House of Representatives
9 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2581

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pornographic Publications

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. . to prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. to penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown, Dr Edwards, Mr MacKellar and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Jarman and Mr Lusher.

Petitions received.

South Australian Country Rail Services

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

  1. That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.
  2. That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

The Budget

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

The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth-

That because this budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by $ 10 per week, because it will reduce the income of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that

The Federal Government withdraws this budget and provides Australia, within this session of Parliament, with a revised budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The humble petition of the undersigned being residents of the Federal electorate of MacArthur respectfully showeth:

That the present funding of abortion through the standard medical benefits table cease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will suppon the Stephen Lusher motion:

  1. 1 ) to remove items from the standard medical benefit table which currently permit medical benefits for abortion:-
  2. To cease the funding of medical benefit schemes through which claims for terminating pregnancies can be made. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baume.

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and its Recommendations-

  1. contain matters of substance which ought to be pursued.
  2. b) result from a wide range of submissions made by Australians from all walks of life.
  3. identify many problem areas requiring attention.
  4. have been given media coverage which grossly distorts the contents.
  5. have thus far been ignored in Parliament.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. debate the Report and its Recommendations.
  2. make provision for rational public debate on the Report and its Recommendations.
  3. encourage its Members to support such public debate in their electorates.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will implement such measures to maintain the Commissioners’’ belief in the right and integrity of the individual to make free choices in the context of human relationships, and to have access to the knowledge and skills which give such a free choice meaning’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass.

Petition received.

Pensions

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

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in 1975 policy speech.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

  1. That the Federal Government recognize Land Rights in the States, such as Queensland in a similar manner to the recognition of Land Rights in the Northern Territory, that is enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act for Queensland;
  2. That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aborigines Act (Queensland) 1971, and the Torres Strait Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discriminating Laws Act, 1975 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders;
  3. That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs under the powers given it by the Referendum 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Islander Administration (Queensland) should be abolished and Aboriginal and Island reserves should have the choice to be self-governed with local government status.

Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher.

Petition received.

Government Economic Policy

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

  1. That the recent Federal Budget places the entire burden of economic recovery on working people and their families.
  2. That the tragedy of unemployment is not tackled and will in fact be worsened as a result of the budget.
  3. Pensioners will now have to wait a whole year for their increases. With inflation at 8% the loss is equivalent to a whole weeks pension.
  4. Spending on education in State Schools has been cut by 4%, and increased by 6% in Private Schools.
  5. The income tax levy will mean that Australian workers will pay an additional $562m in tax.
  6. The sick and the poor will be further disadvantaged as a result of the destruction of Medibank.
  7. The increase in indirect taxes (beer, cigarettes and petrol) will further increase the tax burden on working people.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will undertake to immediately reverse its current economic strategy

Namely: - To introduce measures to create jobs for all who want work - To redistribute wealth from the elite rich- 10 per cent of Australians, and the large corporations to working people and the under-privileged. - To restore the real value of pensions and other benefits provided by the Government.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefit

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the city of Nunawading in the electorate of Deakin respectfully showeth:

Whereas:

  1. The number of positions available throughout Australia is insufficient to provide the opportunity for fulltime employment for several hundred thousand Australians including School Leavers who have as yet been unable to avail themselves of work experience.
  2. The provisions of the Social Security Act be so modified as to permit all such persons to engage in part time employment without suffering the immediate disincentive of loss of Social Security support (dole money). The proposed modification to the Act to permit incomes at least to the Henderson ‘Poverty Level’ and to taper off in such manner as to maintain incentive to work.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Social Security give all directions to ensure that necessary action be taken without delay.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the decision of the Government in its last budget to adjust pensions on a yearly basis causes undue hardship to pensioners whose standard of living is dependent on this sole source of income.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government review its decision to index pensions on a yearly basis and accept that all pensions be adjusted on a quarterly basis so that Australians dependent on social security benefits are not forced to live below the poverty line.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

The proposed introduction of a Retail Turnover Tax will-

  1. Impose an intolerable burden on retailers- seriously inconvenience shoppers and prove difficult and expensive to administer.
  2. Increase the cost to consumers of clothing, food and other goods essential to maintenance of an adequate standard of living.
  3. Place a disproportionate tax burden on Australians least able to pay.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members in the House assembled will not introduce indirect tax measures such as a Retail Turnover Tax or the administratively more difficult Value Added Tax as to do so would exacerbate the inequalities in our taxing system.

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

Petition received.

Commando Expeditions: Award of Medal

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

  1. In 1943 and 1944 two small scale raids were undertaken by Australian and British Commandos on shipping in Singapore Harbour.
  2. The first operation named ‘Jaywick’ reached Singapore in September 1943 from a base in Australia using a captured Japanese vessel known as ‘The Krait’, sank seven (7) ships, a total of 39,000 tons and returned to Australia. This was the longest successful small scale raid in the history of War.
  3. The second operation named ‘Rimau’ attempted to repeat that raid in September 1944. The raid was detected in the entrance to Singapore Harbour and the commandos were forced to retire. A submarine sent to pick them up did not keep the appointed RV and the raiding party was forced to set out for Australia in their canoes.
  4. Many of the commandos were killed by Japanese search parties near the Indonesian Island. Three commandos in an incredible feat of endurance and heroism, paddled two thousand five hundred (2,500) miles from Singapore to Romang Island only 400 miles from Australia. This journey was one of the most fantastic in the history of war- in the history of the sea.
  5. All the Commandos who had not been killed were finally captured, court martialled and ceremoniously executed in Singapore by Samurai Sword only 39 days before the Japanese surrender.
  6. The Commandos were ceremoniously executed because the Japanese considered-

It would be a disgrace to the fine spirit of these heroes if we thought of saving their lives. ‘

Major Kamiya the prosecutor at the Japanese Court Martial who made the above comment went on to say, inter alia-

These heroes must have left Australia with sublime patriotism flowing in their breasts and with the confident expectation of all the Australian people on their shoulders.

As we respect them, so we feel our duty of glorifying their last moments as they deserve, and by doing so the names of these heroes will remain in the hearts of the British and Australian people for evermore.’

  1. Due to the secrecy surrounding operation ‘Rimau’ its members were completely ignored and received no recognition at all. No attempt was made by the authorities to inform the relatives of the circumstances of death. The only official notification was that they had been killed in action in 1945. It was not until the publication of a book called ‘The Heroes’ by Ronald McKie in 1960 that the relatives read for themselves of the manner in which the commandos died.
  2. To date, the exploits and deaths of the ‘Rimau’ commandos have not remained undying in Australian history as the Japanese expected, following the ceremonial execution. They have been forgotten and ignored by Australia. They are the Forgotten Heroes.
  3. On Saturday 8 July 1978, the 33rd Anniversary of the end of operation ‘Rimau’, the members of the 1 Commando Association held a memorial parade to honour the memory of these gallant men, and of the men of Jaywick’ many of whom were also members of the Rimau’ raiding party. The parade was held before the Great War Memorial in Hyde Park Sydney. Relatives of the men of ‘Jaywick’ and ‘Rimau’ were flown from all parts of Australia to be present.

A specially commissioned March called ‘The Forgotten Heroes’ was played for the first time by the Band of the New South Wales Police Force.

  1. At the memorial Parade a medal in the form of the drawing reproduced hereon was presented on behalf of each of the members of operation ‘Jaywick’ and Rimau’. The medal was designed and presented because repeated requests by the 1 Commando Association at all levels of Government to obtain some official recognition for these men had been refused.

Your Petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to approve the conferring of the medal on the men of ‘Jaywick’ and Rimau’ on behalf of the people of Australia to honour the memory of these gallant men so that future generations of Britain and Australia will know and admire what these men did and their memory will remain in the hearts of the British and Australian people for evermore.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. byMrKillen.

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortion

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they disapprove of the proposal to withdraw Abortion as an allowable benefit from the medical benefit funds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Abortion is kept as an allowable benefit from the medical benefit funds.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

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

Petition received.

Rural Telephone Exchanges

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That citizens in rural areas are strongly opposed to the automation of manually operated telephone exchanges which is resulting in loss of employment for telephone operators in difficult economic times and the unnecessary loss of an efficient, personalised telephone service which has proven to be eminently suited to the needs of rural telephone subscribers.

We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia should be instructed to seek the views of country telephone subscribers before proceeding further with the automation program which is causing unemployment, confusion, discontent and unnecessary expense to country subscribers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the program pending a full and open Parliamentary inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the automation program on country towns, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

page 2584

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2584

QUESTION

STAWELL TIMBER INDUSTRIES

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he authorised a statement on his behalf last month to the effect that he’ has given Stawell Timber Industries the help and assistance that any conscientious member of Parliament would give to any constituents’ and that he ‘gave them what limited assistance he could ‘? Did this limited assistance include any action tending to give the company an effective monopoly or near monopoly in the direct selling of housing to Aboriginal housing associations? Did it include actions leading to the provision of information to the company about housing allocations before even the recipients were informed? Did it lead to the writing of contracts worth $2m without competitive tenders? What would the Prime Minister regard as substantial assistance to a constituent?

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

– Stawell Timber Industries is a company which has been operating out of Stawell for a very long while. In recent times it has given the Victorian Government considerable cause for concern because it has been in financial difficulties. The Victorian Government is stretching every effort and sinew to try to make sure that the company stays a viable trading enterprise. There is not a great diversity of employment opportunities outside the rural areas in Stawell. The maintenance of Stawell Timber Industries as a decentralised industry is regarded by the Victorian Government as a matter of substance and importance. I think that all honourable gentlemen, certainly, those representing country areas, can understand the impact on a moderately sized country town when a major industry in the town gets into difficulty and faces the prospect of closing.

The area was not in my electorate before the electoral redistribution. Since the redistribution Stawell and consequently Stawell Timber Industries, has been in my electorate. The company approached me as its electoral member. I sought to provide what assistance I could and I suggested that it should get in touch with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I approached the Minister in relation to the matter, as I would for any constituent. Whatever information was provided was provided with the Minister’s authority in terms consistent with his answer yesterday. Certainly, Stawell Timber Industries has been given no monopoly. I suggest that any question on the detailed aspects of negotiations in relation to housing go the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. On one or two other occasions honourable gentlemen opposite sought to oppose the expansion of television in western Victoria. This was something which had been fought for for eight years. It had been supported by postmastersgeneral from the Labor Party, the National Country Party of Australia and the Liberal Party over a period of eight years but nothing was done about it until this Government came to power.

Under those circumstances, if Opposition members are trying to suggest that the people of Wannon should be disfranchised because I happen to be their local representative then they have another think coming. I will continue to represent my own electorate, as I have. I will advance its cause as I would advance the cause of any person who comes for my assistance to the extent that it should properly be given. If there are any details that the honourable gentleman wants to know about contracts that Stawell Timber Industries have been awarded, those questions would have to go to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I would not know the details of any contracts. The Minister answered a question on the matter yesterday. He made it perfectly plain that what had been done was done in proper order.

page 2585

QUESTION

COMPUTERS

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to you, Mr Speaker. Do you share my view that very few Australians have been or are in a position to be properly aware of the sheer enormity of the remaining potential and capacity of computers? Without intending a reflection, do you agree that there is a possibility that many members and senators may have had little opportunity to become acquainted with the latest and future uses of computers? Computers continue to replace people in the work force and it is now obvious that varying degrees of unemployment will be a national problem in the future. For that reason and for an educative purpose, will you, Mr Speaker, contact members and senators to establish whether sufficient interest exists to warrant Mr President and Mr Speaker arranging a suitable course during next year’s autumn session so that members and senators can become better acquainted with this established 20th century innovation?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will consider the question and consider whether or not honourable members are in need of instruction and whether or not they would be able to absorb it.

page 2585

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs investigated complaints that officers of his Department sought to influence Aboriginal housing associations in favour of Stawell Timber Industries and specifically that, on two occasions, Aboriginal representatives were presented with pre-prepared contracts ready for signature? What were the results of any investigations and what action has been taken as a result? In the light of information which the Minister gave the House yesterday that all Stawell contracts were in accordance with his Department’s financial directives and his own ministerial guidelines, does it follow that he has countermanded the Department’s regulation 2.3.2, requiring the calling of tenders?

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answers that I gave yesterday to questions are plain enough. If the honourable gentleman has any specific instances that he wishes to bring to my attention I will have them examined and will give him a complete answer to them.

page 2585

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources aware of the initiatives of interested Queenslanders in staging an international exposition in Brisbane in 1988 under the auspices of the Bureau of International Expositions, Paris, as part of the Australian bicentennial celebrations? If so, would such an initiative be worthy of encouragement and support for the purposes of promoting trade? Would an appropriate name for any such exposition in Brisbane, Queensland, be ‘Expo Primary Production’, in recognition of the fact that for 200 years Australia has depended almost solely on its farmers?

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

– Because of the enthusiasm of the honourable member for Darling Downs in promoting this idea, I have heard of it. It is an idea that is emanating from Queensland, like so many new ideas do. Any idea which tends to promote Australia’s trade and the export of its primary products, be they of an agricultural or a mining nature, certainly is deserving of encouragement. At the moment the Government is looking at a number of suggestions to celebrate Australia’s bicentenary. The suggestions are under study. The idea suggested by the honourable member could possibly be looked at. I am not madly keen about the suggested name of Expo Primary Production’. It seems to have a connotation of concerning only agriculture, whereas other areas of primary production might be incorporated. Perhaps if the honourable member is keen to sell the idea he might consider another name. Then the idea could be put up to the Government for consideration among the items at which it is looking.

page 2586

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In accordance with his repeated calls to Australians for austerity and sacrifice, will he order the abandonment of proposals to purchase two luxury 120- passenger Boeing 727-100 jet liners or two 149-passenger Boeing 707 jet liners for his personal use on overseas travel? Will he make do with the existing fleet of VIP jet aircraft as an example to the nation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is quite wrong to suggest that the VIP aircraft are for the Prime Minister’s personal use or for anyone’s personal use. The honourable gentleman should well know that the only reasons that justify this action and which have caused the Government to examine this path are reasons of security and the advice received in the strongest terms in relation to security which involves not only inconvenience to other passengers on a commercial international air flight but also, on the basis of the advice given to us, very considerable additional risk to passengers on commercial airlines. It may well be that the honourable gentleman believes that some hundreds of other passengers should take that risk every time a Prime Minister flies on an aircraft.

Mr Speaker, we all know that security requirements have intensified. The very arrangements which you, in concert with the President, have had to institute for the security of this Parliament indicate a changed attitude and a changed requirement in relation to these matters. However they are the reasons that have caused the Government to examine this matter. Honourable gentlemen might be unaware of the nature of the inconvenience that can be caused to other passengers. For example, at Bahrain passengers are not let off the aircraft if I happen to be on it because there are not adequate security arrangements to check them again on boarding and that causes inconvenience and concern. Also, there have been very significant delays when certain people have been found in the same airports through which I have been going. In those circumstances, the reason for pursuing this path is one of security. I believe that it is a heavy reason which the honourable gentleman ought not to treat lightly.

page 2586

QUESTION

FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. What is the Government’s policy in relation to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to dissent from an official ruling? Can the Commonwealth Government take any action where decisions which are put into effect by a State government may cause widespread social disruption throughout the country? Will the Minister examine all relevant Commonwealth laws to determine whether any rights and freedoms conferred on any citizen by those laws will prevail over any attempted subtraction from the citizen’s right to personal freedom or freedom of assembly by the laws of the State of Queensland?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I indicate by way of preface to the answer that my friend the Minister for Defence, sitting next to me on the front bench, said that he would be pleased to take the brief on behalf of the Commonwealth. Of course, the constitutional position of the Commonwealth here is that only in certain specified areas within the Constitution has the Commonwealth power to make laws which by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution prevail over any competing State laws. Generally speaking, the Commonwealth does not have constitutional power in the area of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly over any such laws that are passed by the States. So it is for each State to pass its own laws either to preserve freedom of speech or freedom of assembly or to detract from them. The Commonwealth does not have any direct power to overrule laws of that kind.

Mr Young:

– Tell us what you think about them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question has been asked and the Minister is entitled to answer the question in silence. I ask honourable members on my left to cease interjecting.

Mr VINER:

– I was going to conclude by saying that, naturally enough, the Commonwealth wishes to see that as full a preservation as possible of those basic freedoms of the citizens of Australia occurs throughout the Commonwealth. Obviously, States have a right within their own area to put restrictions on those freedoms where they are seen necessary in the public interest.

page 2587

QUESTION

BROADCASTING LICENCES

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Because of representations I have received, I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to recent decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal regarding three public broadcasting licences for Melbourne. I ask: Will the Tribunal publish reasons for giving licences? Will it publish reasons for not giving licences? Are transcripts of the Tribunal’s hearings copyright to the Tribunal or are they available for public scrutiny? When will the next applications for public broadcasting licences be called?

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

– I will approach the Tribunal about the detailed questions which have been raised by the honourable member. As to the last part, no decisions have been made about when new applications might be called. I will have a look at it and give the honourable member an answer to that question also.

page 2587

QUESTION

ARMOURED VEHICLES

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Defence any information on why armoured reconnaissance vehicles or armoured cars cannot be manufactured by the Australian motor industry? Has he considered the fact that if these vehicles were manufactured in this country there would be a considerable saving of international exchange?

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

– The short answer is yes. Some half a dozen unarmoured reconnaissance vehicles have been tested by the Special Air Service Regiment in Western Australia. The tests are currently proceeding. I am sure the honourable gentleman will acknowledge the fact that, while it may be within the capability of the country to manufacture a heavier armoured vehicle in Australia, the cost structure makes it unacceptable.

page 2587

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT: AIRPORT ENGINEERING BRANCHES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Transport: Has a review been carried out of the staffing and performance of the airport engineering branches of his Department? If so, can he say whether the review has been completed and whether the findings of the review group were most critical of the Department’s performance in this area? What action has he taken to implement the recommendations of the review and will he table the report for the benefit of the Parliament?

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

-I will have a look at the substance of the honourable member’s question after Question Time and provide information I do not presently have. To the best of my understanding there has been a review of the staffing levels of all sections in that area of the Department’s activities and there has been an upgrading of the new people going into the various areas of activity on the engineering side. Apart from that I can say little about what the honourable member for Shortland asked.

page 2587

QUESTION

TELECOM STAND-DOWNS

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the recent ruling of the Federal Court that employees of Telecom Australia cannot be stood down without pay? As Mr Justice St John ruled that any decision to stand down employees without pay was outside the award that governed Telecom employees but within the Telecommunications Act, can the Minister inform the House whether he considers any action should be taken to resolve the confusion which now exists in the minds of Telecom employees?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– I regret that I have not seen the decision of the Federal Court to which the honourable gentleman refers. I do know that during the concluding stages of the Telecom dispute Justice Gaudron of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decided that stand-down without pay was valid where people put bans on work which was at their normal place of work and which they were normally required to do, but that if they were required to move away from their normal place of work to somewhere else and therefore to do work which they were not normally required to do they should not be stood down without pay. I shall make further investigations on the judgment to which the honourable gentleman refers to see whether it involves any variation to the situation I have just described.

page 2587

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to an official list of names of people who have used Commonwealth cars in Sydney in the past year on the Minister’s authority. I also refer to the public advice of members of the Minister’s staff who reportedly were unable to identify one of the names on that listthat of a Mr Haylen. I ask the Minister: Is this Mr Haylen whom his staff could not identify the same Mr Haylen who is a chartered accountant appointed by the Minister to represent his family interests in the examination of the business affairs of the Sinclair Pastoral Co.? Is this the Mr Haylen who is the former business partner of the Minister’s late father in the firm of George Sinclair, Haylen and Co.? Is Mr Haylen the man the Minister has identified to the Parliament as the independent professional investigator he has authorised to sort out those business operations which are now the subject of official inquiry in New South Wales?

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

– At no-stage was Mr Haylen a business associate of my father. He purchased a business from my father. My father’s name was incorporated in the firm of chartered accountants which, quite independently, Mr Haylen continues to operate.

page 2588

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry refers to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd. Is the Minister aware that trading bank managers in the country districts of New South Wales have not been advised of how this Bank is to function? Is this causing considerable concern to applicants for financial assistance? Will the Minister take up this matter with the management of the Primary Industry Bank to ensure that the necessary advice and instruction are given to these banks which are shareholders in the Primary Industry Bank?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– There is a tremendous opportunity through the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd for producers generally to restructure their financial arrangements. It is intended, of course, that henceforth individual producers can turn not only to the private banking sector, the Commonwealth Development Bank and to the State rural banks to receive those sources of finance which have been traditionally available- to wit, bank overdrafts, term loan funds and farm development loan funds- but also to a new dimension through the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd. It concerns me if individual bank managers who, of course, will be the people responsible for interviewing applicants, are not aware of the manner and form in which the Primary Industry Bank operates. However, it should be said that the Bank itself has only just commenced its lending operations. I have no doubt that in the dissemination of the manner of its operation perhaps the necessary advice has not been passed on as quickly as it should have been. I will pass on the honourable member’s question to the Chairman of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia through my colleague, the Treasurer, who has the particular responsibility for the administration of the Bank. But from the point of view of primary producers I would hope that very shortly bank managers throughout Australia will be fully alerted to the manner, form and availability of this credit facility which is significantly concessional in the term of its lending. I believe it will be of tremendous benefit to primary producers generally.

page 2588

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry following my last question. Is the Mr Haylen to whom I referred in that question a chartered accountant? Is he representing certain family interests of the Minister in the examination of certain business affairs involving the Minister?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– The firm of George Sinclair, Haylen and Co. has been appointed by all the companies at my direction to inquire into outstanding accounts in order to ensure that there were no irregularities or inequities between all the parties concerned. That firm is entirely independent of any association with my father, lt is a firm which has been appointed prior to any official advice. It is as a result of its investigation, which was made at my request, that all subsequent information has become available. It is interesting that the honourable gentleman seeks to pursue this inquiry in this way because it is due to this investigation that all the facts that have been revealed have emerged. It is as a result of the work undertaken by this independent firm of chartered accountants that accounts were lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission. It is through those figures, of course, that questions have been raised in this House and elsewhere. I might add that when that investigation is complete I expect that arrangements will be entered into between all the shareholders of those companies. At that stage I hope to be able to make a full explanation to this House on the results of that independent inquiry. I might add that inquiry antedated any investigation by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. It was at my instigation, and it is because of that instigation, that all these matters are being examined independently, dispassionately and without the political prejudice so obviously apparent in the question of the honourable gentleman.

page 2589

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA-AUSTRALIAN BORDER

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recollect that on 2 November he and the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea initialled an agreement covering the sea bed border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Can the Minister assure the House that the Torres Strait Islanders, who are most affected by this new agreement, are fully aware of the terms of the treaty and that they fully support it? Have the terms of the agreement, initialled on 2 November, been altered substantially from those announced by the Minister to this House on 25 May this year?

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

– I can give an absolute assurance that the Torres Strait Islanders are in full support of the agreement which was initialled by Mr Ebia Olewale- now the Deputy Prime Minister but then the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and still holding that portfolio- and myself on 2 November. Together with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs and the Queensland Premier we met with all island leaders in the Torres Strait, either the chairmen of the Islands or the deputy chairmen where the chairmen were ill. All island leaders represented were taken through all elements of the treaty which were discussed in detail. They endorsed the treaty unanimously. I said last week that it is a unique treaty reconciling on a permanent and equitable basis the claims of peoples and governments.

Dr Everingham:

– You would be a good Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr PEACOCK:

-It is nice to hear from the honourable member. He has a self-proclaimed capacity to assemble facts but obviously he has no capacity to comprehend solutions. He should recognise that this is a most striking solution to a most complex, historical and geographical problem which has no precedent elsewhere. A lengthy arrangement has been reached from the Arafura Sea right through to the Coral Sea. It is obvious that there would be no precedent on that alone. But by having the agreement of all the Islanders, Papua New Guinea and ourselves that there be a protected zone which within it guarantees the sovereignty of Australian islands, that all Islanders remain Australian, that the Islands generate a territorial sea, that the customs and traditions of the peoples of the region are guaranteed and enshrined in a treaty, I can justifiably say that the settlement is unique. I genuinely believe that it would have bipartisan support just as it has- in answer to the question- the support of all concerned. Mr Olewale discussed the agreement with the inhabitants of the southern Papua coast, the area adjacent to the Torres Strait. They endorsed it. All island leaders endorsed it. The Queensland Government endorsed it. It is now a matter for signature by both governments later next month. This situation could not have been achieved, I might add, without the co-operation and assistance of the Queensland Government. I am grateful to the Queensland Premier for his ready assistance and support over the past few months on this matter. Without it the agreement would not have been achieved.

page 2589

QUESTION

CUSTOMS SEARCHES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to his answer to my question on notice No. 327 provided on 15 June 1978 in which he stated that no points of entry into Australia are understaffed in respect of customs control. In view of the evidence at the New South Wales Royal Commission into Drugs on Tuesday this week that drug couriers have cracked customs codes which determine whether baggage will be searched, I ask: Can the Minister give an assurance that on certain flights into Australia, and in particular flights which have had stops at ports known to be associated with the drug trade, all passengers and all their luggage will be searched for drugs? Can the Minister also advise the House what steps will be taken in future to prevent passengers from claiming luggage which is not their own?

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

– My attention has been drawn to the evidence referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is, the evidence given before the New South Wales Royal Commission. I do not propose to comment on the details of that evidence. It is obviously a matter for the royal commissioner to assess and to take whatever action he thinks appropriate. So far as the other parts of the honourable member’s question are concerned, I take this opportunity of reminding the House of the difficulties that are occasioned by the surveillance of passengers and passenger luggage as people arrive in Australia. Large numbers of people arrive daily from overseas ports and it is just not possible to search physically every passenger and piece of passenger luggage. Frankly, I do not think that if it were physically possible it would be acceptable.

Several safeguards are, of course, built into the system. For example, great emphasis is being placed at present on the collection of intelligence information so that wherever possible, prior warning is obtained in relation to people who are engaged, or suspected of being engaged, in drug trafficking. Random checks of both persons and luggage are made. A number of new facilities have been installed. These include the use of detector dogs. Honourable members will be aware of several cases recently in which luggage has been selected by detector dogs, drugs have been located and arrests have been made. I conclude by assuring the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and indeed all honourable members that all practical steps are being taken by the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics to reduce the drug traffic. I also take the opportunity of saying that a very high degree of co-operation exists between the agencies at the Commonwealth and State levels, including the State police.

page 2590

QUESTION

ARCHERFIELD AERODROME, BRISBANE: FIRE ENGINE

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My question which is directed to the Minister for Transport refers to Flick, the little fire engine, at Archerfield aerodrome in Brisbane, and to an article in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 24 September concerning the difficulties that the Department of Transport has had in replacing that engine. The article referred to the fact that six tenders were purchased from Britain, that they arrived at the Department of Transport offices in Melbourne, but that after six months of tinkering, they had to be returned. A further tender, which was purchased from America for $150,000 had two engines, which were replaced by one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will ask his question.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-What is the truth of these statements? Is it true that six foam tenders which were purchased could not be used because of wrong sizings?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-The story about Flick the fire engine is a pretty good beat-up story for, I take it, a Sunday paper. It is a mixture of some fact and a great deal of fiction. Quite obviously the writer has been fed, to use a country expression, a lot of bull by somebody who does not like Flick.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister need not use that term.

Mr NIXON:

- Mr Speaker, you are quite right, but I know that everybody understands it. The newspaper story does say that Flick was a converted haulage vehicle. That is not correct. In fact, the vehicle was purchased in 1968 and built on a Bedford 4x4 chassis of British military design. I understand that the vehicle is in top condition, has a very good speed and has excellent cross country performance, particularly in mud and gradient conditions. It is a fact that the vehicle is planned to be replaced under the present five-year fire service plan. The article refers to the fact that six new appliances which arrived in Melbourne from Great Britain were not satisfactory. In fact, the Department refused to accept them because they did not meet the specifications. I understand that that action was taken at no cost to the Department but at total cost to the manufacturer. The article makes a further claim that the new appliance at the Brisbane Airport, the ultra-large fire tender, will not work because it has only one engine. It claims that it was supposed to have two engines. In fact that is not correct. It was designed to have one engine. It was built according to the latest United States design and is being introduced world wide. The story went on to say that a number of these two-engine appliances went to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to select only the most prominent of the matters to which he wants to refer.

Mr NIXON:

– The two-engine appliances went to Papua New Guinea and are working very well. I point out that despite that fact they are of older design. The foam trailers that the honourable member mentioned were never intended to be towed by the fire tenders themselves. They are to be towed by other airport vehicles and are being used at most airports for the purpose of filling and emptying foam tanks. This article is the typical story of a Sunday paper which has nothing better to write.

page 2590

QUESTION

CANBERRA CITY POST OFFICE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. He would be aware that for some considerable time negotiations have been taking place and complaints have been made about the conditions under which the staff have to work and the facilities that are available at the Canberra City post office. As this situation is likely to lead to an industrial dispute over the conditions of the people who work there, will he inform the House of the developments regarding the new post office building in Canberra City?

Mr STALEY:
LP

-The Australian Postal Commission has agreed to build a new post office in Canberra City and funds will be available for that purpose. There remain only the questions of precisely how that is to be done and whether it should be a single purpose building which would house only post office facilities or whether in accordance with some local wishes there should be a multi-purpose use of the site. I understand that discussions are under way at the moment with a view to resolving those questions. Quite definitely, there will be a new post office in Canberra City.

page 2591

QUESTION

NEGOTIATION OF LOANS TO THE STATES

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the welcome proposals announced last Monday to allow the States to negotiate loans for certain capital works. I preface my question by referring to the statements of many authorities including some State Premiers that the size of the Federal deficit could be larger. I ask: To what extent will the Commonwealth assist in negotiation of overseas loans where they are required by the States and to what extent will the Commonwealth therefore help the States to obtain, to participate in and to play their part in achieving a larger total public deficit? Is compensating domestic action proposed to neutralise any such expansion in the total public deficit as distinct from the Federal deficit?

