in the existing arrangements and that no saving would accrue from a merger. > >In the absence of specific developments indicating that the findings of the evaluation may no longer be valid, it would be premature to raise the matter with the States. It is proposed however to bring the matter forward again when the opportunity presents. > >The Government has agreed in principle to: > >progressive closure of human quarantine stations; > >construction of a high security quarantine treatment unit at the Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital in Victoria. The unit would operate as a national centre for Australia and as such it would be available for the treatment of any quarantine case referred from other States; > >the transfer to the States of responsibility for the treatment, care and investigation of individual quarantine cases- the Commonwealth would retain direct responsibility for quarantine policy, coordination, central administration and general surveillance. The States would be reimbursed costs which they incur in carrying out quarantine activities on the Commonwealth 's behalf. > >The new plans will be implemented progressively in consultation with the States, each of which has indicated agreement in principle. > >The question of recovery of capital and interest charges thereon for additional onshore animal and plant quarantine station facilities is currently under consideration by the Government. > >2. No action is required. > >The problem of weed seeds in imported seed is being examined by a Working Party of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Changes to legislation and/or procedures will be considered when the report of the Working Party is available. > >Coastal surveillance activities in the north-west of Australia have been increased in response to reports of landings by foreign fishing vessels and to the unscheduled arrival of Vietnamese refugee boats. Future coastal surveillance arrangements are currently under examination in the light of quarantine needs and those of other responsible Departments. > >The Department assumed responsibility for disposal of quarantinable airport garbage on 1 July 1 977. Qantas, TAA and Ansett were approached with the proposal contained in the Recommendation but did not favour the concept. Under present arrangements, the Department of Transport undertakes the operational aspects of airport waste disposal on behalf of the Department of Health. > >The Prime Minister has written to all State Premiers advising that the Government had agreed to the negotiation of new Commonwealth/State arrangements for the provision, operation, maintenance and replacement of incinerators at sea ports. This would replace the 1 966 agreement under which the Commonwealth reimbursed the States for construction costs only. Specific proposals have been conveyed to the States at officer level. Responses from all States have not yet been received. > >7. No action has yet been taken on this matter. > >8. No action has yet been taken in this matter. > >The evaluations undertaken by the Bureau of Customs are of value in assessing the efficacy of quarantine screening procedures at airports. However, the techniques employed do not necessarily have application as a model for the evaluation of all quarantine control procedures. > >Following Departmental evaluation, an automatic disinfection device developed by Qantas has been approved for use in cargo compartments of Qantas 747 aircraft on flights of up to 12 hours duration. It is expected that these devices will be fitted to all Qantas 747 aircraft and brought into service by May 1978. > >Quarantine charging policy including the question of capital cost recovery is currently under consideration by the Government. > >The Government is to proceed with the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong to facilitate testing and research in respect of exotic diseases. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are undertaking limited work in this area pending completion of that laboratory. > >No action is required. > >No action is required. > >Proposals are under consideration to amend the Quarantine Act to provide amongst other things that a Quarantine Officer may make enquiries and enter, inspect, restrict access to and detain goods under certain circumstances. > >The question of increased penalties for breaches of the Quarantine Act and Regulations is currently under consideration by the Government. > >Quarantine charging policy, including the question of capital cost recovery, is currently under consideration by the Government. This review will include consideration of the need to amend the Quarantine Act. {:#subdebate-59-15} #### Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Question No. 704) {: #subdebate-59-15-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to page 156 of the publication *Independent Inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,* August 1977, where it was stated that the Inquiry was given examples of higher standards of construction being applied by the Depanment of Construction than required by CSIRO. 1. Was the Minister's attention also drawn to the particular reference made to the use of (a) copper roofing, gutters and downpipes, (b) pyrex glass plumbing and (c) precast concrete panels for external walls; if so, will he supply details of all examples given to the Inquiry by (i) CSIRO and (ii) the Department of Science, of unnecessary usage of these items. 2. Will the Minister supply full details of any evidence given to the Inquiry by (a) the CSIRO and (b) the Department of Science to support the observation by the Inquiry that decisions by the Department of Construction had increased costs by up to 6 times. 3. Does the Minister or the Department of Science possess additional information to support this view, if so, will he detail it. 4. 5 ) Will the Minister detail all information provided to the Inquiry by (a) CSIRO and (b) the Department of Science which supported the statement by the Inquiry that higher standards imposed by the Department of Construction had increased building costs significantly with additional plumbing costs alone adding as much as $100,000 on large buildings. 5. Does the Minister or the Department of Science possess additional information to support the statement; if so, will he detail it. {: #subdebate-59-15-s1 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, I am aware of the reference in the inquiry report to which the honourable member refers. 1. My attention has been drawn to reference in the Inquiry report to the use of copper, pyrex and pre-cast concrete materials to which the honourable member refers. I have been advised that specific examples of these items were given to the Inquiry on an informal basis, upon request by the Inquiry which was attempting to substantiate allegations of specification of excessive standards. However the information was qualified to the extent that it referred to problems of some years ago. It was emphasised that currently unanimity existed between the Department and CSIRO over standards. The honourable member may be interested in the following information: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. No CSIRO building constructed in the last 10 years by the Department of Construction has been fitted with copper roofing. Five buildings have been fitted with copper downpipes where roof plumbing maintenance was likely to have proved difficult. One of these buildings also has copper gutters. 1. During the last 10 years two laboratories constructed by the Department of Construction have used some pyrex glass plumbing. 2. Precast concrete panels have been used for architectural and technical reasons at two locations. Several other buildings have small sections of precast concrete wall panels. The choice of the above materials was made during design discussions which took place between CSIRO and the Department of Construction. The Department of Science did not supply evidence to the Inquiry in regard to CSIRO 's Civil Works Program. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. I am informed that neither CSIRO nor the Department of Science provided to the Inquiry any evidence to support the Inquiry's observation that decisions of Department of Construction have increased costs by up to six times. There were informal discussions between members of the Inquiry and CSIRO at which the view may have been put by some CSIRO officers that before the Department of Construction introduced Project Management as their basis of operation buliding costs of projects built for CSIRO by the Department had been higher than CSIRO would have wished. I have no evidence that this was the case and I am certain that the cost of CSIRO laboratories compares favourably with the cost of the laboratories built for other Government Departments and for private industry. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. I have no additional information. 1. I am informed that no formal evidence was lodged with the Inquiry by CSIRO or the Department of Science which supports the statement by the Inquiry that higher standards imposed by the Department of Construction had increased building costs significantly. However, there were informal discussions on these matters involving members of both the Inquiry and CSIRO Secretariats. The view would have been put that before the Department established its Project Management basis of operation there had been some difference of opinion over the standard of materials to be provided for CSIRO projects, but that more recently there has been excellent co-operation from the Department of Construction over the selection of materials for construction purposes. I can also inform the honourable member that I have no information which indicates that major increases in plumbing costs have resulted from the Department of Construction 's choice of material of construction. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. I have no information at all which supports this statement. {:#subdebate-59-16} #### Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Question No. 705) {: #subdebate-59-16-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement on page 1 55 of the publication *Independent Inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,* August 1 977, that the CSIRO indicated some dissatisfaction with the present arrangements with the Department of Construction. 1. If so, will the Minister detail the specific areas of dissatisfaction. 2. What evidence was presented to the Inquiry by (a) the CSIRO and (b) the Department of Science to support the views contained in the statement. 3. What action was recommended to the Inquiry by (a) the CSIRO and (b) the Department of Science to overcome any dissatisfaction. {: #subdebate-59-16-s1 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. My attention has been drawn to the statement to which the honourable member refers. 1. I am informed that the reference on page 155 of the Inquiry report probably refers to control of funds for Capital Works, Furniture and Fittings and Repairs and Maintenance in CSIRO by the Department of Construction. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. CSIRO indicated to the Inquiry that the matter of control of funds for Capital Works in CSIRO had been the subject of a discussion with the Department of Construction and was under continuing review. The suggestion was made to the Inquiry that CSIRO be permitted further time in which to consider this complex question. The Department of Science did not present any evidence to the Inquiry on this topic. 1. See (3) above. {:#subdebate-59-17} #### Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Question No. 706) {: #subdebate-59-17-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 March: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the conclusion on page 156 of the publication *Independent Inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization,* August 1977, that the design and construction of the National Measurement Laboratories at Bradfield Park, New South Wales, was extravagant and a misuse of public funds. 1. Does the Minister for the Department of Science possess information to support the conclusion referred to in part (a); if so, will he detail it and specifically list the cases of extravagance. 2. What information was given to the Inquiry by (a) the CSIRO and (b) the Department of Science, which would support the Inquiry's conclusion. 3. Will the Minister indicate what evidence is possessed by him, the Depanment of Science or the CSIRO to support the statement by the Inquiry at page 156 of its Report that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works considered the National Measurement Laboratories a national facility requiring a prestige building. 4. Will the Minister indicate any evidence possessed by him, the Department of Science or the CSIRO to support the statement by the Inquiry at page 1 56 of its Report that considerable savings could have been made in the construction of the National Measurement Laboratories at Bradfield Park if the CSIRO had controlled the funds; if so, will the Minister indicate in particular (a) the specific savings that would have been made and (b) why (i) the CSIRO and (ii) the Department of Science did not indicate these savings to the joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works. 5. have the National Measurement Laboratories buildings at Bradfield Park gold plated windows as stated on page 1 56 of the Report of the Inquiry; if not, (a) what is the nature of the windows and (b) is the nature of the windows acceptable to (i) the CSIRO and (ii) the Department of Science. 6. If the windows are not acceptable, what is wrong with them. 7. Did the Department of Science and the CSIRO both support the nature of the windows at hearings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works; if not, what opposition or reservations did they express. 8. What cost saving measures suggested to the Department of Construction by officers of the Department of Science and the CSIRO during (a) the design and (b) the construction of the laboratories were not included in the final construction. 9. What would have been the savings if these suggestions had been accepted. 10. Did representatives of the CSIRO give evidence on oath to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works that (a) there had been full collaboration in design with the Department of Construction, (b) the planned buildings were suitable for their purpose and (c) the buildings were not extravagant. {: #subdebate-59-17-s1 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. My attention has been drawn to the statements in the report of the Inquiry referred to by the honourable member. I do not agree with this statement in any sense. In my view the project has been designed to a proper standard. 1. Neither myself nor CSIRO possess any information which indicates that CSIRO considers there has been any extravagance in the construction of the National Measurement Laboratories at Bradfield Park. I am informed that CSIRO is well pleased with the construction of these laboratories. The Department of Science did not present any evidence to the Inquiry on this topic. 2. No information was given to the Inquiry by CSIRO concerning any alleged extravagance in the construction of the National Measurement Laboratories. The Department of Science did not present any evidence to the Inquiry on this topic. 3. Neither myself nor CSIRO has any evidence which supports the statement by the Inquiry to which the honourable member refers. The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works which considered the National Measurement Laboratories, made no reference to a prestige' building. The Depanment of Science did not present any evidence to the Inquiry on this topic. 4. No evidence is possessed by the Department of Science, CSIRO nor myself which supports the statement to which the honourable member refers. 5. Windows at the National Measurement Laboratories are glazed with gold tinted 'glaverbel ' stopray glass which incorporates a metallic gold tinted film. These windows were provided for technical reasons, viz (a) electromagnetic screening from adjacent TV stations, etc., and (b) for economic reasons (reduction in air-conditioning capital and running costs). The windows are acceptable to CSIRO. The Department of Science is not involved in this aspect. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. See (6) above. 1. The type of windows was specifically referred to in the Parliamentary Public Works Committee hearings and was supported by CSIRO without reservation. The Department of Science did not give evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works on this matter. 2. No cost savings was suggested to the Depanment of Construction by CSIRO during the design or construction of the laboratories which were not included in the final construction. The Department of Science was not involved in the design or construction of this laboratory. 3. Not applicable. See answer to Question (9) above. 4. Representatives of CSIRO gave evidence on oath to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works as stated by the honourable member. Leopard Tank (Question No. 715) {:#subdebate-59-18} #### In substitution for the answer which appeared in Hansard, (pages 3003 to 3005) of 1 June 1978 {: #subdebate-59-18-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr £ G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the actual prime equipment cost of each Leopard Tank at the time of delivery. 1. What was the total project cost when the order for the Leopard Tanks was placed. 2. What was the break-up of the total project cost when the order was placed. 3. What is the present project cost in February 1978 prices. 4. What is the break-up of the present project cost in February 1 978 prices. 5. What is the currently assessed operational cost, on a per annum basis, for each Leopard Tank. 6. What was the assessed operational cost, on a per annum basis, for each Leopard Tank at the time the order was placed. 7. To what extent have (a) price escalation and (b) currency movements affected the changes to the total project cost for the Leopard Tanks between the present time and the time when the orders were placed. 8. What cost effects has the devaluation of November 1976 had on defence procurement, in particular on major equipment acquisitions. {: #subdebate-59-18-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Deliveries of Leopard Tanks commenced on 14 September 1976 and, up to 7 December 1977, 73 had been delivered. Of these, 62 were Gun Tanks, 6 Recovery Vehicles and5 Bridge Layers. The prime equipment unit costs of these tanks, as paid up to the time of delivery, have depended on the date of delivery, the variant concerned and, in the case of gun tanks, whether 1 5 per cent was retained pending later fitment of the Laser Rangefinder. These costs have varied between $661,637 and $937,676, the lower figure relating to a gun tank for which15 per cent was withheld. Deliveries of tanks are continuing and, by April 1 978 a further 10 had been delivered for which the detailed costs have not yet been fully analysed. Actual prime equipment cost of each Leopard Tank at the time of delivery (acceptance at factory): on the exchange rate ruling at the time the claim is passed for payment in London. This has caused some minor variation in the actual cost of tanks accepted for delivery on the same date. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The 43 Battle Tanks delivered under Phase 1 initially had 1 5 per cent of the contract price withheld from payment pending resolution of specification problems associated with the laser rangefinder. These problems have been resolved and as at 3 1 December 1 977 the tanks indicated by ' Note 2 ' had yet to be fitted with the rangefinder and the final 1 5 per cent payment was still to be made. 1. These tanks have now been fitted with the laser rangefinder and the final payment has been made. 2. Phase 2 tanks had the laser rangefinder fitted on delivery and payment in full has been made. The difference in final cost between phase 1 tanks retrofitted with the rangefinder and phase 2 tanks is due to escalation and exchange variations. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The total project cost associated with the S3 Phase 1 tanks ordered in May 197S was estimated at $49.8m in May 1975- prices. When the additional 34 Phase 2 tanks were ordered in January 1976, the total project cost for Phases 1 and 2 was estimated at $90.6m in August 1975 prices. With the further 14 Phase 3 tanks ordered in January 1977 at an estimated cost of $ 15.9m the total project cost was estimated at $ 106.5m in December 1976 prices. An additional $2. 329m at January 1977 prices will be added by the purchase of the two additional Phase 4 Recovery Vehicles ordered in February 1978. (See also Question 5.) {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The break-up of total project cost as the progressive orders were placed is as follows: Does not include Phase 4. (See Question 5 ). {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The latest available project cost estimate is at June 1977 prices and amounts to $ 129.6m for Phases 1,2 and 3. A further review aimed at updating the project cost estimates to March 1 978 prices is currently in hand. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 5 ) The break-up of the project cost estimate in June 1 977 prices is as follows: In the context of the 1977-78 Budget, approval was given to the procurement of an additional two Armoured Recovery Vehicles and associated support as Phase 4 at an estimated cost of $2.329m (January 1977 prices). These vehicles and costs are not included in the above break-up. The 2 Phase 4 vehicles were ordered in February 1978 for delivery in September/October 1979. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Although 101 Leopard tanks have been ordered, only 83 have been delivered to date. As tank delivery has been going on since December 1 976, usage of individual tanks has varied widely. The highest mileage tank has run 5,839 km and 6 tanks which have been delivered, have not yet been issued for training, and hence have nil mileage. All tanks have been serviced under warranty and in some cases repairs have been carried out under the warranty conditions. Such costs are not included in any calculation of normal operating costs. It is not practicable to maintain operating costs for individual tanks, however as at I November 1977, Army records show that a total of $ 1.2 m worth of spare parts had been issued for repair of the tanks then in use. At that time these tanks had run some 66,000 km. These same tanks consumed an average of 5,764 litres of fuel per 1,000 km, at a cost of $4 1 5 per 1,000 km. At present annual tank running for the fleet is planned to be a total of 1 1 1 ,000 km. It is quite misleading to attempt to judge average annual costs per tank from this data until more actual consumption information is available. Spare parts have been, and are being purchased to provide an initial stock level in each appropriate depot and workshop, based upon German advice and the results of an Australian technical examination in Germany, taking into account the annual ordering cycle and the provisioning lead time of up to 36 months. At present some $5.5m worth of spare parts have been delivered and a further $9.7m worth are on order, to provide this initial stock and to replace the first usage mentioned above. This total asset represents some three years ' consumption at present rates. Once initial stocking is complete, all follow on purchase of spare parts will be based on actual usage and forecast requirements. It is obvious that the operating cost of the tanks will rise as they are used and become more worn. However at this time it is not possible to calculate these future costs in any meaningful way, because of the limited and varying local experience to date. Projections of German advice and experience in Europe indicate that tank operating costs will be of the order of $40,000 per tank in use, per year, for the next few years. The basis of this projection is given below. Leopard Tank Operations Cost Estimate The tank manufacturer has indicated the following basis for provisioning spare parts to support Leopard: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. in 1 974- spare parts, on the basis of 3.3 per cent of prime equipment cost for 730 km per tank per year. 1. in 1977- after sales service, on the basis of 5 per cent of prime equipment cost for 1 , 500 km per tank per year. Taking a mean figure of 4 per cent of prime equipment cost leads to the following judgments on annual operating costs for 1 ,000 km running per tank: Spares............ 