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

– The proposals involving the cost of each individual project were approved last Monday. In due course a submission will be made to the Australian Loan Council on separate financing packages so far as individual proposals are concerned. I did indicate to the Premiers at the Loan Council meeting that the Commonwealth Government would be happy to provide advice to State authorities so far as the sourcing of the loans is concerned. It is of course to be understood in respect of any loans that might be obtained overseas that any exchange risk involved should be borne by the individual authorities that might participate in those borrowings. Of course, whilst the loans to be raised do not affect the size of the Commonwealth Budget deficit, they do involve a component of the overall size of the public sector.

In assessing its attitude towards the proposals, the Commonwealth has paid regard to the overall size of the public sector, including the additions that will occur to it as a result of these borrowings over the next eight years. In determining the attitude that it took on Monday, the Commonwealth came to the conclusion that the size of the loans involved a moderate addition to the size of the public sector- a responsible addition and one that was quite consistent with the economic strategy we have been following. As the honourable member will be aware, the amount involved, even if everything gets under way according to schedule in the current financial year, will be no more than $158m. I believe that the projects should be seen essentially for what they are- infrastructure development projects that will add to the nation’s long-term assets so far as infrastructure is concerned, and projects which by and large will make a very material contribution to activity in the strengthening of the nation’s infrastructure in the years ahead.

page 2591

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the recent Budget set a target for the rate of increase in money supply for the fiscal year of about six per cent to eight per cent? Is it a fact that currently money supply is running at about 1 5 per cent annualised, according to the September quarter figures, in spite of a Government domestic borrowing program in that period? Is it a fact that the trading banks have been directed to cut new lending by more than $l,500m on an annual basis and that that will have a contractionary effect on economic activity? Is it a fact that increased government charges and personal income tax rates will reduce average income by something like $9 a week, having a marked contractionary effect on the level of demand? Are these things evidence that in order to move towards the Government’s money supply targets stipulated in the Budget the Government is moving the economy into further marked contraction which will result in unemployment rising to about 8.5 per cent of the work force, or more than 500,000, in the early new year, and remaining at higher levels throughout the year than at any time since the great Depression?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition is again engaging in his now very well known habit of creating as far as he possibly can concern and unfounded apprehension about economic developments in this country. He asked me a series of about eight questions and I will answer them as best I can in the order in which they were asked. He asked a question about development so far as our monetary targets are concerned. As the honourable gentleman well knows from experience with commentators, including himself, in relation to the development of monetary aggregates last year it is a very precarious practice to try to draw annual conclusions from the course of developments over a period of a few months. Until such time as the course of this financial year develops, I think it is quite wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that there is real evidence that the Government’s monetary targets are not going to be achieved.

The honourable gentleman well knows the basis of and the reasons for the revenue measures that were imposed in the recent Budget. Despite those revenue measures and in very large measure because of the cumulative effect of the Government’s taxation reforms, it was the view of the Government in the Budget documents that there would still be an increase in disposable incomes during the course of this financial year. So far as the question of bank lending is concerned, the Government rejects the implication in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that any requests by the Reserve Bank to the trading banks about lending limits by the trading banks will have a contractionary effect on activity. That will not be the case. The handling of liquidity throughout the course of the last financial year by the Reserve Bank created an extremely favourable situation for activity without in any way compromising the monetary targets of the Government during that financial year. I believe that the behaviour of the Reserve Bank during the course of this financial year will have the same result.

page 2592

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY FIRE BRIGADE

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-(Wentworth-Minister for the Capital Territory)- For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2592

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

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

– I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) asked me a question in this chamber. It is recorded on page 2505 of Hansard. He said:

Is a Mr Allan Walsh a shareholder and director of Allan Walsh Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd and Reliance Investments? Are they three of the companies to which he referred in his statement yesterday? Has he yet received from Mr Allan Walsh a communication which was dispatched yesterday afternoon stating that insofar as Mr

Allan Walsh is concerned the statement made by the Minister yesterday in the Parliament, to which I have just referred, is untrue and therefore, I would suggest, misleading of the Parliament?

He read into Hansard the text of a telegram that had been received by him. It is recorded on pages 2510 and 2511. It was signed ‘Walsh’. That telegram was not from Mr Allan Walsh but from Mr C. W. Walsh who in August this year was placed on probation on 10 charges of false pretences. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has deliberately, maliciously and falsely misled this House. He has lied to this House about the source of the telegram.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will withdraw that statement.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I withdraw the word ‘lied’. The honourable gentleman has deliberately, maliciously and falsely misled this House. I table a telegram received by me, being a copy of a message sent to Mr Torek from Mr Mahony, attorney, on behalf of Mr A. V. Walsh. It states:

Wish to clarify matter of legal representation for A. Walsh Investments and directors A. V. Walsh, J. Walsh and M. A. Mahony.

For investigation by Mr Finnane, above parties are represented by A. B. Torok, Solicitors, 38 Railway Ave, Burwood.

For all other matters, parties are represented by Mr O’Reilly on behalf of T. G. Marshall and Landers Pty Ltd.

Solicitors.

Mahony

Attorney for A. V. Walsh

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker -

Government members- Resign!

Mr SPEAKER:

– This matter occupies the attention of the House. It is a serious matter. I ask all honourable members to listen in silence.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is true that my office was contacted and I, among others, was contacted personally yesterday by Mr Creighton Walsh claiming to act on behalf of his father. Certain matters were related to us, some of which were raised in the Parliament yesterday. It is also true that Mr Allan Walsh contacted some people in my office this morning as well as some other sources last night and said that he had- we are in the process of getting statutory declarations on this- received a threat that if he did not keep quiet on this matter certain offences for which he had been responsible earlier in his life would be raised by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in the Parliament. I am in a position to bring people forward who have spoken to Mr Walsh who, this morning, is in a rather distraught state because of the threat which has been relayed to him. All I can say is that he has advised us of this. The matter was first raised last night. He said that he received the threat from another person claiming to act on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry. It is significant that the Minister for Primary Industry has raised this matter today in a way designed to intimidate Mr Allan Walsh.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is proceeding beyond a personal explanation.

Mr SINCLAIR (New England-Minister for Primary Industry)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) accused me of in some way being responsible for the intimidation of Mr Allan Walsh. I resent that remark and ask for its withdrawal. I will then seek to make a personal explanation on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the unparliamentary remark that the Leader of the House brought pressure to bear on some person.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, what I said to you and I restate it -

Government members- Withdraw it.

Mr Hayden:

– I think it is better to leave the Speaker to administer affairs at this stage because the matter is rather serious.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I ask honourable members on my right to remain silent. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement. I will give him an opportunity to speak with my indulgence, but I must ask for the withdrawal of unparliamentary comments. The Leader of the House has found the comments offensive. The expression was unparliamentary and I ask forks withdrawal.

Mr Hayden:

– Certainly I withdraw it, if that is required to keep the forms of the House. Mr Speaker, may I make a comment with your indulgence so that I can be clear on what is exactly the situation?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to do that in a moment. I call the Leader of the House, who claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Leader of the Opposition has alleged that in some way I have been responsible for an intimidation of Mr Allan Walsh. Indeed, completely the reverse is true. From the very beginning of this affair, although 1 have had reasons to suspect that the intervention of Mr Creighton Walsh has been one of the reasons for the matter blowing up as it has and for a good deal of the information that lies before the Leader of the Opposition having come to his attention, I have made no public comment whatsoever until now about the record of Mr Creighton Walsh. Indeed, at the moment Mr Allan Walsh is tragically stricken by a stroke and I have endeavoured to the utmost to protect him and the interests of his family.

However, yesterday afternoon I did contact the attorney for Mr Allan Walsh, a Mr Brian Mahony, who was present together with Mrs Jessie Walsh at the last meeting of the directors of these companies. Mr Brian Mahony alone was present at the preceding meeting of the directors of these companies. At each of those meetings a resolution was passed, with the complete support of the representatives of the Walsh family group, appointing Mr Torok as representative in all matters pertaining to the inquiry before Mr Finnane, that is the Corporate Affairs Commission inquiry instigated by the New South Wales Attorney-General.

It was because Mr Mahony was the attorney for Mr Allan Walsh and because the advice that the Leader of the Opposition presented in this Parliament yesterday was in complete conflict with that advice, that I contacted Mr Mahony. I have not contacted Mr Creighton Walsh at any time. I have spoken to Mr Mahony alone. I spoke to him I think twice but perhaps three times yesterday. When I spoke to him he said that the telegram did not come from him, that the telegram did not represent the views of Mr Allan Walsh, and that he felt it necessary that the claim should be corrected so that this House would not be deliberately misled in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has sought so to do.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, as it is a morning of sensitivity, I ask -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Hayden:

– As a point of order, I ask that the Minister for Primary Industry be requested to withdraw the offensive remark that I deliberately misled the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I withdraw the remark that the honourable gentleman lied. I cannot withdraw the remark that he deliberately misled this House. He deliberately quoted from a telegram signed ‘Walsh’ and then alleged that the name Allan Walsh was in some way related to it. The name Allan Walsh was not on that telegram. In the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition he asserted that it was Allan Walsh who made the charge. It was not Allan Walsh. The telegram was signed ‘Walsh’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I asked the right honourable gentleman to withdraw the unparliamentary expression. He knows that an accusation of that kind can be made on a formal motion but that otherwise it is unparliamentary. I ask the right honourable gentleman to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I withdraw the unparliamentary remark, as the facts stand on themselves.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I thought I made it abundantly clear, but I shall restate it quickly, that Mr Allan Walsh made communication within this House, in my office, indicating that a threat -

Mr Sinclair:

– He can’t talk on a telephone.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I have something else to say in a second. I suggest that the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) should restrain himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will proceed with his personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Allan Walsh indicated that a threat had been levelled against him. We are in the process of getting a statutory declaration from him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not permitted to argue the matter.

Mr HAYDEN:

-No, Mr Speaker, but may I make the point that I indicated that Mr Allan Walsh said that the threat came to him from a person claiming to act on behalf of the Minister. I fairly acknowledge that. In view of what the Minister has asserted, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the following document supplied by Mr Allan Walsh. It is entitled- I am sorry, it was not supplied by Mr Allan Walsh, it was supplied by Mr Creighton Walsh.

Mr Katter:

– There is a difference.

Mr HAYDEN:

– If honourable members opposite treat this so lightly they will have no qualms about having it incorporated.

Government members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I ask honourable members on my right to cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which he is about to describe. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to describe the document.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I think I said ‘Allan Walsh’; it was Creighton Walsh. I am sorry. The document which I seek to have incorporated in Hansard is entitled ‘An Examination of Mr Creighton William Walsh held at Sydney. Special Investigation into the Affairs of the Walsh Group of Companies. There are 19 pages in the document. It has been supplied by Mr Creighton Walsh, not Mr Allan Walsh. It puts a completely different complexion on the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not argue the matter. Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– I have not seen the document. I believe that there is an advantage in our looking at the fact that this matter is sub judice. It is with some considerable reluctance- let me argue the point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman raise the question of sub judice?

Mr Sinclair:

– I believe that it is a matter of sub judice. It is a matter before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I do not believe in view of that fact that I or this chamber can canvass evidence which, I understand, has been tendered in that inquiry. Obviously I would like to have the matters exposed but because they are before the special investigator appointed by the AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales before I determine whether the document can be tabled in this House I ask your ruling whether they are sub judice. If I could explain, the Attorney-General of New South Wales has appointed a special investigator into the affairs of a number of companies, the names of which have been mentioned in this chamber. That special investigation follows an inquiry that I instigated through the firm of accountants mentioned earlier today. The special investigator is continuing his inquiries. Already he has interviewed a number of people. As I understand it, the evidence of all those people is still before him. I have not sighted the most recent evidence nor have I verified it, but as the matter is necessarily one for conclusion by him I believe that it should not be a matter of public inquiry in this chamber. I therefore ask for your ruling on the sub judice question before I say whether or not the document can be tabled.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I think we ought to make it clear that there is no sub judice question involved in this matter. All that Mr Creighton Walsh is endeavouring to do is to give again to this House a statement of fact that is public knowledge, the same as the Minister for Primary Industry has done every time he has been asked a question. He has clearly indicated his position in respect of these matters. There is no court hearing. It is a question of what are the facts. The fact in this case is that this is Mr Creighton Walsh’s own statement which is entitled to be incorporated in Hansard. It in no way prejudices any other matter. I make the point that the Minister for Primary Industry has been giving his side of the case for some time and all that -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not wish to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on that matter. I am prepared to hear him only on the question whether any discussion should proceed in this House on the basis that if it does it may or may not breach the sub judice rule. He may speak to that matter only.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The type of discussion would come within your jurisdiction. What the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to tender is a matter of fact, a matter of record, which in no way is the subject of discussion. It is purely a matter of record that ought to be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will not hear the honourable gentleman on what the document is. That is purely a matter associated with the granting of leave. There is an issue before the chamber whether leave will be granted to incorporate the document in Hansard. The Leader of the House has raised the sub judice issue. On that issue I have to rule before I proceed with the matter whether leave will be given to incorporate the document in Hansard. I will hear the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition only on the question whether the sub judice rule would be breached if the matter proceeded.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Speaker, you would know that it is very important in the interests of democracy that the Parliament be not inhibited by any strict interpretation of that rule. The fact is that there has to be some judicial proceeding for the rule to apply and the issue is that there should not be any discussion which would in any way influence the merits of justice or, in other words, the interpretation or analysis of the evidence by some other person, such as a judge, who is entitled to make that analysis. In this case it is purely an investigatory procedure which does not come under the particular protection given if it were a court procedure. All that the Parliament has been asked to admit into the Hansard record is a statement that already has been made and is within the knowledge of the person who is entitled to protection in respect of it, namely, Mr Creighton Walsh. Mr Creighton Walsh has made a statement. He has made it in a position -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I point out to the honourable gentleman that if the sub judice rule were applied it would apply not only to the document but also to all discussion. Any discussion on the subject would be in breach of the rule.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I make the point that the sub judice rule is not breached in these terms.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think I have taken the point that the honourable gentleman is making.

Mr Sinclair:

– Further on the matter, I seek to point out only that the document which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to have incorporated is a document which, I understand, represents evidence tendered before the special investigator and, therefore, evidence which is narrowly applicable to the matters that are being heard by him. If it is to be incorporated, obviously it will prejudice the extent to which that special investigator is able to judge the relevance, accuracy and content of that evidence against any other evidence that might be tendered to him.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Why?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask honourable gentlemen on my left to remain silent.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– In answer to what has just been said, I make the point that the investigation is not a judicial inquiry.

Mr Hayden:

– Following that point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Leader of the Opposition raising a point of order on the sub judice question?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes. Mr Speaker, I refer you to the publication entitled ‘Short Description of Business and Procedures’ and to pages 48 and 49 of that publication. Page 49 lists the matters, nominated ‘(a)’ to ‘(e)’ inclusive, which would be regarded as sub judice. Application of the sub judice rule is subject always to the discretion of the Chair, of course, and is applicable to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising criminal jurisdiction which is not the case here, to matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court which also is not the case here as I understand the standing of the inquiry, to current matters before a royal commission which again is not the case here, and to issues of national importance such as a public order before, for example, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which I do not believe to be the case here. In those circumstances I put it to you that this inquiry does not have the standing of a normal court hearing and, accordingly, the matter is not sub judice. Furthermore, I would expect that the testimony being available to Mr Walsh clearly would have become a matter of least somewhat of public record.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not permit the honourable gentleman to argue about what the document is. I am prepared to rule on the sub judice issue.

Mr Nixon:

– Speaking to the sub judice question, surely as a matter of common justice, when the Opposition attempts to present part of the evidence that has been given to an inquiry into the affairs of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, that part of the evidence should not be presented in a place that confers on it a privilege for it to be used in isolation. I submit that this is a very unfair tactic and goes well beyond the bounds of ordinary common justice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will rule on the sub judice matter. The practice of Parliaments is to have as wide a debate on issues as is possible. But a Parliament restrains itself from debating matters when some person can be prejudiced by that debate. Accordingly, the practice I have adopted is to refuse to permit any discussion of a matter as soon as any criminal charge arises. In the case of a civil action, I would not regard a matter as being sub judice merely because of the issue of a writ. It would become sub judice only when the matter was set down for trial. However, the subjudice rule does depend upon the Parliament not debating anything which may prejudice a decision in a judicial arena. The fact is that the sub judice rule cannot apply to proceedings of an administrative character. As I understand it, the inquiry is being conducted by a barrister of the New South Wales Supreme Court who has been appointed an inspector under an administrative authority. He will not determine finally the rights or obligations of any person. Consequently, the sub judice rule does not apply. I have so ruled.

I have before me an application for leave to incorporate in Hansard a document described by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I ask the Minister at the table whether leave is granted.

Government members- No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that he believes that he used a name on an occasion when he should have used a different name. I will give him permission to correct that.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- So that there will be absolutely no doubt, let me say this: I believe that I again said Allan Walsh’. In fact, the person to whom I have spoken on several occasions is Creighton Walsh. I have never spoken to Mr Allan Walsh. I make that clear for the purposes of the record.

page 2596

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Australian Commando Raids in World War II- National Family Policy- Crisis Accommodation in Brisbane- Australian Airline Services- Television Services in Remote Areas- Interest Rates- Small Businesses- Trade Relations with Asian Countries- World Peace Council- Major Political Parties: Foreign Policies

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the House recently there has been a spate of petitions concerning the exploits of some Australian commandos in two operations known as Jaywick and Rimau. My grievance concerns the failure of the nation to recognise in a proper and lasting way the heroic exploits of this group of Australian war heroes. Specifically I refer to a small group of commandos who staged two raids on enemy shipping in the Singapore area. Briefly the story is that in September 1943 an operation called Jaywick, using an old coastal steamer called Krait, raided Singapore, sank seven ships- a total of 39,000 tons- and returned to Australia. This is the longest successful smallscale raid in the history of war.

Thirteen men sailed thousands of kilometres in this old and small ship through enemyinfested waters to the islands near the Singapore Roads. Choosing a dark night, the commandos crept up to the Japanese ships in canoes and attached limpet mines to the sides of their main holds. It was a desperate enterprise. The attack was a brilliant success. Seven ships were sunk. The commandos escaped undetected and later were picked up by the Krait at the appointed rendezvous. Then, dodging the searching Japanese ships and aircraft, the Krait slipped away through the Java Sea into the Indian Ocean and back to Australia. Operation Jaywick was a triumph beyond anyone’s expectations. But it had to be kept secret. The Japanese remained baffled by the whole affair.

In September 1944, just a year later an attempt was made to repeat this raid in an operation called Rimau which unfortunately resulted in the death of 23 British and Australian commandos. The story of the second operation is that the raiding party was detected in the entrance to Singapore Harbour. Its junk, the Mustika, was about to enter the Singapore Straits when it was spotted by a Japanese control police observation post and challenged. A Japanese boat was sent to investigate. The commandos scuttled the junk and set out in their canoes for their rendezvous at Merapas Island with their rescue submarine, the Porpoise. For reasons yet unknown, the submarine failed to keep the rendezvous and the members of the raiding party set out for Australia in their flimsy canoes.

Their story is one of unbelievable heroism which has never yet been officially recognised or suitably honoured. Many were killed by the Japanese search parties near the Indonesian islands. Lieutenant ‘Blondie’ Sargent, with two others as yet unknown, in an incredible feat of endurance and heroism paddled 4,000 kilometres from Singapore to Romang Islandtravelling from dusk to dawn for some two months. Lieutenant Sargent and 10 others finally were captured, court-martialled and ceremoniously executed by Samarui sword only 39 days before the Japanese surrendered. Ronald McKie, in his book The Heroes, reports the incident in this way:

The survivors were put on trial at Raffles College on charges of ‘perfidy and espionage’. It was a strange hearing, for both the defence and prosecution spent a great deal of their time praising ‘these heroes’ who had ‘sublime patriotism flaming in their breasts’. The prosecutor ended by declaring ‘The last moment of a hero must be historic and it must be dramatic. Heroes have more regard for their reputation than for anything else. As we respect them, so we feel our duty of glorifying their last moments as they deserve; and by our doing so the names of these heroes will remain in the hearts of the British and Australian people for evermore. In the circumstances I consider that a death sentence should be given to each of the accused.’ It was. The commandos were executed on July 7, 1945, on a lonely stretch of ground near Reformatory Road. Major-General Ohtsuka reported that all Japanese soldiers should be inspired by the example of the men ‘if they hoped to win the war’.

Is it not strange that the captors and executioners of these men recognised the valour of their exploits, while we have not done so? Execution by the ceremonial Samurai sword was the Japanese way of honouring their courage. I quote a passage from the book Australia in Nine Wars by Peter Firkins:

The extreme parsimony with which awards for bravery were made when Australian forces were not under British command has frequently been commented upon. The magnificent success of operation Jaywick under the conditions described is a classic example of this situation. Many Victoria Crosses have been awarded for less hazardous enterprises. But a mention in dispatches for the Captain of the Krait, Lieutenant Carse, must surely rank as one of the meanest examples of recognition ever made.

The commandos of operation Rimau were completely ignored and received no recognition at all for their supreme sacrifice. No attempt was made by the authorities to inform the relatives, other than the official notification of their being killed in action in 1945. 1, like the young soldiers of the present 1 Commando Association, am extremely disappointed that heroism such as I have described should be ignored at an official level by my fellow Australians.

I seek the support of the House in attaining proper recognition of these unsung heroes of 33 years ago. I suggest with respect, the award of the Cross of Valour to each of the officers and men of Jaywick and Rimau. I believe that this is the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann). This medal- an Australian decoration corresponding to the Victoria Cross- has never yet been awarded. No one has yet seen fit to award it. The regulations are the same as those for the Victoria Cross. These rules must be changed to enable the Australian Government to grant this award to these heroes of a recent yesteryear. I seek the support of all my fellow members in petitioning and lobbying the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see that these men who did so much to conquer the Japanese in the Singapore area are suitably decorated for their extreme courage and heroism.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-My grievance today is related to a question of fundamental importance to the future of a healthy and stable social system in this country. It is a question which is seldom debated in this Parliament, although I must say that the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has expressed in the past his concern in this area. I refer to the. possibility of a family policy being introduced in Australia. In my opinion, any government which ignored its responsibility regarding the preservation of the family unit as being the basis of a healthy society would be doing this country a great disservice. Such a policy does not as yet exist. If families happen to be better off at the moment as a result of the amalgam of policies put forward from time to time from the variety of portfolios which affect family circumstances, I say that it is due more to good luck than to good management.

At present there is an ad hoc approach to this question. Certainly, individual Ministers could argue that within their particular areas of responsibility, when initiating new measures, they take account of their effect on individuals and families. That may well be the case. But I suggest that at present there is no co-ordinated approach to the problem of how our families fare as a result of any package of policies- whether they occur through time or at a particular time, such as Budget time. Many portfolios have an indirect effect on family circumstances. But even if we confine ourselves to those departments which have a direct effect on family circumstances, both financially and legally, one can see that there are several departments which should share a coordinated approach to family preservation policies. I refer to the Treasury, through its taxation system; the Department of Social Security, through its income support system; the Department of Education, through its responsibility to maintain freedom of choice in education; the Department of Health; the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; the Attorney-General’s Department; the Department of Veteran’s Affairs; and the department responsible for housing. These are just eight departments which, through Government policies, have a direct effect on family circumstances. One can ask: Do they act in a coordinated way with respect to support for the preservation of the family unit?

Mr Martyr:

– No.

Mr McLEAN:

-I do not think they do and the honourable member for Swan agrees with me. As I suggested earlier, if changes to direct taxation levels, changes to the health insurance scheme, changes in pensions or family allowances, changes in education funding and other measures all combine either to improve or disadvantage the circumstances of individual families, it is more a coincidence than reasoned social policy.

Quite clearly, therefore, as part of a national family policy, it is necessary for government policies which directly affect the family unit to be subjected to a family impact statement. That was recommended by the Royal Commission on Human Relationships. It has been publicly supported in this place by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I am sure that this Government would be sympathetic to any suggestion aimed at preserving the family unit. Governments are very long on rhetoric in this regard and many leaders speak very emotionally about the declining state of the family in a trendy and permissive world but nothing ever seems to be done about it. My concern in this matter is based more on moral and social grounds than on other considerations. Certainly, it could be argued as part of a population policy for Australia but primarily I would support such policies simply because of my belief in the concept of the family unit. Government policies should be tailored to meet the dictates of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with respect to families. That, in part, states: . . to protect the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

That is the basis of my contention that Australia should have a national family policy. Apart from the introduction of family impact statements, more positive steps could be taken through the income support system or the taxation system. Nowhere is the neglect of the family unit better seen than in the area of tax policy. Governments emphasise the needs of individuals in both the taxation and the income support areas. They budget according to the needs of the State. But the needs of the State and the needs of the family are not incompatible and both can be reasonably catered for, even in times of economic restraint. In the area of income support, selectivity in transfer payments can be applied or, through the taxation system, the family could receive some recognition rather than just individuals, without prejudicing fiscal policy. But at the moment, there is no question as to where the family unit stands.

If one compares the various income alternatives of a man working on average award rates, a woman working on average award rates, and a couple with one income and the benefits of rebates accruing to their family of say, two, three or four children, there is no doubt that the family group is disadvantaged in relation to others. Governments can ensure that whilst women who want to work can work an economic and social framework can be established whereby those mothers who do not want to work should not be forced to do so. But more than this, governments should be able to ensure that the position of the single-income family should not progressively deteriorate and should not be discriminated against by default, by lack of government concern, or by lack of compensating fiscal action compared to the two-income family. In this context, I think we should recall that the Henderson inquiry identified the large, single-income family as a major poverty group in society. Of course, the two-income family will always be better off. I do not quarrel with that. I am concerned that governments could, almost by accident and in the absence of family policy, create a positive disincentive for those young families at the margin, where a choice can be made, who wish to opt for the one-income situation.

Because the personal tax system is based on the individual rather than the family as a tax unit, the position of the single-income family becomes very dependent on rebate systems which historically do not cater adequately for rising costs of dependency or for the declining value of money. There are many ways of correcting the relative disadvantage of single-income families. Governments should ensure that for families at the margin where there are dependent children, a genuine choice ought to be available as to whether one or both parents work. At present, I fear that that choice is not being given and this constitutes a continuing and growing threat to the family unit. In the field of taxation, I would recommend that the Government investigate the possibility of allowing single-income families, if they wish, to split that single income between husband and wife for taxation purposes. This is better than a system of increasing the spouse rebate for those who have the care of children because it creates an element of horizontal equity which does not exist under the present system where some income earners are able to split their incomes and others, with similar family responsibilities, cannot split their incomes. This system would have the effect of not acting as a disincentive for those married women with children who choose to enter the work force. But it does recognise the role of the mother who stays at home to care for children. It recognises that the raising of children is work of great social and national significance. It is a more important job than most of us have in the official work force. I would submit that mothers are probably the hardest worked and most under-recognised group in society.

I am not saying that this income splitting for taxation purposes should be done simply to- provide a wage or a return for a mother. It is not that kind of job. What I am saying is that singleincome families, if they wish, should be allowed to treat their income in a way which will ensure that those mothers who wish to stay at home and raise their families should not be prevented by financial circumstances from doing so. If this was introduced, together with compensating fiscal action with regard to the spouse rebate, I think the constraints placed on the Federal Budget would be minimal. Of course, I am not suggesting that governments can legislate for happiness or for happy marriages. That is quite impossible. That depends on many other factors outside any kind of official control. But governments can and should do all in their power to overcome those financial circumstances which might cause undue stress to be placed on families and which prevent mothers having a free choice as to whether or not they can stay at home and care for their children.

I strongly recommend in the context of these remarks that the Government consider the introduction of a national family policy as soon as possible. I probably will be branded as being out-of-date, old-fashioned, not trendy enough or permissive enough, but I submit very strongly that it is absolutely critical for the future stability and health of Australian society that governments as last begin to recognise the role of the family unit in Australian society. If they do that and act accordingly throughout the’ course of their legislative programs, I think this country will be much better off.

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Grievances are being debated and addressed to the Government. There is no Minister in the House and there has not been for the whole of this debate. Surely if grievances are to be noted they ought to be noted by some Minister representing the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-There is an alternative avenue for conveying information to Ministers. The point raised by the honourable member for Prospect is taken. I have no doubt that the matter will be attended to very shortly.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-My grievance today concerns the homeless persons of Brisbane. I wish to appeal to the Government for greater consideration of the homeless in Brisbane, particularly Brisbane’s homeless youth. I am aware of the good work done against insuperable circumstances by both the Kalina and Primmer Lodges and St Vincent de Paul. I would add that the establishment of the Society of the Helping Hand has further assisted the struggle to provide shelter and crisis accommodation for our displaced youths. In this respect I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the minute paper of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development on youth crisis accommodation in Brisbane. This paper sets out the facts about accommodation in that city.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Brisbane 26 June 1978

Minute Paper

Re: Youth Crisis Accommodation- Brisbane

Iam attaching hereto a report submitted by ARO Mr John Elliott on Youth Crisis Accommodation in Brisbane.

(J. HAMILTON)

State Director.

YOUTH CRISIS ACCOMMODATION IN BRISBANE-JUNE 1978

Introduction

Refuges-

Kalinga Lodge.

Society of the Helping Hand.

Primmer Lodge.

Referring agencies-

. Brisbane Youth Service.

Department of Children’s Services.

St Vincent de Paul/Salvation Army.

Women ‘s Community Aid.

Issues-

REPORT-BRISBANE: YOUTH CRISIS ACCOMMODATION

There is no establishment in Brisbane providing specifically and solely for crisis accommodation (i.e. for a week or less) of young people. Such services are always provided in conjunction with either-

longer-term, supportive accommodation in a supervised community. Groups providing such services in Brisbane are-

Kalinga Lodge

Society of the Helping Hand various voluntary (usually church ) groups; or

‘doss-house’ services (providing meals and bed), the major one being the St Vincent de Paul city centre. This centre caters mainly for older homeless men, and young men (about 6-8 per week are referred elsewhere). Primmer Lodge, a self-supporting longerterm care community for children aged 14-17, has recently received State Government funding to operate 6 short-term crisis accommodation beds. These should become available some time in 1978.

Following are descriptions of Kalinga Lodge, Society of the Helping Hand, and Primmer Lodge.

. Kalinga Lodge. (See Appendix 1 (i) Newspaper cutting).

Background /Staff- The lodge was unofficially opened to children in 1 973, by two Catholic priests living in the building. A ‘staff change occurred in 1977 when a number of mature income-earning residents left the lodge, leaving it largely without income. It now exists on the salaries of two of the staff (a Catholic priest and a working man) who are assisted by a nun (unsalaried). Up to 10 voluntary workers come to contribute their time and energy in the evenings.

The Refuge. The 20 bedroom stone building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Church, and is located about15 minutes drive from the city on Brisbane’s northside.

Clientele. The inmates (8 at present) are aged 1 5-20 years, both male and female, and are either ex-institutional kids, have no parents, or a history of family conflict and breakdown. Cutoff of unemployment benefits is a common motivator for seeking refuge at the lodge, while alcohol, drug and ‘growing-up’ problems are also associated.

Services/Aims. Kalinga Lodge aims to provide both short and longer-term accommodation in a therapeutic, supportive community atmosphere. Where feasible, it attempts to relocate kids with their families, find jobs or secure unemployment benefits. It has a good relationship with the local CES, and all kids attend one of two CYSS centres daily. Formal Christian content in the daily program is minimal and not compulsory, and staff and inmates meet to discuss various issues nightly.

Referrals. The lodge receives referrals (requests for accommodation) from the following:

Department of Social Security (via its social workers)

Department of Children’s Services (State)

Police (Juvenile Aid Bureau)

St Vincent de Paul City Centre

Brisbane Youth Service

Legion of Mary (Catholic)

CYSS’s

Inmates

Sundry others in community.

In May 1976, it received 18 referrals 14 of which it refused. Alternative accommodation for these 14 was found with families and other voluntary groups on an ad hoc basis.

Funding/Costs. The lodge receives no external funding, (i.e. only the salaries of the two staff keep it going). Major costs are food ($4,200 pa.), telephone ($1,000 p.a.), electricity ($450 p.a.), gas, council rates and general maintenance.

Records. The lodge has kept detailed records of numbers of inmates, referrals, refusals and meals served since January 1978, with the intention of securing funding under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act.

Society of the Helping Hand-

Much of the aim and function of the Society of the Helping Hand is explained in Appendix 2. Additional points of relevance are:

The Society does not receive (and has never received) direct government assistance in any form. The cost of running the house at Kangaroo Point is about $220 per week ($100 rent, $120 food and sundries) of which $ 1 10 comes from income- earning inmates, and the remainder from the Director’s pocket (he works as a radio commentator). There is hope that the registration of the Society as a charity will bring additional future income. The Director wishes to employ a tertiary qualified youth worker at the centre, but does not have the funds at present.

Staff. The house is at present staffed by- (i) the Director (when not working professionally) who has had some social work training, and has been active in

Brisbane “self-help” centres for some years. He is assisted by an unsalaried, live-in welfare worker, and a youth being paid under the NEAT scheme.

The Refuge. The building itself is an old, somewhat dilapidated weatherboard house, for which the weekly rent of $100 seems excessive. The city is easily accessible by foot, ferry or car. The refuge has changed locations twice since January 1977. Its history, in brief is-

Hind Street, Bowen Hills (9 months)

Woolloongabba (5-6 months)

Kangaroo Point (5 months)

Referrals. Referrals are received from-

The Salvation Army

State Department of Children ‘s Services

Brisbane Youth Service

CYSS Centre (Stones Corner)

Police

Probation Office

Life-line

Referrals from residents

Miscellaneous others.

The Helping Hand refuge has received over 500 referrals since the beginning of 1978, and over 900 including 1977.

The refuge does maintain records of numbers.

Clientele. The centre caters only for young males, as females ‘create too much conflict in the house’. Average stay for a ‘long-term’ resident is 1-2 months, although there are many ‘overnighters’. There are 17 residents at present, though the numbers always swell on weekends. Many are dole cutoffs’ (often due to the lack of a permanent address), and the refuge is active in re-instating benefits and motivating residents towards employment.

Other residents are country kids, transients (and travellers) and victims of home and family breakdowns.

General. Discipline is not strict in the refuge. There are no curfews and little ‘administrative pressure’. Inmate participation and peer pressure are more important forces in maintaining order. The Director does not want subsidy from the State government. He believes there are ‘too many binds and hassles with having to accept kids from Children ‘s Services ‘.

He is more in favour of the type of funding provided under the HPA Act, (i.e. on a meal and bed basis alone) but has not applied for such. Also mentioned were plans to establish similar refuges in Townsville and Cairns.

Primmer Lodge-

Appendix 3 summarises the main features of Primmer Lodge. It has not yet started operating its 6 crisis accommodation beds, and at present has 1 1 ‘longer-term’ (i.e. several months at least) resident children. Primmer Lodge is remarkable in that it has a good working relationship with Children’s Services. Not only are those residents (the majority) referred by Children’s Services receiving regular payments (‘MLI payments’) under the existing subsidy scheme, but the Lodge received a $4,000 grant in advance for operating the 6 crisis beds. Such organisation shows the potential for funding once a centre is approved (for crisis accommodation) by the State government. (Primmer Lodge is the only such approved centre in Queensland at present, though many others receive regular payments for ‘longer-term’ accommodation). The Lodge aims to provide sensitive, caring accommodation for its ‘crisis’ residents, but under no conditions will they stay for more than four working days. It is thought that this would have a bad effect on the therapeutic, family atmosphere maintained for the the

Of the 1 1 longer-term residents, 3 are unemployed, but fully occupied in a program of various manual skills-teaching and maintenance activities of the Lodge. (The management have applied for an educational subsidy for these activities). 6 are at school. and 2 are working.

The Lodge pays $250 per week rent to the Uniting Church, which is its biggest expense.

In addition to MLI payments, expenses are met by a number of on-site support programs including raising nursery plants and birds for sale, running fowls and growing vegetables. Some of the staff also get salaries, but I didn’t get the details. The nine live-in voluntary workers also work during the day, and make donations to the central fund.

Overall, Primmer Lodge appeared to be a well-organised, well-run establishment. Impressions of its operation once the crisis beds are operating will be most useful.

Referring Agencies

Referrals come from a vast number of sources, including general purpose voluntary welfare bodies, churches, government bodies and youth oriented programs such as CYSS centres and the Brisbane Youth Service. They all have one thing in common: the opinion that the Brisbane youth crisis accommodation situation is far from satisfactory. Actual opinion ranged from ‘ unco-ordinated ‘ through ‘bad’ to desperate’.

The usual procedure followed by referring bodies looking for crisis accommodation is rather ad hoc, and involves one of the following alternatives:

contacting other referring agencies to see if they know of a place’

using personal contacts with families, hostels, boarding houses, churches et cetera- experience counts here

referring the person to one of the recognised refuges such as Kalinga Lodge or the Society of the Helping Hand.

All referring and receiving bodies would benefit from having available a summary of the Brisbane situation and a list of relevant contacts (could the Office of Youth Affairs help here?).

Following are summaries (including figures where available) of the major Brisbane referring bodies I have contacted.

The Brisbane Youth Service, (sec Appendix 1 (ii))

Apart from being the major receiving point for referrals from elsewhere, the BYS seeks out ‘houseless’ youth with nightly forays into the inner city parks, streets and youth gathering points.

The numbers of youth looking for a bed contacted by BYS each week exceeds 30. Major referring bodies (to BYS) are the Juvenile Aid Bureau (associated with Queensland Police Department), social workers of the Department of Social Security, and Children’s Services. The BYS is centrally located in Brisbane, and it’s two street workers haveearnt a reputation for good service with the city’s youth. ‘Wordofmouth’ referrals from other city kids arc common.

BYS has built up a list of families, boarding houses, church groups and other informal contacts (it also works through radio stations) who can sometimes put up homeless kids, but the process of placement is very ad-hoc and very time-consuming. However, they do nearly always place their referrals.

BYS gets a grant of $6,000 per annum from Department of Children’s Services, plus a lesser amount from 5 inner-city churches. This is inadequate, as it must pay two salaries, food and accommodation vouchers that can amount to $125 per week, and sundry expenses such as phone bills.

BYS Clientele 10-25 yrs: mainly 14-18 yrs, Male and Female.

Children’s Services-

The State Department of Children ‘s Services (DCS) operates a number of children’s ‘residential care facilities’ in Brisbane (long term) and corrective institutions, and administers MLI payments to other institutions accommodating state wards.

In the area of crisis accommodation, its advance payments to Primmer Lodge are a new initiative. The Department is aware of the need for crisis accommodation, as it is the first point of contact for homeless children picked up by police (often in city parks). These children then come under the care and protection’ of the state. In a recent study of 62 such children, 24 were placed in crisis accommodation of some description, 18 were placed in hostels (eg. Taringa Lodge, David Henry Lodge, ‘The Ark’ at Windsor- usually operated by voluntary bodies) from which 8 absconded soon after placement, and 20 were referred elsewhere as the hostels were full.

A Department spokesman said that at any one time there were about 40 kids (DCS handles children to 16 years) needing immediate accommodation. Hence the large number of DCS referrals to other bodies. Problems are often encountered with long-term placements to flats, boarding houses and citizen’s homes, with either the child or the ‘host’ finding the arrangement unsatisfactory. DCS also has to do a lot of shopping around’ to place a child in crisis accommodation. It should also be remembered that many homeless youth will go out of their way to avoid contact with a government institution. DCS demand is probably only half the picture.

St Vincent de Paul/Salvation Army-

As mentioned earlier, St Vincent de Paul city refuge gives a bed and meal to about 6-8 youth (male) per week. The Salvation Army Valley office (which has no accommodation facilities) also refers about 12 per week, mostly to its old men’s hostel in South Brisbane. Neither group is satisfied with a system where young men are thrown in with the old professionals’.

The Salvation Army is hoping to establish a centre (possibly with 20 beds) to accommodate homeless youth in Clayfield (north Brisbane), and also has plans for a six-bed girls refuge. It should be mentioned that in my talks with youth workers in Brisbane, some criticism was levelled at the high level of discipline maintained in other Salvation Army establishments. In turn, the Salvation Army spokesman disagreed with the Helping Hand policy of a ‘noncompulsory ‘ charge for accommodation. He felt that this was bad training for youth. This sort of conflict is worth noting, as religiously based organisations are by far the bestestablished in the welfare area. They have vast resources to draw on. but may need sound advice (OYA?) in the youth accommodation issue.

Women’s Community Aid-

WCA operate a 6 room family house for threatened, battered and raped women with children in Brisbane (SHELTA). They also contact 1 or 2 teenage girls per week, plus a similar number of young girls (with a baby) in need of accommodation. They commented that rape was a major problem for homeless girls in Brisbane.

General

The figures quoted above should be used with caution. Crisis accommodation (for 2-7 days, say) would only fill part of the need. The director of the Society of the Helping Hand was of the opinion that 6 centres (4 male, 2 female) similar to his at Kangaroo Point, would remove the urgency from Brisbane ‘s youth accommodation needs.

Issues

There is a tremendous demand in Brisbane for youth accommodation (both crisis and long-term supportive). All concerned bodies commented on the difficulty of placing homeless youth, and were coping on a piecemeal, ad-hoc basis.

Relationships of concerned bodies with the State Department of Children’s Services require rationalisation in the following areas.

funding of bodies providing services at present is unsatisfactory. Some aren ‘t aware of their entitlements.

a child must be under the ‘ care and protection ‘ of the State at present before his accommodation costs will be subsidised. Those who don’t come via DCS miss out. At present there is ‘too much red tape to cut’ to set up a centre. Given that many kinds are frightened of ‘institutions’, less formal refuges appear to need more support.

There is a lot of movement in the youth accommodation scene in Brisbane: many different bodies arc planning initiatives. They need liaison co-ordination and benevolent guidance. As an example, the Brisbane Youth Service may shortly be offered the use of a 400 bed facility in Brisbane. This could be either a step forward if well planned or a disaster if not.

Whenever I mentioned ‘crisis accommodation’ and explained that it usually meant for less than a week, the typical comment was ‘What then?’. The feeling was that crisis accommodation alone won ‘t serve a worthwhile purpose. (John Elliott)

EHCD Brisbane

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I thank the House. The Society of the Helping Hand which has its headquarters at the corner of Cairns and O’Connell Streets, Kangaroo Point, has assisted well over 500 young people. Helping Hand sees society’s lost generation pass through its doors daily; the pitiful generation that this Government has thrown on the slag heap of unemployment; the generation whose future this Government mortgaged in pursuit of its ruinous nineteenth century economic policies. I am told by the Society’s director, Mr Keith Ashton, that an alarming grog cult is festering among Brisbane’s young unemployed. Once the age level of people in this group was between 50 and 60 years but today the prospective skid row alcoholic could be as young as 18 years old. Because cannabis is less available than other drugs many young people are resorting to sniffing glue or drinking heavily. They do so out of desperation or sheer boredom. I am sure that many honourable members on both sides of the House can appreciate the anguish of a young man or young woman out of school, out of a job and down in the dumps. We are fooling ourselves if we think that the condition is temporary and that the sense of rejection keenly felt by these young individuals- please let us remember that they are young individuals- will start to make them think and to ask: ‘Why have we been cast aside by this Government? Why is there no place in society for us? Why can we not play an active part in the development and future of our country?’

Look at the upshot of the alienation of youth in one of the world’s most economically secure societies, that of West Germany. Unresponsive government has caused rejection among substantial numbers of West German youth. Rejection has meant ostracism and that in turn has produced disillusionment, resentment, rebellion and revolutionaries. What starts as a minor irritation develops into an incurable cancer. If the Government insists on using our young as inflation fodder we can expect only enormous social indigestion. Recently funds have been approved by the Australian Government to the Society of the Helping Hand under provisions of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. That aid is a start to mitigation of the problem of youth shelter. However, Government assistance is 75c per person for one meal and accommodation overnight- a meagre pittance, but nevertheless a start. Normally, for an approved homeless persons centre, a subsidy is also paid for items such as a social worker’s wage, purchase of furniture and subsidy for rent. No such assistance has been extended to the Society of the Helping Hand. With the growing unemployment situation, housing for the homeless should have the highest priority. This point is well covered in the Department of Social Security survey of homeless persons assistance centres entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’ which was printed in June this year. The areas of need are clearly defined as are the methods of meeting that need. The survey’s review of the Act is frank and enlightening. I read from a passage on page 6 1 which states:

Although appropriate to some organisations, activities and client groups, present categories and levels of funding were inadequate to others. There was disappointment with the programme’s failure to encourage innovation, although there was little clarity as to what would constitute desirable innovation.

In general, the programme had achieved useful but undramatic improvement of the traditional system of service for homeless persons and even there it had suffered from a bricks-and-mortar bias. More money should go into staff salaries for example.

I think it is also useful to look at a section on page 63 of the survey which in relation to the Act states: . . would have achieved more had any economic recession and consequent reduction of Federal Government spending caused the money to be turned off, although the achievement would have been greater in quantity rather than better in quality . . .

There is evidence that, as would be expected, the economic conditions that prevented development of the programme have also increased the load on services for homeless people.

The policies of this Government in meeting the economic conditions have also increased the load on services for homeless people. At least $200,000 should be made available this year to meet the needs of community organisations engaged in this sphere of activity in Queensland. We cannot expect much in the way of contributions from the Queensland Government. After all, the majority of clientele at the hostel at Kangaroo Point are from out of the State. Given the Queensland Government’s lack of enthusiasm in providing for its own disadvantaged and underprivileged, it is perhaps expecting too much for it to treat non-Queenslanders better than its own. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) who represents the Minister for Social Security, (Senator Guilfoyle) gave notice in the second reading speech of the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill that the program which will implement the basics of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act is now sufficiently well established to warrant discussion with State governments on their views about the sharing of responsibilities in this area.

I hope the Minister is prepared for frustration and filibustering because that is the stock in trade of the Queensland Premier and experience teaches that to expect anything more of him or of his Government is to practice artless selfdelusion. It is up to the Australian Government to grasp the nettle, to rethink its economic programs and to give all young Australians a meaningful purpose in life so that they too will feel wanted and be able to take an active role in developing our country into one of the great nations of the world. For the sake of democracy the Government must start to look at the serious problems with which Australian youth is confronted day by day and take immediate steps to alleviate their problems.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I do not suppose that I have ever contributed to a grievance debate in a more determined manner than I am about to do today. If ever there were a grievance to be submitted on behalf of many thousands of people who are responsible for at least some billions of dollars of the income of this nation, it is certainly the two subject matters I am about to discuss. The first grievance involves our airline services. I think it is a great shame that the two major airlines, together with the Department of Civil Aviation- now the Department of Transport- which have contributed to an international reputation for safety and which have superb performance second to none, should begin to forget their major responsibilities, that is, to supply developmental air services to the less privileged areas of Queensland. When I say the less privileged areas of Queensland I make it perfectly clear that each and every area involved is contributing to a billion dollar industry.

To be more specific, I point out first and foremost that we have never had the advantage of economy class fares, except to the city of Mount Isa. None of the other centres involved have ever had that advantage. We accepted that, not willingly, but we were obliged to accept it. Then the various airlines let their services deteriorate. Although I use Queenland as an example I am not being parochial because any argument I put forward can apply to most other similarly situated parts of this continent. But I must specifically refer to the areas I represent. We have the Gulf service and the Channel service. These routes have both been reduced to almost a non-existent service. They are purely a gesture of service. We also saw the various other services in Queensland deteriorate. The service from Rockhampton to Emerald and on to Barcaldine and Longreach was cut down and it eventually disappeared altogether. It has come back, and has done so with a very efficient service. I must pay tribute to Bush Pilots Airways Ltd, which has taken over the conduct of that service and is making a very valuable contribution to it.

We then saw the service from Brisbane to Longreach, on to Winton and down to Aramac deteriorate and be cut down in respect of not only the number of services available but its quality. That brings us to the present, in which we face something of a dilemma. There are rumours that the air services between Townsville and Mount Isa, a Fokker route, are to be reduced, perhaps eliminated, and replaced by another service. The Minister is very much concerned about this matter. I know he is. He is determined to see two things happen. The first is the making of a clear statement as to what is to happen. Obviously, that must go before him for approval, but he has told me and the other people concerned that there is on the airline in question an obligation, firstly, to retain the service and continue to operate it unless it falls into a serious non-profit situation. The matter does not end there. If such a non-profit situation arises the company must hand over the route to a company which will provide both a similar frequency and quality of service. It is the quality aspect about which I am most concerned. I believe there is a possibility that the service will be withdrawn and replaced by BPA’s Metros. If so, perhaps we will get a fairly comparable service to those areas, but we are determined- I will have the utmost pleasure in spearheading this with the companies and all involved- that we will resist the reduction in the number of services and will most certainly resist the cutting down of the quality of services.

I invite honourable members to consider the areas involved. In a moment I shall turn to another subject which equally involves these areas. Let us consider Mount Isa and the effect of withdrawing its income from the national earnings of this country. Take the Emerald area and consider withdrawing its income from the national earnings. I am very proud to say that we have here today the chairman of the Emerald shire, and one of his councillors, Councillor Gibson. I am not giving this speech for their benefit, but let me say quite decisively that the future will show the value to Australia of the huge coal producing areas of that region, with the Gregory mine coming into full swing very shortly, of the grain growing areas and of the various results of the contribution that has been made by this Government, I am proud to say, to the building of what we still like to call the Nogoa Dam. We see this huge development proceeding.

Let us go further west to the areas involved in this argument. We have the merino wool areas producing another billion dollars a year. If honourable members wish to go further north into the cattle producing areas, it can be said that they too are producing another billion dollars a year. Those people have seen their air services deteriorate slowly but surely and have always been under threat, wondering whether the air services would be continued or whether if the frequency of services were to remain unaltered what would be the quality of the service that would be rendered. Do we fit 18 people into a small aircraft and say: ‘That is okay for you ‘? We would not inflict that on any passenger on an air service between the capital cities, but are we saying that because people are only going to Mount Isa, Longreach, Emerald, despite the fact they are part of a group of industries, each of which produces a billion dollars annually for this nation, they are not of much consequence?

That brings me to another subject and I am sure that the Minister at the table the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) wishes that he were not now in the House. It is not his responsibility, but he has heard me tell the story so often. I refer to the provision of television services in remote areas. Only today I had a discussion with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). The news that I received was encouraging. Let me refer again to the plight of the people in these areas which produce such tremendous wealth for this country- these people in the scattered pans of this nation. For a quarter of a century they have waited while one channel after another has gone to the more privileged areas but have not seen a single test pattern. They would not know what television was all about.

Mr Martyr:

– They are lucky.

Mr KATTER:

– Someone said that they are lucky. Maybe that is right, but at least these people have earned the right to turn the damn thing off. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), and others involved have for years now been approaching successive governments and pleading with them to put in a lousy translator, put in a repeater, for goodness sake to bring television to these people. Regrettably, the decisions are made down in Melbourne. Our Ministers are being fed this garbage that for some reason or other this service is not being provided. At one time it is the contractors. At another time it is being delayed because maybe an advance in technology will bring television more readily to these areas. Of course, such a technical advance has now materialised.

I refer again to the discussion that I had today with the Minister, who has gone through our areas. Everyone there was terribly impressed- as indeed they were with the Minister for Finance when he came through- with the Minister’s genuine appreciation of their problems. However, I feel that once the matter goes back to the Control Board, to those rajahs in Melbourne who make these decisions- they have nothing but contempt, I repeat nothing but contempt, for the people whom I represent- they will think up every possible reason why, after all these years, television has not come to those remote areas.

Let me mention a few of them. Maybe I am being perfectly parochial, but honourable members may apply my remarks to other areas in Australia that are not being provided with television. I refer to Tambo, Aramac, Isisford, Pentland, Greenvale, Corfield and Capella. In respect of every one of those areas- I issue this challenge- I can show that, per head of population, the people should be given a coloured television set because of the contribution that they are making to this nation. The Minister told me that only last Friday he was examining the technical possibilities, the up-to-date situation in relation to the satellite, which is now becoming a reality. It would appear that where repeater stations have been approved the satellite will provide in the very near future the necessary instant signal. The number of channels, whether it is to be two or three, is at the moment a matter for conjecture, a point of argument. However, I plead with the Government, for heaven’s sake to act. No one appreciates the economic situation more than I do. I realise the sense of responsibility of this Government, and every Australian ought to go down on his knees and thank God that it has a government as responsible as this one, which is trying to get this country back on the tracks. I say to the Government: For heaven’s sake, at the cost of a few, lousy hundreds of thousands of dollars, give those people the sight of television at last, after 25 years.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I wish to grieve concerning two matters today. The first deals with a typically devious action of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in respect of the question of the interest rate drop. I quote from the Laurie Oakes Report of 8 November 1978. Under the headline ‘Fraser knew interest rates would drop’ the following appears:

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, already knew trading banks had decided to cut overdraft interest rates when he criticised them in Parliament for failing to move rates down. The banks had told the Reserve Bank of their intention on Monday, 23 October- the day before Mr Fraser made his grandstanding comments in the House of Representatives. It was a skilful political ploy. Mr Fraser made it look as though he was influencing a decision which in fact had already been made. The plans of the banks were disclosed at the monthly meeting between the Reserve Bank Governor and trading bank chief executives. According to reliable sources, Mr Fraser was notified- which means his answer next day to a question on interest rates from Labor’s Mr Clyde Cameron was carefully calculated.

When one sees an action of that type, one so dishonourable, one so politically dishonest, so typically devious- the Prime Minister is a very devious individual- is it any wonder that the people feel they can no longer trust a man who plays such dirty tricks, simply to make it appear that he is influencing a situation with which he has had nothing whatsoever to do?

The other grievance to which I wish to address myself deals with activities of what might be termed some of the smaller companies. This matter has become the subject of increasing concern in the community. I refer to the proper conduct of directors and other officers of companies- not just the big, listed companies, whose actions are subject to all sorts of scrutiny but the smaller, non-listed companies, whose activities should not be overlooked. My attention has been drawn to certain actions of one such company in the acquisition of a property in Sydney that is apparently unconnected with its general business activities. The property in question is a substantial house located at 3 1 View Street, Woolahra, which as most honourable members would know, is what is regarded as a rather exclusive address in Sydney. This house was purchased in 1976 at a cost of $53,000-it was an upper bracket house purchased on 1976 money values on any standards. But according to my information in addition to that purchase price some $30,000 has been spent subsequently on this house. That conservatively puts the value of this property at well in excess of $80,000. That makes it a considerable investment for a medium-sized non-listed company, especially when its main interests are in rural production.

One would expect that such a company would require as a minimum that an asset of this size either generate revenue or save cost to the company, for example, as a substitute for other forms of casual accommodation. There could be circumstances where such an investment could represent a fringe benefit for a director or executive of the company. According to my information, the house is tenanted but on a no-cost basis.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does that mean that somebody lives there for no rent?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That is correct. In other words, an asset valued at more than $80,000 incurs a company costs rather than generates revenue. I have no specific information about the costs of the debt servicing, rates, maintenance and so on that would be involved but there is no doubt that they would be substantial. These items, of course, are at the expense of the shareholders of the company concerned. The acquisition of this property seems to me to be an extraordinarily extravagant action particularly as the company is said to have suffered substantial defalcations. It is a mysterious matter. That company is the Sinclair Pastoral Company, whose activities are centred in the New England district of New South Wales.

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

– I rise this afternoon to grieve for the Australian Labor Party. After that last speech I have been provided with many grounds on which to grieve. One could go on talking for perhaps a week. One matter in particular on which I wish to concentrate today stems from a matter of public importance that was raised in this House a fortnight ago by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and which was supported by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), which read:

The Government’s mismanagement and inability to develop relations and trade with ASEAN.

The matter of public importance was not advanced seriously; it was advanced half-heartedly and it was certainly argued unconvincingly. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) on this side of the House certainly explained Australia’s excellent and developing relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations. To give that matter of public importance its due, it did highlight and stress the importance of ASEAN to Australia with respect to our national interests, political, economic and strategic. I set those important points against the background of an advertisement which appeared in the National Times only three days earlier, on 2 1 October. It was an advertisement which had been lodged by two groups- the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament, based in Melbourne, and the Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament, based in Sydney. The banner of the advertisement read ‘No Military Ties with ASEAN Nations’. It went on to give a series of explanatory statements and then to list the names of a number of people who supported the advertisement and the petition about which it was written. The advertisement favours the reducing of Australia’s military links and ties with non-communist nations in South East Asia. But it does more than that; it is a general attack on the ASEAN nations themselves. The explanatory statement reads:

Almost all ASEAN regimes are oppressive, and undemocratic in character, while most of them are repressive military dictatorships.

I believe that this advertisement simply does not take into account the moral and political realities of the world in which we live. The point I really want to make is that apart from this advertisement being lodged just three days before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rose in this House and called for closer links with ASEAN nations, it was signed- incredibly- by 18 members of the federal branch of the Australian Labor Party. I will read their names from the list. They are Gordon Bryant, Moss Cass, Senator Cavanagh, Ruth Coleman, Doug Everingham, Ken Fry, Senator Georges, Senator Gietzelt, Clyde Holding, Brian Howe, Ted Innes, Cyril Primmer, Senator Melzer, Tom Uren, and Senator Mcintosh. Honourable members should just look at the list. But that is not all. The House should realise that that is not all. A most cursory examination of the two groups that funded that advertisement and lodged it shows very clearly that they are closely allied to and linked with the World Peace Council. One only has to look at the annual report of the CICD to realise that. The World Peace Council since it was formed in 1948 has consistently followed the foreign policy line of the Soviet Union. We do not have to look any further than the secretary-general of that organisation, Romesh Chandra, who said in a Prague journal in 1973:

Everywhere the Communists and Workers’ Parties are in the forefront of the struggle for peace.

He also said: the most important changes in recent years can be linked to the Peace Program adopted at the 24th CPSU Congress.

In a Soviet weekly, the New Times, he was reported as saying this:

The Soviet Union invariably supports the peace movement.

He further said- wait for it:

The World Peace Council, in its turn, positively reacts to all Soviet initiatives in international affairs.

The World Peace Council can proudly list its achievements as failure to protest about the Berlin Wall, failure to protest about the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and its rather dubious protest about nuclear testing, forgetting altogether that the Soviet Union is perhaps the greatest nuclear tester of all. A clearer expose of the World Peace Council was given by Denis Warner in 1975 when he said:

For the past 26 years, when it was formed under instruction from the Cominform, the World Peace Council has been amongst the most active Russian Communist fronts.

The present role of its Australian offshoot is to campaign for non-alignment . . .

I want honourable members to wait for this statement:

The World Peace Council, as its name suggests, claims, of course, to be serving peace. What is meant is a certain kind of peace- the condition that will exist at some future time when the world will be united under Communist rule and war will be impossible.

The CICD and the AICD, linked with the World Peace Council, stand indicted under the same charge. They are communist fronts and they put forward their advertisements with positive ALP support. If one wants any more evidence one has only to look further at the list and see some of the names that appear on it. Incredibly, the ALP members share the same platform with 22 members of the various communist parties in Australia. I seek leave to have this list incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr SHACK:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us have a look at the list. It names Eric Aarons, CPA; John Baker, CPA; Laurie Carmichael, CPA; Denis Freney, CPA; John Halfpenny, CPA; Derek Roebuck, CPA; and Bernie Taft, Victorian Secretary, CPA; all of whom are members of the various communist parties within Australia which are actively supported by the ALP. But the advertisement states:

The above names are a representative sample of those Australians who have contributed to the cost of this advertisement.

Space limitation precludes publication of a full list.

Who else was on the list but could not get a guernsey because there were not enough pages? That is the question to be asked. The best thing that can be said for those ALP members is that they did not know what they were signing. At best they are unwitting dupes and supporters of Soviet foreign policy. At worst they may be communist activists by another name, committed to the expansion of Soviet influence and hegemony. On the worst interpretation, members of the ALP stand exposed. On the worst interpretation, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Let us examine whether there is some truth in this possibility. One has to look only at the words of Romesh Chandra, writing in 1975 when he came to Australia, who said that of the then Labor Government, half the members of the Labor Cabinet were members of the World Peace Council. Those are the words of the secretarygeneral of that organisation. What further proof do we need?