34,780 Maintenance.......... 2,100 Transport........... 1 ,400 Fuel and Oils.......... 415 Documentation......... 100 Tools and Test Equipment...... 600 39,395 It must be understood that this is primarily a projection of costs, based on German experience in Europe, with a different logistic support environment. It is not a valid basis for initial stocking to meet the Australian logistic environment, and needs. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. In December 1974 when the decision to procure the Leopard Tank was taken the assessed operational cost, on a per annum basis, for each tank was $23,700, covering the same items as in answer (6). This could have escalated slightly by May 1975 when the order was placed. In October 1976, the Senate Estimates Committee was advised that the annual maintenance cost per tank was $26,000, which, when allowance is made for escalation, is consistent with the answer above. {: type="1" start="8"} 0. As at the June 1 977 price review, changes in total project costs due to inflation and exchange rate movements were as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. inflationary movements..... +7.4m 1. exchange rate movements..... + 14.7m Total............ +22. lm The approved revisions of total project costs have taken the form of consolidations of Phases implemented at the time. Consequently it is not possible to readily identify the effect on each individual order and considerable time and effort would be required should such an answer be required. {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The November 1976 devaluation and subsequent exchange rate variations up to 28 February 1978 have increased Defence expenditure on all equipment by about $36.8m. Of this increase in expenditure, some $30. lm is related to major equipment acquisitions. The answer relates to the effect on payments actually made during the period. No allowance has been made for possible effects on payments not yet made although these are included in the 'total project cost estimates' given in the answers to previous questions. {:#subdebate-59-19} #### Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Administration of Tribunals (Question No. 727) {: #subdebate-59-19-s0 .speaker-PD4} ##### Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP wn asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was his Depanment 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 Depanment and tribunals administered or serviced by his Depanment during 1976-77; if so, did his Department respond to that request. 1. Will he now provide the information referred to in pan(l). {: #subdebate-59-19-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes; yes. 1. My Depanment advised the Administrative Review Council, on 5 April 1978, that the Trade Practices Tribunal was then the only tribunal established under legislation administered by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs which reviewed administrative decisions. As responsibility for certain matters relating to that tribunal was at that time vested in the Attorney-General, my Depanment supplied such of the information requested as was available to it and suggested that the balance be sought from the Attorney-General's Depanment. Appendix III of the First Annual Report of the Administrative Review Council set out certain information in relation to the Trade Practices Tribunal under the heading 'Attorney-General 's Depanment '. {:#subdebate-59-20} #### Motor Vehicles: Fuel Economy Standards (Question No. 743) {: #subdebate-59-20-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: >What steps has the Government taken toward the establishment of fuel economy standards for new motor vehicles either manufactured in or imported into Australia, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee. {: #subdebate-59-20-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-59-21} #### Consumption of Oil Fuel (Question No. 744) {: #subdebate-59-21-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government begun studies to estimate any effects the recently announced increases in the price of indigenous crude oil and duty on petroleum imports might have on oil fuel consumption, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, who is conducting these studies. 1. When are the studies expected to lead to a published report. {: #subdebate-59-21-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-59-22} #### Energy Conservation (Question No. 745) {: #subdebate-59-22-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: >Has he created a special group within his Depanment responsible for detailed work involved in defining national energy conservation objectives and priorities, and to oversee the implementation of national energy conservation measures, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee; if so, when does he expect proposals of this group for objectives and priorities to be published. {: #subdebate-59-22-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. The work carried out within my Depanment is the responsibility of the Energy Policy Division. {:#subdebate-59-23} #### Energy Management (Question No. 751) {: #subdebate-59-23-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What measures has the Government taken and what measures does the Government intend to take to demonstrate proper energy management in its own establishments, as recommended by the National Energy Advisory Committee. 1. Will each Government depanment and instrumentality be requested to report annually on its energy management. {: #subdebate-59-23-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-59-24} #### Solar Energy (Question No. 753) {: #subdebate-59-24-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What efforts have been made by the Commonwealth Government to implement the recommendation of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on solar energy that the Commonwealth and State Governments establish a common approach for determining electricity tariffs for domestic solar hot water installation. 1. What stage has been reached in these efforts. 2. What difficulties have been encountered in implementing the Committee's recommendation. {: #subdebate-59-24-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See my answer to Question No. 749. {:#subdebate-59-25} #### Life Insurance: Investment of Superannuation Funds (Question No. 780) {: #subdebate-59-25-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it a fact that some Life Companies are investing superannuation funds which are held in trust for employees, back in the employing company, despite the statutory provisions of the Life Insurance Act. 1. Is this form of investment considered to be in the best interest of policy owners; if not, will he take appropriate legislative action to safeguard the interest of policy holders in the event of such a company suffering from liquidity difficulties caused by this type of investment. 2. Will he examine provisions in this area in the United Kingdom. {: #subdebate-59-25-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (3)1 am not aware of any transactions of the kind mentioned by the honourable member that have been made in breach of the Life Insurance Act 1945. 1 would point out that premiums received by a life insurance company in respect of superannuation policies are paid into one or more life insurance statutory funds which the company is required to establish and maintain under the Life Insurance Act 1945. A statutory fund generally provides security for the liability of policies relating to a large number of superannuation schemes and is invested in a wide range of public and private sector assests, all of which are available to cover the liabilities in respect of all policies secured on that fund. Specific assets of a fund are not identified with specific policy liabilities of that fund. It may be that a statutory fund of a life office includes investments in a company whose employees' superannuation contributions are paid into that fund but the relationship between the contributions and the investment is likely to be remote and insignificant. All aspects of life insurance legislation are kept under review, and aspects of overseas legislation including that of the United Kingdom are examined from time to time to assist in that review, as necessary and appropriate. {:#subdebate-59-26} #### Legal Aid (Question No. 781) {: #subdebate-59-26-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When did Federal grants for legal aid to State law society schemes begin. 1. What sums were given during 1976-77. 2. When was it decided to stop making these grants. 3. When were law societies notified of the decision. 4. When were State Governments notified of the decision. 5. Did the Attorney-General or any other Minster make public statements explaining the Government's decision to discontinue funding law society legal aid schemes. 6. When will the freeze on expansion of the Australian Legal Aid Office be lifted. 7. How many States have indicated a preparedness to sign agreements for the takeover of Australian Legal Aid Offices in 1977-78. {: #subdebate-59-26-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In December 1973 the then Commonwealth Government made the first grants to the States to 'supplement existing legal aid schemes'. 1. $2m. 2. , (4), (5) and (6) In June 1976 the Commonwealth Government proposed to the States a co-operative exercise in the provision of legal aid through State commissions that would incorporate the Australian Legal Aid Office and State and Law Society schemes and would be funded by the Commonwealth to provide legal aid in the 'Federal' area. The continuation of separate grants to the States would have been inconsistent with the new proposals. This was made plain in discussions with State Attorneys-General and the Executive Committee of the Law Council of Australia and also in public statements that my predecessor and I have made in the Parliament and elsewhere. 3. The level of activity and staffing in the Australian Legal Aid Office has been maintained and will continue to be maintained until Australian Legal Aid Offices are absorbed into State Commissions. 4. Negotiations with the States are well advanced. The Western Australian Legal Aid Commission commenced operations on 17 April 1978. The Director of the South Australian Commission was appointed on 24 May 1978 and the members of the South Australian Commission are expected to be appointed within a few weeks. In Queensland a Bill to establish a Commission passed all stages on 24 May 1 978. Victoria expects to introduce legislation early in the next Parliamentary Session. In Tasmania, a Committee of Inquiry into new legal aid arrangements has completed taking evidence and is preparing its report. Only preliminary discussions have been held with New South Wales. {:#subdebate-59-27} #### Simulated Navy Exercise (Question No. 796) {: #subdebate-59-27-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in *Navy News* of 24 March 1978 recounting the simulated rescue of Australian families from a wealthy mine in 'a nearneighbouring country suffering another of her frequent political upheavals'. 1. If so, has he noted the description and photograph of a topless and hooded terrorist undergoing 'a new interrogation method at the delicate hands of our interrogation team '. 2. Would such an interrogation accord with the Geneva Conventions of 1 2 August 1 949. 3. Which parties to the Conventions have (a) signed and (b) ratified or acceded to (i) the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and (ii) the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. {: #subdebate-59-27-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2 ) and (3) While I had not personally seen the report to which the honourable member refers, I have been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Defence, that it was intended to be a lighthearted account of a very minor event on the Navy's exercise calendar which lasted a morning. The Minister for Defence has further informed me that prisoner interrogation is not a function for which the RAN is trained and that, in this instance, the photographs portraying such hypothetical interrogation were the result of an uninformed, imaginative embellishment of the exercise scenario and of a staff reporter's sense of the dramatic. I have also been informed by my colleague that special care will be taken in future, both in the conception of exercises, and in their reporting, to avoid unnecessary embellishment which could create a wrong impression. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. As at 12 April 1978, the following parties to the Geneva Conventions had signed the two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1 2 August 1 949: Austria, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Equador, Egypt. El Salvador, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan. Panama, Peru, Philippines (Protocol I only), Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, Upper Volta, Vietnam (Protocol I only), Yemen Arab Republic, Yugoslavia. Ghana was the only State to have ratified the Protocols: no State has acceded to them. {:#subdebate-59-28} #### Breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106 A (Question No. 815) {: #subdebate-59-28-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1978: >Did he tell me in answer to Question No. 273 *(Hansard,* 3 May 1977, page 1501) that a number of cases involving alleged breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106a were being investigated by his Department in close association with the Commonwealth Police; if so, > >have these investigations been completed > >have any individuals or organisations been charged with breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106 a > >what was the nature of these breaches, and > >what has been the result of his Department's action in each case. {: #subdebate-59-28-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Yes. 1. No. 2. and (d) The cases involve a wide variety of practices believed to be contrary to the requirements of Air Navigation Regulation 106A. In a number of cases the airlines or travel agents concerned were prevailed upon to cease or desist. Other cases were passed to the Crown Law Authorities for consideration, however, certain evidentiary problems precluded prosecution. {:#subdebate-59-29} #### Superannuation Funds (Question No. 864) {: #subdebate-59-29-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the decision of McGarvie, J., of the Victorian Supreme Court in James Miller Holdings Pty Ltd v Graham and Ors. 1. If so, is it a fact that the judgment reveals serious deficiencies in the law relating to superannuation funds. 2. Is it also a fact that there ought to be specific requirements to ensure a fair distribution of superannuation funds on liquidation of the company concerned. 3. Does the Government consider that there ought to be provisions to prevent conflict of interests arising between trustees of superannuation funds and (a) the company, (b) the creditors of the company, (c) directors of the company, (d) receivers and (e) particular employees of the Company. 4. What action does the Government intend to take either of its own volition or in conjunction with the States to prevent a repetition of the serious hardship caused to longterm employees of James Miller Holdings Pty Ltd and the consequential loss of faith of employees generally in superannuation funds. {: #subdebate-59-29-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am aware of this decision. 1. to (5) The matters referred to by the honourable member fall outside the ambit of existing Commonwealth legislation and it would not be appropriate for me to express an opinion on any matters of detail raised in relation to the particular case mentioned. I should point out, however, that Part Two of the Final Report of the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry, which was tabled in Parliament in March 1977 by the Minister for Social Security, contains proposals designed, inter alia, to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of occupational superannuation schemes and related schemes for the self-employed. Part One of the Committee's Report contains recommendations on national superannuation. Both Parts have been referred to the recently established Social Welfare Policy Secretariat for advice; aspects of the Report are also under consideration by my Department. The Government will be giving consideration to the Committee's recommendations when this advice becomes available. {:#subdebate-59-30} #### Research for Development (Question No. 866) {: #subdebate-59-30-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 April 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What has been the total level of expenditure on research in the Australian aid program in the years (a) 1975-76 and (b) 1976-77. 1. ) What spending is planned on research in 1 977-78. 2. How much of this actual or planned expenditure has been through bilateral and multilateral channels. 3. What proportion has spending on research been as a percentage of total aid in these years. {: #subdebate-59-30-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Approximately $9.0m was spent on research in the Australian aid program in 1975-76 and $10.2m in 1976-77. Much of this research occurs in on-going bilateral multidisciplinary projects and it is often difficult to estimate exactly the proportion of expenditure on this kind of project that is devoted to research. Similarly, the research work undertaken by the multilateral organisations which Australia supports is only one of the many activities of these organisations. It is clear, therefore, that any figure supplied concerning the research component of the development assistance program is in the nature of an approximation and not a statement of precise amounts. If only organisations and projects which are clearly identified as being completely research are considered, the figures are reduced to $7.8m and $8.5m respectively. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It is planned to spend approximately $1 1.5 m on research under the Australian aid program in 1977-78. Using the stricter definition of research expenditure the planned expenditure would be $9. 1 m. 1. Research component in multilateral aid- 1975-76, $2.5m; 1 976-77, $3.0m; 1977-78, $4.5m. Research component in bilateral aid- 1975-76, $6.5m; 1976- 77, $7.2m; 1977-78, $7.2m. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Percentage of the total aid budget spent on research-1975-76, 2.6 per cent; 1976-77, 2.7 per cent; 1977- 78, 2.7 percent. There is also a number of sponsored overseas students in Australia every year who undertake research leading to masters or doctors degrees and some trainees who participate in research activities in government establishments such as CSIRO. Expenditure on these scholarship programs has not been taken into account in the calculations for the figures provided above. {:#subdebate-59-31} #### Department of Social Security, Staffing (Question No. 868) {: #subdebate-59-31-s0 .speaker-FF4} ##### Mr Chapman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many persons have been employed by the Department of Social Security in each quarter in each State in (a) the pensions section, (b) the family allowances section and (c) the unemployment and sickness benefit section since I January 1975. 1. How many applications for benefits have been processed by the Department of Social Security in each quarter in each State in (a) the pensions section, (b) the family allowances section and (c) the unemployment and sickness benefit section since 1 January 1975. {: #subdebate-59-31-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The number of staff employed in each of the benefits sections for the quarterly periods concerned are shown in the tables below. However, it is relevant to bring to the honourable member's attention the fact that statistics of staff employed in Regional Offices of the Department according to the various benefit sections have only been recorded since the June quarter 1 976. Before that, quarterly statistics of staff employed in State Headquarters of the Department were recorded separately for the various benefit sections but no such breakup was maintained for regional offices. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Social Security benefit statistics are compiled on a four-weekly basis rather than a monthly basis. The figures shown for each quarter in the following tables are based on the closest available dates to the end of each quarter. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CLAIMS FOR FAMILY ALLOWANCES (a) MATERNITY OR HANDICAPPED CHILD'S ALLOWANCES AND DOUBLE ORPHANS PENSIONS RECEIVED (000 's) NSW SA Quarter March 1975 June 1975 September 1975 December 1975 March 1976 June 1976 September 1976 December 1976 March 1977 June 1977 . . September 1977 December 1 977 March 1978 {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Family Allowances replaced Student Endowment and Child Endowment from 15 June 1976. 1. CLAIMS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS OR SPECIAL BENEFITS RECEIVED (000 's) Quarter NSW and ACT Vic. Qld SA and NT WA Tas. Aust. March 1975...... 128.6 82.6 68.8 34.7 36.2 10.3 361.3 June 1975....... 106.5 68.4 54.9 28.3 30.0 10.4 298.4 September 1975..... 122.2 72.0 68.2 32.2 32.3 10.1 337.1 December 1975..... 146.0 80.5 69.7 37.7 36.8 11.3 382.0 March 1976...... 134.8 70.1 70.3 35.8 37.6 11.3 359.9 June 1976....... 125.7 77.4 65.6 31.9 35.3 10.8 346.7 September 1976..... 105.9 63.9 55.2 27.3 29.8 8.4 290.5 December 1976..... 121.3 76.2 70.5 33.4 35.6 9.9 346.9 March 1977...... 122.1 72.0 70.2 33.9 34.1 9.0 341.2 June 1977....... 126.6 82.5* 69.4 36.6* 36.3* 9.9 361.3* September 1977..... 105.9 63.4 59.6 32.5 32.5 8.8 302.6 December 1977..... 128.7 135.4 78.7 41.6 38.8 10.5 433.8 March 1978...... 116.6 78.1 67.5 35.4 37.2 9.4 344.2 * Estimated. {:#subdebate-59-32} #### Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland (Question No. 932) {: #subdebate-59-32-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 April 1 978: >Is it still the Government's policy, as he stated in his letter of 9 December 1976 to the Queensland Premier, not to meet any request for assistance to the North Queensland Land Council *(Hansard,* 12 April 1978, page 1422). {: #subdebate-59-32-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Yes. To date, Commonwealth assistance to Land Councils and Land Trusts in various States and the Northern Territory has been generally confined to those bodies established on an official basis. {:#subdebate-59-33} #### Prices Justification Tribunal: Transport Costs (Question No. 940) {: #subdebate-59-33-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 13 April 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How frequently will the Prices Justification Tribunal review the transport costs of motor fuels which will affect payments under the States Grants Petroleum Products) Amendment Act. 1. Will the Prices Justification Tribunal consider submissions from independent bodies or their interested groups relating to these transport costs and, in particular, will cost estimates from independent cartage contractors be considered by the Prices Justification Tribunal. 2. If so, will the Tribunal take the lowest cost estimate as the basis for its determination; if not, why not. 3. Has his attention been drawn to an address by **Mr L.** T. Froggatt, Chairman of Shell, to the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association on 21 March 1978, in which **Mr Froggatt** stated that it is cheaper for Shell to send petrol or distillate to Roma, Queensland, by road from Sydney, a distance of 850 miles, than by rail from Brisbane, 300 miles away. 4. As the Queensland and Western Australian Governments restrict the use of road transport to certain distances from their capital city and major rail heads, will the Prices Justification Tribunal determine transport costs on the estimation that the much more expensive rail transport is used. 5. If so, (a) will payments under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Act be an inappropriate way of subsidising State railway systems and (b) what will be the additional cost of using rail transport instead of road transport in Queensland and Western Australia. 6. What mechanism will be used to check the volume of petrol sold in a particular country location to prevent a company claiming exorbitant sales and thereby abusing the scheme. 7. What penalties will apply for any abuse. {: #subdebate-59-33-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Prices Justification Tribunal examines country freight differentials whenever oil companies seek increases in the levels of the differentials. In the past this has taken place at intervals of approximately 2 years. 1. Yes, the Tribunal would consider any submissions which may be relevant to its examinations. 2. In assessing whether the freight differential sought by a company for the supply of petroleum products to a particular location is justified, the Tribunal considers, among other matters, the actual costs incurred by that company in supplying that location and also the costs incurred by other companies supplying the same location. 3. Yes. 4. and (6) It is not the function of the Tribunal to determine which form of transport is used but to examine the unavoidable costs which have been incurred for the purpose of determining the justifiable price. 5. All claims submitted to the Department must provide details of individual sales. Through the use of accepted audit techniques, subsidy claims are checked at oil companies and country agencies. If necessary, sales are then verified at the customer level. 6. 8 ) Penalties are as prescribed in the complementary State and Northern Territory legislation. {:#subdebate-59-34} #### Age Pensions: Income Test (Question No. 942) {: #subdebate-59-34-s0 .speaker-FF4} ##### Mr Chapman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 April 1978: >What is the estimated additional cost to the Commonwealth of abolishing the income test on age pensions for persons aged (a) 69 years, (b) 68 and 69 years, (c) 67 to 69 years, (d) 66 to 69 years, and (e) 65 to 69years. {: #subdebate-59-34-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The following are the estimated additional *costs to* the Commonwealth in a full year of abolishing the income test on age pensions for persons aged: (a) 69 years, $43m; (b) 68 and 69 years, $95m; (c) 67 to 69 years, $159m; (d) 66 to 69 years, $237m; (e) 65 to 69 years, $330m. These costs are based on the estimated population and number of pensioners at the end of June 1978 and the pension rates applicable from May 1978. The costs are gross costs in that they make no allowance for the additional revenue which may result from the taxation of the payments concerned. Ministerial Travel by Qantas Airways Ltd Within Australia (Question No. 945) {: #subdebate-59-34-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What circumstances enabled Qantas to transport Government Ministers within Australia since 1 1 November 1975. 1. Which other persons are entitled to travel on internal flights with Qantas. {: #subdebate-59-34-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) From time to time I approve requests from Government Ministers to travel on Qantas flights over domestic sectors within Australia. Such approvals are given only in circumstances when tight ministerial itineraries impose severe demands on Minister's time and suitable connections are not available on domestic services. 1. The following categories of persons are entitled to travel on Qantas flights over internal domestic sectors: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Qantas' own stopover traffic and passengers interlining from other international airlines to Qantas, 1. Commonwealth Police travelling on official duty, 2. Commonwealth Public Service Officers on official duty escorting foreign dignitaries, 3. IATA accredited travel agents under specific internationally agreed conditions, 4. Qantas and other airline staff under specific internationally agreed conditions. {:#subdebate-59-35} #### Compulsory Acquisition of Land (Question No. 951) {: #subdebate-59-35-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 May 1978: >Do procedures for land resumption by the Commonwealth: > >provide for adequate notice to be given with the right of public objections, > >ensure that the same rules apply no matter what authority is involved or for what purpose the land is acquired, > >provide for prompt payment of compensation and, where there is a dispute, part payment for so much of the claim not contentious as soon as possible after resumption, > >provide for payment of fair and reasonable interest from the date of resumption to the date of payment, > >provide assistance to dispossessed home owners to re-establish themselves in reasonably comparable accommodation, and > >provide for the right of objection at the planning stage so that when a proposal to acquire land for public purposes is made it is in fact still a proposal. {: #subdebate-59-35-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >On the basis that by 'land resumption' the honourable member means the 'compulsory acquisition of land', the answer to his question is as follows: > >There is no legislative right of public objection and no notice is given for that specific purpose. Adequate notice is served on all affected landowners pursuant to section 9 of the Lands Acquisition Act, except in very special circumstances where the Minister may certify that the provisions of section 9 should not apply. > >With the exception of the Defence Service Homes Corporation which has compulsory acquisition powers under its own Act, the legislative provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 apply to all compulsory acquisitions effected under the Act on behalf of all Commonwealth departments and all other Commonwealth statutory authorities. > >There is no specific provision for prompt payment. However, payments are made promptly after claims are determined. The Act makes no provision for part payments in advance, although such payments are frequently authorised administratively. > >Yes. > >No. > >No. > >The compulsory acquisition of land by the Commonwealth is under reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission which at present is examining 'inter alia' the matters you have raised. The Commission expects to present its report on this subject later this year. {:#subdebate-59-36} #### Rehabilitation Centre, Broadmeadows (Question No. 952) {: #subdebate-59-36-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) On what date was land purchased at Broadmeadows, Victoria, for a proposed rehabilitation centre. 1. ) What area of land was purchased. 2. What is the size of the proposed centre. 3. What area is it intended to serve. 4. 5 ) What stage has been reached in planning. 5. What is the proposed opening date. {: #subdebate-59-36-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: ( 1 )-(6) The land in question at Broadmeadows is part of Crown Portion 5, Parish of Will Will Rook, County of Bourke and is Commonwealth Property. This land was acquired in various parcels between 1936 and 1956 and was vacated by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in 1969. Tentative arrangements were made some time ago between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Administrative Services to reserve part of this land for the possible establishment of a Rehabilitation Centre. However the Department of Social Security is now looking at alternative sites which will be better suited to the needs for rehabilitation services in Victoria and it is unlikely that the Broadmeadows site will be required for this purpose. {:#subdebate-59-37} #### Drug Offences (Question No. 957) {: #subdebate-59-37-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many persons were charged with drug offences against Commonwealth law in the last 12 months. 1. How many of these persons were charged with (a) summary offences, (b) indictable offences and (c) both types of offence. 2. What was the total number of persons charged with supplying, trading, deemed trading, importing and conspiracy to supply, trade or import. 3. In respect of how many of the persons referred to in part ( 1 ) was bail (a) opposed and (b) not opposed on first appearance before a magistrate. 4. In respect of how many of the persons referred to in part (3) was bail (a) opposed and (b) not opposed on first appearance before the magistrate. 5. In respect of how many of the persons referred to in part ( 1 ) was bail (a) granted and (b) not granted on first appearance before the magistrate. 6. In respect of how many of the persons referred to in part (3) was bail (a) granted and (b) not granted on first appearance before the magistrate. 7. 8 ) How many of all those persons charged with summary offences and not granted bail on first appearance were subsequently granted bail prior to the hearing. 8. How many of all those persons charged with indictable offences were subsequently granted bail (a ) before commital, (b) on commital and (c) after commital and before trial. 9. 10) How many of those persons referred to in part (3) who were charged with summary offences, were subsequently granted bail prior to the hearing. 10. How many of those persons referred to in part (3 ) who were charged with indictable offences were subsequently granted bail (a) before commital, (b) on commital and (c) after commital and before trial. 11. How many of the total number of persons referred to in part (3) who were refused bail on first appearance before a magistrate, were subsequently granted bail by a judge. 12. How many of all those persons referred to in part ( 1 ) absconded on bail at any time. 13. How many of those persons referred to in part (13) were subsequently arrested and tried. 14. How many of chose persons referred to in part (3 ) absconded on bail (a) at any time, (b) before commital and (c) after commital and before trial. 15. How many of those persons referred to in part (15) were subsequently arrested and tried. 16. How many of all those persons referred to in part ( 1 ) who absconded were later reported to be out of the country. 17. How many of those persons referred to in part (3) who absconded were later reported to be out of the country. 18. How many of those referred to in (a) pan ( 1 ) and (b) part (3) were granted (i) self bail, (ii) bail with one surety and (iii) bail with more than one surety. {: #subdebate-59-37-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to several parts of the honourable member's question, particularly those relating to bail are not available without detailed and lengthy research of the drug prosecution files. Under the circumstances I do not consider it appropriate to divert limited staff resources within the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from other important operational tasks to undertake this research. In all instances where persons are charged under the Customs Act with serious drug offences, officers from the Crown Solicitors Office are instructed to oppose bail strenuously. Answers to specific parts of the honourable member's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In 1977 the Department prosecuted 301 persons for breaches of Section 233b of the Customs Act (drug offences). 1. (a) 145, (b) 156, (c) Statistics not available without detailed research. 2. Section 233b of the Customs Act does not provide for specific offences of trading or supplying. However the Customs Act does provide a schedule of traffickable quantities and persons charged with offences (under Section 233b) involving quantities in excess of traffickable quantities are liable to a higher penalty. Accordingly they are dealt with by way of indictment (see Answer (2) (b)). 3. to (12) Statistics not available without detailed research. 4. 11. 5. 5. 6. (a)8,(b)4,(c)4. 7. 4. 8. 3. 9. 3. 10. Statistics not available without detailed research. {:#subdebate-59-38} #### Citizenship (Question No. 958) {: #subdebate-59-38-s0 .speaker-EH4} ##### Mr Howe: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs upon notice on 2 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many permanent residents of Australia are not Australian citizens. 1. ) How many persons applied for citizenship in 1 977. 2. What is the average length of time from receipt of application to the granting of citizenship. 3. How many applications for citizenship were refused in 1977. 4. What (a) was the country of birth and (b) is the present State of residence of these persons referred to in parts(l),(2)and(4). 5. How many of the persons referred to in parts ( I ), (2 ) and (4) reside in the Electoral Division of Batman and what were the countries of birth of these persons. {: #subdebate-59-38-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) This figure is unavailable because citizens of Commonwealth countries are not required by law to register on arrival in Australia, in the same way as other settlers. However, the result of the 1976 Census which is likely to become available early in 1979, should provide this information. As at 31 December 1977, it was estimated that 400,320 aliens 1 6 years of age and over were residentially qualified by virtue of 3 years' residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian Citizenship, but had not done so. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. 67,429 applications for citizenship were received in Australia. 1. The average processing time from the date of receipt of application until the date of approval is 13 weeks. The average time from date of approval until the actual granting of citizenship varies considerably. Where applicants opt to have citizenship conferred at a ceremony held by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the average dme would be only several weeks. However, where citizenship is conferred at ceremonies arranged by Local Government Authorities, the time is governed by the frequency of ceremonies held by the individual Local Government Authority. Some Local Government Authorities may have only one or two ceremonies a year. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. 1,273. 1. (a)(1) Unavailable. However, the table below sets out the estimated number of aliens, by nationality, 1 6 years of age and over, who were residentially qualified by virtue of 3 years residence in Australia to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship, but who had not done so as at 31 December 1977: Nationality No. Albanian............. 1 80 Argentinian............ 1,800 Austrian............. 7,420 Belgian.............. 1,340 Bolivian.............. 60 Brazilian............. 470 Bulgarian............. 230 Burmese............. 460 Chilean.............. 3,350 Chinese.............. 1,350 Colombian............. 370 Cuban.............. 70 Czechoslovak............ 2,720 Danish.............. 3,870 Dutch.............. 29,180 Ecuadorian............ 480 Egyptian (UAR)........... 2,010 Estonian............. 360 Filipino.............. 570 Finnish.............. 4,900 French.............. 6,220 German.............. 29,920 Greek.............. 52,730 Hungarian............. 2,660 Indonesian............. 40 Iranian.............. 820 {: type="A" start="X"} 0. Includes Byelorussians. (5)(b)(l) Unavailable. (5)(a) (2) Unavailable. (5)(b)(2)- {: type="1" start="5"} 0. (a) (4) Unavailable. However, the following table shows applications for citizenship, refused, by nationality: (5)(b)(4)- Applications for Citizenship State refused New South Wales......... 778 Victoria............ 133 Queensland........... 39 South Australia.......... 134 Western Australia......... 137 Tasmania............ 13 Northern Territory......... 15 Australian Capital Territory..... 24 Total............ 1,273 {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Unavailable. {:#subdebate-59-39} #### Bankcard Charges (Question No. 960) {: #subdebate-59-39-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a recent press report that Bankcard expects to make a profit of nearly $ I m by way of charges levied for late payments caused by delays brought on by the recent postal strike in New South Wales. 1. ) If so, are these charges justifiable. 2. Will he make immediate inquiries as to whether the impost is legal. 3. Will he undertake to introduce legislation which assures that payment by a card holder to any branch of a member of Bankcard is payment to Bankcard itself. {: #subdebate-59-39-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) to (4) I am aware of Press reports speculating generally on the matters referred to by the honourable member. These matters are essentially ones between parties to private transactions and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on what are matters of opinion or law. However, it is my understanding that in the majority of, if not all, cases, payment to a branch of a bank that is a member of Bankcard would have lessened the problem of any delay arising from the mail *strike. 1 am having further* inquiries made, and if any further information is obtained that I believe could usefully be passed on to the honourable member I shall arrange for that to be done. Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (Question No. 961) {: #subdebate-59-39-s2 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Further to the answer given to question No. 622 *(Hansard, 7 April* 1978, page 1256) relating to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, is it a fact that a member of the Queensland Public Service Board came to Canberra to make a submission on behalf of the Queensland Government to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations on one of its present research projects. 1. ) What research projects are presently being conducted by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. {: #subdebate-59-39-s3 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 understand that in response to a general invitation to all Public Service Boards an officer of the Queensland Public Service Board took part in discussions organised by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations in Sydney on 10 February 1978 and presented a paper on the question of the costs and benefits of an interchange of personnel between the three spheres of government. 1. Two matters have been referred to the Council by the Premiers ' Conference for inquiry and report: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. an examination of the relationships which should exist between Federal, State and local governments; 1. a study of the costs and benefits of an interchange of personnel between and three spheres of government and recommendations for selected implementation of a staff exchange program. {:#subdebate-59-40} #### Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre (Question No. 963) {: #subdebate-59-40-s0 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to recent reports that the Victorian Government wants to renege on its present repayments of Commonwealth loans for the Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre. 1. Has there been any submission by the Victorian Government to the Commonwealth seeking a new arrangement for the loan repayments. 2. When was the agreement made, who were the signatories and what were the terms of the loan. 3. Have there been any alterations to the original agreement. {: #subdebate-59-40-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. However, the first repayment of Commonwealth loans by the Victorian Government is not due until 1 983. 1. The Commonwealth, Victorian and New South Wales Ministers on the Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council have agreed that discussions should take place between the three governments to review the present funding arrangements in the light of the changed scope and direction of the project. Preliminary papers have been exchanged. 2. The Albury-Wodonga Area Development Agreement sets out the general principles for the development of the growth centre. The Agreement is a schedule to the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Government Acts which constitute the three Corporations responsible for the development of Albury-Wodonga. The Agreement was signed on 23 October 1973 by the then Prime Minister and Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria and provides, inter alia, that if the net revenues of a State Corporation are insufficient in any one financial year to meet the State's repayment obligations to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth shall defer the requirement for repayment to the extent of the shortfall until the following financial year. In addition there are annual financial agreements between the Commonwealth, Victorian and New South Wales Governments which set out the amounts to be made available by the Commonwealth and the terms and conditions which will apply to the servicing and repayment of these amounts. Financial Agreements have been signed by Prime Minister and Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria in each of the years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78. The loans are required to be repaid over a thirty year period with the first instalment of interest and principal duc ten years after the loans are made by the Commonwealth to the States for on-lending to the State Corporations. During the ten year deferment period which forms part of the thirty year term, interest accrues at the long term bond rate applying at the time the Commonwealth makes the loans to the States. This interest rate also applies to the funds for the duration of the thirty year period. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-59-41} #### Adjustments to Value of Australian Dollar (Question No. 968) {: #subdebate-59-41-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: >On what dates and by what amounts has the Australian dollar been revalued, or devalued, since 1 January 1970. {: #subdebate-59-41-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Since 1 January 1970 the following adjustments have been made to the foreign exchange value of the Australian dollar 22 December 1971- Smithsonian Realignment- the parity relationship of the Australian dollar against the US dollar was changed from SUS1.1200 to $ US 1.2 160, while the par value of the Australian dollar against gold remained unchanged. The Reserve Bank set the mid-point of its buying and selling rates at$US1.1910 which was the lower limit of the wider margins (2V4 per cent) agreed upon at Smithsonian. The link to the pound sterling was discontinued and a link to the US dollar established. 23 December 1972- The par value of the Australian dollar was changed from 0.99S3 1 grams to 1.04360 grams of fine gold per Australian dollar. The central rate against the US dollar was changed from SUS1.2160 to SUS1.2750. The mid-point of the Reserve Bank's buying and selling rates was altered from SUS1.1910 to $US 1.2750. 12 February 1973-The US dollar devalued by 10 per cent against gold. The central rate against the US dollar was raised to SUS1.4167. The par value of the Australian dollar against gold remained unchanged. 9 December 1973- The Australian dollar was revalued against the US dollar by 5 per cent. The central rate against the US dollar was raised to $US 1 .4875. 25 September 1974- The Australian dollar was devalued against the US dollar by 12 per cent. The fixed relationship to the US dollar was discontinued and a link to a trade-weighted 'basket' of currencies was established. 29 November 1976- The Australian dollar was devalued against the trade-weighted ' basket ' of currencies by 17.5 per cent. > >For adjustments made to the Australian dollar since 29 November 1 976 see my reply to Question No. 82 1 on 2 June 1978 *(Hansard,* page 3063 ). {:#subdebate-59-42} #### Electoral: Analysis of Results (Question No. 977) {: #subdebate-59-42-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: >On what basis did the Australian Electoral Office calculate the percentage of the votes notionally obtained in December 1975 on divisional boundaries adjusted for the 1977 redistribution as indicated in the Interim Result of Count of First Preference Votes for the House of Representatives. {: #subdebate-59-42-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >To assist analysis of the election results, the Australian Electoral Office estimated the percentage of the formal votes which each political party would have obtained in every division had the 1975 elections been conducted on the basis of the new boundaries created by the 1977 redistribution. > >The percentages for each division were calculated in the following manner. The votes obtained by each political party in those subdivisions which had not been split by the redistribution were aggregated. Where a subdivision had been split by the redistribution, the votes obtained by each political party at those polling places which were included in the new division were also aggregated. The totals obtained for each party in this way were then converted to a percentage of the formal votes. A proportional adjustment was made for the effect of postal, absent and section votes in each of the former divisions which either wholly or partly comprised the new division. {:#subdebate-59-43} #### Labour Force (Question No. 979) {: #subdebate-59-43-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total estimated labour force. 1. How many, and what percentage of these persons do not receive pay increases awarded by national wage case decisions. {: #subdebate-59-43-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Estimates of the total civilian labour force are available from the monthly labour force survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Estimates based on these surveys are published in various ABS bulletins including 'The Labour Force (Preliminary)', Catalogue No. 6202.0, the most recent of which refers to April 1978. Since the estimates are based on a sample they may differ from those that would be obtained from a complete Census using the same questionnaires and procedures. Using this source, in April 1978, the total civilian labour force was estimated to be 6,404,900. This estimate includes employers, self-employed and unemployed persons as well as employees. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Information on the number of persons receiving pay increases awarded by national wage case decisions is not available. Under the present wage fixation system, national wage decisions and the equivalent State wage decisions flow through to virtually all employees affected by awards, determinations and collective agreements, and to, probably, a small but unknown proportion of persons not so affected. A survey conducted by the ABS, and published in the bulletin 'Incidence of Industrial Awards, Determinations and Collective Agreements, May 1974', Reference No. 6.5, may be relevant. The survey covered most, but not all, wage and salary earners and showed for those employees who were covered that only an estimated 12.2 per cent were not affected by industrial awards, determinations and collective agreements. {:#subdebate-59-44} #### Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (Question No. 980) {: #subdebate-59-44-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What were the total number of aircraft (a) landings and (b) take-offs at Sydney Airport during each month of 1977 and what were the annual totals. 1. How many (a) landings and (b) take-offs were between the hours (i) 6.45 a.m. and 7 p.m., (ii) 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and (iii) 10 p.m. and 6.45 a.m. during 1977, and what percentage of total landings or take-offs at theairport did these figures represent. {: #subdebate-59-44-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total number of aircraft landings and take-offs at Sydney Airport during each month of 1 977 is shown in the following table. The statistics in this table were collected through noise monitoring of Sydney Airport. They do not include helicopter movements, which do not use the runway, and practice landing approaches. The latter occur during the daylight hours. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The table below gives the number of landings and take-offs between the hours of (i) 6.45 a.m. and 7 p.m., (ii) 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and (iii) 10 p.m. and 6.45 a.m. during 1977, as collected through noise monitoring of Sydney Airport. {:#subdebate-59-45} #### ConnairPtyLtd (Question No. 981) {: #subdebate-59-45-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Who has been the Australian Government's representative on the board of Connair Pty Ltd or its predecessor as provided in clause 23 of the Subsidy Agreement of 17 August 1966. 1. On what occasions, and for what reasons, has the Australian Government exercised its powers under clause 27 of the Subsidy Agreement with Connair Pty Ltd since 17 August 1966. {: #subdebate-59-45-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) **Mr G.** CD. Crowther, company director and solicitor acted as Government Director on the Board from 1 April 1964 to 22 May 1972 inclusive. **Mr C.** J. Smith an officer of the Department of Transport has acted as Government Director on the Board from 2 June 1972 to date. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It has not been necessary for the Commonwealth to exercise its powers under clause 2 7 of the Subsidy Agreement. {:#subdebate-59-46} #### Marine Operations Centre: Movement of Aircraft (Question No. 982) {: #subdebate-59-46-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May, 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Further to the answer to Question No. 606 *(Hanard,* 5 April 1978, page 1081) given by the Minister for Transport, what additional information is he able to provide in respect of the 1 1 unexplained aircraft movements reported to the Marine Operations Centre since August, 1977. 1. In what region of Australia was each of the reported aircraft movements. 2. What was the type of aircraft involved in each sighting. 3. What was the general course being followed in each sighting. 4. Is the nation of registration known in each case. {: #subdebate-59-46-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of the 11 sightings 10 remain unexplained- the extent of the information reported and developed and the time lapse in reporting did not enable further investigation. One sighting has been checked and established as not involving illicit activity. 1. -- (3)- (4)- Location Heading {: type="i" start="ix"} 0. Townsville (Qld)...... Northwest 1. Monte Bello Is. (W.A.) .... North 2. Pender Bay (W.A.)..... Circling (Si- No............... 10 Yes (Australian registered)....... 1 Total.............. II The registration of the above aircraft relates to the resolved sighting mentioned at part 1 of this question. {:#subdebate-59-47} #### Aviation Security Measures (Question No. 983) {: #subdebate-59-47-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >What information is he able to supply on the costs of amihijack procedures and facilities utilised by airlines in Australia and in particular, the cost borne by (a) Ansett Airlines, (b) Trans Australia Airlines, (c) international airlines, and (d ) the Australian Government in the year 1 976-77. {: #subdebate-59-47-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follow: >The actual costs associated with aviation security measures instituted by individual airlines are not available to my Department nor are the detailed costs of the measures of the Australian Government in this area. {:#subdebate-59-48} #### Department of Health: Payments to Connair Pty Ltd (Question No. 986) {: #subdebate-59-48-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sums has his Department paid to Connair Pty Ltd or its predecessor, Connellan Airways Pty Ltd, in each year since 1962. 1. For what reasons were the amounts paid in each of these years. {: #subdebate-59-48-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (D- >1971- 72........... 5,383.38 > >1972- 73........... 80,511.82 > >1973- 74........... 134,999.47 > >1974- 75........... 96,144.72 > >1975- 76........... 98,709.06 > >1976- 77........... 93,464.24 > >1977- 5 May 1978....... 109,208.58 > >Total........... 618,421.27 > >As records are retained for a six year period only, information prior to 1971-72 is not available. > >Given the large number of individual claims received from Connair during the period 1971-72 to 1977-78 I would be reluctant, at this time, to authorise the major diversion of resources to undertake a detailed analysis of the reasons for the claims. However, if the honourable member has some particular matter in mind, I would be pleased if he would bring it to my attention and I will endeavour to provide him with the relevant details. Employment of Women in Defence Services (Question No. 994) {: #subdebate-59-48-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >Are women precluded from employment in the Services in any activities other than those directly involving combat or sea-going duties; if so, what employment categories are closed to them. {: #subdebate-59-48-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Servicewomen may be employed when necessary on active service but not on combat duties. > >In the Navy, servicewomen are not employed in sea-going or aircrew billets or in employments which would adversely affect the male sea/shore roster which allows male members regular shore postings. > >Army servicewomen do not serve in divisional or corps units except corps medical units. They are not employed in military skill categories nor do they carry weapons. > >In the Air Force servicewomen are not employed as aircrew or in the defence ground category or mustering. > >Because of the non-combatant nature of their employment, which is the chief constraint in the wider use of servicewomen, female numbers in some categories may be limited to maintain the operational efficiency of the Services. {:#subdebate-59-49} #### Dermatology (Question No. 1008) {: #subdebate-59-49-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >In view of the high incidence of skin cancer and other skin complaints in Australia, (a) what teaching facilities are there for dermatology in Australian medical schools, (b) what support does the Government give to these schools, (c) how many professors of dermatology are there at Australian universities, and (d) at which universities do these facilities exist. {: #subdebate-59-49-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. and (d) Australian medical schools include aspects of dermatology in their undergraduate courses. In addition, the University of Sydney offers a graduate diploma course in dermatology. 1. The Government, on the advice of the Tertiary Education Commission, provides financial support for all Australian universities by way of general block grants for various broad categories of operating expenditure as well as for building projects. The prime responsibility for the internal allocation of operating funds to particular courses and programs, including the medical schools, rests with individual universities. 2. There are currently no Australian universities which have Chairs of Dermatology. {:#subdebate-59-50} #### Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Question No. 1015) {: #subdebate-59-50-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >Has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November 1975. {: #subdebate-59-50-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Yes. {:#subdebate-59-51} #### Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Question No. 1016) {: #subdebate-59-51-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 May 1978: >Has he travelled outside Australia by aeroplane or ship since 1 1 November 1975. {: #subdebate-59-51-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Yes. {:#subdebate-59-52} #### Marine Stewards (Question No. 1029) {: #subdebate-59-52-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1978: >What are the procedures to be followed in capital city ports for selection of marine stewards who are not covered by the Maritime Industries Sea-going Award 1977 when the requirement is notified (a) prior to the usual pick-up time and (b) after the usual pick-up time. {: #subdebate-59-52-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is assumed that the question refers to the case where a steward is sought by a shipowner who is not a party to the Award. In that case there are no prescribed procedures for selection because the Award does not apply. The matter is left to negotiation between the shipowner and the union concerned. {:#subdebate-59-53} #### Home Purchase Assistance (Question No. 1039) {: #subdebate-59-53-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many cases have come to the attention of the Department of Social Security of families who have been forced to sell their homes which were being purchased by bank and building society mortgages, because of working wives losing their jobs, and in particular, can the Minister give the numbers in the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney. 1. Has the Department of Social Security considered any schemes of income support or low interest loans similar to war service loans, which could be made to bona fide cases to preserve these families in their own homes; if so, what action is proposed. {: #subdebate-59-53-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Department of Social Security has no record of any such cases. 1. No. However, I am informed that under the Home Purchase Assistance program to be implemented by the new Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement, provision is made for variation in repayment in the event of hardship for those borrowers who obtain a subscribed loan from that source. {:#subdebate-59-54} #### Capital Raisings (Question No. 1044) {: #subdebate-59-54-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total level of new capital raisings in 1976-77. 1. ) How much of this was by (a) the private sector, (b ) the total public sector, both Commonwealth and State, (c) the Commonwealth budgetary sector and (d) the State budgetary sector. {: #subdebate-59-54-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) and (2) Data are not available that can be meaningfully aggregated to provide a measure of total new capital raisings by the public and private sectors. However the following data may be of use to the honourable member: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. New capital raisings in Australia by companies listed on Australian Stock Exchanges during 1 976-77: The Statistician records that in general these statistics cover capital raised through share and debenture subscriptions and by way of deposits, unsecured notes and loans secured over the entire assets of the company. Among other things, this data excludes all capital raised from Australian banks (other than direct equity investment) and temporary advances or short-term deposits from any source. Data arc not available for new capital raisings by private sub-sectors other than companies (households and unincorporated enterprises). {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i) Gross borrowings by the Commonwealth Budget Sectorduring 1976-77 were: {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Gross borrowings on behalfof the State Budget sector (paid in the form of Advances from the Commonwealth to the States) during 1976-77 were: {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. Precise data is not available for gross borrowings by the total public sector (including local authorities) during 1 976-77 although the following provides an approximation: {:#subdebate-59-55} #### Irian Jaya (Question No. 1049) {: #subdebate-59-55-s0 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say how many people are estimated to have been killed by Indonesian forces in the fighting in Irian Jaya during recent months? 1. Is he also able to say how many guerillas the Free Papua Movement is estimated to have actively involved in fighting Indonesian forces? {: #subdebate-59-55-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) We are not in a position to be able to give any definite figure but information available to the Government indicates that recent claims by the Free Papua Movement reported in the press that 5,269 Irianese villagers and guerillas have been killed in disturbances in the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya since January 1976 are much exaggerated. 1. Information available to the Government suggests that the Free Papua Movement appears to consist of less than 200 poorly armed hard-core activists. {:#subdebate-59-56} #### National Wages Cases (Question No. 1054) {: #subdebate-59-56-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: >What was the estimated addition to the national wage bill due to each National Wage Case decision handed down since January 1 973. {: #subdebate-59-56-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Estimates of the addition to the national wages bill resulting from the national wage case decisions in May 1973 and May 1974 are not available. To obtain that information would require an unjustifiably large expenditure of manhours. > >The cost of national wage decisions on a quarterly basis since the introduction of the wage indexation principles in April 1975 is set out below: > >Addition to the National Wages Bill each quarter (including some allowance for overtime) {:#subdebate-59-57} #### Industrial Disputes: Cost (Question No. 1057) {: #subdebate-59-57-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: >Has his Department examined the feasibility of making available some form of estimate of the economic cost of industrial disputes as indicated in his answer to question No. 1207 *(Hansard,* 11 November 1976, page 2668); if so, will these figures be compiled. {: #subdebate-59-57-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Department has examined the feasibility of estimating the economic cost of industrial disputes. We have concluded that while it might be possible to estimate the cost of a particular industrial dispute, provided adequate data is available, it is unlikely that such costing could be done effectively on a comprehensive or continuing basis. The main difficulty is that measurement of the economic cost of industrial disputes is extremely complex as it requires information on factors which cannot be readily measured. We do not believe therefore that the resources required to estimate such costs would be justified by the result. {:#subdebate-59-58} #### Australian Airlines: Aircraft (Question No. 1061) {: #subdebate-59-58-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: >What different types of aircraft have been operated by major Australian airlines during (a) 1976 and (b) 1977. {: #subdebate-59-58-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. and (b) The aircraft types operated by the Australian airlines in 1976 and 1977, and the airlines which operated those types in each year, are shown in the following table: AIRCRAFT TYPES OPERATED BY AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES IN 1976 and 1977 Aircraft type Bell 206A Jet Ranger....... Boeing 707-338C........ Boeing 727-76......... Boeing 727-77......... Boeing 727-276......... Boeing 727-277......... Boeing 747-238B........ De Havilland DH.l 14 Heron .... De Havilland DHC.6 Twin Otter Series 100 Series 320.......... Douglas DC. 3......... Douglas DC. 4......... Douglas (McDonnell Douglas) DC.9-3 1 Fokker F.2 7 Friendship Series 100 . . . . Operator Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Qantas Airways Ltd..... Trans-Australia Airlines .... Ansett Airlianes of Australia . . . Trans-Australia Airlines .... Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Qantas Airways Ltd..... Connair Pty Ltd....... Macrobertson Miller Airline Services Macrobertson Miller Airline Services Trans-Australia Airlines .... Connair Pty Ltd....... East- West Airlines Ltd..... Qantas Airways Ltd..... Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Macrobertson Miller Airline Services Trans-Australia Airlines .... East- West Airlines Ltd..... Trans-Australia Airlines .... Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Ansett Airlines of New South Wales Ansett Airlines of South Australia Mac.Robertson Miller Airline Services Trans-Australia Airlines .... East-West Airlines Ltd..... Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Macrobertson Miller Airline Services Trans-Australia Airlines .... Ansett Airlines of New South Wales East- West Airlines Ltd..... Trans-Australia Airlines .... Macrobertson Miller Airline Services Qantas Airways Ltd..... Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Ansett Airlines of Australia . . . Year in which operated Series 200 Series 300....... Series 400....... Series SOO....... Series 600....... Fokker F.28 Fellowship Series 1000...... Hawker Siddeley HS. 1 25 Mark 3 Lockheed L. 188A Electra . . Sikorsky S.6 IN...... 