The Labor Party just has to come clean on this issue. There is an enormous division, an enormous split in the Labor Party on the subject of its foreign policy. It has to work out where it is going. It is a threat to our regional stability and a threat to our relations with the ASEAN nations. I do not think it could be put any better than it was by Jeffry Babb, a foreign policy correspondent for the Sunday Times, who wrote:

The difference in attitudes shown by the speeches made in favour of ASEAN by the parliamentary leaders of the Labor Party, and the attack made on ASEAN by the ALP parliamentarians and associated left-wingers, communists, trade unionists, academics, artists and writers shows a difference in opinion quite as deep as the issue of anti-communism that split the ALP in 1955.

That is why I grieve for the Labor Party. The article continues:

The same issues- should we align ourselves with the Western world: should we support collectivism or freedom; should be take an active part in the international community or shut ourselves off as a nation unto ourselves- are there.

That same article concludes, very correctly and very properly, by quoting the words of Malcolm

Booker, a one-time friend and fellow traveller of the ALP, when he said:

The Labor Party does not deserve to be taken seriously as the alternative government while it refuses to come to terms with the problems of Australian security- the essential requirement for which is co-operation with our neighbours.

Moral indignation is no substitute for policy, especially when uttered by people’ who are not entitled to it.

The ALP is divided on this issue. Some of its members stand exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Australian public has a right to have them come clean, to have them explain to the public exactly where they stand with respect to our friendly relations with our South East Asian neighbours.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Neil:

– Did you sign it?

Mr HOLDING:

– I did sign it and I am proud to have signed it. If I and other signatories to the document that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) was so upset about have to compare our track record in the area of foreign policy with the track record of the honourable member or honourable members on the other side, I do not have any lack of pride. Indeed, with my colleagues, I am used to being called a communist dupe and a wolf in sheep’s clothing by honourable members opposite. Let us look at the track record and at the history of this situation. When we as members of the Labor Party as long ago as 10 or 15 years advocated the recognition of the People’s Republic of China we were told that we were traitors. We were told that we were communists. We were told that we were communist dupes. As recently as three or four years ago, when the then Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, had been to China, and the then Minister for External Affairs sought the right to go to China, he was refused permission by a Liberal Prime Minister. That was only a matter of a few years ago. Why was he refused permission? It was because we were accused of being dupes. Now we cannot turn around without hearing that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is waving a red flag, putting a line in terms of the position of China which the average member of the Labor Party regards as being somewhat chauvinistic. We cannot turn around without hearing that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who also called members of the Labor Party communists and dupes, is walking around China looking like an American tourist with a bundle of cameras around his neck, almost singing The East is Red. That is the track record of honourable gentlemen opposite.

Let us look at this matter in terms of our relations with our so-called neighbours in the Far East. I was also called a communist by people such as the honourable member for Tangney when I and thousands of other decent Australian citizens said that we were opposed to the war in Vietnam, we were opposed to Australia being in a situation of supporting and trying to uphold a corrupt and decadent regime. We were opposed to the policy of honourable gentlemen opposite, whose party on that occasion was distributing pamphlets around Australia which said ‘Better to stop them there than have them come here’, with a great red arrow pointing to China. The honourable member for Tangney and some of the war heroes on that side, who were all young enough to serve, were perfectly happy to conscript Australian youth to fight in that immoral war. He was perfectly happy to give them that choice or put them in gaol. When I consider the record of the people who signed that document, it is music to my ears when I listen to the pious nonsense of the honourable member for Tangney. Suddenly this Government has discovered that it can have trade relations with China. All the things we were saying five years ago, which were rejected with the same vehemence, the same platitudes and the same rhetoric by the honourable member for Tangney are now all right.

Mr Bourchier:

– This sounds like a good communist wharfies ‘ speech.

Mr HOLDING:

– The honourable member for Bendigo is another one. Give him a Chinese flag and he will stand up and chant The East is Red with no problems at all. But five years ago the honourable member was prepared to attack members of the Labor Party and accuse us of being spies and traitors. The very things that we stood for then have been proved historically to be correct. As to this document which I and others signed, I make no apology at all for it.

Mr Neil:

-You should.

Mr HOLDING:

– It is all right for the honourable gentleman opposite. As far as he is concerned, he talks about democracy in this Parliament but he is prepared to stand up and support any puppet regime, any corrupt regime, any dictatorial regime so long as it says it is anticommunist. It was precisely that position that allowed a conservative government to drag Australia and young Australians, many of whom now lie dead as a result of its view of foreign policy, into Vietnam. Their blood is on this Government’s hands, let there be no doubt about that, and the moral responsibility is on its hands. They are the guilty men. But this Government did not save the corrupt regimes which it was trying to bolster in South East Asia. As to what is happening today in South East Asia, the signatures on this document simply witness the fact that there are regimes which are endeavouring to hold back the course of social change and social revolution in South East Asia.

Mr Neil:

– Name them.

Mr HOLDING:

– Does the honourable gentleman believe that the Government of the Philippines is a democratic government? Does he believe that it is a government whose policies in terms of the administration of public funds and the distribution of the wealth of the community are policies that are admirable and that he can support?

Mr Shack:

– Name another one.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am not going to take up the whole of my time in this way. I presume that simply because these regimes profess to be anticommunist this Government is prepared to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are great movements for social change sweeping through South East Asia and that the poor of South East Asia are determined to have their slice of the real wealth of their own communities. One cannot hold back social revolution in these countries by supporting corrupt and reactionary regimes. It is as simple as that. If honourable members opposite did not learn that lesson from Vietnam they will never learn.

Mr McLean:

– What about Indonesia?

Mr HOLDING:

– If we look at the situation of our near neighbours in Indonesia, does the honourable gentleman not believe that the whole social structure, the whole economic structure is basically upheld by a military regime which is certainly dictatorial and has certainly shown a capacity to arrest, to imprison and to kill people with whom it disagrees?

Mr Neil:

– What about Malaysia?

Mr HOLDING:

– One could spend a great deal of time referring to different countries. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. The only point I am concerned to make is that the sort of contribution made by the honourable member for Tangney simplifies the position in South-East Asia. He used the old cold war rhetoric which divides Asia into goodies and baddies.

Mr Martyr:

– Into friends and enemies.

Mr HOLDING:

– I would not like the honourable member for a friend. I do not know what sort of an enemy he is. It is a simplistic view to divide complex communities with historic differences which are now starting to emerge between Vietnam and China and Vietnam and Cambodia. This is the view that Government members ascribe to the whole of South-East Asia on the basis that countries are either communist or anti-communist. On that basis they predetermine their position. The nature of the regime does not matter nor do its economic policies. It does not matter what its attitude is towards political democracy or social change in South-East Asia. The simple-minded gentlemen opposite think that all one has to do is ask: ‘Are they goodies or baddies?’ They use the old cold war rhetoric. If countries are goodies and say that they are anti-communist that is okay. We can join in any sort of military alliance.

Mr Hodges:

– Clyde, are you a communist?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Jarman)-I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. I think it contains an inference.

Mr Hodges:

– I will withdraw it.

Mr HOLDING:

– Of course, a third criterion is now available to honourable gentlemen opposite. If communist regimes are prepared to trade and buy our goods, the nature of the regime changes overnight. Yesterday’s enemy becomes today’s friend. That is the record of honourable gentlemen opposite. I conclude on this note. My track record and that of my colleagues who signed the document to which the honourable member for Tangney objects is one of assessment of the situation in South-East Asia. That record has a lot more going for it than the position which historically he and his party have taken up. They were the people who for years turned their backs and refused to recognise the people of Red China. They involved us in the most immoral and scandalous war in our history. That is their track record. They live with it. I am perfectly happy to live with the track record of myself and my colleagues.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– 1 support the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) in everything he said to the House today. The advertisement to which he referred states:

Almost all ASEAN regimes are oppressive, and undemocratic in character, while most of them are repressive military dictatorships.

Among the list of names included in the advertisement are: Gordon Bryant, Dr Cass, Joan Child, Ken Fry, Clyde Holding, Innes, Senator Cyril Primmer, Tom Uren and a whole host of others. The name of the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) who has raised his hand does not appear. He does not qualify. Where does the responsible side of the Labor Party stand in relation to this issue? Where is the signature of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden)? If his name is not on the list where do honourable members opposite stand as a party? Where on the list is the signature of their foreign affairs spokesman? The answer is that they do not know where their Party stands on the issue. The honourable member for Tangney has made a valid point. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence surely knows that all the countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations are struggling to find their own identity and their own form of democracy. Motions and documents such as this put down by an element of the Parliament are a disgrace to the Parliament as people in those nations attempt to discover their real role in the area in which they live.

Mr McLean:

– The economic record of some of the ASEAN countries is better than the economic record of the Labor Party in government.

Mr GILES:

– That may be true. Their economic record is better than some of the others. It is disgraceful that an element of the Labor Party obviously does not wish them to succeed in their aim to become more democratic. Where are the arguments against that? A perfect hush lies over the Parliament. Honourable members opposite know that what I have said is absolutely correct. They ought to encourage some of those nations to achieve their aim and not detract from their attempts. That is what every honourable member who has signed that document has set out to achieve.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Jarman) Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, the debate is interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2610

TAXATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107 Mr Speaker has selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Gellibrand, namely:

The Government’s attempt to conceal the full extent of the increased tax burden on low* and middle income earners as from the beginning o;~l’..i« monto. 1 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 WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-As from 1 November the taxpayers of this country were faced with an income tax surcharge which has substantially increased the tax burden, particularly on low and middle income earners. The full impact of this income tax surcharge is being felt across the nation this week. Depleted pay packets tell the story of how much reliance can be placed on this Government’s election promises. Substantial tax rises from 1 November compare with the election promise of tax cuts. I remind the House that that election promise was one of which great political capital was made by the* Government at the time of the last election. Politically, of course, this income tax surcharge is embarrassing for the Government. It has attempted to conceal the full impact of the surcharge by various means, such as by expressing the tax surcharge in a way which understates its real impact, by not mentioning the favoured treatment given to high income earners and by alleging that taxes on low and middle incomes would be higher if the tax scales introduced in the 1 975 Labor Budget still applied.

Let me Consider, momentarily, the breach of the election promise. Nothing the Government can say can alter the fact that the income tax surcharge is a repudiation of a fundamental election promise that the Fraser Government would cut income taxes for all. Certainly income tax cuts were introduced last February but they have lasted less than nine -months. For many taxpayers they have disappeared entirely. The evidence of that repudiation, as I have mentioned, is in millions of pay packets this week. Payasyouearn taxpayers will be able to measure directly the extent of this Government’s breach of its election promise to them by examining their pay packets this week and noting the additional amount of tax which has been taken out. Many will find that they have totally lost all the benefit of their tax reduction. In fact, 55 per cent of taxpayers, those who earn between $ 1 14 and $238 a week will lose more in dollars and cents from the tax surcharge than they gained from the February tax cuts. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables relating to the tax savings and tax cuts.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr WILLIS:

– These tables demonstrate firstly the inequity of the savings of the tax cuts of 1 February. The first table deals with taxpayers without dependants. It shows that a taxpayer on $114 a week gained $1.01 from the tax cut. A person earning $160 a week gained $1.87. The tax saving for someone earning $200 a week was $3.07. For a person earning $350 a week the tax saving was $12.54. For a person earning $450 it was $20.39. For a person earning $1,500 a week it was $86.82 and for a person earning $2,000 a week the tax saving per week was $111.82. Those were the tax savings introduced last February. Clearly they were biased very heavily towards high income earners.

If we look at the extent of the tax increase which applies from 1 November on a weekly basis we find that a person earning $1 14 a week has a tax increase of $1.02. At $160 a week the tax increase is $2.19. At $238 a week it is $4.20. When the salary goes up to $2,000 a week the tax increase is $49.50, which is much less than the amount that a person on that income saved from the 1 February tax cuts.

When we look at the difference between the two tax changes we find that a person earning between $ 1 14 and $238 a week is worse off. For instance, a person earning $120 a week is 45c a week worse off. A person earning $160 a week is 32c a week worse off. A person earning above $238 a week has net savings which amount to $62.32 a week if he earns $2,000 a week. Such a person will still have much of his 1 February tax cuts left. So clearly people earning above $238 a week are in a far better position as a result of these two measures than is the vast majority of taxpayers. The measures are biased very heavily indeed in favour of the high income earners. Looking at the effect of the tax increase applied from 1 November we find that for most taxpayers the increase is 8 per cent, but it tails off to 4.75 per cent at the very highest income levels.

If one looks at the situation of a taxpayer with a dependent spouse one finds that in money terms the tax savings are the same as that for a taxpayer without dependants. The tax increases imposed by way of the surcharge, in money terms are the same but are much higher in percentage terms. For a taxpayer with a dependent spouse who earns $ 1 1 4 a week the percentage increase in his tax as a result of the 1 November measure is 98 per cent. That increase tails off to 4.8 per cent for a taxpayer who earns $2,000 a week and who has a dependent spouse. So there is a higher percentage impact on low income earners with a dependent spouse. Therefore, one can see that the whole exercise has been extremely inequitable. As many as 55 per cent of taxpayers on lower and middle incomes- that is, incomes of between $1 14 and $238 a week- lose more by way of the surcharge than they gained by way of the February tax cuts. Higher income earners have retained much of the benefit of the very generous tax cuts.

The Government has attempted to misrepresent the situation and to disguise the full impact of what it has been doing. As I mentioned, it has done this in various ways. One way has been by falsely representing the tax surcharge as being 1 .5 per cent. This has been claimed time and time again and also by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his Budget Speech. At page 19 of his Budget Speech he stated: the Government has decided that as a temporary measure for 1978-79 only, (he standard rate of personal income tax will be increased by 1 Vi per cent . . .

In our view this is a considerable misstatement of the real impact of the tax surcharge. It has been repeated not only in the Budget Speech and the Budget Papers but also in statements made by other government spokesmen. The reality is that, taken over the whole year, the surcharge represents an increase in each tax rate of 1.5c in the dollar, which is different from 1.5 per cent. Thus, on the standard rate of tax of 32c in the dollar, which is payable on an annual income of up to $16,000, the increase of 1.5c in the dollar constitutes another 4.7 per cent tax on top of the 32c in the dollar.

As the tax rise for the whole year is being collected in the period after 1 November- that is, it is not being collected in the whole year but only in the period after 1 November- the tax tables now show the standard rate of tax rising to 34.57 lc in the dollar, which is a rise of 8 per cent, 8.03 per cent to be exact, over the 32c in the dollar. That is the extent of the tax increase for most people and not an increase of 1.5 per cent, as the Treasurer and other government spokesmen have claimed. Thus, the real impact of the surcharge is much greater than the Government would have people believe when it talks about a 1.5 per cent surcharge. As I mentioned, for those taxpayers who have dependants and who are on low incomes, the percentage increase in tax is much higher than it is for those on high incomes. As I mentioned, the increase in tax for those people on very low incomes of $ 1 14 a week is 98 per cent, which is a far cry from the 1 .5 per cent mentioned in the Budget Speech.

Another form of misrepresentation of what has been done came in the recent broadcast by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to his electorate and in a subsequent Press statement by the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) when he was acting as the Treasurer last week. They both claimed that, despite the imposition of the surcharge, taxpayers would still be paying less than they would have been paying if the tax scales introduced in the 1975-76 Budget still applied. Both claims are absolutely absurd. In the Prime Minister’s broadcast to his electorate on 29 October 1978 he said:

Let ‘s look at a taxpayer with a spouse and dependent child on average weekly earnings of $220.38. Under Labor’s 1975 Budget tax scales, in January next year, that taxpayer would be paying tax of $49.85 per week. Under this Government, he will be paying only $40.85 a week- and this includes the 1.5 per cent temporary tax surcharge. Accordingly, despite the surcharge, the taxpayer on average weekly earnings is $9 a week better off because of this Government’s tax reforms. This figure takes no account of the family allowance scheme which provides mothers with significantly higher benefits than the old child endowment.

The Prime Minister arrived at that figure of a supposed $9 a week benefit by assuming that the Hayden tax scales would not have been adjusted at all for inflation. He assumed that the 1975 tax scales would remain exactly the same without being adjusted at all for inflation. That is the only way in which he could claim that kind of result. In fact, it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to adjust the tax scales and rebates to make allowance for increases in prices. At page 14 of the Australian Labor Party Platform Constitution and Rules as approved by the 32nd National Conference in Perth in 1977, under the heading ‘Taxation ‘ the following is stated: adjust the personal income tax schedule and tax rebates for changes in the Consumer Price Index;

There we have an explicit statement that it is Labor’s policy to adjust the tax scales to allow for movements in prices. Therefore, the whole exercise indulged in by the Prime Minister is extraordinarily misleading, unfair and perhaps not to be unexpected as it comes from him. The Prime Minister’s calculations are based on a totally false assumption that under a Labor government the 1975 tax scales would not have been adjusted at all for inflation. In fact, the Fraser Government has not provided full tax indexation. In the past three years during which tax indexation supposedly has been operating, we have had less than 100 per cent indexation. It was 93 per cent in 1976-77, 80 per cent in 1977-78 and 35 per cent in the current financial year. So it has been well below full indexation.

If Labor’s 1975 tax scales had been indexed only to the same degree as they have been indexed by this Government, a taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and child- the same example as was taken by the Prime Minister- would have been much better off than he will be under this Government. Under a Labor government, instead of that taxpayer paying $49.85 a week in tax, as the Prime Minister claimed would be the case under the 1975 tax scales, such a taxpayer would pay only $34.08 a week instead of the $40.85 a week that the Prime Minister said such a taxpayer would pay under his Government this financial year, after 1 January 1979. Thus, by ignoring ALP policy and by assuming that the 1 975 tax scales would not be adjusted at all for inflation, the Prime Minister has completely misrepresented the real situation. The reality is that taxpayers in the lower and middle income brackets would have been paying markedly less tax under Labor than they would be paying under the Fraser

Government. In furtherance of this point, I refer to a Press report from the Sunday Telegraph of 5 November 1978. Under the heading ‘Workers $7.50 a week “worse off” ‘, the following is stated:

The average Australian wage earner was now $7.50 a week worse off than he was at the end of 1 975, the Australian Taxpayers Association -

Not the ALP or anyone connected with the

page 2614

QUESTION

ALP-

said yesterday.

The association secretary, Mr Eric Risstrom, said the claim by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, that the average earner was paying $9 a week less in tax was ‘ poppycock ‘.

Mr Risstrom said Mr Fraser’s claim did not take account of inflation

That is the very point I have been making. The article continued:

Mr Risstrom based his calculations on the fact that the average income in December 1975 was $8,8 19.20-$ 169 a week- compared to $1 1,21 0- $2 1 5 a week- today.

He took into account inflation -

He took into account the full movement in the consumer price index. The article stated further:

He also took into account changes in child endowment payments, but not health costs.

The average wage earner with a wife and two children paid $1,206.65 tax in 1975, leaving $7,612.55 spending power plus $78 child endowment.

Using the inflation factor, this translated to $10,188.44 in today’s money.

On today ‘s average income, the worker paid $ 1 ,854. 1 8 tax leaving him with $9,355.82 spending power, plus $442 in family allowance.

His total spending power- $9,797.82- compared with $10,188.44 in 1975.

This meant he was $390.62 a year worse off- $7.50 a week.

So there we have from Mr Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association a detailed spelling out of the fact that the Prime Minister’s statement was absolutely incorrect. Taxpayers are much worse off now than they were when the Labor Government was in office and when the Labor Government tax scales were in operation.

The Government is trying desperately to disguise what has been going on. The Prime Minister has also claimed that the real level of tax will be reduced this year. That is not borne out by what is contained in the Budget Speech. The fact is that personal income tax will go up by 6.7 per cent whereas the estimated increase in the consumer price index is only 6 per cent, so there will be a real increase in tax this year, not a real reduction as the Prime Minister claimed in his electorate broadcast. The whole picture is one of the Government trying desperately to misrepresent what has been occurring, that is, that taxes have been increasing, particularly for lower and middle income people, that there has been a distortion of the whole equity of the tax system, and that this Government, rather than being one which cuts taxes, is one which imposes an increasing tax burden on the Australian people.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– Today ‘s matter of public importance is:

The Government’s attempt to conceal the full extent of the increased tax burden on low and middle income earners as from the beginning of this month.

The first charge made by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) which I have to answer is that in some way this Government has concealed the impact of the personal income tax increases that were announced in the Budget, particularly their impact on low and middle income earners. That is a charge that the Government completely rejects. If there is one thing that this Government has demonstrated in the taxation area, particularly through the introduction of tax indexation, it is the belief that if governments intend to increase taxation they should do so openly and by direct legislation, which is precisely what this Government has done. We have rejected the politically more popular but economically less responsible option of simply allowing taxation to be increased through the automatic impact of inflation on a progressive taxation system. That is why one of our first taxation reforms was to introduce indexation of personal taxation from the beginning of July 1 976.

It is indeed a fact that because we have tax indexation it has been necessary for this Government to legislate directly for a temporary increase in personal income tax during 1978 and 1979. At no stage in the Budget Speech did the Government conceal what was happening. The honourable member for Gellibrand quoted from page 1 9 of the Budget Speech in which I said that for this year the standard rate of tax would be increased by Vh per cent. That was a correct statement. It remains a correct statement. There can be no charge that the Government concealed the fact that we would collect the full year’s take from that increase between 1 November 1978 and 30 June 1979. 1 did not say that it was an increase of Vh per cent in everybody’s tax. I said that it was an increase of 1 *h per cent in the standard rate. It is an increase of 1 lh per cent in the standard rate, although as the honourable member for Gellibrand points out the percentage increases in the amount of tax paid by people vary according to their particular circumstances. I suggest to the honourable member for

Gellibrand that there is no essential disagreement as to the percentage effect of the decision and certainly there has been no concealment of the impact of the increase announced in the Budget. So, the first and main charge, that in some way we have concealed the impact, is rejected.

The second thing that I would like to observe is the newfound fondness of members of the Opposition for the cause of lower taxation. It is a fondness they did not demonstrate when in government. It is a fondness the honourable member for Gellibrand was not prepared to demonstrate as recently as 30 June 1978 when he was making a speech to some Labor economists. He said:

If Labor does not gain office next election, then by 1983 we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

In other words, the honourable member for Gellibrand, the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs who has come into this House shedding crocodile tears on the cause of lower taxation, as recently as 30 June was contemplating as a direct instrument of Labor Party economic policy an increase in the level of tax in our community. Labor demonstrated in office and demonstrates by its words now that it is not a party of lower taxation; it is a party which is prepared as an instrument of economic policy over a lengthy period of time to progressively allow taxation to increase.

I am sure the House would allow me to remind it of that still famous statement of the former Prime Minister in his election policy speech in Blacktown in 1972. Having listed the enormous public expenditure program of a future Labor government, he asked the rhetorical question Where will we get the money?’ and said: ‘It is very simple. We will get the money from the impact of inflation on a progressive taxation system’. In other words, the Labor Party was prepared to finance its public expenditure profligacy out of the automatic increase in taxation that occurs if there are unindexed taxation scales. Let there be no doubt as to what happened to taxation rates in this country under the Whitlam Labor Government. Let there be no doubt that the present Opposition has by no means forsworn the sort of policies that were pursued then. As is demonstrated by those remarks I quoted, members of the Opposition have not shed their commitment to a substantially larger public sector in finance, through higher taxation. That remark was made as recently as 30 June.

In the course of his remarks the honourable member for Gellibrand spoke about 55 per cent of taxpayers who would be worse off after 1 November than they were prior to 1 February when the tax arrangements announced in last year’s Budget were brought into operation. The situation is best demonstrated by comparing the tax situation at various points on the income tax range for 1978-79, which includes the effect of the increase announced in the Budget, with the tax payable in 1977-78. The simple situation is that at no point in the taxation range will a person pay more tax for the whole of 1978-79 than he paid in 1977-78. The honourable member for Gellibrand well knows that. At $10,000 per annum the difference for a non-levy payer is minus $40; for a person earning $20,000 per annum it is minus $329. The honourable member for Gellibrand ought to know and ought to have acknowledged during the debate that it is false to compare the pay-as-you-earn deductions after 1 November and prior to 30 June next year with the PAYE deductions that applied prior to 1 November because, as was acknowledged in the Budget and as at no time has the Government attempted to conceal, the effect of the Budget decision is to collect in seven months the full tax liability over the 12-month period between 1 July this year and 30 June next year. Naturally, through that cramming effect the PAYE deductions during the 7-month period are going to be at a higher rate than they normally would be in relation to the total additional amount of tax that has to be collected. The charge about the 55 per cent, which was made as early as Budget night by the Leader of the Opposition and which has been repeated a number of times by him and the honourable member for Gellibrand, is completely false.

Yet another comparison that was made by the honourable member for Gellibrand- and, if he quoted him correctly, allegedly by a representative of the Taxpayers Association- was that there is something wrong with the comparisons made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) between the tax that would have been payable under the Hayden scales, if they had remained in place, and the tax that is actually payable during the current year. I repudiate that charge also. I repudiate the charge that those comparisons are false because they have not been adjusted for inflation. Nothing could be more simplistic, nothing could be more absurd, than to make that allegation. Those comparisons were on the basis of average weekly earnings. If we look at the comparisons we will find that average weekly earnings have been increasing progressively because of increases in prices and adjustments for inflation. The charge that those comparisons are unadjusted for inflation is ridiculous.

Mr Willis:

– The tax scales have not been adjusted in the Prime Minister’s example.

Mr HOWARD:

– I will come to the adjustment of tax scales by the Labor Party in just a moment. I repeat that average weekly earnings are estimated to be $220.38 in January 1979. If the 1975 Hayden tax scales had remained in place, the amount of tax payable on that would have been $61.25. The amount that will be paid this year is $52.20. The honourable member for Gellibrand both in his speech and by interjection has said that it is unfair of me to do that because I do not acknowledge that the Labor Government, if it had stayed in power, would have left those scales unadjusted. What evidence is there that a Labor government would not have adjusted them? When we committed ourselves to tax indexation in response to the Hayden Budget of 1975, the then Government was silent about whether tax indexation was the policy of the Whitlam Government, despite the fact that tax indexation was then the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We all remember the confusion about indexation in the 1977 election campaign when Mr Whitlam said: ‘Maybe’; the honourable member for Gellibrand said: ‘I will have to find out’; and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said: ‘I have only read the Cairns Post’. We all remember the confusion then.

Is the honourable member for Gellibrand really coming into this House seriously suggesting that a government elected in 1972 on the platform of financing public sector expansion through the impact of inflation on a progressive tax scale- a government which, when in 1 975 the Opposition committed itself to tax indexation, remained silent and when as recently as December 1977 was utterly confused as to its attitude to tax indexation- would have adjusted the Hayden tax scales of 1975? Is he coming into this House seriously asking the Australian people to believe that if the Hayden Budget had remained in place and if the Whitlam Government had remained in office after 1975 it would have introduced indexation and would have adjusted the Hayden scales of 1975? I think that proposition defies imagination and defies comprehension. The fact remains that it is an indisputable fact that if the Hayden scales which were introduced with such a fanfare in August 1975 had remained in place, a significantly larger amount would have been collected in this current financial year than will be the case.

This Government has demonstrated a genuine commitment to personal tax reform. We have introduced tax indexation. We have simplified the rate scales. Despite the temporary increase in the personal rate for 1978-79, the benefits of those reforms to taxpayers still remain significant. By legislation already passed through this Parliament we have committed ourselves to the total abolition of Federal estate and gift duty. That is taxation. That is action on the taxation front. We have introduced the trading stock valuation adjustment. We have introduced significant concessions in taxation in the corporate sector. Despite the acknowledged setback that the temporary increase in personal tax rates represents- at no stage during the course of the Budget Speech or since has the Government denied its disappointment at the need to enact that particular measure- and having made allowances for that, the Government has demonstrated nonetheless that the indisputable fact is that one of the very significant achievements of this Government has been in the area of personal tax reforms. Perhaps this cannot be better illustrated than for me again to remind the honourable member for Gellibrand and the House that unlike those years between 1972 and 1975 when personal income tax collected rose by 89 per cent, in 1978-79 personal tax collection will actually experience a fall in real terms of 0.3 per cent. It will be the first occasion -

Mr Willis:

– How do you prove that?

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-By using a price deflator of 7 per cent. It will decline by 0.3 of one per cent. It will be the first reduction in real terms in taxation collection that has occurred for a period of 10 years. I would be the first person to deny that the increase in personal tax was a decision that this Government enjoyed taking. It was a decision that was forced upon us because of competing economic claims. It was a decision that was more equitable than the alternatives available to us. Finally, it is a decision which in no way dishonours the record of this Government as a government of real tax reforms.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The discussion is concluded.

page 2616

FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-by leave- Honourable members will recall that on 8 June this year I made a statement to the House concerning the Government ‘s foreign investment policy. I announced that following a review by the Government of the policy, certain procedural changes had been made in the administration of the policy and a modification of the Australian participation guidelines had been introduced. These changes were decided upon by the Government in order to facilitate the screening of foreign investment proposals and to provide an incentive for companies that are predominantly foreign-owned to admit a higher level of Australian equity participation into their operations.

The Government recognises the fundamental importance of foreign investment to Australia’s past and prospective economic progress and, accordingly, the basic aim of its policy is to welcome and encourage foreign investment. At the same time, the policy seeks to strike a balance between the benefits of long-term investment by foreign interests and the potential disadvantages of excessively high levels of foreign ownership and control of Australia’s industries and resources. Since the Government’s foreign investment policy was announced by my predecessor on 1 April 1976 to the present, around 3,000 proposals by foreign interests to undertake activities in Australia have been submitted for consideration. The Foreign Investment Review Board was established to advise the Government on foreign investment matters and to make recommendations on individual investment proposals. The number of foreign investment proposals submitted in recent months has remained high and provides further evidence of continued confidence among foreign interests in investing in Australia. When reaching its decision on the changes I announced on 8 June to the foreign investment policy the Government undertook to prepare an updated publication covering the foreign investment guidelines, incorporating the 8 June changes and others that have been made to the policy since it was first announced on 1 April 1976.