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 {:#subdebate-59-59} #### Age Pensioners (Question No. 1064) {: #subdebate-59-59-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the latest estimate of the number of pensioners aged 70 and over. 1. How many pensioners living (a) in Australia and (b) outside Australia and aged (i) 65 years, (ii) 66 years, (iii ) 67 years, (iv) 68 years, ( v) 69 years and (vi) 70 years are receiving (A) full pension, (B) part pension and (C) no pension. {: #subdebate-59-59-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) At 2 1 March 1978 there were 765,000 age, invalid and widow pensioners aged 70 years and over. 1. (a) and (b) Information on the country of residence of pensioners is not available by ages of pensioners. The following table shows the estimated number of age, invalid, wives and widow pensioners aged 65 to 70 years receiving full and pan pensions at 2 1 March 1978: The following table shows the estimated number of persons aged 65 to 70 years qualified by residence, at 31 December 1977, who were not in receipt of a Social Security pension: 65 years........... 40,700 66 years........... 33,800 67 years........... 24,700 68 years........... 21,200 69 years........... 20,000 70 years........ negligible The above figures include 28,500 persons aged 65 to 69 years in receipt of Repatriation service pensions. {:#subdebate-59-60} #### Social Security Programs, St George Electoral Division (Question No. 1066) {: #subdebate-59-60-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What major programs are being funded by the Department of Social Security in the Electoral Division of St George during 1977-78, including current and non-current expenditure, and what is the expenditure on each program. 1. What are the figures for programs, based in adjoining electoral divisions, which may overlap into St George. {: #subdebate-59-60-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to question number 1090, page 3163 of *Hansard* of 8 November 1977. This information is the latest available as statistics on programs administered by the Department of Social Security by electoral divisions are not routinely kept. I will ensure that the honourable member is informed when additional information is available. {:#subdebate-59-61} #### Operations of Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 1074) {: #subdebate-59-61-s0 .speaker-EH4} ##### Mr Howe: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to section 76a of the National Health Act, when does he anticipate tabling the report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations. 1. Does he recognise the difficulties involved in his calling for stimulating public debate on health costs when the most recently published information on the operations of the health insurance funds is now almost 2 years out of date, and in which time dramatic changes have been made to the health insurance arrangements. 2. ) Is the delay in tabling the report due to failure by some health insurance funds to provide the Department with the basic information concerning their operations. 3. Which funds in each State failed to submit the prescribed financial statements to the Permanent Head of his Department within 3 months of the expiration of 1976-77, and how many funds have been prosecuted under subsection 76 ( 1 ) of the Act. 4. Will he specify the information that he currently requires from the funds under sub-section 74c ( 1 ) of the Act. 5. Will he name those organisations which have failed to provide complete returns to him pursuant to directions issued under sub-section 74c (2) of the Act within 3 months of receiving those directions. 6. What action does he propose to take in relation to health insurance funds which do not comply with directions issued by him under section 74c of the Act. {: #subdebate-59-61-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations under section 76a of the National Health Act, in respect of the year 1976-77, is expected to be ready for tabling by October 1 978. 1. The Government recognises that the effectiveness of information contained in the report must be reduced by delays in its publication. Steps are being taken to minimise such delays. 2. The main reason for the delay in tabling the report under section 76A of the National Health Act in recent years including the 1976-77 Report has been the late lodgment of annual returns by many of the registered organisations. It seems that these delays have been largely due to administrative difficulties within the respective organisations caused by changes to the health insurance arrangements. I understand, for example, that a number of organisations have had transitional problems following major changes to the Scheme from 1 October 1976. 3. The organisations in each State which failed to furnish their annual accounts for 1976-77 within the statutory time of three months after the close of the financial year are: New South Wales Grand United Order of Oldfellows, Friendly Society of New South Wales Health Insurance Commission Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society of New South Wales Hunter Medical Benefits Fund Limited New South Wales District, No. 85, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity, Friendly Society Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society in New South Wales New South Wales Teachers ' Federation Health Society NIB Health Funds Limited Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council of New South Wales Store Hospital and Medical Fund Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contribution Fund Victoria Australian Natives ' Association Army Health Benefits Society Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Limited Grand United Hospital Benefit Society in Victoria Friendly Society Grand United Order of Free Gardeners of Australasia Hospital Benefits Association Limited Health Insurance Commission Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Victoria District No. 1 Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Victoria Irish National Foresters ' Benefit Society Victorian District Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association Manchester Unity Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Victoria Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund Naval Health Benefits Society Order of the Sons of Temperance National Division Friendly Society Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council, of Victoria Tramways Benefit Society United Ancient Order of Druids Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society Queensland Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society. Queensland District No.5 Health Insurance Commission Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited Queensland Teachers' Union Health Society South Australia Fire Service Health Fund Health Insurance Commission National Health Services Association of South Australia South Australia Police Department Employees' Hospital Fund South Australian District, No. 8 1 , Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society Western Australia Friendly Societies Health Services Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated) Health Insurance Commission Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Incorporated Government Employees ' Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated Tasmania Druids Friendly Society of Tasmania Electrolytic Zinc Employees' Medical and Hospital Funds Health Insurance Commission Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Medical Benefits Fund Queenstown Medical Union Hospital Benefits Fund St Luke's Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Sub-section 76 (2) of the Act provides that an extension of time for the lodgment of annual accounts may be granted at the Permanent Head 's discretion. In view of the administrative difficulties being experienced by many organisations, extensions have usually been granted when applied for. However, action has been taken against organisations under the provisions of sub-section 75 (3) of the Act on specific matters, although it has not been found necessary to initiate prosecutions under these provisions to date. I might add it has been decided that in future extensions under sub-section 76 (2) of the Act will only be granted in extreme circumstances. ( 5 ), (6 ) and ( 7 ) No directions have been served under section 74G of the National Health Act. {:#subdebate-59-62} #### Bureau of Transport Economics, Staffing (Question No. 1082) {: #subdebate-59-62-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Public Service Board completed its consideraton of the study carried out by officers of his Department, the Bureau of Transport Economics, and the Public Service Board which was submitted to it on 30 June 1977, as mentioned on page 22 of his Department's 1976-77 annual report. 1. If so, *(a) what is the* staffing structure of the new Bureau of Transport Economics, (b) what is the title of each of the functional areas of the Bureau, (c) what is the name and classification of the most senior officer of each of the Bureau's functional areas and (d) what is the name and classification of the officer within his Department to whom the Director of the Bureau reports. {: #subdebate-59-62-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Public Service Board has largely completed its consideration of the study in question. The Second Division structure subordinate to the approved positions of Director and Deputy Director is still the subject of discussion with the Public Service Board. 1. (a) The structure of the Bureau consists of a Director and Deputy Director, a professional management group of Second Division positions, a pool of professional research staff, and an administrative support cell. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The titles of the functional areas of the Bureau have not been finally determined but the functions to be accommodated are: Transport Planning, Economics, Forecasting, Finance, Resources, Systems, Technology, Information, Assessment and Inter-Disciplinary Studies. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. As mentioned in reply to part ( 1 ) of this question, the classification of senior functional area positions has not been settled and therefore it has not been possible to commence action for selection for these positions. The positions of Director and Deputy Director have been established at Level 4 and Level 3 of the Second Division respectively, and have been advertised throughout Australia and overseas. 1. The Director of the Bureau reports to myself as Minister for Transport on the Bureau's program of work. However, the Bureau is attached to the Department of Transport for administrative purposes and in that sense the Director reports to the Permanent Head of the Department, **Mr C.** C. Halton. Lie Detectors (Question No. 1088) {: #subdebate-59-62-s2 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a report in the *Australian* of 5 May 1978 which stated that Australia's first lie detector consultancy has opened in Sydney. 1. What restrictions apply to the use of lie detectors in Australia. 2. Has the Attorney-General's attention also been drawn to press reports, for example that appearing in the *Age* of 3 March 1978, which indicate that an increasing number of American companies are asking, and even forcing, employees and job applicants to use lie detectors without clearcut guidelines as to their operation; if so, will the AttorneyGeneral give urgent attention to preventing the unnecessary invasion of privacy by the use of these devices in Australia. {: #subdebate-59-62-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. There is no Commonwealth legislation specifically directed at the control of lie detectors in Australia and, to the best of his knowledge, there is no such legislation in the States. 2. Yes. The Commonwealth's Law Reform Commission is presently investigating privacy generally and the attention of the Commission has been drawn specifically to the use of lie detectors. {:#subdebate-59-63} #### Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1102) {: #subdebate-59-63-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department. 1. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77. {: #subdebate-59-63-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) 99. This includes officers of Central Treasury (43 ), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (3) and the Australian Taxation Office (53). 1. ) The cost to the Treasury in 1 976-77 was $ 15, 125. This includes amounts expended prior to 7 December 1976 in respect of staff who, with the creation of the Department of Finance, were, as from that date, transferred from the Treasury to the Department of Finance. {:#subdebate-59-64} #### Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1104) {: #subdebate-59-64-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department. 1. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77. {: #subdebate-59-64-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Department of Foreign Affairs has 108 officers who have their home telephone rental or charges fully or partially paid by the Department. 1. The cost to the Department in 1 976-77 was $24, 105. {:#subdebate-59-65} #### Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1107) {: #subdebate-59-65-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 9 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department. 1. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77. {: #subdebate-59-65-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) 65 (including officers of the Commissioner for Superannuation, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Royal Australian Mint). 1. The Department of Finance was created on 7 December 1976. The cost to the Department from 7 December 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 was $4, 1 20. {:#subdebate-59-66} #### Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1118) {: #subdebate-59-66-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers and employees of his Department have their home telephone rentals or charges fully or partially paid by the Department. 1. What was the cost to the Department of this expenditure in 1976-77. {: #subdebate-59-66-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 325. 1. 538,917. {:#subdebate-59-67} #### Aurukun and Mornington Island Communities (Question No. 1124) {: #subdebate-59-67-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does recent Queensland legislation allow Statecontrolled officials and bodies to suspend all State services to Aurukun and Mornington Island communities, to supervise and suspend all their Councils' financial decisions and to replace those Council with administrators despite Federal objections. 1. Does delay in implementing the policy of the Australian Government parties to give inalienable title to traditional land owners result from partial recognition of the Queensland Government claim for massive compensation for eventual acquisition of Aboriginal and Islander freehold especially in areas recently de-gazetted as reserves, for example in the Shires of Torres, Cook, Mornington and Aurukun. 2. 3 ) How do State interests including mineral rights in land acquired by the Federal Government for Aborigines differ from their interests in land acquired in the States for other purposes, such as Shoalwater Bay Training Reserve. {: #subdebate-59-67-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Queensland Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act does not allow State-controlled officials and bodies to suspend all State services to Aurukun and Mornington Island communities. Under the Act the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Councils will be subject to essentially the same controls as other Shire Councils in Queensland in relation to Government powers to intervene in their administration or to dissolve them and replace them with administrators. The Act, however, includes special provision for consultation on any proposal to dissolve the Councils. In addition, the Act establishes co-ordinating and advisory committees whose functions include advice to the Shire Councils with respect to by-laws proposed by the Shire Councils and advice to the Councils generally on matters relevant to the interests and residents of the Shire. 1. No. 2. Land for Aboriginals is generally purchased by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. All purchases would be by agreement and would not include mineral rights as the vendors would not have these rights. Other acquisitions by the Commonwealth, effected under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955, and when involving compulsory processes, may or may not include mineral rights as necessity determines. In the case of Shoalwater Bay training reserve, the mineral rights were acquired and pursuant to Section 5 1 of the Lands Acquisitions Act 1955, rights were subsequently granted back by the Commonwealth to those private holders of land which necessitated pre-acquisition. {:#subdebate-59-68} #### Doctors (Question No. 1180) {: #subdebate-59-68-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will there be an *oversupply of* doctors in the near future; if so, will this add considerably to the national health bill. 1. What is being done to reduce the intake of medical students and the entry of overseas trained doctors. {: #subdebate-59-68-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Committee on Medical Schools' Report 'Expansion of Medical Education' (1973) recommended a supply target for medical manpower of one doctor per 543 population by 1991. The supply of doctors is currently running in excess of the Committee's projections because of three main factors: population has grown at a slower rate than expected; the immigration of doctors is much greater than expected; and medical schools are producing more graduates than expected as a result of lower student wastage rates and adjustments to courses. Unless there is substantial change in these factors, the target set for 199 1 is likely to be achieved in 1982. In the sense that the target is being achieved earlier than planned there will be an oversupply of doctors from 1982. On the question of costs, it would appear from overseas studies that a substantial oversupply of doctors practising curative medicine would add considerably to the national health bill. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. These matters are currently under review at both Commonwealth and State levels. In respect of the Commonwealth, for example, arrangements are currently being made for a committee of officers of the Departments of Education, Health, and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Tertiary Education Commission to examine the issues further. Interdepartmental Committee on Freight Rates (Question No. 1193) {: #subdebate-59-68-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the *Australian Financial Review* of 1 1 May 1978 concerning an interdepartmental committee report on freight rates; if so, is there any substance in the report. 1. What departments were represented on the committee. 2. What is the classification of each officer who served on the committee. 3. Which Department's representative chaired the meetings of the committee. 4. As the article quotes extensively from the committee's report, will he undertake to table the report; if not, will he table the recommendations of the report. {: #subdebate-59-68-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honouarble member's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) Yes. An interdepartmental committee was established to consider the Department of Transport's Overseas Cargo Shipping Legislation Report. The article is speculative since the interdepartmental committee has not yet finalised its report. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. ) The departments represented on the interdepartmental committee are: The Department of Transport. Attorney-General's Department. Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. The Department of Finance. The Department of Primary Industry. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Department of Trade and Resources. The Treasury. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The membership of the committee has changed from time to time. The classifications of officers attending meetings of the interdepartmental committee have been appropriate to the matters under discussion and the stage of those discussions. 1. A representative of the Department of Transport has chaired meetings of the committee. 2. The Overseas Cargo Shipping Legislation Report was tabled in Parliament on 24 May 1978. The advice the Government receives from the Interdepartmental Committee on this report will not be tabled. Breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106A (Question No. 1195) {: #subdebate-59-68-s4 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he state in answer to question No. 273 *(Hansard,* 3 May 1 977, page 1 50 1 ) that a number of cases involving alleged breaches of Air Navigation Regulation I06A were being investigated by his Department in close association with the Commonwealth Police. 1. ) If so, have these investigations been completed. 2. Have any individuals or organisations been charged with breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106A and what was the nature of these breaches. {: #subdebate-59-68-s5 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. No. {:#subdebate-59-69} #### Aviation Industry (Question No. 1197) {: #subdebate-59-69-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he state in answer to Question No. 1701 *(Hansard,* 15 February 1977, page 86) that the Aviation Industry Review Committee had made a number of recommendations and that these were being carefully examined. 1. 2 ) If so, ( a ) has the examination been completed, and ( b ) what action does he propose to take as a result of these recommendations. {: #subdebate-59-69-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. 1. (a) Yes. (b) The Committee's recommendations will be, and have been, taken into account when consideration is given to action which should be taken or policy is developed in relation to particular matters of interest to the aviation industry and on which the Committee has commented. {:#subdebate-59-70} #### Transport Costs (Question No. 1198) {: #subdebate-59-70-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he state in answer to Question No. 1748 *(Hansard,* 23 February 1977, page 406) that several studies involving the estimation of transport costs were under way currently but at that stage he was unable to say whether these studies would result in formal reports and be tabled. 1. ) Can he now say whether any of these studies will result in formal reports; if so, what topics are covered by the studies. {: #subdebate-59-70-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I provided an answer to the honourable member's almost identical Question No. 816 *(Hansard,* 23 May 1 978, page 2352). I have nothing further to add. {:#subdebate-59-71} #### Motor Vehicle Safety: Seat Belts (Question No. 1203) {: #subdebate-59-71-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did his predecessor say in answer to Question No. 1240 *(Hansard,* 3 December 1976, page 3282) that amendments to the Motor Traffic Ordinance to require the fitting of seat belts in vehicles manufactured prior to 1 974 were being considered. 