I now present for the information of honourable members the publication that has been prepared, entitled: Foreign Investment in Australia. It sets out details of the Government’s foreign investment policy and administrative procedures. In updating the foreign investment guidelines to incorporate the changes announced on 8 June the opportunity has been taken to clarify several points. In particular, I emphasise that exemption of a foreign investment proposal from consideration under the policy does not remove the need for the foreign investor to seek, where necessary, exchange control approval from the Reserve Bank.

I also mention that the exemption from consideration under foreign investment policy of individual real estate acquisitions valued at less than $250,000 was intended to facilitate administration of the policy by removing from its ambit a large number of small, one-off proposals. This change does not, however, dispense with the examination under the policy of multiple proposals, such as those forming part of a real estate acquisition program. Accordingly, proposed purchases that are part of a property investment program involving total acquisitions since 8 June 1978 of more than $250,000, should continue to be referred for consideration. I trust that the publication will assist in improving understanding of the policy by both the public and businessmen and facilitate administration of it. Copies are available from Australian Government Publishing Service bookshops. I present the following paper:

Foreign Investment Policy- Ministerial Statement, 9 November 1978.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I would like to make a short statement on this matter. Firstly, I congratulate the Government on taking the advice of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who suggested some time ago that the Government should issue a consolidated statement on its foreign investment policy. To that extent we are pleased to see what the Government has done. However, I take advantage of this time to express our concern at the way in which the Government has been progressively abandoning its policy of 1975 under which it guaranteed that strong measures would be taken to ensure substantial Australian ownership of Australian industry. This policy seems to us not to have been adhered to by the Government. While it has been in office there has been a progressive abandonment of the foreign investment policy which applied under the previous Labor Administration.

In April of 1976 new guidelines involving some departure from Labor’s guidelines were established. I shall refer quickly to the differences which were introduced at that stage. Labor stipulated a maximum of 50 per cent foreign ownership in all new mineral developments, but the new policy saw this figure as discretionary and provided a let-out clause. Labor required 100 per cent Australian ownership of new uranium developments but the Liberal Government stipulated only 75 per cent. The Labor Government was concerned that Australian real estate did not become foreign owned except in certain specific circumstances. But the new policy adopted in April of 1976 merely stated that certain acquisitions of Australian real estate by foreign interests would be examinable under the guidelines. There was also a difference in approach toward the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Labor’s Foreign Investment Review Committee was changed to a smaller part-time Foreign Investment Review Board which seems to have played a very different role from that of the Committee which was in operation while the Labor Government was in office. The Foreign Investment Review Board indeed has seemed to operate more as a welcoming committee to foreign investment than a screening device.

I turn to the figures which show the way in which the Foreign Investment Review Board has operated. The statistics for the first 15 months of its operations show that altogether in that period the Board considered 1,403 non-takeover foreign investment proposals. Only seven of those were rejected. Under the foreign takeovers legislation the Board dealt with 748 cases and rejected only three. Of 356 proposals for acquisition of real estate only one was rejected. To the Opposition this seems to indicate that there was approval of almost anything that came up. Indeed, the membership of the FIRB has been such that people appointed to it have been very pro-foreign investment and have gone around the world soliciting foreign investment. This seems to us to be a very curious role for a body which is supposed to be a screening device, which is supposed to ensure that foreign investment which comes into Australia operates in the interests of the Australian people and not some sort of advance party welcoming foreign investment on almost any terms. There is a substantial difference between the operation of the board and the Committee which it replaced. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) ought to pay some attention to that difference.

Also there has been an abandonment of the collection of statistics on foreign ownership and control of Australian industry. That seems to the Opposition to be something which is not incidental. It is an important thing to have done. The Government justifies this by saying that the Australian Bureau of Statistics had manpower problems. These problems, of course, were imposed by the Government. It had to cut back somewhere and so this is the area which it nominated for cutbacks, along with job vacancies which I would have thought is also an important area. This chopping back in the area of statistics on foreign ownership and control means that there will not be any statistics in the future on the degree to which Australian industry is foreign owned or controlled. I find that thoroughly alarming. We will not even know to what extent Australian industry is foreign owned. That is an appalling situation. It shows how little concern the Government seems to have for what seems to the Opposition to be a very important matter, namely the extent to which Australians own and control their own country. There has been an abandonment of the resources tax, a matter which was floated a year or so ago and then dumped in the Budget this year. The Government abandoned all ideas of imposing a resources tax which may have ensured that very profitable investment projects and resource areas would have given much greater benefits to the Australian people than is currently the case.

Finally, the Government has adopted new guidelines which were the subject of the speech just made by the Treasurer and which are contained in the booklet, the publication of which he has just announced. These guidelines introduce some important changes, particularly in relation to naturalising companies. This has been a matter of some discussion before. I will not speak about it at length. However, I point out to the House that it provides that where a company has a 25 per cent Australian equity and where a majority of directors on the board are Australian citizens, if that company commits itself to achieve a 5 1 per cent Australian ownership, then it can act as a company which is 5 1 per cent Australian owned. It may proceed as a naturalised company. In this category of being 25 per cent or more owned the company can be described as naturalising, which enables it to avoid Foreign Investment Review Board approval to develop a resource project on its own or with another Australian owned, naturalised or naturalising company.

The Opposition has criticised this policy before but I repeat that criticism briefly. Firstly, the new rules will mean an increase in the level of foreign ownership of Australian industry, particularly in the mining area. This definitely must be the result of the breaking down of the policy that there must be at least 50 per cent Australian ownership. That is what is involved. Even in 1975-76 10 per cent of the businesses in the mining industry were foreign owned. Importantly, 59 per cent of the value added came from businesses that were foreign owned. So the industry is very much dominated by foreign capital already. That is something which must increase under the new foreign investment guidelines which are now being introduced. Also, there is no program for the move towards 5 1 per cent Australian ownership for a naturalising company. This is an appalling situation. The guidelines, as set down in the booklet which the Treasurer has just produced, simply state that there will be an understanding with the Government on practical arrangements for achieving a 5 1 per cent Australian ownership. But there is no specific program to be laid down for the move towards 5 1 per cent Australian ownership.

What happens if a company reneges? What happens if a company decides to reach 35 per cent and then stop? We just do not know. Would the Government take any action against it? In our view at the very least if this concept is adopted there must be some formal registration so that companies which wish to be naturalising companies are forced to register and to provide a fairly detailed outline of how they will move towards 5 1 per cent Australian ownership. The company should then be required to report constantly to the registration board so that the board can monitor the degree to which the company is abiding by its original promise to move towards 5 1 per cent Australian ownership. If this is not done there is simply no control. The situation could be that companies could declare an intention one day to become Australian owned but in fact never get around to achieving it. This means that there will be a greater and greater degree of foreign ownership of Australian industry.

Also, there is a possibility of what are known as pup companies being used to exploit the new guidelines. For instance, two 100 percent foreign owned companies operating in Australia could set up subsidiaries for the purposes of developing a new resource project. These subsidiaries may be both 25 per cent Australian owned. Therefore, they could become naturalising companies. But in that project there may be only 12V4 per cent Australian equity. Yet the companies are treated as Australian owned companies. This is an extraordinary situation. It is the kind of practice which could arise under the guidelines as announced on, I think, 8 June and as spelt out in detail in the booklet entitled Foreign Investment in Australia which the Treasurer has now produced. In our view these guidelines are very inadequate and will lead to a much greater degree of foreign ownership of Australian industry. They may attract some more foreign capital. However, I would have thought that the real determinant of that would be not so much the restrictions of this area, but rather the market prospects for resource projects. If those prospects are good it is highly likely that we would have raised the capital under the original guidelines.

We would not have had to water them down and see a greater and greater proportion of Australian industry becoming foreign owned simply to develop resource projects. Market factors will be fundamentally important.

Finally, I make the point that it seems to us that the Government, in moving further and further away from the guidelines that operated in the period of the Labor Government, is bringing an end to what has been largely a bipartisan policy in Australia on foreign investment. That is important in the context of foreign investors who wish to operate in Australia and who want a bipartisan policy. They certainly will not get it while this Government moves away from the guidelines which operated when Labor was in office, guidelines which were thoroughly sensible and in the best interests of the Australian people.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-We on this side of the House are glad that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has produced this document, which is a consolidated account of foreign investment policy, but it is not what in fact we on this side were looking for. Rather than just a consolidated statement or booklet we were looking for a statement of policy principles with much grander embellishment than we were given by the Treasurer when he announced the change to the naturalisation policy. We believe that it is in Australia’s best interests to have between the two major Australian political parties a bipartisan policy on foreign investment. We think that it is conducive to promoting investment in Australia and to commercial enterprise generally. However, the latest changes put that bipartisanship at risk. This is not because of the naturalisation procedure or policy. We believe that there should be some mechanism whereby companies which wish to become majority-Australian companies can be provided with a mechanism to enable this to be done.

What we are worried about are the loopholes which are now exposed to unscrupulous companies which may happen to be just 25 per cent Australian in terms of equity, which have no intention of becoming majority-Australian and which, for the purpose of picking up a project that they might not otherwise have been able to involve themselves in, will pay lip service to this policy, take up equity in the project and secure for themselves an avenue into perhaps another area of Australian commerce that might normally not have been available to them. A massive change in the equity structure of a large company is not necessary for that company to get into a very large project. With a ten to one gearing ratio of equity funds to debt money, $100m really talks about an investment of $ 1,000m. That is a large investment in Australian resources, yet it would not change substantially a company’s equity structure.

Therefore, my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) has suggested a registration procedure whereby companies will not qualify merely because they happen to have 25 per cent Australian equity but will formally register with the Government through a registration process that their whole spirit and intention are to move to the status of becoming a majority-Australian company. Rather than the flimsy notification procedures set out in the document, we should have one which would require a company to keep the registrar advised at all times of changes in equity structure or investment plans, so that the registrar could ensure that the naturalisation policy was being followed. Of course, if it is not and the company takes up unscrupulously another investment, a divestment procedure should operate. That should happen if there is a breakdown in the integrity of the stated intentions of the company as stated at an earlier time. These things have not been attended to in the statement of the Treasurer.

Although we are pleased to see the Treasurer consolidate all of the Government’s foreign investment policies, we believe that this matter has been left singularly unattended to, as has been the case with some of the other aspects to which the honourable member for Gellibrand referred, such as the data base on the collection of statistics on foreign investment. I emphasise that if the Government wishes to preserve and maintain the bipartisanship that largely exists on foreign investment policy in Australia it would be very foolish not to heed the suggestions that the Opposition is making. We state, simply, that if there is not a tougher, more rigorous, formal registration process, with a divestment procedure when companies contravene the spirit of the policy, that policy will be abused by companiessome of them very large- in order to get into avenues of commerce that would not normally be available to them.

I believe that the principal companies that have been behind this move have been well intentioned. I believe that they want genuinely to become majority-Australian companies, but there are some who will take advantage of the policy. That opportunity should not be presented to them and we urge the Treasurer to re-think his position on the naturalisation of companies and the affording of Australian status to those companies which happen to have more than 25 per cent Australian ownership; to bring back a new statement which will close some of the loopholes which exist under the present policy.

Debate (on motion by Mr Graham) adjourned.

page 2620

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Yes. Unfortunately, I was not in the chamber during the grievance debate this morning, nor did I have notice, but I understand that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) made a statement regarding the Sinclair Pastoral Co., of which I am a principal. I am told that he alleged that the company had suffered substantial defalcations. That is not true. The company has been involved, to the extent that honourable members are aware, in an investigation which I initiated through the accountants, Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen and Co. A further special investigation has been instigated by the New South Wales Attorney-General. There have been no substantial defalcations in the manner and form of the allegations made by the honourable member for Chifley.

I understand that the honourable member referred also to property held by the company. The Sinclair Pastoral Co.- it and my family interests- owns ten houses and has a mortgage on another home. The basis for acquiring homes instead of shares has been in order significantly to divest myself- in view of allegations and assertions about the extent to which the holding of shares might well be said in some way to be a matter which affects my exercise of public office- of shares in companies. I have significantly, through the Sinclair Pastoral Co. in my own name, divested myself of most of the shares in public companies that I formerly held. As I have said, the company now holds some 10 houses and has a mortgage on another. Of those 10 houses there are only three on which at the moment rent is paid.

page 2620

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the date for the report of the Legislation Committee on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978 be 23 November 1978 in lieu of 14 November 1978.

page 2621

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR (New England-Minister for

Primary Industry) (2.53)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is twofold. First, the Bill includes provisions to establish a varietal control scheme for wheat by providing for the imposition of dockages on varieties of wheat possessing undesirable characteristics delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. Second, the Bill provides for a change in the legal basis on which the Board makes payments to State bulk handling authorities and for a change in the basis of remuneration of those authorities. I should point out that these amendments are being made to provisions of the current wheat industry stablisation plan. The 1 978-79 season which we are now entering is the final year of the plan. There will, of course, be new legislation introduced next year to cover the arrangements to apply beyond the 1978-79 season.

In respect of this Bill the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation requested that the Commonwealth and States introduce a scheme to discourage the growing of unacceptable varieties of wheat in Australia. The Australian Agricultural Council agreed in principle to introduce such a scheme with the objective of ensuring that the marketability of the Australian wheat crop is not prejudiced. The Council accepted that the homogeniety of the crop is an important characteristic in the Australian Wheat Board ‘s ability to sell the grain competitively on the international market. Unacceptable varieties would have a deleterious effect on the homogeniety of the crop and so affect its marketability.

The scheme is based on the Australian Wheat Board making dockages on unacceptable varieties delivered to it. The guidelines for the operation of the scheme were drawn up by the Australian Wheat Board in close collaboration with both the Commonwealth and the States. As this matter is one where the Australian Wheat Board will be exercising powers that it derives from Commonwealth-State legislation it is necessary for complementary Commonwealth-State legislation to be enacted. As mentioned previously all States have agreed in principle to the varietal control scheme. All States, with the exception of Victoria and Western Australia, are proceeding with the introduction of this amendment without delay. Victoria and Western Australia propose making the necessary amendment to their legislation next year.

Until the legislation of the two States mentioned has been amended it is necessary to make provision for this in the complementary Commonwealth-State legislation because of the nature of the pooling arrangements provided therein. Thus the amendment provides for the exclusion of wheat from the two States from the scheme for the time being. When the legislation for the arrangements to apply beyond the 1978-79 season is introduced next year this section of the Act will be adjusted to delete the exclusion because the varietal control amendment will be in place in all States.

This Bill authorises the Board to make dockages in respect of wheat of a Commonwealth Territory. Equivalent provisions in the legislation of the various States will give the Board similar powers in respect of wheat delivered in each State. The scheme will rely on provisions being included in the enabling legislation of the Commonwealth and each State for the prescribing of classes of wheat fixed by reference to the variety or varieties of the wheat and provides for dockages to be made by the Wheat Board for classes which do not fit the prescription. It is not intended that dockages for varietal control purposes will be actually imposed in respect of wheat of the 1978-79 season. However, the opportunity will be taken by the Wheat Board to advise growers delivering unacceptable varieties this season that such varieties could be subject to dockages in future seasons.

The change in the arrangements for the remuneration of State bulk handling authorities by the Wheat Board is also supported by the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation. This matter was examined by the Australian Agricultural Council and all States and the Commonwealth agreed to proceed with amendments to the complementary Commonwealth-State legislation to enable the revised arrangements to operate for the coming harvest. Hitherto the costs of wheat handling and storage have been pooled on an Australia-wide basis. Under the revised arrangements this Australia-wide pooling will no longer apply. Growers delivering wheat to the central receival system of each State will be charged a rate for storage and handling that is appropriate to the costs of the bulk handling authority in the State. The new arrangement will identify for growers the charges incurred by the authority that stores and handles their wheat and so enable there to be greater accountability to wheatgrowers for these charges that have been increasing. To effect this change it has been necessary to make amendments of a machinery nature to define the existing six State bulk handling authorities as State corporations for the purpose of being licensed to receive wheat on behalf of the Australian Wheat Board. The bulk handling authorities will also be empowered to appoint agents on the approval of the Board. This will formalise already existing arrangements in some States.

As earlier indicated the Bill also provides for a change in the legal authority on which payments are made by the Wheat Board to the State bulk handling authorities. Presently this authority is provided by agreements between the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and each of the State Ministers responsible for agriculture. This requirement was incorporated in the legislation to protect the Commonwealth’s contingent liability under guaranteed price arrangements which took into account changes in bulk handling costs.

The character of the industry’s stabilisation arrangements is now different and the need for formal agreements between the Commonwealth Minister and appropriate State Ministers to protect Commonwealth revenue no longer exists. Accordingly the proposed amendment provides for the Australian Wheat Board and the bulk handling authorities to enter into agreements in respect of payments for remuneration for handling and storage of wheat. The revised arrangements will overcome deficiencies in the authority for payments by the Australian Wheat Board to bulk handling authorities which are identified by the Auditor-General. These revised arrangements were agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in August 1 978.

Under the existing arrangements the Wheat Board payment arrangements provide for a freight advantage allowance of up to 92c per tonne to be applied in respect of wheat shipped from Western Australia reflecting the advantage accruing to that State from its relative proximity to some overseas markets. There has been agreement to the removal of the 92c ceiling in keeping with the principle that has been adopted in moving to State accountability for bulk handling and storage costs. The Bill provides for the removal of the ceiling from the Commonwealth Act. The Act is to come into operation on the day it receives royal assent. However amendments set out in clause 5 will have effect from 1 October 1978 which was the commencement of the 1978-79 wheat season. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 2622

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This Bill is a machinery Bill to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act, which imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airway facilities, meteorological services, and search and rescue services which are provided, operated and maintained by the Commonwealth. The purpose of the Bill is to increase, with effect from 1 December 1978, the rates of air navigation charges payable by all domestic operators by 15 per cent per year, resulting in an increase in revenue of just over $2m in 1978-79.

The 1961 Airlines Agreement provided for eventual recovery of the costs properly attributable to the air transport industry of providing and maintaining the aviation infrastructure. Initially no target date was set for achieving full recovery. In recent years, however, the Government has been concerned about the increasing cost of providing and maintaining the infrastructure and the level of revenues including air navigation charges, and the subsequent gap between costs and revenue in the domestic sector of the industry. For example, in 1974-75 the cost of facilities provided for the domestic sectors totalled $ 1 4 1 .7m, whilst the revenue earned by way of air navigation charges- fuel tax et cetera, totalled $66.8m, giving a recovery rate of 47 per cent. In 1977-78, costs were $172m, revenue $85.9m, and the recovery rate 49.7 per cent. This gap between revenues and costs is in part due to the restrictions in the Airlines Agreement on the level of increase which might be imposed in any year on ANCs payable by the two major domestic airlines.

Honourable members will recall that the 1961 Airlines Agreement provided, amongst other things, that the Commonwealth could not increase the rate of ANCs payable by the two airlines by more than 10 per cent in any year. Subsequently, the 1973 Airlines Agreement, which terminated on 30 June 1978, provided for a maximum increase of no more than 1 5 per cent per year.

The matter of a new or revised Airlines Agreement is currently the subject of negotiation between the airlines and my Department. These discussions, of course, are ranging over a broad spectrum of subjects including cost recovery. In respect of 1978-79 the two major airlines have agreed to waive their rights under clause 8 of the 1961 Agreement and to permit a 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges for this year. Further negotiations for a new or revised airlines agreement will take place against the background of the announced intention of the Government to achieve full recovery in the domestic trunk airline sector in 1979-80, and of its 1 978-79 Budget revenue intentions.

The Bill gives effect to a 1 5 per cent increase in ANCs for both domestic trunk and rural airlines. Provision is made in the Bill also for a 1 5 per cent increase in the rate of ANCs for the commuter and other general aviation sectors of the industry. Both these latter sectors make relatively small contributions towards the cost of the facilities provided for them. In 1977-78, the shortfall in revenue for commuters was of the order of $8m and for other general aviation $49m, giving recovery rates of about 12 per cent and 16 per cent respectively. In these circumstances, the Government also decided that a study should be undertaken into general aviation, to achieve an appropriate level of recovery on a more equitable and efficient basis. The scope of the study will be discussed with the general aviation industry.

The Bill does not provide for any increase in the level of charges for the international operators. For three years the recovery rate for the international sector has exceeded 100 per cent and it is expected again to exceed 100 per cent in 1978-79. In these circumstances it was considered appropriate that there should be no increase in these rates for the current year. Honourable members will also have noted that, as a result of the different levels of charges for the international and domestic sectors, the Principal Act will be partly restructured to accommodate these amendments. The major changes are to transfer the definition of the weight of an aircraft from paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Act itself. Further, each schedule of the Act will include the calculation of unit charge for the aircraft to which the particular schedules refers. The Bill also contains some formal amendments. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2623

STATES GRANTS (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to modify the five year expenditure profile of Commonwealth funds provided to assist the States with urban public transport improvements. It has become necessary following decisions to defer a portion of the funds available in 1978-79 and 1979-80 in the light of wider Budget considerations. As honourable members will recall, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced in his election policy speech last November that the Commonwealth would initiate a new program for urban public transport. The program would provide $300m over five years to assist States with upgrading their urban public transport systems. It was to follow on from the earlier program. Under the Urban Public Transport Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, about $ 190m of Commonwealth funds had been provided to assist the States with urban public transport improvements over the five years to June 1978.

The States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1978 honoured our election policy commitment. As I pointed out in the second reading speech, the principles of the new legislation had been the subject of extensive discussions between myself and my State government counterparts, as well as between officials. The 1978 Act included: Provision of $200m Commonwealth funds at the rate of $40m per annum over the period 1978-79 to 1982-83, with allocation between States as set out in the Schedule to the Act; provision under section 8 of $ 100m, available at the rate of $200m per annum, for allocation between States on the basis of needs. I would like to remind honourable members that Commonwealth funds of $300m provided under the 1978 Act represent an increase of more than 50 per cent over the funds provided by the Commonwealth to the States under the previous Urban Public Transport Agreement. The 1978 Act therefore reflects this Government’s support for urban public transport improvements.

As honourable members are aware, I have notified the States of 1978-79 approvals. While these approvals cover more than one year for some States, approvals have been restricted to the level of funds set out in the Schedule to the Act. It is the Government’s intention to maintain the total urban public transport program at $300m to 1982-83. However, decisions have been taken in the light of Budget requirements, to defer allocation of $25m out of the full $40m otherwise available under section 8 in 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Bill before the House provides for the deferred $25m to be included in an amended Schedule to the Act for the final three years from 1980-81 to 1982-83. The Commonwealth allocation by schedule thus will be increased from $200m at the rate of $40m each year to $22 5 m with yearly allocations as follows: 1978-79, $40m; 1979-80, $40m; 1980-81, $45m; 1981- 82, $50m; 1982-83, $50m. The total amount to be provided by way of schedule allocations to each State over the five years to 1982- 83 is as follows:

The apportionment between States in the amended Schedule is in the same proportions as in the current Schedule to the 1978 Act. The remaining $75m in the $300m program will still be available for allocation between States on a needs basis over the remaining four years of the program as follows: $ 15m in 1978-79; $20m per annum in 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. This Bill therefore maintains the Government’s longer term support for urban public transport, while meeting the current need for financial restraint. It does not impinge upon basic principles incorporated in the 1978 Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2624

LOANS (TAXATION EXEMPTION) 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, which is designed to correct a technical deficiency in existing very old legislation, seeks the approval of Parliament to extend the conditions under which the Commonwealth may provide necessary tax exemption undertakings in relation to its overseas borrowings, specifically where borrowings do not involve the issue of stocks or other securities. It is and has been a standard requirement of overseas lenders that the Commonwealth provide an undertaking that principal and interest payments on our overseas loans will be exempt from Australian taxes except where the moneys are payable to persons who are residents of Australia or of any of the Territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, or Christmas Island.

The authority for the Commonwealth to provide such undertakings has been derived from section 6B of the Loans Securities Act 1919. The Commonwealth’s continued reliance upon section 6B of the Loans Securities Act 1 9 1 9 for authority to give tax undertakings is constrained by a technical requirement that the Commonwealth may give such undertakings only where stock or securities are issued in evidence of the debt. It is perhaps not surprising, however, that not all forms of borrowing which have evolved over the many years since the Loans Securities Act was enacted and which may be undertaken by Australia, necessarily involve the issue of securities as standard procedure. This is so, for instance, where a loan agreement between the parties is legally sufficient for lenders as evidence of the debt and no specific ‘security’ is required to be issued by the Commonwealth in the form required by the Act.

As already indicated, this situation reflects the diversification and refinement which has occurred in international capital markets particularly over the last decade, and in the forms in which loans can be arranged in those markets. In some recent Commonwealth loans it has been necessary to provide for special arrangements with lenders in respect of a now standard form of international loan operation. Against this background, the present Bill provides a means to correct this technical deficiency in the existing very old legislation. It does not involve policy issues; it merely extends long-established provisions in the present legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2624

STATES GRANTS (ROADS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-This Bill amends the principal Act, the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977, so as to provide an additional $33m to the States in each of the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 for road construction and maintenance purposes and increases the minimum quotas to be expended by each of the States from their own resources in those years for similar purposes. Schedules 1 to 10 of the Bill detail the categories of road works for which the grants are being made to the States in each year, while Schedule 1 1 specifies the State quotas for the same periods. A further provision in the Bill updates the reference in the principal Act to the Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but will be taking the opportunity this debate offers to highlight the inadequacy of the funds being provided and the damaging effect this will have on the road construction and road transport industry, together with the inflationary and inequitable impact the Government’s fuel pricing policies announced in the Budget will have on motorists.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) said in reference to the principal Act that in allocating grants for 1977-78 the Government’s priorities were to ensure that the road needs of local authorities were covered adequately and that emphasis was maintained on the funding of a national road network and rural arterial roads. They are admirable objectives and the Opposition supports them. What is at issue are the road needs of almost every second Australian- that is everyone who owns a motor car- and the road transport industry. This Government, by raising fuel taxes, is boosting petrol prices by 16c per gallon this financial year, thus reaping a windfall gain of about $772m in 1978-79. This addition to revenue is not being provided to meet the needs of motorists and the transport industry. It is being diverted to other uses to which I will turn later.

The inadequacy of road funding provided in the principal Act is to be maintained by the $33m allocated in this Bill. The disparities between the road categories and the deprivation of funding for Victorian provincial cities such as Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong is to continue because of the low financial priority accorded motorists and the transport industry by the Government. In regard to the Stuart Highway in South Australia, the switch of the adjustment amount in this Bill from national commerce roads to national highways so as to enable $ 1 m to be spent on the highway in 1 978-79 is a rather transparent attempt to cover up the repudiation of the Government’s specific election promise made in Alice Springs on 25 November last year that specific funds in addition to the funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the national program would be made available for the Stuart Highway. My colleague, the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) will deal with this in more detail later in the debate. That promise has been repudiated. The South Australian Government proposed as early as November 1977 that Sim should be provided for Stuart Highway construction this financial year.

In relation to the increase in State quotas prescribed in Schedule 1 1 of the Bill, the Minister expressed his pleasure at the fact that a number of States have exceeded their quotas by significant amounts in recent years. I think I should draw to the attention of the House some material prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics for 1976-77. Whilst the conclusions drawn on percentage expenditure above quota by each of the States will not be precise because of” the slight difference in the definitions used by the BTE and the Department of Transport for the purposes of the Act, the figures themselves are an adequate guide to the effort made by the States to boost their expenditure in excess of the quotas prescribed in the road legislation. For the year ended 1 976-77, New South Wales exceeded its quota by 46 per cent; Victoria by eight per cent; Queensland by 60 per cent; South Australia by 44 per cent; Western Australia by 40 per cent; and Tasmania by 134 per cent. As I said earlier, these figures are only a rough guide but they provide clear evidence that the States are trying to pull their weight in the provision of road funds. We accept the Minister’s statement of pleasure at the expenditure in excess of quota by the States as a confession that he recognises that the States are doing something from their own resources.

I contrast the statement in his second reading speech with his earlier outpourings against the States’ needs for road funds when he was abroad recently. Firstly, his comments overseas, in my view, were quite improper for a Minister of Her Majesty’s Australian Government. Secondly, they were unpatriotic. Thirdly, they were in direct contrast to his statement in introducing this Bill. But the Minister has an established record of railing against internal Australian political policies at international forums. In addressing the annual conference of the Australian Road Transport Federation in New Zealand on 25 September, having referred to the $33m being provided by this Bill, he referred to the States. We should remember that the State governments are sovereign governments in this nation with their own rights. The Minister said:

Once again we are having an annual bleat from the State governments claiming the need for additional road funding from the Commonwealth.

He went on to criticise the States for their priorities in road funding and urged increases in State taxes on motorists and the transport industry. Such remarks are in order within Australia but not at transport forums abroad. In my view those remarks indicate an appalling lack of judgment on the part of the Minister. It is clear from the Budget that this Government has declared open war on road users. The Minister wants the States to join in that war. In the New Zealand address the Minister referred to what he called the States’ repeated whinging about road maintenance charges. He went on to claim that the charges were a mockery. The imputation from his remarks is crystal clear. He wants to see road maintenance taxes and charges increased substantially. He wants to see a much higher level of enforcement in the collection of those charges.

His reference to the limited amount raised by the States on registration and other charges carried with it the obvious implication that the Fraser Government, by limiting road funds to the States, is seeking to bring about an increase in motor vehicle registration charges and taxes together with an increase in motor driving licence fees. That it is all very well for a Government which practises a policy of coercive federalism. In essence, what is happening under the policy of federalism is that the Government by starving the States of funds is seeking to force them into other areas of revenue collection so that they incur the odium for the collection of that revenue and the Federal Government can then attempt to claim that it is reducing federal charges. Fortunately for motorists, to date the States are resisting this aim of the Fraser Government.

When the Minister introduced the principal Act in this House on 15 September last year he went to pains to stress that the annual indexation grant to be made available to the States would be sufficient at the very least to maintain in real terms for 1978-79 and 1979-80 the $475m which was being made available for 1977-78. He referred to the use of the national accounts implicit price deflator for private investment in other building and construction areas as a means of determining the adjustment grants. He said: the proposed indexation arrangements will provide a guaranteed minimum.

He went on to say that the actual increase each year would need to be finalised in the light of the overall budgetary and economic situation. Given that the Department of the Treasury is ripping off from motorists, from every operator-driver, or owner of a motor vehicle in this country, an extra $772m this year as a result of the Budget decision to increase petrol prices by 16c per gallon, one would have thought that this was a most opportune time for the Government to provide additional funds for roads. But that is not the case. The amount being provided for roads as a result of this adjustment, compared with the consumer price index for the year is a drop of one per cent. Using the implicit price deflator it may very well tie in with what the Minister said in his speech to the House last year. But the point I stress is that if in a year in which a government is reaping a windfall of an additional $772m from motorists and it cannot see fit to increase the funds it is making available for road construction and maintenance, particularly in areas where safety hazards are involved, obviously there will be no stage in the life of that government when it will be able to make additional funds available for road purposes.

In the debate last year on the principal Act the Opposition warned that if the Federal Government genuinely intended to make funds available on an increasing scale during the triennium it would have written into the Act the method of adjustment. That was not done. The impression was given by the Minister that at the very least, using the implicit price deflator, funds would be made available for road construction and maintenance by way of grants to the States. This year the Budget forecast of receipts is $26,057m. It is not that the Government is short of money for road funding. It is not that it is not conscious of the very important works that need to be carried out on roads. It is simply that the Government’s priorities are out of kilter with the feeling of the rest of the community. It is simply that the Government’s priorities lend it to squandering massive amounts of money, in many ways on personal extravagances and in many ways on priorities that do not really meet community needs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will recall the answer given this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to a question relating to the Government’s $40m program to purchase either two 149-passenger Boeing 707 jetliners or two 120-passenger Boeing 727-100 jetliners for the Prime Minister’s use abroad and in Australia. Every motorist, every householder who has a pothole in front of his home or has to traffic a dangerous corner or to drive through an intersection that needs traffic lights or who just cannot have a road at all, as is the case in many respects with the Stuart Highway, will be looking at the priorities of this Government. They will be recognising the priorities.

As I said, an amount of $26,057m was collected by government this year. The amount of money to be provided for road construction and maintenance will not increase in terms of the consumer price index. In fact, the amount will decrease by one per cent. That is in accordance with the Government’s record on road funding since the change of government. If my recollection is correct, last year the reduction in real terms in road funding provided by the Government was of the order of 4 per cent, measured in terms of the CPI. This year a further reduction of one per cent has been made. In 1975-76 the share of gross domestic product going to road construction and maintenance was’ 0.612 per cent. In 1976-77 the allocation dropped substantially to 0.538 per cent. I do not have available to me any later figures than that, but the trend is very clear. The Government is interested in collecting money from motorists- they are open season- but the Government is not giving motorists priority and shuffling back to the States adequate funding for the proper construction and maintenance of roads.

I refer, as I did earlier, to the priorities of the Government. Every pensioner who owns and operates a motor car is conscious of the fact that the price of petrol is skyrocketing. For every low income earner who lives where there is not a public transport service, every unemployed person who lives where there is not a public transport service and has to use a motor car, every person in a country town who does not have access to some form of public transport and has to use a motor vehicle, the increases in the fuel tax and the increases in petrol prices simply constitute a reduction in their standard of living, imposed upon them by this Government. I contrast those factors again with the priorities of VIP aircraft; the VIP jaunts to the opera costing $3,000; $8,000 dinner sets; a quarter of a million dollars spent to modernise and luxuriate the Lodge and the latest absolute extravagance of all- as I said, the indecent extravagance -

Mr Graham:

– You will be grateful for it when you get there.

Mr MORRIS:

-For the benefit of the honourable member for North Sydney I repeat what I said and contrast those factors with the latest indecent extravagance of more than $60,000 each for high speed, imported, sleek, luxurious limousines. What are they for but to transport the Prime Minister around? Apparently the Long Tom Chrysler we bought for him is not good enough. That is down in Melbourne. Apparently the Ferraris which he gets for free here in Canberra are not good enough and the exemption that is granted to him -

Mr Howe:

– He does a lot of travelling.

Mr MORRIS:

– Yes, he does a lot of travelling. We have noticed that. Unfortunately for Australia, most of it is done overseas. That indicates the priorities. The people who are out of work and people, such as the pensioners who have just lost their six-monthly pension adjustments, will see -

Mr Garland:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard some of this stuff many times. It has never been proved. It really is irrelevant to the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! There is no real substance to the point of order.

Mr MORRIS:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is rarely in Australia also. It is very nice to see him visit the chamber for a change. On behalf of all honourable members I welcome him. For the benefit of the Minister, I was just going to say that this year $27m has been stripped from pensioners by the abolition of six-monthly pension adjustments. I was contrasting that, with your agreement, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the priorities given to road funding. I think that the Automobile Association of Australia put the point very well when it said to the Government in its publication of July this year:

AAA recommends in the strongest possible terms that the Government rechart its course in road expenditure, to provide; in real terms, an increasing level of road grants to the States.

The Association referred to the Government’s own report, the 1975 report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, which demonstrated that a five-year recommended program of road construction would return total benefits worth 3.9 times its costs. That was a report from inside the Department of Transport, not a comment from an outside organisation.

The other matter which the Government overlooks completely- we believe it is part of the Government’s deliberate policy- is the employment-generating capacity of road construction and maintenance. Studies that have been done on this subject show that 64 per cent of expenditure, direct and indirect, on road construction and maintenance goes to the employment of labour. If the Government were in any way genuine about wanting to reduce the level of unemployment it would be increasing the funds made available for road construction and maintenance. Instead of that, in consumer price index terms the Government is decreasing the funds. Correspondingly, the level of unemployment is increasing.

I turn now for a moment to the fuel conservation aspects of road construction and maintenance. The decision of the Government to raise the price of petrol by 1 6c a gallon was put forward as being a means of bringing about a more efficient use of fuel- liquid energy- in this country. We were told that if the price went up substantially people would use that scarce resource more sparingly and there would be greater incentive for exploration companies to find further sources of supply. What needs to be repeated to the House is that from each $10 spent on petrol almost $5 goes to the Government. If we add to that, from the motorists’ point of view, the 45 per cent import duty on new cars, the 15 per cent sales tax on cars, which as 1 work it out on a $7,000 car represents of the order of $625, we see that already motorists are extremely heavily taxed.

The overseas record shows that where a pricing mechanism has been used in an attempt to ration the use of liquid energy- petroleum products- it has failed. The same will happen here because of the point I was making earlier, namely, that so many people in this vast country of ours do not have a choice in using a motor car; they have to use a motor car because no other means of transport is available. So all those people simply have to pay. The demand for petroleum products is properly defined as being highly price inelastic. In countries overseas where there have been substantial increases in the price of fuel some temporary dropping off in demand might have occurred in the early stages, but it has successively returned to the former level.

If the Government were genuine in that approach not only would it be responsible for the increase in the price of fuel that has occurred but also, at the same time, it would be doing several other things. Firstly, it would be spending more money on roads because practice has shown that better road services provide better fuel economies for motor vehicles; better roads provide less delay; vehicles move more quickly; and less damage is caused to vehicles. However we are not providing better roads. Better roads also mean safer roads. They save lives, but the Government is not doing anything about that aspect either. So, the Government is not genuine in putting forward an attempt to try to conserve fuel as its justification for the increased price of fuel.

I turn to the other complementary areapublic transport- and my colleague, the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) will deal with this at greater length a little later. In any properly managed and responsible fuel conservation program, the additional money that is being taken from motorists by way of fuel tax increases should be diverted to the upgrading and extension of public transport services. That is not happening. Funding in real terms for urban public transport in the 1978-79 Budget- the Budget as a result of which this Bill is introducedrepresents a fall of 46 per cent over the level of funding in 1976-77. So at whichever area we look, it is quite clear that the Government is not genuine in its claim that fuel prices have gone up in order to assist to conserve fuel and to enable greater exploration activity to take place. The schedules attached to the Bill provide details of the allocations to each of the States under the various categories of road construction. On page 66 of Budget Paper No. 7 there is set out in finer detail the provision of funding to each of the States and for the Commonwealth as well as the quotas to be met by each of the States in the year ahead. That information should be looked at in conjunction with the Bill and I seek leave of the

House to have the tables incorporated in Hansard. I have not yet had a chance to show them to the Minister.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank the House. In conclusion, the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. It believes that the funds being provided by the Bill are wholly inadequate and that the Government obviously is diverting to other purposes the funds being taken from motorists this year by way of increased fuel tax and increased petrol prices. It believes also that road funds remain a low priority of this Government.

Mr DEAN:
Herbert

-In one respect I find myself in broad agreement with some of the comments of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) because I too would like to see rather more money being spent on Australia’s roads. However, in other respects the honourable member for Shortland does not seem to have conceded a couple of the difficulties that bear down on this otherwise most admirable aim. One such difficulty which we must bear in mind is that the fuel excise or fuel tax component in the price of petrol traditionally, as I understand it, has been regarded as a general revenue measure. It is not enough just to say that because we are taking more money by way of tax we should spend more money directly in favour of the motorist. It is a revenue measure and, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole. The honourable member for

Shortland then went on to say that, insofar as the Budget as a whole is concerned, the priorities of the Government are obviously out of kilter.

The best he could do to prove that contention was to make reference to the VIP fleet, to a couple of new limousines and to some modifications at the Lodge. It seems to me that that is hardly enough proof of that contention. Indeed, in making that contention the honourable member did not concede the national aspects of or requirement for some of the expenditure which he seems to dislike. It is not only the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who has need of a couple of new VIP aircraft. This is a need of the head of the nation. There is a need for the head of the nation to move about in this way not only within Australia but also around the world. It does not matter who is the incumbent of that office or from which party he comes; there is a need for the head of the Government to be able to move about this country and the world in the degree of safety that is required. I suggest that the honourable member for Shortland has allowed himself to stray a little from the point of the increase in fuel prices. The point is that it is part and parcel of the overall Budget revenue and it has to be balanced against the total Budget package and not thought of just in the context of using some of it for building better roads.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) explained the purpose of the Bill when he introduced it. The Bill in effect is a relatively simple one. It provides an alteration to the level of funding set down in the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977. The increase in funding provided by the amendment is to honour the intention to maintain spending on roads in real terms. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the increase was almost seven per cent over the last financial year. I think the precise figure was 6.95 per cent. Therefore, I do not quite know how the honourable member for Shortland formed the view that there has been a decrease in real levels. This Bill honours the promise to provide an increase in real terms this year of almost seven per cent, based on a forecast of price movements in this current financial year.

I would like to spend a little time in this debate in discussing the national roads part of this Bill and the funding for it provided by the Bill. In some respects it seems that the national roads part is not given adequate priority and in other respects it seems that some of the criteria used in allocating funds for national roads across the country are not thought of widely enough. In order to talk about those couple of aspects of national roads it may by useful if I refer firstly to a report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in 1973 in which the concept of the national highway and national roads system was fairly well enunciated. The Bureau had earlier reported in February 1972 to the then Minister that it was difficult for State governments to assemble the large resources necessary to construct long distances of main roads between major centres. The Bureau also reported in 1972 that those linking roads, if we like to call them that were inadequate and that the then current policies were not likely to increase the rate of improvement of those roads which was desirable in the national interest. Consequently, it recommended that immediate consideration be given to the provision of financial assistance for those main arterial roads which join major centres and which should form the nucleus of a national highways system.

The declared national highways system today comprises the major links between the major capital cities, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, and the highways between Brisbane and Cairns and between Hoban and Burnie. In the 1972 report, the Bureau stated:

Whilst the Commonwealth has an interest in all roads some main arterial roads are of more concern to the Commonwealth, because of their importance to Australia as a whole. It is concluded that the roads of most concern, which might be called a National Roads System, are the roads which:

encourage and contribute to a major extent, to trade and commerce . . .

assist industry located in major centres of population . . .

reduce, significantly, transport costs of the products and rural and/or secondary industry, between points of production and points of export or consumption;

provide for long distance movement associated with recreation and tourism; and which

improve movement between defence production centres, defence supply and storage locations, and defence establishments generally.

It is interesting to note that in that 1972 report there is reference to recreation and tourism. That is a point to which I shall return a little later. In that report we see the development of the concept of the national road system and the need for it. As I say, I am wholly in favour of that. In some respects it seems to me that perhaps that concept is still not given adequate weight. It seems to me that there may well be a greater need to divert a better share of money to the national road system than is currently given. Why is that? Let us take up a couple of points referred to in the report I mentioned and talk about tourism for a moment.

We had tabled in Parliament a fortnight ago the final report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism. That contains a very important chapter on the road element in tourism. If we as a nation are going to take tourism and the benefits of tourism seriously, then perhaps we should take much more account of the aspect of tourism when considering the level of spending on the national road system. The report stated that road travel accounts for approximately 90 per cent of leisure travel within Australia. The provisions of roads to cater adequately for this traffic is therefore of special importance to the development of tourism in Australia. The Australian Automobile Association suggested that a major requirement for increased domestic tourism is a ready access to the many undoubted tourist attractions this country has to offer. In particular there is a need for vastly upgraded and safer all weather road communications. Of course, it is well known, as the honourable member for Shortland has pointed out, that the AAA predictably is not at all happy with what has been happening with our road system. One can understand that. It gave evidence to the Committee as follows:

The existing road system cannot adequately meet the needs of tourism.

It cannot do so because of a number of factors, which include the poor standard of some road surfaces, inadequate distance and directional sign posting, the high cost of wear and tear on vehicles and the motorists’ own poor opinion of the road system. They are all factors limiting the growth of motor tourism in Australia.

We are well aware of the financial benefits to the economy of the movement of people throughout Australia and the movement of people coming to Australia from overseas. The national highways system is obviously a very important part- perhaps overall the most significant part- of the provision of adequate roads for tourists. In particular, we can think in terms of the eastern highway. The belt of development from Cairns in the north to Adelaide in the south is a distance of some 2,500 miles. It contains the great part of Australia’s population- probably something like 90 per cent of it. Five of the seven capital cities are within that belt. Nine of the ten major provincial cities are located within that same belt. When we think of those nine or ten major provincial cities it is interesting to note the place that Queensland plays. Of those nine or ten major provincial cities, five or six are in the State of Queensland. Starting from the north we have cities like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Maryboroughall large cities stretched out along a very large part of that 2,500-mile belt. In terms of tourism, of course, it is interesting to note the access that is provided to a wide range of tourist attractions along the Queensland part of the belt. It is an access that starts with the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, off Gladstone, and stretches all the way north to Torres Strait.

It has been suggested that the progressive development of the national highway system undoubtedly would assist with the development of tourism. For a moment, therefore, I mention in particular the Bruce Highway- the Queensland part of that 2,500-mile belt to which I referred earlier- which feeds and services a great number of tourist attractions in Australia. The Bruce Highway is one of the less well developed major roads in Australia and it is still underdeveloped, even considering those large towns which I mentioned and which it services. It is a stretch of road which in many places is too narrow. It is a stretch of road which is subject to flooding, particularly in some of the northern parts where we have a severe and short wet season. It is a stretch of road with a vast number of narrow, single lane bridges to be crossed. It is a stretch of road which has a wide variety of surface conditions. In some parts it is a stretch of road which requires particular consideration in relation to construction. For example, in north Queensland the suddenness and severity of the wet season are such that there is a problem caused by high seepage of water from surrounding terrain- water seeping in under roads and thus causing a high degree of foundational problems. It is a road on which we rely, nevertheless, to cater for tourism. Obviously the Bruce Highway is one part of the 2,500-mile national highway from Cairns to Adelaide which needs to be thought of more particularly from the tourist point of view and which perhaps deserves a better share of money than is determined by thinking of it simply in terms of the bare number of people served.

A second point that came out in the report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in February 1972 has reference to the decentralisation aspect. The next thing to bear in mind when thinking of the Bruce Highway in Queensland is that Queensland is indeed the most decentralised State. There is a national need to maintain that decentralisation, to maintain the development- the wide variety of development- that exists in Queensland, to make sure that the prosperity is fostered for the good of the nation as a whole. I have referred to the various cities that stretch along the Bruce Highway- Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Maryborough. Inland there is Mount Isa- a very large city of almost 30,000 people. It is clear that Queensland is a very decentralised State. It is equally clear that, in order to maintain and foster the decentralisation and prosperity brought to the whole State, the road system must be good. It is clear that the road system, particularly the national road system, needs to be a good deal better than it is. It is the national road that is being relied upon. There is a wide diversification of industry in Queensland- primary, secondary and tertiary. There is a wide spread of commerce throughout the towns I have mentioned, making it a vigorous and prosperous State and contributing very much to the overall prosperity of the country. It is in the national interest to maintain, encourage and foster the type of decentralisation that exists in Queensland to ensure that the future is going to be better for the whole country, not only for Queensland.

My final point is a reference to the criteria that might be used to determine just how much of national road funding will be diverted to the various parts of Australia. I say that because if the tourist point is taken seriously the Bruce

Highway in particular should be getting a better share of road funding. If the needs of decentralisation are taken seriously, again the national road system, particularly in Queensland, must be thought about more seriously. If those points are to be taken seriously we must be concerned about the criteria. As best I can discover, the reigning criterion for working out the proportion of spending for roads is essentially population. It is understandable that where most people are, on the face of it, is where the most need is. I think we have to move away from so simplistic an approach. Proper consideration must be given to factors such as tourism and decentralisation. In addition, there needs to be a proper consideration of the difficulties and problems in various regional areas. When it comes to thinking in terms of a vast State like Queensland, account has to be taken of the cost of distance. Account also has to be taken of the cost of getting materials to places long distances from the supply of those materials, the cost caused by flooding and the cost caused by inadequate, narrow bridges. Some of the regional needs must be taken into account when it comes to construction. The need, as I have mentioned before, for roads to be made to stand up to the stresses and strains of a severe and short wet season. I use that as an example.

Whilst all of us, of course, must support this Bill because of the added road funding that it provides for the continued development of the road system within Australia, nevertheless I make the point that while very admirably in 1972 a whole variety of points including tourism and decentralisation were referred to, it seems to me that in- determining the apportionment of funding, inadequate consideration is given to those sorts of factors. It would seem to me that on those considerations a case for a better proportion of funding, particularly in Queensland and along the Bruce Highway stretch of the national highway system, could easily be made out.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I want to address my remarks particularly to the area of urban arterial roads which is that aspect of funding, within the overall allocation for roads, that suffered the sharpest cuts. I think one must agree with the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) that one needs to look at the expenditure in particular areas such as this within the context of the overall strategy. One has to see whether in fact expenditures are justified and whether changes in the pattern of expenditure are justified in the transport area and in the roads area in particular. One has to ask whether they fit in with the Government’s strategy as a whole and whether they are consistent with that strategy. One of the causes for concern in respect of this legislation dealing with the funding of roads is that at a time when the Government, as the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) suggested, achieved in one particular year a windfall revenue of over $700m- this is related presumably to the whole question of energy conservation- when we look at the transport area we do not see that particular move as part of a transport strategy.

Clearly, within this country transport is the largest single consumer of energy. We cannot have within Australia a rational approach to energy without that approach following through to the transport area. I believe it is significant that in this year, the same year in which we say that we are conscious of energy conservation and we are prepared to take $700m out of the pockets of the motorists, we are chopping back in the area of transport planning. Cuts of about $2m have been made in the Federal contribution to transport planning. These cuts have been made in the same year as the Government made a commitment- it made that commitment just a few months ago- to a certain level of expenditure in support of the States’ urban public transport. Yet a Bill has been introduced into the House which will effectively reduce the amount of money that will be spent this particular year in relation to that commitment. This puts off movement towards an effective and rational public transport policy. The principal cut will occur in one of the most sensitive areas if one is thinking of developing, redeveloping and improving public transport systems as a priority. I refer to the category of roads known as urban arterials. Funding for Australia has been chopped back from $87m in 1 977-78 to $85.8m.

In Victoria, to which I want to refer in particular, funding has been cut back from $28. 9m to $23. 7m. In actual terms, that is a cut of $5m in one year. That is quite a solid chop back. There are various ways of interpreting the reasons for that decision. One could argue that if that decision related particularly to certain forms of urban arterial roads in the major cities- I refer particularly to freeways- then certainly I would want to argue in favour of that decision. I believe we need to recognise that the freeway as a form of road is quite unsuitable to urban conditions and for built-up areas in any city in Australia. The Government, if it is having a good solid chop at the Victorian Government for the excessive way that it has gone in for freeway construction, is to be congratulated. This Government has made a great deal of the fact that it always consulted the States before it made these decisions and ensured that the States were fully in agreement with decisions of the Federal Government. But clearly in the case of urban arterial roads, particularly their effects on the urban freeway program, this Government is clearly out of accord with its State counterparts, especially in Victoria. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Age on 3 November 1 978. It states:

The State Transport Minister, Mr Maclellan, yesterday attacked his Federal counterpart, Mr Nixon, for burdening Victoria with extra urban freeway spending.

Mr Maclellan said Mr Nixon had shaped Federal policy for political purposes.

He (Mr Nixon) is trying to make a good fellow of himself to country people ‘, he said . . .

Mr Maclellan said Mr Nixon had rejected independent advice from the Commonwealth Bureau of Transport Economics . . . in forming his policy.

State funds had to be used to ‘counter the imbalance’ when Federal funds were diverted to national highways.

I think that one does not have to agree with what Mr Maclellan is suggesting. One has to recognise that Mr Maclellan, while accusing Mr Nixon of being political, is himself being political. He is the victim of a State government’s policy of producing transport chaos. That will be one of the major factors that will run the Victorian State Government out of office. We saw a swing of 9 per cent in Ballarat only last weekend. A 9 per cent swing in Ballarat means a 13 per cent swing in any outer suburban electorate.

Dr Jenkins:

– A 1 5 per cent swing in Preston.

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, a 1 5 per cent swing in Preston. The situation is that the Hamer Government is about to be run out of office in Victoria not only because of the corruption which it has displayed in regard to land dealings and housing projectsthere was another such allegation in this morning’s Melbourne Age- but also because of the situation of absolute transport chaos that has been created by the fact that money has been wasted on unfinished and unconnected freeways that are environmentally expensive and socially destructive. That cannot be said too often. It will be said in Victoria over the next few months. We will see the Hamer Government run out of office partly because of its inability to deal with the transport policy question. That is why Mr Maclellan- an aspirant for the leadership, someone who undoubtedly will be trained to replace Mr Hamer early next year- is so critical of the Commonwealth Government which is showing the ineptitude of the Victorian Government as it forces that Government to spend more of its money on freeways or abandon the policy. But then, this Government also claimed that it had an understanding of the way people thought not only within the States but also in those areas outside the metropolitan areas. This was to be a government that would have a feel for the provincial cities around Australia- for those nonmetropolitan areas- and for their transport needs.

It is clear that in Victoria the effects of the cutbacks in urban arterial roads, particularly within the context of the Hamer State Government’s regressive and absurd policies in relation to transport planning, have created an extraordinarly awkward situation for provincial cities. The effect of the cutbacks in urban arterial roads means that cities such as Ballarat- where a byelection was held the other Saturday- Bendigowhere we will be winning seats- and Geelong, will have virtually no money at all for arterial roads within the bounds of those provincial centres. The representatives of these cities made their views known to the Minister for Transport very clearly late last year when they wrote to him pointing out that there was no way that they were going to be misled by the subterfuge of suggesting that additional funds for rural local roads, or even for urban local roads, would be a substitute for cutting back in funding in what they regarded as the crucial area of urban arterial roads.

When cities reach the scale of those provincial cities just as in metropolitan areas, they are divided between suburbs. People within those cities have the same problems of mobility that people in metropolitan centres have. If they are not able to travel quickly and efficiently between various areas of the cities they are not able to take full advantage of the facilities that are available within those cities. The local governments of those three cities of Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong wrote to the Minister late last year pointing strongly to the fact that the cutbacks in the area of urban arterial roads that have been progressively followed by this Government were hitting at the heart of the localised transport systems of cities such as Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong.

Those cities went on to point out- the figures were included in their letter- how the actual funds provided for urban arterial roads contrasted with the recommendations of the Bureau of Transport Economics or, as it was then, the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in its 1975 report. The letter contained figures to suggest that although the Bureau at that time was suggesting that escalating expenditure on urban arterials ought to be available in fact in practice there have been reductions in real terms year in and year out since this Government has been in power. This has had a serious effect on provincial towns in Victoria. Those cities are aware of that and of the fact that not only does the Hamer Government have to be thrown out but also the Fraser Government has been part of the move to reduce the effective transport systems of these cities.

The principal emphasis I turn to is that when one talks about urban arterial roads one does not need to think necessarily of their importance in terms of the private motor vehicle. We ought to recognise that given the changes that are occurring in world energy resources and the reality of the shortage of oil in Australia by the mid-4 980s, and certainly the very drastically changed situation for the world by the turn of the century, we need to be moving towards alternative transport systems. We need at least to be reducing the total dependence that so many communities have upon the private motor vehicle and the enormous consumption of oil that is involved in our dependence on the private motor car. I do not want to go into any details or to take the time of the House but I shall refer briefly to an article in a journal called Ecos of August 1978 which describes some research that was carried out in Melbourne by three researchers- Dr Sharpe, Dr Brotchie, and Dr Toakley- who looked at the implications of the continuation of the pattern of urban development that we currently have and continuing dependence on the use of fuel by the private motor car. The report states:

The study predicts that if low-density development (detached housing on the normal suburban block) continues at the fringe of today’s outer suburbs, energy use by private transport will rise to 700 TJ per day and that by public transport to 33 TJ per day. This represents an increase of 85 per cent on the 1 976 total. If new development is restricted to one sector of the outer fringe, the increase is still greater.

Without changes in policy we are talking about the doubling of the use of energy by the private motor vehicle by the turn of the century. Clearly this is irrational. This is madness. We ought to be changing now. We ought to be changing this year because this year we could have had at least part of $700m to begin to develop alternative ways of organising our cities. In the short run the urban arterial road, the connecting road within the existing cities, is crucial. It is on that road.that we can imagine the use of bus systems which in many respects will be most suited to the low density character of Australian cities. We have to recognise that in Victoria in particular, but in other States as well to a certain extent, there has been too much indulging in major freeway projects by transport ministries. These projects might look terrific on the planning board but they end up costing perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars and they do not produce an overall rational transport system. If we are to get an overall rational transport system then part of the approach will need to be the improvement of urban arterial roads.

In my electorate of Batman in the north eastern corridor of Melbourne a recent study has shown that it is almost impossible for people to make effective cross-city or circumferential journeys through that corridor to link job opportunities and shopping trips which would save the use of important private car energy. This is simply because the necessary public transport system and indeed roads suitable for public transport have not been created. I believe that a number of groups in the community are beginning to think about how we can begin to redesign our road systems so that we achieve a more effective transport system, so that we make journeys possible for people in a corporate way whether it is by bus, taxi or by car pooling arrangements. We should begin to introduce certain safety measures to separate the various uses which interact or interrelate in urban road systems.

One of the groups that has been doing some important work in this area in Melbourne is the Town and Country Planning Association. In August of this year it published a transport policy which refers particularly to the whole area of arterial roads and suggests a number of specific policies that ought to be introduced without delay. Many of these policies surely should be encouraged by the Federal Government which is so good at talking to the States and so effective in its relations with the States. It could encourage States such as Victoria, which has not been doing any of the things that I have mentioned, to begin to do those things. It is not simply a question of money. It is a question of imagination, will and recognition of the importance of beginning to change priorities in relation to transport.

Some of the suggestions that are made by the Town and Country Planning Association are the need for increased traffic management and road improvement measures to increase traffic flow, for example, by having synchronised lights, flared intersections, pedestrian separation. They are all obvious enough suggestions. The report then mentions priority lanes for public transport and multiple person vehicles with provision for traffic light remote control for public transport drivers which could be used where appropriate. The whole concept of having bus lanes in the city of Melbourne, and indeed most other Australian cities, is so foreign as to seem to be almost light years away. Yet how obvious it is that if we are to give effective priority to public transport and buses, and cut back on the use of the private motorcar, we ought to be creating lanes for buses. We ought to be building in the kind of priority controls at major intersections so that traffic lights will give buses the right of way. That is a pretty obvious suggestion but, unless we can get rid of the Hamer Government early next year, it is light years away in Victoria.

It is also suggested that trams should be placed in their own right of way, as defined by kerbing or other devices, where street widths allow. That is so obvious. It has been done in Nicholson Street in the inner area of Melbourne but very rarely in Australian cities generally. It is certainly an obvious move which would have an enormous effect on improving the efficiency of Melbourne’s tramway system. It is further suggested that kerbside moving lanes should be widened where possible to allow a safer sharing of road space with bicycles. Why should the kids in the gallery have to risk their lives every time they go out on a bike because we, as a national Parliament, are not able to make the use of bicycles in local trips a priority. It is absolutely absurd that the priority cannot be given. We ought to be able to do something about that, and it would not cost a great deal of money. It is about to be done in Geelong. Why is it not being done in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane?

Reference is also made to the creation of offstreet parking where needed on arterial routes to allow for kerbside bus lanes, greater clearway designation without loss. Through such obvious and not necessarily costly measures, it would be possible to begin to get arterial road systems working, and not have to go into the whole question of freeways.

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

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I would like firstly to refer to what has been said by previous speakers. If we take away the political aspects of what has been said on both sides and condense the debate to the five or 10 minutes of effective speech that are have had we find that some real contributions have been made from either side. In debating this Bill, we have the opportunity to look into the future to see what will occur and what we might do at this stage about it. Therefore, I would feel that the contributions that have been made today from both sides of the chamber have been worth while. This is an amendment Bill, a supplementation, to take up the effects of inflation in the two years yet to run in the three-year program that was introduced last year. Expenditure over the next two years will amount to $33m. That in itself is probably not a large amount when spread over the whole of the country.