1. Has consideration of these amendments been completed; if so, what action has he taken to implement the amendments. {: #subdebate-59-71-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed by my Department as follows: > >Yes. > >Yes. A Bill for an Ordinance to require the fitting of seat belts in motor vehicles other than motor cycles, buses, and motor vehicles with a gross vehicle mass in excess of 4.50 tonnes manufactured on or after I January 1965 is in final stages of preparation. The Bill will be sent to the ACT Legislative Assembly for their consideration and recommendation soon. {:#subdebate-59-72} #### Motor Vehicle Safety: Seat Belts (Question No. 1204) {: #subdebate-59-72-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 23 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did his predecessor say in answer to question No. 1240 *(Hansard,* 3 December 1976, page 3282) that a review of seat belt legislation as it applies to the Australian Capital Territory had been initiated. 1. Has the review been completed; if so, (a) what are the results of the review and (b) what amendments are proposed for the ACT seat belt legislation. {: #subdebate-59-72-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: lam informed by my Department as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. A Bill for an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory wearing of seat belts (where available) by children between 8 and 13 years of age is in final stages of preparation. The Bill will be sent to the ACT Legislative Assembly for consideration and comment soon. {:#subdebate-59-73} #### Motor Vehicle Safety: Child Restraints (Question No. 1205) {: #subdebate-59-73-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 23 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did his predecessor say in answer to question No. 1241 *(Hansard,* 4 November 1976, page 2426) that consideration was at that stage being given to introducing restrictions on the sale of unapproved child restraints and to the feasibility of legislation requiring the wearing of approved restraints. 1. Has consideration into introducing restrictions and the feasibility of legislation been completed. 2. If so, can he now say when he will take action to implement the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety to ensure that (a) the Australian Capital Territory legislates to ban the sale and fitting of unapproved child restraints and (b) legislation is enacted to require the wearing of restraints by children in the Australian Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-59-73-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed by my Department as follows: > >Yes. > >Consideration of legislation to control the sale of unapproved child restraints is complete. > >(a) The need for legislation to control the sale of child car seats and harnesses not certified to comply with Australian Standard 1754 was considered by the Commonwealth/State Consumer Products Advisory Committee last year. This Committee makes recommendation to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on product safety matters. The Australian Capital Territory is represented on the Committee. > >The Committee has agreed in principle that a product safety standard for child car seats and harnesses should be gazetted under the Trade Practices Act, and it is understood the recommendation is being processed within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. > >Action to control the sale of such items Australia-wide by means of the Trade Practices Act was preferred to the introduction of separate legislation for the Australian Capital Territory. lt is hoped that the product safety standard will soon be gazetted. > >A Bill for an Ordinance to require the wearing of restraints by children (where available) and to make it an offence to carry an unrestrained child between i and 8 years of age in the front seat of a vehicle which has rear seats is in final stages of preparation. The Bill will be sent to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly for their consideration and comment soon. {:#subdebate-59-74} #### Defence Force Retirement Benefits (Question No. 1209) {: #subdebate-59-74-s0 .speaker-JXQ} ##### Mr Fry: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Government intend to extend the payment of Defence Force Retirement Benefit contributions from 20 to 25 years 'service. 1. If so, does this constitute a breach of the conditions of service on entry into the Armed Forces. 2. Will lump sum payments on retirement be subject to higher tax and include long service and DFRB contributions. {: #subdebate-59-74-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) If, as I presume, the question is whether a member will be required in future to pay contributions for 25 years instead of 20 years to qualify for a retirement pension, the answer is no. 1. Taxation matters are the responsibility of the Treasurer to whom this part of the question might be directed. I draw the honourable member's attention to a reply by the Treasurer to the honourable member for Tangney on 24 May 1 978 *(Hansard,* page 2392). {:#subdebate-59-75} #### Uranium: Safeguards (Question No. 1213) {: #subdebate-59-75-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say (a) how much yellowcake was diverted or hijacked in the Plumbat Affair and (b) what safeguards applied to EURATOM yellowcake at the time. 1. What action can be taken to prevent diversion or hijacking of Australian yellowcake sold to EURATOM or any other buyer. {: #subdebate-59-75-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a)About200 tonnes. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Safeguards applied by the Commission of the European Communities in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Commission. According to an official EURATOM spokesman these controls in 1 968 at the time of the so called Plumbat Affair were only exercised at the beginning and end of the transaction. Since that time he said EURATOM has modified its system to ensure control of the intermediate stage particularly transportation and marketing. 1. The Australian Safeguards Office investigates thoroughly all proposed shipping routes, arrangements and carriers before each export approval is given. The progress of each shipment is monitored and procedures have been introduced which are designed to ensure the prompt notification of the arrival of shipments of Australian yellowcake at their ports of destination. In addition Australian policy requires that ownership of uranium be retained by Australia until full IAEA safeguards apply and that bilateral agreements with importing countries provide for adequate physical protection of those countries nuclear industries. Australia supports the development of an international convention on the physical protection of nuclear material in international transit. {:#subdebate-59-76} #### Import Licensing: Footwear (Question No. 1217) {: #subdebate-59-76-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Which companies have received quotas for imported footwear on each occasion that quotas have been allocated since 1975, and what portion of the total quota has each company received. 1. Is it a fact that one company and/or its subsidiaries has a major share of footwear quotas, not taking into consideration the anomalies quota; if so, what is this company. 2. Were quotas introduced to protect employment and investment in Australian footwear industries; if so, why is special treatment given by way of anomalies quotas to companies which produce shoes overseas and import them into Australia. 3. Which companies and/or their subsidiaries have received quotas under the anomalies quota, and what portion of the total anomalies quota has each company received. 4. Is it a fact that one company and/or its subsidiaries has received 60-70 per cent of the anomalies quota; if so, (a ) what is this company, (b) what is the anomaly involved and (c) why does this company not use its normal quota to import footwear. {: #subdebate-59-76-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answers to the honourable member's question are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It would be a major task for information relating to footwear quota holders to be supplied going back to 1975. However, on 28 April 1978 the names and addresses of all quota holders were published in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. P2. For those footwear commodities which were subject to quota control in 1975 the basis for quota allocation was imports of like goods entered for home consumption in the period 1 July 1 972-30 June 1 974. For the quota period which commenced on 1 January 1 978 the same base period for establishing quota entitlement applies and therefore the list of quota holders published in the Gazette could be regarded as substantially the same as 1975. Some transfers have taken place under the transferability arrangement but these have been relatively few. The actual quantity of quota held by individual companies is not published at this stage. This applies to the whole range of goods currently subject to quota control and not just footwear. However, in a Media Release on 14 April 1978, I announced a review of the administration of quotas and this aspect is one which will be considered during that review. A decision will be made on this matter as soon as possible. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As there has been no decision to publish quantities held by individual companies it is not appropriate to answer this question at this time other than to advise that quotas have been allocated equitably to all companies which imported like goods in the base period and /or to those companies which have obtained a transfer of quota under the transferability arrangements. 1. ) Yes. On the second point of the question, on 1 7 August 1 977 my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce. **Senator Robert** Cotton and myself announced in Statements in the Parliament, the Government's decision on the interim report by the Industries Assistance Commission on Textiles. Clothing and Footwear: Review of Quotas. These Statements included mention of the provision of 1 5 per cent of the supplementary quota level for cases involving anomalies. The Statements mentioned that provision would be made within this quota reserve, for local firms which had invested in off-shore production facilities prior to the introduction of quotas with the objective of placing a substantial part of the output from those facilities on the Australian market. Quotas for most footwear items were introduced on I October 1974. 2. No separate publication is being made of allocations under the anomalies reserve. The names and addresses of all quota holders are being published every six months. As indicated in my answer to question ( 1 ) quantities allocated have not been published at this stage. 3. Applications for allocation of quota from the anomalies reserve are considered by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Special Quotas Advisory Committee headed by an independent **Chairman, Mr K.** M. Archer. C.B.E. Each case is considered by the Committee on its individual merits and allocations of quota from the anomalies reserve have been made in accordance with the advice received from the Committee. No publication has been made of the types of anomaly involved in successful applications as publication would, no doubt, result in future applications submitting applications tailor-made to conform with these criteria. On part (c) of this question a number of existing quota holders who hold quota because of previous import performance have also been allocated quota from the anomalies reserve as they were regarded as having an anomaly which justified allocation from the reserve. Allocations from the anomalies reserve are not necessarily restricted to those parties who do not possess quota and the fact that a company is a quota holder and the amount *of quota* held are taken into consideration by the Committee. {:#subdebate-59-77} #### Defence Training Areas (Question No. 1219) {: #subdebate-59-77-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are there investigations in hand for the acquisition of a major training area in New South Wales to supplement existing ranges at Holsworthy, NSW and Enoggera and Townsville, Queensland. 1. If so, (a) will it decrease the use of Holsworthy by the Department of Defence as a field firing training base and (b) what measures does the Government propose to take to ensure that noise pollution by military training activities in the Holsworthy area is reduced. {: #subdebate-59-77-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) An investigation has commenced into the possible acquisition of land in New South Wales for a major training area. 1. (a) This is the plan. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The Government is aware of the need to minimise noise in the Holsworthy training area. Every effort is made to reduce inconvenience. Army have progressively reduced explosive charges to the minimum practical, consistent with essential live firing practices and the frequency and duration of practices is restricted as much as possible. {:#subdebate-59-78} #### United Kingdom Age Pensions (Question No. 1225) {: #subdebate-59-78-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has there been a change in the role of the Department of Social Security in the payment of United Kingdom age pensions. 1. ls it a fact that these payments are now being paid direct from the United Kingdom; if so, do they vary widely with the rate of exchange. 2. Does any change in procedure make payment more complicated for the pensioner. 3. How many forms need to be completed before the pensioner receives his money. 4. ) What charges are levied by banks or other agencies in the transformation of entitlement to cash. 5. Can the Minister indicate whether many cases of hardship have been reported, resulting from changes in arrangements between the UK Government and the Department of Social Security. {: #subdebate-59-78-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. The British Depanment of Health and Social Security recently decided that the payment of its National Insurance pensions in Australia should be made by order direct from its United Kingdom Central Office in the same way as its pensions are paid in all other countries. 1. ) See answer to ( 1 ). The amount that UK pensioners receive for their sterling orders would depend on the rate of exchange applicable at the time that they cashed the order at the bank. 2. No. 3. None. 4. The fee charged by Banks for cashing sterling orders varies and is a matter for individual Banks to decide. 5. No cases of hardship have come to notice resulting from changes in arrangements between the UK Government and the Depanment of Social Security. It is emphasised that these changed arrangements were the result of initiatives by the United Kingdom authorities and were not sought by the Australian Depanment of Social Security. {:#subdebate-59-79} #### Disabled Persons (Question No. 1226) {: #subdebate-59-79-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What steps has the Minister taken to have Australian Standard 1428 ( 1977)-Design Rules for Access by the Disabled- adopted. 1. Has the standard been adopted in the building codes of any State or municipality in Australia. {: #subdebate-59-79-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) A joint press statement was issued on 1 1 April 1 978 by the Minister for Construction and the Minister for Social Security endorsing the Australian Standard AS1428 and reaffirming the Government's commitment to an earlier policy of ensuring that Commonwealth public buildings provide access and facilities for disabled people. In the statement it was also said that State and local governments will be encouraged to adopt the new standard in an effort to establish a national building code. The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR) has considered the new Standard and is currently examining ways in which improved access can be achieved through existing policies and programs. 1. The honourable member would need to ask the respective State ministers for the precise information he is seeking in respect of the adoption of the standard in the States and municipalities. {:#subdebate-59-80} #### Tomatoes (Question No. 1234) {: #subdebate-59-80-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was a record tonnage of tomatoes processed during the tomato processing season which has just ended. 1. Will there be more than adequate supplies of processed tomatoes for the Australian market; if so, will he officially determine this to be the case and so exclude the use of by-law admission for the importation of duty free tomato products. {: #subdebate-59-80-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. See(2). 1. In considering by-law admission of tomatoes or tomato products the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs would apply the conditions as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its Report on Tomatoes; Tomato Paste et cetera of 13 November 1974, namely: when a local production shortfall occurs, canners and food manufacturers are permitted to import tomatoes and certain tomato products under by-law, provided that the landed cost of imports under by-law is equated with an established local price; this is achieved by the duty free admission of that portion of each shipment (the balance being subject to the full substantive duty) as is necessary to arrive at a composite landed into store cost over the whole importation equal to the established local price; and if by-law is granted; conditions to prevent stockpiling of the goods are imposed. In establishing eligibility for by-law admission on a shortfall basis, details of local production would of course be taken into consideration and would be necessary before any Determination could be made. At this time, no requests for by-law admission of these goods are held by the Department and therefore no recent investigation into the local supply situation has been necessary. {:#subdebate-59-81} #### Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (Question No. 1236) {: #subdebate-59-81-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the functions of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. 1. Who is the Chairman of the Trust. 2. When was he appointed. 3. What are his qualifications for this important position. 4. Was the position advertised; if not, were others considered for the position. 5. Who selected the present incumbent. 6. 7 ) Is it a full-time position. 7. What salary and allowances are paid. 8. What is the amount invested by the Trust and where are the funds invested. {: #subdebate-59-81-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The management of the Superannuation Fund and the investment of moneys standing to the credit of the Fund. 1. MrR. A. Hammond. 2. **Mr Hammond's** appointment was announced by the Minister for Finance on 10 March 1978 and **Mr Hammond** took up duty on 3 April 1 978. 3. **Mr Hammond** has had wide experience in investment matters. He holds the degree of Bachelor of Commerce with the University of New South Wales, majoring in economics. 4. Yes. 5. **Mr Hammond** was appointed by the GovernorGeneral following process in accordance with the procedures indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 18 November 1976 in relation to appointments to statutory positions. 6. Yes. 7. Salary of $32,336 per annum and Expense of Office allowance of $1,200 per annum, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 8. I refer the honourable member to the Annual Report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for 1 976-77- in particular, to pages 9 to 1 1 of that Report. Task Force on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguards (Question No. 1246) {: #subdebate-59-81-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1978: >Who are the members of the expert multi-disciplinary task force on nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards established by the Government last November. {: #subdebate-59-81-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The permanent membership of the task force on nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards comprises officers of the Depanments of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Trade and Resources, and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Officers of other Departments and agencies attend task force meetings on a consultant basis as necessary. The chairman and secretariat of the task force are provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs. {:#subdebate-59-82} #### Income Tax (Question No. 1252) {: #subdebate-59-82-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did his predecessor state in presenting the 1977-78 Budget that the Government would introduce half indexation of the personal income tax rate scales from 1 July 1978. 1. If so, will the Government use as its base for half indexation the annual increase in consumer price index to March 1978 of 8.2 per cent. 2. ) If not, will the base be discounted and in what way. 3. Will any discounting of the CPI have the effect of providing less than half indexing. {: #subdebate-59-82-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. ) , (3) and (4) See my ministerial statement in the House ofRepresentativeson2 June 1978. {:#subdebate-59-83} #### Commonwealth Savings Bank: Housing Loans (Question No. 1256) {: #subdebate-59-83-s0 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Commonwealth Savings Bank allocate funds for housing loans amongst the States on a pro-rata basis; if so, is it done on an annual basis. 1. ) If it is not done annually, on what basis is it done. 2. What sums were allocated to each State for the years (a) 1975,(b) 1976and(c) 1977. 3. Is the sum allocated to Victoria disproportionate to other States' allocations; if so, what is the reason. {: #subdebate-59-83-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As this matter concerns the administration of the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia I have sought advice from the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation who has provided the following information: > >and (2) The Commonwealth Savings Bank allocates funds for housing between the States on a monthly basis. Regard is paid to the volume of demand for depositors who qualify for loans under the Bank 's current lending criteria, which are administered on a uniform Australia-wide basis. > >) It has been long-standing policy of the Bank for competitive and other reasons not to release publicly statistics concerning the distribution of its lending for housing as between States. > >The sums allocated each month to Victoria are not disproportionate to other States' allocations. {:#subdebate-59-84} #### Commonwealth Development Bank: Loans (Question No. 1257) {: #subdebate-59-84-s0 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the lending rates currently being charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank on new business for term loans ( a ) under $ 1 00,000 and ( b ) over $ 1 00,000. 1. Are these interest rates in accord with Government policy on interest rates. 2. What are the lending rates currently being charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank on new equipment finance for businesses on (a) new goods and (b) used goods. 3. If these rates are flat rates what is the effective rate of interest and are the rates in accord with Government policy on interest rates. {: #subdebate-59-84-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The replies to Parts ( 1 ), (3) and the first part of (4) of the question have been provided by the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. > >1 ) Interest rates currently being charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia on new loans are: > >Less than $100,000-10.50 per cent p.a. $ 1 00,000 and over- 1 3.00 per cent p.a. > >There is no inconsistency between interest rates being charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank and current official arrangements and policies. > >Interest rates currently being charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank on new equipment finance business are: > >New goods- 8.25 per cent p.a. flat or 15.50 per cent p.a.* simple. > >Used goods-9.50 per cent p.a. flat or 1 8.00 per cent p.a.* simple. (*Applicable when instalments are arranged on other than a monthly basis to coincide with receipt of income.) > >4 ) Effective rates of interest for flat rates under ( 3 ) above, calculated using a formula set down in New South Wales legislation, based on a term of two years, are: 8.25 per cent p.a. flat- 1 5.84 per cent p.a. simple. 9.50 per cent p.a. flat- 1 8.24 per cent p.a. simple. > >On the latter pan of the question, see (2 ) above. Wool Sales (Question No. 1262) {: #subdebate-59-84-s2 .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Australian Wool Corporation intend introducing the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme in Queensland using its own staff and stores at Hendra, Queensland. 1. If so, (a) is this the same arrangement as that applying to the Scheme in other States or is the Scheme administered in other States by pastoral houses and (b) is this a departure from the principle of private enterprise in Australia as supported by the Government. 2. Is the Scheme's experimental purpose to ascertain what cost savings can be achieved. 3. If so, is it anticipated that there will be cost savings in a store which is situated in isolation from other wool handling facilities in Brisbane some 7 km to the east of the city, thereby incurring for any grower, who disagrees with the Corporation's typing or valuation of his clip, redirectional costs. 4. Is the store at Hendra directly serviced by rail; if not, will this add additional transport costs from rail to store for Queensland growers using this Scheme. 5. Was the consortium of Brisbane brokers, which handles over 60 per cent of the Brisbane centre's wool in a highly mechanised single floor complex on the western side of the city, given an opportunity to quote for a contract on the simplified direct purchasing scheme. 6. Is the Corporation's charter to do all within its power to stabilise the wool market. 7. 8 ) Ha ve senior officials of the Corporation expressed concern at the fragmentation of and confusion in wool marketing; if so, what is the justification for the Corporation extending the Scheme to Queensland in direct competition with the existing marketing services. 8. If the Corporation is to administer the Scheme in Queensland, (a) will this in effect be the first uncloaked, di-. rect purchasing of stock by a Government instrumentality in direct competition with free enterprise marketers and (b) will it enjoy major commercial advantages, such as tax funding, over the free enterprise wool marketers. 9. Will he consider the separation of the Corporation's wool buying operations from the institution itself so that commercial interest and costs can be charged and a true comparison of operational costs obtained. 10. 1 1 ) Is it a reasonable principle to allow a Government instrumentality, funded by taxation on woolgrowers, to set the rules and regulations governing the preparation and sale of wool on the one hand and to establish a completely owned staffed and organised private buying operation on the other hand. {: #subdebate-59-84-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The Australian Wool Corporation is currently making arrangements to extend its Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme for wool to Queensland. Wool received from growers for sale under the scheme will be handled primarily by the Corporation's staff at its Hendra stores. However, the Corporation's intention is to appoint a contractor for the handling of small lines and mixed bales. 1. In the two States where the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme is already operating, namely, Victoria and Western Australia, the Wool Corporation engages firms with suitable facilities as contractors for all wool handling operations. In Queensland, the Corporation decided to use primarily its own staff and stores so as to test alternative handling and selling procedures. The question of support for private enterprise is therefore not involved. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The scheme is a two-year trial designed to test alternative wool handling and selling arrangements, with the object of demonstrating the economies possible from the adoption of the alternative handling and marketing methods. 1. The Wool Corporation believes that the location of its stores in Brisbane will not preclude costs savings nor will it result in redirection costs for those growers who do not accept the Corporation's 'typing' or valuation of their wool. The Corporation will auction such wool on behalf of the grower, who will receive the current market price in addition to being eligible for a special $3.30 per bale rebate. 2. The Wool Corporation believes that the location of its Hendra *stores,* which are not directly serviced by rail, will not involve additional costs for growers using the scheme. Wool consigned by growers by rail will be picked up by the Corporation at the rail head. 3. Tenders have been called by the Corporation for the handling of small lines of wool and mixed bales received under the scheme in Brisbane, but no tenderer has yet been selected. The consortium of Brisbane wool brokers has had the same opportunity as other interested firms to quote for a contract to undertake this operation. 4. The legislation under which the Corporation is established expresses the intent that the Corporation should perform its wool marketing functions in ways that are directed, amongst other things, to securing a reasonable degree of wool price stability. However, it also requires the Corporation to encourage the adoption of aids to the efficient marketing of wool. 5. 8 ) I am not aware of any such expressions of concern in relation to the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme. It has consistently been the intention that the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme should be introduced at three wool selling centres in Australia. Following its introduction in Melbourne and Fremantle, Brisbane was selected by the Wool Corporation as the third centre. One of the considerations which influenced the Corporation in this decision was the desirability of conducting the Limited Offer to Purchase trail under the widest range of circumstances in terms of geographical spread, in order to obtain more representative results. 6. I have already stated the objectives of the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme. They certainly do not include a trading contest between the Corporation as a Government instrumentality and private enterprise. Nevertheless, care has been taken to ensure that the Corporation does not enjoy any commercial advantage in buying and selling wool under the scheme. 7. 10) All activities under the Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme will be accounted for and reported separately. The cost of the scheme will be clearly identified and the methods of accounting approved by the Commonwealth AuditorGeneral. Funds provided for the scheme are borrowed at commercial rates of interest without the benefit of a Government guarantee. 8. There is no conflict between the activities of the Corporation under its Limited Offer to Purchase Scheme and its role in contributing to the formulation of regulations governing the preparation and sale of wool at auctions. Wool purchased under the scheme is disposed of principally at auction. Department of the Northern Territory: Maternity Leave (Question No. 1279) {: #subdebate-59-84-s4 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton: asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 26 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977, and (c) in the period January 1 978 to date. 1. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees. 2. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods. 3. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, (b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods. {: #subdebate-59-84-s5 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) 1976, $64,009.73; (b) 1977, $65,476.72 and; (c) 1978 (to date), $34,843.20. 1. (a) 1976, 16,180 hours; (b) 1977, 14,867 hours and; (c) 1978 (to date), 7,167 hours. 2. (a) 1976, 24 employees; (b) 1977, 13 employees and: (c) 1978 (to date), nil. 3. (a) 1976, $60,782.83; 1977, $56,116.70; 1978 (to date), $27,995. 14. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. 1976, $3,226.90; 1977, $9,360.02; 1978 (to date), $6,848.06. 1. Nil. {:#subdebate-59-85} #### Taxation: Life Insurance Companies (Question No. 1297) {: #subdebate-59-85-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a statement by **Mr G.** Wells, Chairman of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd, in the Adelaide *News* of 9 May 1978 that the Government is examining the whole area of taxation relating to Life Offices; if so, is there any substance in the report. 1. ) If the Government is examining this area: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. when did the review begin, (b) who is conducting the review, (c) when will it be completed and (d) will it be tabled in the House for consideration. 2. Does the Government intend to insert a provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act along similar lines to subsection 82 (H) which was amended in 1973 and deleted in 1 975; if so, will he indicate the costs involved. {: #subdebate-59-85-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Government has the present system of taxing life offices under examination. 1. It is not uncommon for particular provisions of the income tax law, such as those relating to life insurance companies to be re-examined from time to time. Such reviews are conducted through normal departmental channels, and any decisions taken in consequence would normally be announced in the Budget Speech. Some aspects of the question have been looked at in this way over the last two years. The outcome will not be a report of a committee, such as might be tabled in the House. 2. ) This is a policy question which would only be decided after examining a number of relevant aspects. If a decision were taken to alter the existing situation in this area, it would be announced at the appropriate time. {:#subdebate-59-86} #### Optacon: Sales Tax (Question No. 1308) {: #subdebate-59-86-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Were approaches made to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Queensland, **Mr M.** V. Reithmuller, on 9 September 1977, and to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, **Mr Viner,** on 12 October 1977, seeking sales tax exemption on a new reading device for the blind called the Optacon. 1. If so, when will he take action to include Optacon with other goods for use by blind persons as set out on page 45, Item 123 of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. {: #subdebate-59-86-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Approaches seeking exemption from sales tax were made to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Brisbane in September 1977 and to **Mr Viner,** then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, in October 1977. 1. The question of exempting the Optacon will be considered, together with other requests for taxation concessions, in the course of the Government's pre-Budget deliberations. {:#subdebate-59-87} #### Income Tax Concessions: Housing Loan Interest (Question No. 1310) {: #subdebate-59-87-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1978: >Is it a fact that the Housing Loan Tax Deductibility Scheme has been under investigation; if so, (a) who is carrying out the investigation, (b) what are its terms of reference and (c) when is it anticipated that its findings will be acted on by the Government and reported to the Parliament. {: #subdebate-59-87-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >It is customary for the concessional provisions of the income tax law, including such provisions as the housing loan interest deduction, to be reviewed regularly. Such reviews are conducted through normal departmental channels, and any decisions taken in consequence would normally be announced in the Budget Speech. {:#subdebate-59-88} #### Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Transport (Question No. 1351) {: #subdebate-59-88-s0 .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he has responsibility. 1. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings: if so. (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions. 2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings. 3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year. 4. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out. {: #subdebate-59-88-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Qantas Airways Limited; Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA); Australian Shipping Commission (ANL); Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC). 1. (a) and (b) Yes. The following sets out, by Division, sums appropriated 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. Appropriation figures for 1977-78 include only amounts included in Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Commonwealth Auditor-General. 1. Qantas Airways Limited- an Australian Company incorporated in Queensland and fully owned by the Commonwealth Government. Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA)- Australian National Airlines Act 1945. Australian Shipping Commission (ANL)- Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956. Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC)Australian National Railways Act 1917. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. In 1976 the Government appointed a committee comprising: (then) **Mr J.** C. McNeill, C.B.E., Managing Director, BHP Co. Ltd (Chairman); **Mr W.** J. Holcroft, Chief Executive, Brambles Industries Ltd; and **Mr K.** C. Keown, Managing Partner, Arthur Anderson and Company to inquire into the Government's transport business undertaking. The McNeill Committee completed its inquiry into the four undertakings in December 1976. As the Committee's report deals with a number of matters which relate to the commercial operations of the business undertakings, the report has not been made public. {:#subdebate-59-89} #### Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Social Security (Question No. 1356) {: #subdebate-59-89-s0 .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) What is the name of each statutory authority corporation or undertaking for which the Minister has responsibility. 1. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions. 2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings. 3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year. 4. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out. {: #subdebate-59-89-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to ( 5 ) There are no statutory authorities, corporations or undertakings for which the Minister is responsible. {:#subdebate-59-90} #### Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Finance (Question No. 1357) {: #subdebate-59-90-s0 .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: asked the Minister for Finance upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he has responsibility. 1. Are any funds appropriated in the Budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions. 2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings. 3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year. 4. 5 ) When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out. {: #subdebate-59-90-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Office of Commissioner for Superannuation (Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office), Office of Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, Royal Australian Mint. 1. Office ofCommissioner for Superannuation: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. (i) 1975-76, $4,970,400; (ii) 1976-77, $5,467,900; (iii) 1977-78, $6,227,800. 1. The appropriation was broken up into various items under Divisions 675 and 963 for 1975-76 and 1976-77 and Divisions 306 and 845 for 1977-78. Office of Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. (i) 1975-76, not applicable, see answer to (4); (ii) 1976- 77, $395,400; (iii) 1977-78, $652,000. 1. The appropriation was broken up into various items under Division 676 in 1976-77 and Division 308 in 1977-78. Royal Australian Mint: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. (i) 1975-76, $975,000; (ii) 1976-77, $567,500; (iii) 1977- 78, $435,900. 1. For 1975-76, Apprpopriation Acts (No. 2 and 4) provided funds under the *following* classifications: Plant and Equipment, $375,000; Working Capital Advance, $600,000. For 1976-77 and 1977-78 the funds were appropriated as a one-line item, i.e. Plant and Equipment. Salaries and administrative expenses are met from the Royal Australian Mint Trust Account. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. ) The Auditor-General. 1. The position of Commissioner for Superannuation and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust were established under the Superannuation Act 1976. The Royal Australian Mint was established in 1965 to manufacture coins in accordance with the Currency Act 1965. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Two of the three authorities referred to were established in 1976. No specific 'inquiry' has been undertaken into either of those authorities or into the longer-established Royal Australian Mint. The operations of authority are, however, subject to continuing surveillance, particularly in relation to staff structure and numbers and to economy in other categories of expenditure. {:#subdebate-59-91} #### Statutory Authorities Responsible to Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 1358) {: #subdebate-59-91-s0 .speaker-KIK} ##### Mr Lusher: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which he has responsibility. 1. Are any funds appropriated in the budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions. 2. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings. 3. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year. 4. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out. {: #subdebate-59-91-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Aboriginal Loans Commission, Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. 1. (a)- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (b) All appropriations were and still are 'one line' appropriations with the exception of Aboriginal Loans Commission in 1975-76 when appropriations were given under separate headings for the Aboriginal Enterprises Fund and Aboriginal Housing Personal Loans Fund. 1. The Commonwealth Auditor-General is the auditor for each of these organisations except Applied Ecology Pty Ltd for whom Edwin V. Nixon and Partners of Canberra are the auditors. 2. Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1974, Aboriginal Land Fund Act, 1974, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act, 1964-73. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, both Companies were established and incorporated in 1 973 under the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance 1962-73. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. A review of the delivery of services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was undertaken by **Mr D.** O. Hay, C.B.E., D.S.O. in 1976. His report to the Government was tabled in the Parliament on 5 October 1 976. {:#subdebate-59-92} #### Senator Bonner: Portrait (Question No. 1377) {: #subdebate-59-92-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Historic Memorials Committee commissioned a portrait for the National collection of **Senator Neville** Bonner, as the first Aboriginal to be a member of the Australian Parliament. 1. If not, has the committee considered such a commission. {: #subdebate-59-92-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. ) No. This suggestion will be drawn to the attention of the members of the Historic Memorials Committee. {:#subdebate-59-93} #### Taxation Refunds (Question No. 1380) {: #subdebate-59-93-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to widespread criticism of the Taxation Office, particularly in Melbourne, Victoria, and Albury, New South Wales, concerning the very late payment of taxation refunds. 1. ) If so, is it a fact that in many cases refunds in respect of the year 1976-77 have not yet been received compared with payment before the following Christmas in previous financial years. {: #subdebate-59-93-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am not aware of widespread criticism of any section of the Taxation Office because of the very late payment of taxation refunds. 1. The Commission of Taxation has advised that the issue of refunds was slightly slower this year due mainly to transitional problems related to the health insurance levy and to the necessity to require an increasing number of taxpayers to verify expenditure claimed to have been incurred by them in gaining or producing their assessable income. If the honourable member is aware of cases where refunds have not yet been made, I suggest that he bring them to the notice of the Taxation Office at which the returns were lodged. I am confident that prompt action will ensue. {:#subdebate-59-94} #### Trial of Dr Orlov (Question No. 1383) {: #subdebate-59-94-s0 .speaker-BV4} ##### Mr Hodgman: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he now received a report on the trial in Moscow last week of **Dr Yuri** Orlov. 1. Is he able to say whether **Dr Orlov** was denied his basic right to defend himself, was harassed and publicly abused in court, and that the western press was excluded from these proceedings. 2. Will the Government exert the utmost pressure to secure the immediate release of **Dr Orlov** from prison. 3. If he has received a report on the trial, does it indicate whether the trial accords with the Soviet Union's claim to be taking human rights more seriously in accordance with its minimal Helsinki Pact obligations. {: #subdebate-59-94-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, a report of the trial of **Dr Orlov** has been received. 1. **Dr Orlov** refused to enter a plea to charges made against him after the judge prevented him from making a statement about his activities. According to **Mrs Orlov,** who attended the trial, together with her two stepsons, special public representatives ' applauded and cheered as the judge passed sentence. The Western press was barred from the proceedings. 2. As the Minister clearly affirmed in his press statement on 19 May, the Government is deeply concerned at the trial and harsh sentence imposed on **Dr Orlov.** Consistent with the Government's commitment to promote respect for human rights as set out in international instruments such as the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement and the UN Covenants on Human Rights, the Minister has in the past expressed the Government's concern to the Soviet authorities about questions of human rights and will continue to do so. I believe that the Minister's statement as well as the publicly expressed concern of the Australian people at the treatment of **Dr Orlov** will demonstrate to the Soviet authorities the strength ofour commitment to basic human rights. 