This brings up the primary problem, as everybody has indicated, that an insufficient amount seems to be spent on the total road system of Australia. In addition, one wonders whether equity is being given both to the States and the regional areas, in order that they get a fair deal, one against the other. For instance, the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) spoke to a large extent of the urban problems of the capital cities. Could I suggest that problems are to be found not only in urban areas; that regions throughout Australia which contribute greatly to the wealth of this nation must suffer dirt roads and similarly inadequate roads. This is, I believe, another area of concern.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) referred to a decreasing influence in regard to funds spent on roads. He related that, of course, to the three-year program in comparison with the national expenditure, but I know that the funds which are given on a tax-sharing basis to the local governments, amounting to some $170m a year, are to a large extent devoted to road works in provincial cities, capital cities and rural shires. So it is not fair to say that the Commonwealth ‘s contribution is limited, for instance, in 1978-79 to the amount provided under this amendment Bill. Certainly, other funds which are provided to States and local governments are eventually fed into the road system.

I believe that the major impact of this Act, with the amendments that it carries with it, is the quota system of allocation to the States, whereby the States must also make minimal contributions. These contributions are supplemented by those of local government. By that means, I believe that at this time we are getting maximum participation and maximum expenditure on roads. After all, if it were not for this discipline, the inadequacy of the funds that people often complain about and will continue to complain about, would be greater. Therefore, I compliment the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) for imposing this discipline on the States and ensuring that they do participate to at least the quota figure.

Perhaps it is too soon after the remarks of the honourable member for Batman for me to join in congratulating the Minister on the transfer of road funds that has been effected, from urban areas to rural roads, but rural Australia is now receiving a greater percentage, a greater share, of road funds than it did under the previous Act. I congratulate the Minister in that regard. He is taking heed of the requirements of the mining, rural and other manufacturing industries in rural decentralised Australia. One function of a government which collects its revenue by way of taxes is to appropriate for those productive areas a fair share of the national cake. I believe that the Minister has been able to do it in this regard.

The allocation made under the Act puts the whole onus for national highways on the Commonwealth. When it took over national highways it certainly undertook a mammoth task, one which I am afraid it is nowhere on the way to fulfilling. In this regard I notice that in the current 12 months expenditure upon road construction will be $ 1 64m, upon maintenance $2 8m and upon commerce roads $ 16m, or a total of $208m. I am concerned that in some areas the national highways take the form of four-lane roads which provide quick access to various points; in other areas the national highway is represented only by a pencil line on some map in a planning authority; that the planned roads will not come into existence this year, next year or perhaps in the next decade. It distresses me that we have an excellence of standard for some of our national highways but that in other areas a national highway does not exist. The national highway is the main artery of this nation and feeds the tourist industry, as the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) has said, the mining, rural and manufacturing industries.

I believe that the level of maintenance of our national highways is falling to such a degree that we just cannot keep up standards; we are letting the nation in for a tremendous expense in future to provide new capital construction. What we have today in the way of slurry seal, for the surfacing of roads to a very high and permanent standard, demands that more money should be put into better maintenance in order to save us in the long term from a massive bill for reconstruction. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure that we lift the standards of maintenance. I think all will confess that at the moment our construction and maintenance standards are not those that a nation such as Australia can afford, deserves and requires if it is to be kept in the forefront of international trade.

State authorities also have their share of responsibility. In fact, when one examines the whole construction field one sees the three areas of responsibility. The Commonwealth has advisedly kept out of the construction field and has worked on the basis of funding the States requirements to the limit of the funds available.

We are not a constructing authority in that area. The States and the local governments leave a lot to be desired as far as being construction authorities are concerned. It is not possible to look at all of the local governments throughout Australia and say that one standard of construction exists for all shires; far from it. Some have an excellence of standard of construction. Others deserve no funding whatsoever. The States, of course, are our greatest critics in that they do not accept to the extent that they should responsibility for roads other than national highways.

I have just mentioned that the Commonwealth must be responsible for national highways but the States must also accept their responsibility in this area. I would suggest that the States, instead of coming back to the Commonwealth time and again being critical and asking for further funds and being quite prepared to put the blame for every pothole in the country on the shoulders of the Federal Parliament, might look more closely at their own efficiency. For instance, I do not believe that any State should through its roads authority be a planning authority, a financing authority and a supervisory authority and also carry the responsibility for construction. I believe that is not right and that it is certainly not effective. The same comment possibly applies to some of the local governments. If we insisted that such authorities turned instead towards the employment of private contractors I believe that the money that is now available at Commonwealth, State and local government levels would be better spent. We would have better roads and we would have more roads. I feel that the Commonwealth should insist somewhere along the line that the States do a little bit of their own housekeeping to improve their standards and try to get better value out of the money that they currently receive. Then perhaps as the need arises we can look further into the matter of providing better funding.

Australia has a unique position of all the nations throughout the world. I do not believe that we could say in relation to any other nation: This is a comparison that we can draw with the Australian situation’. We are a large nation; we are decentralised. Our major industries apart from the manufacturing industries are situated outside the capital cities, outside the areas of greatest population. For this reason it is most important that the funds that we do allocate are allocated on an equity basis. I believe that in light of the funds that are available and bearing in mind its decentralisation, size and smaller population, Queensland possibly gets more than a fair share of the national cake. The people of

Queensland cannot complain in that regard. As somebody said, it is a great State; it produces a great proportion of the national income. Certainly a large proportion of our exports, which affect our balance of trade so much, comes from that State. That indicates to me that whilst Queensland is possibly fairly well situated under the present Act as far as the allocation of funds is concerned it is essential that any funds be given on a basis of priority to those producing areas.

We must realise that the road system throughout Australia is our most important link as far as so many matters are concerned. It is important not only for the daily traffic but also for the industrial wealth of the nation and for tourism. I do not feel that our roads at present could be expected to serve any defence purpose whatsoever. Certainly, tanks and other equipment stationed in the south would not be able to negotiate the Bruce Highway beyond Maryborough or Bundaberg. As somebody said, that is also our own protection because anybody landing on the north coast would not be able to use those roads to travel south. But I do not find that to be a very good defence argument.

The aspect of tourism has been well covered by the honourable member for Herbert. I congratulate him on bringing to the attention of the House the final report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism. He stated that the Committee found that 90 per cent of transportation throughout Australia is done by motor car. But the Committee came to some other vital conclusions also. Paragraph 134 states:

The Whitsunday Wonderworld Travel Council claimed that a major problem for the area was the condition of the Bruce Highway between Mackay and Rockhampton. The road is the main link between Brisbane and Cairns but year after year it is cut by flood waters. The DoT -

That is, the Department of Transport: . . in its 1976-77 Annual Report referred to the construction of a new flood-free link, but the Council expressed concern that such work was not likely to be completed until 1985.

That is an example of my claim that many of our national roads are just pencil marks on plans for future construction. The Select Committee on Tourism reported very firmly in that respect.

I wish to pass on some of the other conclusions, which are set out in chapter 16. Paragraph 415 states:

The long term trend in modal passenger shares of nonurban transport will be a maintenance of the dominance of the private car with an increase in air travel. The private motor vehicle is expected to account for approximately 86 per cent of all trips . . .

So, again, the emphasis is placed on motor vehicle travel. Paragraph 4 1 6 states:

Because of the dominance of private car travel the Committee is concerned about the present road conditions and has been informed that there is a need for a massive upgrading of the road network. The Committee has recommended the compilation of a priority list of tourist roads and that additional funds should be made available by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to upgrade those roads.

The report mentions the Stuart Highway, the Bruce Highway and the Alpine Way, each of which in its own way is an artery that feeds the industries- particularly the tourist industry- of Australia. I can only recommend that conclusion drawn by the Committee. It is all very well to make a recommendation, but any such recommendation should be placed firmly in the minds of the people who make the decisions. I realise that the present Act is one to which we are committed until 30 June 1980 but after that there will be a further Act. I think it will require a lot of foresight at this stage to make sure that certain conditions are fulfilled. Recommendations such as these should be taken into account. For instance, how can we put into action in a three-year program a special program for bridge building which becomes essential, and deal with passageway needs that arise from time to time within that three-year period? The same argument applies to the sealing of a section of the highway, which is just a pencil mark on a plan. I believe that additional funds will have to be allocated for these additional projects and special needs, quite apart from the amount of funds that is currently allocated.

Also, whilst I say that Queensland on a pro rata basis is probably getting more than its fair share, what we will need in the future not just in Queensland but throughout Australia is a greater share. When we come to look at that greater share I believe that there are particular matters that should be taken into account. I mention, for example, the aspect of public transport in preference to the use of the multitude of private cars that we have at the moment. The honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) very accurately covered that subject and I congratulate him on his remarks. We have to look to a lesser number of cars and a transfer to public transport because of the fuel problem that will continue in the future. We have to look at particular conditions, especially climatic conditions. Heat affects the road surfaces and causes them to deteriorate. On top of that, the roads are subject to heavy rainfall. We also have to look at the aspect of sea travel where it runs in competition to road travel. I feel it is farcical that the best highway in Australia is adjacent to our coast in the form of a sea lane, yet because of competitive prices, freight cutting and such things it is not used to the fullest extent. I hope that the sea lanes will be very closely looked at to ensure that this form of travel is regarded as an alternative and cheaper form of transport. This would decrease the reliance on our roads and upon our rail system. All of these aspects- usage of the road, the population it serves and the industry it serves- must be taken into account when we look at the new Act in June or July of 1 980.

I conclude on what I, in addition to the honourable member for Batman, believe is a very vital point. This matter, is important not only in relation to fuel; we have to look at the whole system of transportation in Australia. We have to look at past decisions. One of the most ridiculous decisions that we have made in the past and which is currently concerning us is that relating to air pollution controls in motor vehicles. They are possibly quite sane in some of the more crowded capital cities, but it is ludicrous to think that we have these devices fitted to our motor vehicles, chewing fuel, a very scarce resource, at a tremendous rate. On the one hand through our energy policy in Australia we are trying to discipline the use of fuel by increasing the price through levy and on the other hand we are encouraging excessive use through the fitting of these devices. I cannot say enough about the way I feel about the discounting of petrol prices in the capital cities- another waste.

While I give this Bill my full support because it recognises the effects of inflation on the States and local government authorities, I think we should look at the States’ housekeeping as far as their efficiencies are concerned, their contributions and the way they work. We should look at the guidelines from 1980 onwards and we should certainly look at those features within our society today which impose an unnecessary burden not only on our fuel resources but also on our roads. We should be looking at the alternatives. On that basis, I certainly give this Bill my full support and I believe that the consideration of this chamber should be directed towards making effective in July 1980 the changes I have suggested.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I am sure that the House listened with interest to the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) when he referred to some of the more imaginative aspects of a real road program. His electorate adjoins mine and many of the transport problems he has arise from the travel needs of my constituents. However, in addition my electorate takes in part of a national highway and has many rural, arterial and local roads. I want to refer mainly to the question of finance, particularly in relation to local government. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), when introducing the original Bill, announced that it was the Government’s intention to adjust the grants for 1978-79 and 1979-80 so that they would be maintained at a level equivalent in real terms to the 1977-78 amount. I know that that caused a lot of concern at the time he announced it because people wondered what it really meant. Now they have the answer. As my colleague the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) pointed out, using proper price indices this was at least one per cent less than could have been expected.

The thrust of criticism is at the very basis on which the funding for roads is made. The first problem is the so-called new federalism, which brings so many disadvantages and allows State and Australian governments of conservative character to wash their hands of the affair. The so-called new federalism is not new. It reflects the conservative attitudes of the 1920s, modified only by the revenue-gathering powers the Australian Government acquired in the 1940s. It is accepted that the only control the Australian Government has is its control of the purse strings, but it cannot use that to excuse lack of responsibility. There is not doubt that with current road funding there has been a deterioration in roads. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) referred to this deterioration and to the type of capital program which would be required in the future to correct it. There is no doubt that road funds have to be related to a real base year and adjusted on a responsible road price index. There are many who believe that this triennial program of fund allocation does not allow adequate national planning. Many concerned groups in the community believe that it is in the area of roads that a stimulus to employment could be given, with beneficial community effects right across the countryside, not only in the urban areas but in the rural areas as well. Although the Minister has talked about a continuing policy of restraint, it is about time some stimulus was given.

To remind honourable members of the magnitude of the task ahead, I refer to the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Report on Roads in Australia 1975. 1 point out that at that time the Bureau said that to bring roads up to a surveyed standard would require $ 16,305m between 1975 and 1981. The Bureau produced a cost benefit analysis to give a warranted program of $7,626m, or 47 per cent of the surveyed standard. Then because of the financial restraints, it gave a recommended program of $5,500m, or 34 per cent of the surveyed standard. One can see the real gap between the surveyed needs and what has been able to be done. This recommended amount had to be further divided between the Australian Government, State government and local government. Using that base year, the distribution in Victoria would have been as follows: Australian Government 32.8 per cent of road costs; State government 35.9 per cent of road costs; and local government 3 1.3 per cent of road costs. I refer to this because of the continuing erosion of the ability of local government to raise revenue and the effect this has on its road programs. On this aspect the Minister excuses himself by laying all the blame on the State governments. He has been fairly vocal about the New South Wales State Government, so let us turn to Victoria, where some of the greatest waste of public money, shoddy dealing and pork barrelling goes on. In the policy statement of the Victorian Premier for the 1976 election reference was made to road safety, but that dealt with legal, police and education matters. The only policy on roads given at that time was this one paragraph:

Three years ago we decided that freeways proposed in the inner suburbs would not be built because they would seriously disrupt established communities; any delay or traffic congestion would be mitigated as far as possible by improving existing arterial roads, especially intersections. We will continue to build freeways in the outer suburbs and country where road reservations have been planned, and no disruption is caused. That policy stands and has not been altered in any way.

That was the total road policy. It is no wonder local government is perturbed. The Minister recently advised Victorian members of Parliament of the allocations to their electorates under this program. Let us see what he had to say in that letter about the Victorian State Government:

To qualify to receive Commonwealth road grants, State Governments are required to spend a minimum amount of their own funds on roads. The minimum amount for Victoria for 1978-79 is $l32.187m. The State may allocate any amount of its own funds to whatever road category or projects it considers has sufficient priority.

As you would be aware, the Commonwealth has, under its road legislation, placed great emphasis on local roads which mainly come within the responsibility of Local Government. It continued this emphasis in 1978-79 by increasing grants to the States for roads by almost seven per cent to ensure their value is maintained at the 1977-78 level in real terms.

We could argue about that.

I was therefore particularly concerned when the then Victorian Minister of Transport announced on 19 April that Councils would receive an increase of only 2.9 per cent in their total allocations for roads in 1978-79. A number of Councils had written to me expressing their concern at the level of road funds they were to receive this financial year.

On 4 August, I announced that I would be withholding approval for Victoria’s local road programs for 1978-79. because I had not received a reply from the Victorian Minister which adequately explained the apparent shortfall between the increase in allocations for Councils and the increased Commonwealth grant.

There is further comment in the letter which I would like to read but because of limitations of time I cannot do so. I am grateful for the Minister’s statement. I do not support his attitude of washing his hands of the whole affair, but I do commend the fact that he has taken on the Victorian Government for its attitude to roads, to the road system and to local government. It has a shameful history in this area. It has grown stale in office and could well and truly be turfed out. One of the things that this Bill shows is a continuing erosion of the facilities given to local government in States such as Victoria. The new federalism has effectively eroded what is available to local government. The cut back in road programs and the disappearance of other programs have further disadvantaged local government. A lot more could be said on the subject of roads, although the Bill is not being opposed. But in order to give some of my colleagues a chance to talk about their electorates I will conclude. The honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) represents a vast rural area with many road problems. I believe that he should be able to lay his complaints about the inadequacies of this Bill before the House.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– It concerns me to hear Opposition members for whom I have respect apparently get on the bandwagon and attack the Victorian Government for obvious political reasons. I refer to the comments made by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) and the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe). One of the points that needs to be made effectively is that many aspects of public transport and transport funding require a total reassessment in the context of a national policy. I would be the first to admit that. I must challenge the attacks made by the honourable member for Batman about the lack of bicycle tracks, paths and money provided by the Victorian Government. One of the most exciting Ministers to tackle those very aspects is the Victorian Minister. The honourable member for Batman gave an example in Geelong which is being used as a test case. Apparently it is working very effectively. There are other examples around Victoria. It is not a matter for the Commonwealth Government to get involved in funding projects of that nature. They are essentially State and local government matters. It is fine for us to make forceful points about the need for those matters but, after all, they fall within other jurisdictions.

Simply because a member of the Opposition cannot read in the newspapers about a particular program or an investigation which is being undertaken or hear about it through other media it does not mean that the Federal Government or a State government is not undertaking exciting work. I have no doubt that before the next election- in fact I can guarantee it- a number of new initiatives will be undertaken by the Victorian Government which will answer many of the allegations made by the honourable member for Batman about what he sees as deficiencies in some of the more exciting innovations in Victoria. I must record that point now so that it cannot be said that my colleague has been responsible for the matters initiated in Victoria. At present two major investigations are being undertaken on road funding. One is being undertaken by the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations and the other by the Bureau of Transport Economics. I have no doubt that the results of those findings will highlight many of the points which have been made by speakers during this debate. I think it would be pertinent for us to think at the same time about the adoption and implementation of a national transport policy within the whole framework of Federal government financing in the roads area.

One matter which needs to be investigated is local government funding. I could not agree more with the honourable member for Scullin that local councils in relation to funding for roads do not know what will happen from one year to the other. There is a very real need to quantify the Commonwealth Government contribution in percentage terms and to devolve that percentage as part of personal income tax collections to local government for distribution in accordance with the States Grants commissions investigations on priorities and so on. I think that matter will gain some discussion and popularity within the next few months. The honourable member for Batman raised some other points. There is, of course, a need to introduce programs which will conserve energy and other resources. I have no doubt that they will be introduced. He mentioned some of the programs which have been experienced in other countries. For example, on some of the major freeways in San Francisco lanes are devoted to public transport and to those people in a private vehicle who are travelling with more than one passenger. Apparently, such measures are working. We need to look at them in this country.

I want to make three points about public transport planning. Firstly, there has been a deterioration in the fabric of the road systems around Australia, particularly where heavier vehicles are using the facilities. Perhaps we are talking about rural Australia. But buses are becoming bigger, brighter and better. They are carrying heavier loads. Tranport vehicles, particularly timber jinkers, and vehicles transporting milk in country areas are causing great deterioration to the fabric of the roads. This is putting an enormous burden on rural municipalities. This factor has to be taken note of before an enormously rich national asset is completely wasted. The second point concerns the commuter, the person who will be using public transport within urban areas. We need to look at the use of personalised automative transport, such as the dial-a-bus system and small vehicles on rails which will be linked to distant train services. A lot of work has been done overseas in this area but very little has been done in Australia. This is another aspect which we need to include in our national tranport planning policy.

Thirdly, the environmental and aesthetic aspects of road planning are generally taken into account although I fear that many transport planners do not take account of the social and community factors in road works and planning, particularly in the laying of major roads and freeways through communities. Such aspects need to be taken into consideration. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which identifies very clearly the dangers people in Victoria experience using country roads vis-a-vis urban roads.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr SIMON:

-That table shows that last year in Victoria 493 car drivers, passengers and motor cyclists died on country roads compared with 208 killed on Melbourne roads. A very sobering statistic which I think is accurate but I cannot give the source- I would like to have it checked- is that one child in 12 under the age of 15 years is likely to be seriously injured in an accident in Australia. For those who are concerned about road deaths these salutary statistics need to be taken into account in a national transport policy.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I thank the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) and the honourable member for McMillian (Mr Simon) for cutting their remarks short to enable me to say a few words. In his second reading speech on the State Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) said that the amount available this year has increased by almost 7 per cent. In fact, the figure is 6.9 per cent. When referring to the national road network, he stated:

The additional moneys which this Bill provides have in general been allocated among road categories pro rata to the existing allocations. This will effectively ensure that the priorities inherent in those allocations are maintained. There has been a slight departure from the pro rata approach in the case of South Australia. The indexation adjustment that would normally have been added to the National Commerce Roads category has instead been applied to the National Highways Construction category. This has been done to assist the State in meeting the Commonwealth’s request that work to the value of Sim be undertaken on the Stuart Highway during 1978-79.

I will confine my remarks to the Minister’s reference to the Stuart Highway. It appears to us that the Minister is biased against South Australia in relation to the Stuart Highway. He has continually been opposed to the need for the Commonwealth Government to accept the full financial responsibility for that highway with the result that not much has been done other than the maintenance carried out by the South Australian Government and what it has done in previous years from its own road allocation. It is essential that this Government accepts full responsibility for ensuring that this project does go ahead.

If we look at Schedule 2 to the States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill we see that the allocation to South Australia this financial year for the construction of national highways is $16. 133m. Two years ago South Australia received $ 17.2m, which means that over that period there has been a big drop in the allocation. Two years ago it was said that the additional money was allocated to South Australia to complete that other bugbear of a road at that time, the Eyre Highway. Now that highway is completed, but South Australia is still faced with the problem of the Stuart Highway. If it was good enough two or three years ago to allocate additional money under the national roads program introduced by the Labor Government, it is good enough now to make an additional allocation so that this work on the Stuart Highway can proceed.

The Stuart Highway certainly means a lot to many people in the northern part of South Australia, but when we look at the situation we find that there are only two towns of any sizethat is, the Woomera rocket range town, Woomera village, and Coober Pedy in the centre of the opal fields- along the highway. Although the people there are entitled to good roads as much as anybody else, this highway is more important to the people of the Northern Territory than it is to people in South Australia. This places more emphasis on the need for the Federal Government to accept its responsibility. The vast majority of the South Australian population is located in the south-eastern corner of the State, which does make the allocation of funds for development in that State a bit complex. We had problems with the Eyre Highway. When the previous Liberal-Country Party Government was in office I raised questions asking why, when South Australia was allocated only so much money, it should allocate money for the Eyre Highway. At that time the Minister and the Government were expecting South Australia to deny funds to roads that serviced that State and to provide money from its allocation from the Federal Government under the legislation that existed then to provide a main road to Western Australia and a main road to the Northern Territory. Again I say that it is about time that the Federal Government accepted full responsibility for this type of development.

Last May a deputation, comprising businessmen, senators from both sides of politics, Mr Virgo, the South Australian Minister of Transport, and I approached the Federal Minister for Transport. It was to no avail because the Federal Minister would not agree to allocate additional funds to South Australia. That was despite the fact that, prior to the last general election, a telex relating to the Stuart Highway was sent by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to the Mayor of Alice Springs, which read as follows:

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff, I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the National program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to up-grade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

I think the present Minister for Transport has repudiated that statement on a number of occasions. Following that telex, the deputation I mentioned met with the Minister for Transport last May. As I said, the deputation comprised senators from both sides of politics, business people from Alice Springs and from Adelaide, the South Australian Minister of Transport and me. All that we could get out of the Federal Minister was that South Australia should reassess its priorities for the allocation of funds. What the Minister was saying was that South Australia, in order to allocate finance for the Stuart Highway, should cut back on money provided for its other road programs.

A number of road programs are going on in South Australia. The State Government is locked into those programs. They are programs which the State Government cannot just stop and shift everything to the Stuart Highway. The State Minister of Transport was most adamant that he did not want to stop any existing programs because he was already locked into them; all the planning and design had taken place; the men were working on the job; and it would be just too stupid for words to stop those projects and to transfer everything to the Stuart Highway. On being pressured by the Federal Minister he finally agreed to allow his officers to discuss with Federal officers the possibility of considering how money could be pruned from various projects and that money allocated to the Stuart Highway.

What happened? The Minister’s officers met and were able to scratch out an extra Sim. Of course, that $lm does not represent an additional allocation to South Australia because it has come out of South Australia’s allocation for other work. That is why we see in Schedule 4 to the Bill that the allocation in respect of the construction of national commerce roads for the year commencing 1 July 1977 was $ 1.3m, for the year commencing 1 July 1978 it is the same amount and for the year commencing 1 July 1979 the amount will remain the same. Money has been taken from existing programs to find this extra Sim to start work on the Stuart Highway. Then what do we find is happening? Although no additional money was provided to South Australia for this purpose, we find statements in newspapers, such as the one headed: ‘Sim extra to be spent on highway’. The first part of the article states:

The Federal Government will spend an additional $lm this financial year for construction work on the Stuart Highway and work on the 50 kilometre gravelled section between Port Augusta and Woomera will commence forthwith.

Senator Don Jessop, Chairman of the Government Subcommittee on Transport reports that Federal Government members welcomed the announcement made in Parliament recently by the Federal Minister for Tranport, Mr Nixon.

That is a distortion of the truth because no additional money has been allocated to be spent on the Stuart Highway. All that has happened is that money is to be taken from allocations for other road projects to provide that Sim. Following the visit last May to the Minister by the deputation comprising the various people I mentioned earlier, there was a bit of a change of heart by some members of Parliament from the Liberal Party of Australia who were present. After the meeting was over, they were prepared to sign a letter from which I shall quote a section. Previously these people were placing the blame, for no work going on in regard to the Stuart Highway, on the South Australian Ministers. Following the visit by our deputation a letter, signed by members and senators from both sides of politics, was sent to the Minister for Transport. They stated in part of the letter:

The South Australian Government has spent a further $ 1 8.79m over the last 4 years on the State National Highway Program, and it is reasonable to expect that this should be reimbursed, provided it is spent on the Stuart Highway.

They were prepared to accept what was put forward by the South Australian Minister, Mr Virgo, namely, that South Australia had been spending on national highway programs money from its own resources. His submission was that at least South Australia should get some recognition for that and should be allocated additional finance so that money could be spent on the Stuart Highway. I do not think that the people who wrote that letter, to the Minister for Transport, which was signed by Senator Jessop, Senator Bishop, Senator Young and me, have got very far with that letter.

Ever since we wrote the letter the Minister has been quite adamant that no additional funds will be provided. What this means is that the $ 1 m has been scraped off other jobs at the expense of those jobs. In particular, the road from Hawker to Marree certainly will be held back, although some work will proceed on that job this year, because of that Sim cut-back on road programs. These projects are important and many roads in the western and northern part of South Australia require attention. Most of them are in my electorate. We feel quite strongly that those roads which serve many areas of population in that part of South Australia should not be denied being brought to a decent standard because money has had to be pruned from the amount allocated to make those roads decent in order to provide money for the Stuart Highway.

That highway certainly is the responsibility of this Government. It is about time that it accepted its national responsibility. Legislation which was introduced by the Labor Government in 1 974-75 clearly laid down that responsibility. That Government accepted full financial responsibility for roads declared to be national highways. It is about time that this Government accepted that fact, took up its full responsibility and provided the money that is required instead of doing what it is doing now and cutting allocations back to the bone. Every time somebody mentions the Stuart Highway the first person people want to turn on is the State Minister of Transport, Mr Virgo. For 11 of the past 13 years a Labor government has been in power in South Australia. I know what the State Government has put into roadworks during that period in the area that I represent. There is not a major town in the western part of the State now not connected to a sealed road, although in the north western part that is not the case with respect to the Stuart Highway. Nevertheless, the State Government can be quite proud of what it has done in the provision of sealed roads.

It is up to this Government to play its part and ensure that sufficient finance is allocated to the Stuart Highway. It should not cut other programs to provide the money. It should find additional money in line with the promise it made to the people of Alice Springs prior to the last election that additional money would be found so that this work could be carried on. It is about time the Government assumed its responsibilities and got on with the job. If the Commonwealth Government provides the money, the South Australian Government can do the job. But it cannot be expected to deny its own roadworks programs and redirect all that money into the Stuart Highway. It is about time that politics were removed from this project. Some Liberal Party representatives who pay a bit of attention to my area jump from pillar to post and have changed their stance on this issue on a number of occasions. When the deputation came here last May its members tipped the bucket on Mr Virgo. When they came out of the meeting they took a completely different stance.

I conclude by calling on this Government to take the bull by the horns, to take up its responsibilities under the national roads legislation and to provide the additional finance to South Australia to enable it to complete the Stuart Highway and give the people of the Northern Territory a decent sealed highway.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2643

MATERNITY LEAVE (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1978, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-This Bill is not a nation-rocking event. It is merely indicative of the Shylock-type mentality of this Government to try to steal 20c wherever it possibly can. The amount of money involved in these measures is quite miserable. When the Budget was being framed earlier in the year every possible means were used to take money off people of all ages, of both sexes, no matter where they worked and lived and in what circumstances they lived. This maternity leave legislation is a further extension of that Budget mentality. The Government has put this measure before the Parliament not so much as a government but as an employer and, as is the wont of politics in Australia, the responsibility falls to this side of this House to defend working people and to try to improve the working conditions of people who go to the work place. It has been the tradition and want of the Liberal and National Country Parties to try to tear down those conditions which have been established over the years.

So, as with so many other things that have come before us in the past three years, this legislation seeks to amend a measure introduced by the Labor Government in 1973 establishing conditions for the first time in Australia for a very large proportion of our work force, something that was enunicated by the International Labour Organisation many years hence and which had been established and followed by many countries around the world. We were not the first, the trailblazer, in this type of legislation. Yet here we see it being partially dismantled by this Government in line with its penny-pinching policies which were enunciated first in the Budget and now in the dismantling of this legislation. This Bill represents just one more attack upon the living and working conditions of the Australian work force. In this case the Government has chosen to single out women working in Commonwealth employment who for the first time in the history of Australian industrial legislation have achieved paid maternity leave. It is widely recognised in the Australian community that the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) as Minister for Labour and Immigration in 1973 was a significant breakthrough in the quest of working women to achieve equality of opportunity.

The measures outlined in this Bill represent a retrograde step. They are an insult to the integrity of many thousands of women working in public employment. The Australian Labor Party believes that maternity leave is a basic element of a woman’s right to work, her job security and her ability to compete on equal terms in the work force. In February this year one in every three people working was a woman. Of those women two out of three were married. Most women bear children and they should not be discriminated against in the work force because of their unique biological function of childbearing. Maternity leave is necessary to enable women to combine their dual roles as workers and child bearers. In 1973 the present Government, then in Opposition, did not disagree wth these propositions when the then Labor Government introduced its path-finding legislation. As recently as the last election the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) reiterated that point when he said:

The Government is committed to complete equality of opportunity for women.

So what does the Government do today? It amends the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Bill to completely abolish paternity leave, to introduce a 12-month qualifying period before maternity leave can be taken, to remove automatic access to sick leave, and to limit paid maternity leave to a maximum of 12 weeks. In his introductory comments to this Bill, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) sought to camouflage the Government’s real intent by arguing that the amendments were designed to reduce the possibility of exploitation and the overall cost to the Australian taxpayer. He even had the nerve to argue that the provision of paternity leave was unnecessary. There is no evidence publicy available which can lead to the conclusion that there were excesses in respect of such leave.

I turn to the most recent publication of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association which gives the lie to some of the comments made by people in favour of dismantling this Labor legislation. The publication shows that 2.7 per cent of Government employees who had access to these leave provisions had less than one years’ service, 88 per cent had between two and 10 years’ service, and 8.3 per cent had 10 or more years’ service. In regard to the duration of paid maternity leave, 3.5 per cent of government employees took less than 12 weeks’ paid leave, 69.2 per cent took 12 weeks’ paid leave, and 27.3 per cent took more than 12 weeks’ paid leave. The breakdown of other types of leave available under the previous legislation was as follows: Average of unpaid leave, 14.5 weeks; average of paid leave, 24 weeks, including paid maternity leave, sick leave, et cetera; 65 per cent of employees took some leave without pay; 2.8 per cent took furlough; and 81.8 per cent used recreation leave for maternity purposes. That does not give any evidence of the excesses which are referred to by people who argue against these provisions. The Government initiated an internal inquiry in which the unions were unable to make representations or to examine the evidence, if any. The peak councils had no prior opportunity to represent their views on this matter directly to the Government. It is little wonder that the Government was not willing to consult them. When the Government talks about abuses, it really means that it disagrees with the concept of maternity and paternity leave.

Last year paternity leave cost less than $0.9m. Maternity leave cost $6.1m last year. Is that expensive? That is what those who disagree with such leave say. Just have a look at the way in which this Government spends money. The Prime Minister had a suite in New York for $600 a night. We talk in this Parliament of paying $2m each for torpedoes for defence purposes. The cancelling of orders for 10 torpedoes could pay for paternity leave in the Australian Public Service until into the 2 1st century. This is the sort of penny-pinching mentality that the Government has, instead of looking to extend the provisions and looking to support people outside establishing for themselves some conditions which may be established overseas. The Government looks to restricting such provisions. Most of the alleged problems associated with this legislation are: The women never come back; women join the Public Service when they are already pregnant just to get the benefits that are available; and women tie up jobs. These charges are either factually incorrect or due to the effects of management practices resulting from this Government’s inane application of staff ceilings. Surveys show that, despite the enormous difficulties in getting child care for children under 1 8 months old, 50 per cent of women return from maternity leave. The inclusion of staff on maternity leave in staff ceilings leads to work load imbalances. Why blame the pregnant woman for these inefficiencies?

This legislation must be viewed in the broader context. Last year the Government introduced the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill which will allow the Government to dismiss or stand down Commonwealth employees at will. Earlier this year the Treasurer (Mr Howard) threatened public servants with retrenchment if the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granted so-called excessive wage increases. Now the Government presents this legislation. I know of no previous instance in which either Commonwealth or State governments have introduced legislation to diminish existing conditions of employment for their employees. This Bill reveals the Government’s callous disregard for working women in Australia. Instead of cutting back on maternity leave for public employees it should be concerned to see that all Australian women have access to paid maternity leave.

The dramatic increases in female participation in the work force over recent years- in 196 1; 29. 1 percent; in 1966, 35.2 percent and in 1975, 41.7 per cent- underline women’s tremendous contribution to Australian society. Despite this increase women still tend to be employed in those areas that are considered traditionally female- the less skilled and lower paid jobs. Yet this Government, and particularly the less rational sections of its back bench, speak of women as invaders of the work place. Sections of this Government and the ratbag element in our media have taken up the ‘dump women’ slogan. The amendments in the Bill reflect this influence. How long will it be before the Government abolishes Public Service maternity leave altogether? Why did Government not support the Australian Council of Trade Unions maternity leave case, if it is genuine in its concern for working women? Why has it abolished paternity leave- an essential element in achieving equality between the sexes?

Most other Western industrialised nations have legislated for paid maternity and paternity leave, adequate child care facilities and work on a permanent part time basis for parents caring for young children. By the end of World War II all European countries had introduced basic rights to maternity leave benefits and employment security. For example, in Belgium maternity leave of six weeks before the expected date of birth and eight weeks after the actual confinement may be taken by any worker; a manual worker receives full pay from her employer for one week and social security benefits amounting to 80 per cent of earnings for the remaining 13 weeks of leave; and a non-manual worker receives full pay from her employer for one month and social security benefits for the remainder of the leave period. In France maternity leave of six weeks before the expected date of birth and 10 weeks after confinement may be taken by any worker; and workers may claim social security benefits amounting to 90 per cent of normal earnings. In Germany maternity leave of six weeks before the expected date of birth and eight weeks after the actual confinement may be taken; and benefits amounting to average net pay are available. In Italy maternity leave of eight weeks before the expected date of birth and 12 weeks after the confinement may be taken; and workers are entitled to claim benefits amounting to 80 per cent of normal pay.

Increased female participation is basic to the evolution of work and employment in industrial societies.. The increasing number of female entrants to the labour force is associated with the growth of the service and public sectors and greater opportunities for part time work. To this must be added heightened career and occupational aspirations of women themselves. Many women find it essential to return to work after having a child because they are family breadwinners or because the survival of the family depends upon two incomes. The implication is clear: The stock of jobs must be increased to meet their growing employment aspirations and governments must act to ensure that women are not discriminated against in employment on the grounds of marriage and pregnancy. This Bill, combined with the failure of the Government even to acknowledge the need for these measures, simply endorses its continued repression of half of the working population of Australia.

There is one further matter which is of great significance in the debate on maternity leave. This matter involves the role of adopting parents. The Joint Council- the staff management consultative body established under the Public Service Act- had something to say on the question of adopting parents in these circumstances and it made certain recommendations. The recommendations were that adopting parents ought to be subject to the same provisions as anyone else. The Government, in restricting the provisions of this Bill, has not taken any notice of the Joint Council. It has taken the liberty of completely ignoring the recommendations of the Joint Council in reaching its conclusions. In so doing, the Government has ignored the advice not only of the people involved in the Joint Council but also of many other advisory bodies which have made recommendations concerning the role of adopting parents. I would like the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner), in his summary, to tell us why the moves of the Joint Council in relation to adopting parents- the Joint Council may not have been involved in other areas which we are debating- have been completely ignored. The role of adopting parents is extremely important. The role of the parents in getting to know the adopted child is equally as important as that of natural parents. We would like to know why the Government on this occasion has completely ignored the recommendations of the Joint Council.

As I said earlier, this is just a furtherance of the penny-pinching attitude of this Government. It seeks, wherever possible, to cut expenditure, irrespective of who is hurt. Firstly it was the paper boys, then the pensioners, then the workers, and now its own employees. As a government or as an employer, however we wish to judge this Administration, it is a bad administration. We can save less than a million dollars by seeing that the father is not at home when the child returns home with the mother, but we can pay $40m for VIP aircraft for the Prime Minister to fly overseas. We can save perhaps a million dollars on maternity or sick leave which may have been available. There is no substance in the charges that there have been excesses. They have all been answered by the peak councils and will be answered in this debate, as it proceeds, by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West). We are opposed to the way in which this Government has gone about trying to alter the history making Labor legislation introduced in 1973.

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1978 and the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1978. I was very surprised to hear what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) had to say in his few remarks. He said that this Government was dismantling the 1973 legislation and that this Government obviously disagreed with the concept of maternity leave. Those two statements are far from the truth. I would have thought that he would have read what was said in 1973 by the then Minister for Labour and by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) when he replied to the second reading speech. At times the attitude of the honourable member for Port Adelaide amazes me because anyone would think that the money that is being spent is our money. It is not; it is money that belongs to the Australian people, the taxpayers. This Government, as every government, has a responsibility to see that that money is spent wisely.

I believe it is regrettable that amendments to the 1973 Act are necessary. However, people being as they are have stretched the provisions of those Acts to such an extent that some changes are not only desirable but also necessary. The maternity leave Bill is designed, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) said in his second reading speech, to reduce the possibility of exploitation and, importantly, to reduce the overall cost to the Australian taxpayer. Unfortunately, it is still possible even with these amendments for some exploitation to occur but of this I will speak later. The first point I make- and this should be remembered by the honourable member for Port Adelaide- provision for maternity leave and paid benefits for public servants was not introduced by a Labor government but by a Liberal government in 1966. In 1973, the current maternity leave Act was introduced by the then Labor Government. The Minister for Labour at that time, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), in his second reading speech said:

The proposed legislation will entitle female officers and employees to at least 12 weeks’ maternity leave on full pay. This will apply irrespective of whether they were pregnant or not when first employed by the Government. The Bill provides that maternity leave shall commence at least 6 weeks before the expected date of confinement and shall continue for at least 6 weeks after the actual date of confinement. If the mother wishes, leave may be granted up to a total of 52 weeks. A minimum of 1 2 weeks is available on full pay.

I ask honourable members to remember the words ‘a minimum of 12 weeks’. The speech continued:

For the balance of her leave the mother will be on leave without pay, although if she wishes, she may use accrued sick leave, recreation leave and furlough credits. It also provides that each permanent officer proceeding on leave of absence for maternity purposes must be re-employed if she wishes at the end of her period of leave in her former position or in a position at a level as near as possible to the position held by her at the commencement of her maternity leave.

The former Minister went on to say:

Temporary employees returning from maternity leave will resume their former employment. If the work is no longer available they will be given preference for employment over any other person seeking temporary employment. The Bill also makes provision for an officer or employee who is the father or a person accepting responsibility for the care and maintenance of the child to take up to 1 week’s leave with pay, around the time of the birth of a child where he requires the leave to take care of the mother of a child or of a child. These benefits will apply retrospectively from 1 January 1973.

The 1973 Bill extended considerably the maternity leave benefits which were available at that time- as I said, they were brought in by a Liberal Government- to government employees under section 545 of the Public Service Act. The Liberal-Country Party Opposition at that time did not oppose the Bill but quite rightly made certain qualifying statements. The honourable member for Flinders, when speaking for the then Opposition when these Bills were before the House, in 1973 said:

The Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1973 in essence provides for 12 weeks’ maternity leave on full pay for all female Commonwealth public servants. It also provides for one week’s paternity leave for all male Commonwealth public servants. The terms of the Bill emanate, in the first instance, from the Federal platform of the Australian Labor Party and, more recently, from the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the Bill it must emphasise that the Government, in its introduction of the Bill, used the terms of Convention No. 103 of the International Labour Organisation in a misleading manner.

The honourable member for Flinders also stated:

The Bill leaves scope for abuse in that it allows for the possibility of women joining the Commonwealth Public Service when pregnant in order to take advantage of the very considerable concessions which are proposed in this legislation. The Opposition believes that this situation will require careful examination by the Government on the basis of experience gained in the administration of the Act. The Bill typifies the modus operandi of a government which is committed to supporting employee benefits which entail the addition of $6,000m to the national wages and salaries bill but which appears totally incapable of submitting to the national Parliament a detailed plan of implementation incorporating clearly defined priorities.

I said earlier that it was regrettable that the amendments now before the House were necessary. But there were women who joined the Public

Service when pregnant for the sole purpose of availing themselves of the full and total provisions of the 1973 Act but who subsequently left the employ of the Public Service. A typical example is one woman who availed herself of the full and total provisions of the 1973 Act. Having availed herself of the 12 weeks’ maternity leave on full pay, she then spent the remaining 40 weeks on paid sick leave and recreation leave.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How many weeks?

Mr GILLARD:

-Forty weeks. During that time this person was able to lead a normal life. She played sport each week and was paid week by week. At the end of the 52 weeks, this woman submitted her resignation and was paid accrued annual holidays and received superannuation benefits for a period in which she did not work one day. That was not a fair attitude to take. That type of attitude is responsible for the amendments now before the House. I have been told- it is interesting to note this-that 57 per cent of women who proceeded on maternity leave did not return to their place of employment. I believe that the contents of the amending legislation are fair to all. The Government believes that the maternity leave benefits are an integral part of the equal employment opportunity policy it follows in relation to its own employees. I am sorry that the honourable member for Port Adelaide said that this Government was discriminating against women because no such statement is inferred in the Minister’s second reading speech. The Minister said:

Without such provisions, a number of women with needed skills and experiences would be lost to the public sector. Proper maternity leave provisions ensure that women, in whom the Government has made a considerable investment in terms of training and development of expertise, are afforded employment protection by being able to continue in Commonwealth employment while also raising a family.

In summary, the major changes proposed by the Bill are the deletion of paternity leave; the introduction of a qualifying period of one year before paid maternity leave is available although leave provisions, without pay, will continue to apply in the first year of service; removal of automatic access to sick leave, although sick leave will still be available under normal conditions, and standardisation of the amount of payment for leave for maternity purposes at 12 weeks’ pay. I believe that the provision of paternity leave benefits is unnecessary. It would be fair to say that when children were born into the families of honourable members in this House those honourable members were able to take recreation leave or leave without pay from their employment and had the opportunity to assist in the home. This is what happens in private enterprise and I believe it will continue to happen in the future.

The introduction of a 12-month qualifying period also is necessary before paid maternity leave is available. The purpose of this Bill is to deny the benefits of paid leave in future to anyone who might seek to enter Commonwealth employment for the primary purpose of obtaining maternity leave benefits. Removal of automatic access to sick leave is also essential for the reasons given in the example I cited. However, sick leave is available under normal conditions, that is on presentation of a doctor’s certificate. I hope that exploitation in this area will not occur because it is an area in which problems could be encountered. I hope that’ both the medical profession and female employees do not exploit this provision and thus any further amendment to the legislation will be avoided. The employees involved must remember that they still will be able to draw on their accrued recreation leave and long service leave during the unpaid period of their maternity leave which can still be taken for a period of up to 52 weeks.

The standardisation of 12 weeks maternity leave is also necessary because at present, prior to this legislation coming into operation, staff can receive more than 12 weeks pay if the actual date of birth of the child is later than the expected date. Another important amendment is that any period of maternity leave without pay will not count as service for any purpose although it will not break the continuity of employment. Under present provisions a person may be on unpaid maternity leave for 40 weeks and that period would count as service for all purposes, that is for holidays, sick leave and superannuation benefits.

I think it should be remembered that existing employees who have been granted maternity or paternity leave before the commencement date of the legislation, or who are absent on such leave on that day, will not be affected by the legislation. In addition, staff who are eligible for the granting of maternity or paternity leave under the existing provisions and who make application to their leave officers before 1 January 1979 will retain their eligibility for such leave. I support this Bill and also the Superannuation Amendment Bill which is introduced because of the Maternity Leave Bill.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-The shadow Minister who spoke before, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), said that this is not an earth shattering Bill. In a sense he is right, and yet I believe it reflects very much the difference in attitudes between this side of the House and the other. For 23 years the Liberal-National Country parties were in government and they did nothing to provide paid maternity leave for the women of Australia either in the public or private sector.

Mr Cadman:

– We introduced it.

Mr COHEN:

– There was unpaid maternity leave but not paid maternity leave. When the coalition was in opposition it was very grudging in accepting the maternity leave legislation and once it got back into government it started cutting back the small privileges won by the working men and women of this country. Government members have put themselves on record as supporting women’s rights, the equality of women, giving women opportunity and a decent go. Yet the first opportunity they get they start introducing this sort of legislation which amends the Act. Australia’s maternity leave provisions were just catching up with the rest of the world. We were years behind most countries in introducing these provisions. Now the Government is starting to take us back to the Middle Ages again.

The Opposition opposes the Government’s legislation which amends the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act. This legislation can be seen as yet another cynical, cost-cutting exercise and just another opportunity to kick the Public Service. I do not know of any government which seems to relish getting stuck into public servants as much as this Government. Members of the Public Service are always good for a cartoon or for a laugh on radio or television or in the Press. They are the butt of half the jokes in this country. After nine years as a member of parliament I have come to the view that the public servant works extremely hard. In my experience this is not so of all, but of most. Most put in a damn good day’s work, particularly those in the upper echelon. I have been very impressed with the people with whom I have had to deal. I am looking at the Deputy Clerk of the House. There is a good example. One would not get a harder working public servant than Mr Blake. When we know the public servants we know how well they work. There is an attitude that it is all right to attack public servants. This legislation is just part of the attack by the Liberal Party on the public sector. It has a hatred for anybody who works for government.

The provisions in the Bill are socially regressive and represent another nail in the equal opportunity coffin under this Government. This Bill makes a mockery of the policy statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about his Government’s commitment to complete equality of opportunity for women. Paid maternity and paternity leave was introduced by the Labor Government in 1973. It was based on International Labour Organisation conventions laid down in 1919 and 1952 which fixed minimal standards governing maternity benefits. The Labor Government’s legislation entitled female public servants to 12 weeks paid leave- six weeks before the birth and six weeks after- and up to 40 weeks unpaid leave after that period with the employee’s right to work protected. Male public servants were entitled to one week’s paternity leave. From the way the Government is acting one would think that that leave was taken every six months. How many children do people have? The average is about two. This leave, on average, would be probably two weeks in a lifetime.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How often do you have labour pains?

Mr COHEN:

– We cannot take the honourable member as an example. He has not even got up to the barrier yet. In his case this provision would not cost the Government a cent. But for the average public servant this provision would grant two weeks leave in a lifetime. That is what the Government is going to cut out. What a miserable cost-cutting exercise this has been. When the provisions were introduced initially by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, (Mr Clyde Cameron), they were hailed as a significant, if long overdue, step in the right direction toward equality of opportunity for women. Now the Fraser Government is seeking to dismantle these important provisions and to lead us back into the dark ages. I mentioned before that I have just come back from a study tour of Japan. Probably Australians would look down on Japan as regards working or industrial conditions but I assure honourable members that we have no need to do this. I was unaware that maternity leave is legislated for in Japan. It is compulsory for employees in the private and public sector to get maternity leave. It is law. We visited the Toyota company which goes further than providing the required 12 weeks leave. It provides six weeks before the birth and seven weeks after. Australia is already light years behind Japan in most forms of industrial legislation and here is another example. We are withdrawing from the steps we have previously taken.

Maternity leave is essential to a woman’s right to work and her ability to achieve equality in the work place. It means job security to women at a time when child rearing is occupying less time of women’s lives on a full-time basis and is frequently combined with careers. Adequate maternity leave provisions are especially important in this context because a career in the Public Service is based on continuity of service. In 1972 one woman was a Second Division officer in the Commonwealth Public Service on a full-time basis. This represented 0.13 per cent of that Division. This figure has risen gradually to four women in 1974; 12 in 1976 and 19 in 1978, representing 1.51 per cent of the Division. It has been suggested that the introduction of maternity leave has facilitated these developments. We have all complained about the fact that women do not have a decent go in the work force, that not enough of them reach top management. One of the reasons they do not is that in the past, when they have become pregnant, they have had to leave and sever their employment. We have now seen the sort of thing that is happening in the Commonwealth Public Service. Gradually the number of women in the higher positions is rising, albeit very slowly. They are a long way from getting parity but they are getting there very slowly. The situation is still abysmal. We are still a long way short of what the position should be. That is why the Opposition strongly opposes this retrograde action.

Women employees represent an investment to the Public Service in terms of skills and training. Re-entry by female officers is in the interest of the Public Service and thus it should be facilitated. I wonder what would be happening if men were having babies. Quite seriously, I am damned sure that these provisions would not be amended. They would be made a great deal more generous in this home of male chauvinism which has 123 members not one of whom is a woman. Here we have legislation by men for men.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Cut it out.

Mr COHEN:

– There is a man who has contributed five or six weeks paternity leave. I am quite serious in saying that if men were having the children this would not be occurring. Honourable members are not so mean and miserable when it comes to providing conditions for themselves. I was one of those who supported the improvement in the parliamentary salaries and retirement allowances but apparently the attitude is different when we are looking after No. 1 than it is when we are thinking about the women in the Public Service. I wonder what would be happening if the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were having a baby? I must concede that it is mind boggling.

Paternity leave is the only government recognition of the dual role of father and mother in child rearing. This Government’s proposal to abolish paternity leave altogether is a backward step and one likely to cause considerable practical hardship, especially to young families. By repealing section 10 of the principal Act the Government is, in effect, downgrading the role of the father in child rearing. It is particularly important at a time when there is a changing malefemale relationship, in which young men and women are working out different attitudes than those that prevailed in the past about their role vis-a-vis the home and vis-a-vis the work place. Probably all of us, who are of another generation, were brought up with the well-known attitude about a woman’s place: A man got married expecting his wife to look after the home, have children and look after him when he got home. That obviously was a product of a past generation. That attitude is changing and the younger generation- I suppose I can include people of my own age in that group- are now changing their attitudes towards what each partner will do; who will go to work, who will look after the children, do the washing up, wash the nappies and so on. Paternity leave provides us with an opportunity for men to play that role. By abolishing paternity leave the Government does nothing to assist the new relationships that young men and women are working out.

Much has been said about the abuse of maternity and paternity leave provisions. There may be isolated instances of abuse. However, the allegations have been largely unsubstantiated. This fact was brought to light by statistics provided in 1977 by the Australian Government Joint Council following a survey of women returning to work after maternity leave. For example, it has been alleged that many pregnant women join the Public Service just to receive maternity benefits. It should be noted that only 2.7 per cent of female officers had less than one year’s service when they commenced maternity leave. That is just three in 100, so why introduce this provision? One does not change the whole of legislation because qf the actions of a minimal number.

We all know, whether it be in respect of tax laws, social welfare legislation or whatever, that there will always be a small minority that will abuse the system. The Government is deliberately seeking to punish the genuine person because of the actions of a handful of people who have abused the system- assuming they have. I do not necessarily concede that all of that 2.7 per cent have in fact been abusing the system. There is no evidence to show that that small number deliberately joined the Public Service with an ulterior motive. I do not think that they would all be so skilled in becoming pregnant just on the clock. Under the new proposals in clause 7 a premature baby could disqualify an otherwise qualifying officer, since now an officer must have been employed by the Public Service for 12 months before she may become entitled to maternity leave. I ask: Why 12 months? From my little knowledge of medicine and science one has to be pregnant for roughly a nine-month period.

Mr Sainsbury:

– You can’t be pregnant for 12 months.

Mr COHEN:

-That will now be the rule. I ask why it should be 12 months. Why not nine months or six months? Anybody who wants to abuse the system, who wants to join the Public Service and get all these benefits -

Mr Sainsbury:

– Which part -

Mr COHEN:

– Is the honourable member going to speak in this debate? He will have his turn in a moment. We will come in when that happens. Usually it is comedy hour when he is speaking, but we will all enjoy it. It is my turn at the moment. The point is that someone who wants to abuse the system will still be able to do so. With modern family planning methods it would be simple to join the Public Service, remain there for 12 months and then become pregnant; so the Government is not going to close that. It will simply harm those who are genuine.

In regard to the criticism that only- I emphasise the word ‘only’- 50 per cent of women return to work after maternity leave, the fact is that a return rate of 50 per cent is much higher than might be expected from the normal work force participation pattern of women responsible for children. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that only 30 per cent of Australian women who are responsible for children aged 0 to five years in fact work. Thus it would seem that provision for a woman to return to her previous job at the same salary and seniority level, with accrued entitlements, for example long service leave and superannuation, has given some women a choice of returning to the paid work force or not.

Without adequate maternity leave provisions, the alternative to remaining at home would be to take pot luck in a severely restricted employment market and to have to start again from scratch. The aim of such leave is not to force back into the work force those women who want, and can afford, to stay at home to care for young children. That is not the object. It is to protect the jobs and career entitlements of the 50 per cent of women who choose, whether from economic necessity or reasons related to personal fulfilment, to return to their jobs. In other words, it seeks to ensure that women who interrupt their careers to have children will not be unduly disadvantaged. It is absurd, not to mention unfair, to conclude that because 50 per cent do not take up their right to return to work, the 50 per cent who do have no right to, or need to.

Mr Sainsbury:

– They get maternity leave.

Mr COHEN:

-I hope that the honourable member intends to speak in this debate. He has been chattering on and on. The honourable member is prattling away like an old fowl in a chook yard. It is also likely that many women are prevented from returning to work because of inadequate child care facilities, lack of part-time work, restriction of the period of unpaid leave, or a combination of those factors. The 50 per cent return rate is certainly not a justifiable criticism of maternity leave and may, in fact, be an argument for the granting of more generous provisions. As one news commentator put it, the Government is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is withdrawing provisions which have certainly not been generous when compared to those operating in other counties.

I point out that in addition to Japan, which I mentioned earlier, and West Germany, some of those primitive countries that our colleagues on the other side find so obnoxious, such as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and East Germany also have maternity leave conditions that are better than those that we have in this country. Instead of withdrawing provisions which certainly were not generous when compared with those operating in other countries, the Government should be facilitating the establishment of maternity and paternity leave provisions in the private sector; providing adequate child care facilities instead of reversing advances made by the Labor Government in this area; exploring ways of providing adequate permanent part-time work for government employees with young families, and encouraging the private sector to follow suit; and, finally, investigating the effects of making provision for easier re-entry or retention of career rights for women who stay out of the work force longer to look after children. We are sick and tired of this Government’s unspoken policy of kicking public servants and women, to mention just two categories. The saving to the Government is minimal; the regressive effects are considerable. The Labor Party opposes this Bill very strongly.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Prior to his entry into Parliament, the previous speaker, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), was an employer in private industry.

Mr Bradfield:

-He still is.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am reminded that he still is. I wonder whether he follows the policy which he has stated is suitable for the Government, in that he gives his own staff paternity leave and excess maternity leave?

Mr Cohen:

– You should be so lucky as to be employed by me under the best working conditions in Australia.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member did not answer my question other than to say that he offers the best working conditions in Australia. Perhaps that question was a very pointed one and touched a very soft spot. In speaking to this amendment -

Mr Cohen:

– One thing about a menswear store is that men do not get pregnant.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-He employs only men. In order to avoid any danger of his staff members becoming pregnant, he will not even give women job opportunities. If ever there was a sexist in this House, it is the honourable member for Robertson. Turning to a more serious aspect of this subject, I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard) who pointed out that the Government is not stripping away the rights to take leave of women in the Public Service who fall pregnant. I readily concede that the Labor Government in 1973 did improve the previous provisions which were initially introduced by the Liberal Government in 1966. We introduced maternity leave without pay. Labor went the extra mile and introduced paid maternity leave but unfortunately, as is typical of the Australian Labor Party, it was careless in its excesses. It built a system which, regrettably, has been manipulated and taken advantage of by some unscrupulous female public servants.

I join with the honourable member for Robertson in expressing some wonderment as to why the figure of 12 months was set. Nine months is the normal period of gestation and it is very hard to plan pregnancy. Something could happen in a three-month period which was not planned and therefore a person could suffer some slight disadvantage by virtue of the very thrust of this legislation. It is proper to read into Hansard some sections of the second reading speech. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner) said that there would be a deletion of paternity leave and an introduction of a qualifying period of one year before maternity leave is available. He then said: . . however, leave provisions, without pay, will continue to apply in the first year of service. . . .

He went on to say: . . removal of automatic access to sick leave, but sick leave to be available under normal conditions; and standardisation of the amount of payment for leave for maternity purposes at twelve weeks pay.

The honourable member for Macquarie made mention of an isolated case of total abuse. The honourable member for Robertson said that every system has its abuses and therefore we should not alter the system. I contend that it is not just employees in the public sectorCommonwealth employees- who have been subjected to the effects of a tightening up by this Government of loose provisions. So also have those members of the private sector who have manipulated various weaknesses in the taxation legislation to their own advantage. What the honourable member for Robertson was saying is that we need not alter the taxation legislation just because some people can flout the tax laws. The honourable member has left the chamber, but I ask: Is he going to stand in this chamber and seriously extend to other areas the principle he enunciated in relation to this particular amendment? Consistency would require that he does so and consistency would underline the weaknesses of the argument.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had made some comments on this Bill, the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill, and the Superannuation Amendment Bill. It is a pity that on this Thursday night when the proceedings of this Parliament should be broadcast, an industrial dispute in Sydney is preventing the nation from being able to tune into the Parliament. I suppose we have to take the good with the bad.

Mr Innes:

– Like the tape recorder at Brisbane Airport.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-That is a very sensitive subject. I inform the House that after the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), who is at the table, made some comments last June or July foreshadowing changes in the maternity leave provisions, I received five phone calls from both men and women who were concerned about those provisions, either because they were men married to female public servants or, alternatively, being women, because they were planning families. They all rang me to find out when the change was likely to take effect. No one expressed opposition to the foreshadowed change, and I gleaned from my conversation with them that they felt that the system that had existed up until that time was more than generous.

We have already been told by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) that some 70 per cent of the women who take advantage of the 12 weeks leave with pay, and who have access to a longer fully paid absence from work, return to work within a period of 12 weeks. He also mentioned that another 2 per cent to 3 per cent of those women have become pregnant and needed to take the leave within the first 12 months of their employment. In reality, we are talking about some 25 per cent to 27 per cent of female public servants whose leave has exceeded the period of 12 weeks. The previous speaker on this side of the House, the honourable member for Macquarie cited the example of a woman who took sick leave, which accrues at a fairly rapid rate, and her holiday leave and in fact was absent from work on full pay for some 52 weeks. I do not contest the 12-weeks provision, but I cannot for the life of me see why, because a woman has a particular job, she should have an advantage over the rest of the Australian work force. With 40 weeks leave available in addition to the 12 weeks, if that person commanded a salary of $200 a week, during that period she would receive a subsidy of some $8,000 from the taxpayers’ purse to have a child, and that is a subsidy not available to most other Australians.

I hold the view that most public servants have such pride in