3. See my answer of I June 1 978 *(Hansard,* page 2903 ). {:#subdebate-59-95} #### Aurukun and Mornington Island Communities (Question No. 1394) {: #subdebate-59-95-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will he require the Queensland Government either to {: type="a" start="a"} 0. agree to replacement of one of the State nominees on each of the Advisory Councils for the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island by a nominee of the Uniting Church or 1. reimburse the Church for legitimate administrative expenses since 3 1 March 1978. 1. If not, will he carry out his undertaking to the Shires that should the agreement between the Government bc breached, including the agreement that the Advisory Councils would represent those giving services to Shires, the Federal Government will resume the traditional Aboriginal lands concerned. {: #subdebate-59-95-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) See my press statements of 17 May 1978 and 30 May 1978. 1 will be watching very closely the implementation of the new legislation and will be taking up with the Queensland Government any problems immediately they arise. I have authorised the payment of a grant to the Uniting Church for administrative expenses incurred at Aurukun and Mornington Island since I April, subject to reimbursement equivalent to any costs met by the Queensland Government. {:#subdebate-59-96} #### Flood Mitigation (Question No. 1400) {: #subdebate-59-96-s0 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What Commonwealth funds have been provided to New South Wales for the construction of flood mitigation works since 1963. 1. What Commonwealth funds have been provided to New South Wales for the maintenance of these flood mitigation works since 1 963. 2. Are flood mitigation projects a major national resource which must be protected by adequate maintenance. {: #subdebate-59-96-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth provided grants to New South Wales for construction of flood mitigation works on its coastal rivers between 1964-65 and 1977-78 amounting to $!8m. 1. Nil. 2. Over the past decade, the Commonwealth has provided approximately $280m under special programs of assistance to the States for the development of their water resources; in general, these projects are of national significance, including the New South Wales coastal rivers flood mitigation programs. The Commonwealth 's approach to its involvement in these projects has been consistent throughout: a financial contribution towards the capital costs of works, leaving the maintenance costs of projects to the State and/or local authorities. These costs are recouped as appropriate by charges on those who benefit from the projects. {:#subdebate-59-97} #### National Potato Panel (Question No. 1404) {: #subdebate-59-97-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978: >What procedures and criteria will he adopt when he considers the producer membership of the Potato Panel to replace the present panel whose term ends in the near future? {: #subdebate-59-97-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Opportunity was taken at the meeting of the National Potato Panel on 17 May 1978 to ascertain the Panel's views on procedures and criteria to be adopted concerning the selection of grower representatives to serve on the new Panel when the term of office of the current Panel members expires. > >In the light of the Panel's comments, I have written to the atipropriate Minister in each State seeking his nomination by 2 1 June of a State grower representative. I assume that State Ministers will consult with grower organisations before responding to my request. > >On receipt of these nominations and the nominations which have been sought for representatives of interests other than potato growers, I will appoint the members of the new > >Panel, which is to take over from the present Panel on 1 July 1978. {:#subdebate-59-98} #### Apples and Pears (Question No. 1405) {: #subdebate-59-98-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 31 May 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the concern in the fresh apple and pear industry over the ad hoc nature of the current stabilisation scheme. 1. If so, will he introduce a 3 year scheme and update current stabilisation levels, particularly for pears. {: #subdebate-59-98-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. 1. When I announced on behalf of the Government in September 1976 that the Apple and Pear Stabilisation Scheme would be extended to cover the 1977 export crop, I referred to the fact that the decision had been made following recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission ( IAC) on the future of the Scheme. As the honourable member will recall the IAC had recommended that the level of suppon for apples should be terminated at the end of the 1977 export season. The Government however decided not to accept the Commission's recommendation, being of the view that a too rapid phase out would exacerbate the difficult employment situation in the export fruit growing areas and that further time was therefore needed to allow the industry and the local economy to adjust. In respect of stabilisation beyond 1 977 the Government 's view was that the industry should understand that the then applying level of support could not continue indefinitely, the Government expecting a phasing down of the level of assistance for the following year, 1978. In the event suppon for 1978 was continued at the same level as in 1977. The Government will shortly be giving consideration to the stabilisation arrangements to apply beyond the current season. The honourable member can be assured that in the course of the Government's deliberations the proposal that he has advanced will be borne in mind. {:#subdebate-59-99} #### Pears (Question No. 1407) {: #subdebate-59-99-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the added cost to fresh pear exporters of the compulsory fumigation imposed by the United States quarantine authorities. 1. If so, what are the procedures to include pears to North America in the supplementary assistance program to help compensate for this cost. {: #subdebate-59-99-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. 1. The supplementary assistance program currently applies only to apple exports to 'at risk' markets in UK/Europe. The question whether the program might be extended to pear exports in future will be considered by the Government at the appropriate time. Interdepartmental Committee on Child Abduction (Question No. 1414) {: #subdebate-59-99-s2 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978: >Further to his answer to question No. 1 *(Hansard,* 8 March 1978, page 569), when will he table the recommendations of the interdepartmental Committee and the decisions of the Government on the review of the procedures relating to the issue of passports in cases where there is a danger of child abduction. {: #subdebate-59-99-s3 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The action proposed as a result of the Interdepartmental Review on passport policy and procedures is still under consideration. However, in relation, to the specific matter raised, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General announced on 2 March 1978 that Cabinet, as a part of this review, had established an Interdepartmental Committee to investigate and recommend to Cabinet legislative and administrative changes necessary to prevent or reduce the incidence of such removal of children. > >The Committee which is convened by the AttorneyGeneral's Department is required to report back to the Government by November 1978. {:#subdebate-59-100} #### Australian Services Canteen Organisation (Question No. 1423) {: #subdebate-59-100-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he announced that the Australian Services Canteen Organisation is to be wound up. 1. If so, did he indicate that continuing losses were the basic reason for the closure of the Organisation. 2. In which of the last 10 years did the Organisation record losses. {: #subdebate-59-100-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The decision in principle to close the Australian Services Canteens Organisation was to be announced after the staff had been informed, and after the unions which represented staff members, had been consulted. Media inquiries commencing on the day staff were informed, have made a formal statement unnecessary. Further action regarding the closing will not be taken until a program for the run down and the alternative canteens arrangements are worked out. 1. and (3) One Press report stated that the Organisation was to be closed because of heavy financial losses. The Managing Director of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation corrected this statement, in a subsequent edition of the paper. Ethanol from Sugar Beet (Question No. 1427) {: #subdebate-59-100-s2 .speaker-XD4} ##### Mr Goodluck: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Tasmanian Government approached him to secure a Government contribution to a research project on the production of ethanol from sugar beet. 1. Has the Government fully examined the proposed project; if not, will it do so. 2. Has the Tasmanian Government been kept fully informed of what action the Commonwealth proposes to take. 3. Has his attention been drawn to an estimate of the Tasmanian Minister for Resources and Energy that a sugar beet for ethanol industry could be fully viable in Tasmania within 6 years. {: #subdebate-59-100-s3 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The Tasmanian Government has offered to match a grant of $276,000 which it is seeking from the Commonwealth over a period of three years. 1. My Department has made a preliminary examination of the project. Since the project is one which should be referred to the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council, I have undertaken that its reference to the Council for a full assessment will be a matter of the highest priority. 2. Yes. I wrote to the Tasmanian Government concerning this project on 17 April 1978 and 7 June 1978. 3. I have heard reports that the Tasmanian Minister for Resources and Energy has estimated that a sugar beet for ethanol industry could be fully viable in Tasmania within 6 years. This estimate would appear to be based on the assumption that the proposed pilot project would run for three years, and that a further three years would be required to set up a full scale plant. While it may be possible to commence operating a fullscale industrial plant producing ethanol from sugar beet in 6 years time, this does not mean that the plant would be part of a 'fully viable' industry. The estimated price for ethanol resulting from this project is about double the present world parity price for imported motor spirit. It is not expected that the price of such motor spirit would rise to the level of sugar beet-based ethanol until some time into the 1990's. Thus a fully viable industry could only be in operation in six years time if sale of the ethanol produced was guaranteed as a result, for example, of the Tasmanian Government legislating to enforce the addition of ethanol to motor spirit. Such legislation would, of course, compel the consumer to pay more for *motor spirit.* I do not wish to prejudge the comprehensive assessment of the proposed project which NERDDC will undertake. I simply point out that, in view of the economic considerations, it is desirable that the assessment of (he project should be conducted in the deliberate and calm fashion which its complex implications require. {:#subdebate-59-101} #### International Nuclear Waste Repositories (Question No. 1432) {: #subdebate-59-101-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Is the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation in which Australia is a participant considering the possible establishment of international nuclear waste repositories. 1. Has the possibility of the establishment of an international nuclear waste repository in Australia been discussed at International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation meetings or during bilateral discussions between Australia and potential customer countries for Australia 's uranium. {: #subdebate-59-101-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Working Group 7 of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) is considering two alternative cases concerning the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, namely: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. final disposal of unreprocessed spent fuel as waste; and 1. final disposal of waste products separated as a result of reprocessing of spent fuel. A series of possible institutional arrangements will be considered for these two cases. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-59-102} #### Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1444) {: #subdebate-59-102-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What arrangements are made in the Department of Social Security and statutory authorities under the Minister's control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass. 1. If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will the Minister implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials. {: #subdebate-59-102-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. Waste paper from the Department of Social Security is recycled by arrangements with the Department of Administrative Services. {:#subdebate-59-103} #### Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1446) {: #subdebate-59-103-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What arrangements are made in his Department and statutory authorities under his control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass. 1. ) If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementation of, procedures for the recycling of waste materials. {: #subdebate-59-103-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No arrangements are made in my Department or in statutory authorities under my control for recycling of waste materials. 1. Recycling is not considered to be economically viable at present but the question will be kept under review. {:#subdebate-59-104} #### Self -Employed Persons (Question No. 1472) {: #subdebate-59-104-s0 .speaker-VE4} ##### Dr Blewett: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Department of Social Security, Manual of Instructions, Section 7, subsection 101, issued March 1978, states that the test whether a person is selfemployed or unemployed is applied realistically. 1. If so, what is meant by 'realistically 'in this context. 2. What criteria are applied to determine whether a person who was previously self-employed is now unemployed. 3. ) Are the previously self-employed required to do any or all of the following in order to qualify for the unemployment benefit: (a) cease advertising for work; (b) surrender licences which give them self-employed status and (c) sell their equipment and tools. {: #subdebate-59-104-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The word 'realistically' means that a practical view is taken. The instruction mentioned by the honourable member goes on to quote the example that a person maybe genuinely unemployed even though he spends a certain amount of time on odd jobs in the business. 2. ) As self employment may take many different forms no set of criteria has been laid down to determine if a formerly self employed person is unemployed. Clearly a person who closes down a business and in the course of efforts to find paid employment registers for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service would be regarded as unemployed. At the other end of the scale a person may be seeking paid employment but continues to keep open and operate an unprofitable business and actively seek fresh business. Such a person would not in fact be unemployed. 3. Categorically it is not a prerequisite that a self employed person (a) cease advertising for work (b) surrender licences which give him self employed status and (c) sell his equipment and tools, in order to qualify for unemployment benefit. However the performance of any or all of these actions would be matters that, taken into consideration with the other circumstances of the particular case, would indicate that the person was unemployed. {:#subdebate-59-105} #### Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homeopathy and Naturopathy (Question No. 1473) {: #subdebate-59-105-s0 .speaker-KFB} ##### Mr FitzPatrick:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 June 1978: >What steps have been taken to register chiropractors to assist low income families with chiropractic fees and to carry out the recommendation of the committee of inquiry set up to report to the Whitlam Government on chiropractic, osteopathy and naturopathy. {: #subdebate-59-105-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Whilst my Department has completed a preliminary analysis of the Report of the Australian Government Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy. Homeopathy and Naturopathy, the Government has not yet determined its attitude to the recommendations contained in the Report. > >The matter of conditions under which these groups may practise is one for consideration by the respective State Governments. These aspects and the report mentioned were discussed at recent meetings of the Federal and State Health Ministers. > >Further discussion may well be necessary after the States have settled their views. {:#subdebate-59-106} #### Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Galbally Report (Question No. 1497) {: #subdebate-59-106-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many new positions will be created in his Department to implement the programs put forward in the Galbally Report and recently accepted by the Government. 1. How many of these positions will be located in (a) Canberra and (b) in the regional offices in each State. 2. How many new positions are involved in the expanded Information Section suggested in the Galbally Report. {: #subdebate-59-106-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr Mackellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) It is not presently possible to provide details of new positions. An urgent study of the matters raised is continuing. {:#subdebate-59-107} #### Pensioner Health Benefits (Question No. 1512) {: #subdebate-59-107-s0 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 June 1978: >How many holders of pensioner health benefit cards are there at present in Australia. {: #subdebate-59-107-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >At 20 March 1978 an estimated 1,346,400 Social Security pensioners were holders of pensioner health benefit cards. This figure includes age, invalid and widow pensioners, and recipients of wife's pension. Not included in this figure are those pensioners holding pensioner health benefit cards who are paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Relationship of Labour Costs to Productivity {: #subdebate-59-107-s2 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -- On 5 May 1978 *(Hansard,* page 1883) the honourable member for Oxley **(Mr Hayden)** asked me a question without notice concerning the real wage-productivity distortion and the implications for wages of the Commonwealth's argument to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission regarding this distortion. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The calculation presented by the Commonwealth shows the growth of real labour costs relative to productivity. Labour costs are defined as real wages, salaries and supplements for the non-farm sector plus payroll tax, per nonfarm wage and salary earner per hour worked. This definition incorporates items which contribute to employers' labour costs in addition to wages. Productivity is defined as real gross non-farm product per non-farm employee per hour. An index of real unit labour costs is derived by dividing the index of real labour costs by the index of productivity. > >I append a copy of exhibit MA9 from the Commonwealth's submission to the March quarter National Wage Case showing the movements in the indexes referred to above. Deviations of real unit labour costs above 100 can be regarded as a measure of the real labour cost imbalance. > >There is no 'correct' level of real wages implied in this calculation. It is used as an explanatory device to show how the economy's capacity to pay wage increases has been exceeded and how excessive real wages have contributed to unemployment. Productivity increases can (and in 1975 and 1 976 did ) operate to reduce the gap even when real labour costs are rising. During 1977, productivity did not improve and it was only with mefall in real labour costs in the December quarter that the gap was somewhat reduced. > >The objective sought by the Commonwealth through its submissions to the Commission is not a reduction in real earnings of 10 per cent or, now, of 7 per cent. The Government's position is that the real wage-productivity distortion must be remedied if sustainable employment opportunities are to be created. As long as the distortion persists at present intensities, the Commonwealth will continue to press for maximum wage restraint. The Commonwealth 's position on the appropriate wage indexation adjustment is examined each quarter in the light of economic conditions prevailingincluding inflation, consumption and general activity levels. Possibility of Offences under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act {: #subdebate-59-107-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- On 9 May 1978 the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** asked me, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General in the House, the following question without notice: >I direct my question to the Minister who represents the Attorney-General in this House. The Minister will be aware of recent reports of the formation of groups within Australia, particularly New South Wales, dedicated to the overthrow of foreign governments and the infiltration of political organisations to subvert those organisations to their cause. Have any investigations pursuant to sections 7 to 9 inclusive of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act been instigated to ascertain the facts? If so, what are the results? If not, will the Minister seek a firm undertaking that the Attorney-General will investigate these matters and advise the Parliament of his findings at an early date? The Attorney-General has now supplied me with the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I presume that what the honourable member is referring to in his question is a report in the *Sydney Morning J I era Id* du 1 May 1 978 about statements alleged to have been made at a meeting in Sydney on 30 April 1978 of members of a Vietnamese Migrant Group. Before the honourable member asked his question, the Commonwealth Police had been requested to investigate whether any offence was committed against the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. A report on the investigation has not yet been received.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 June 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780608_reps_31_hor109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant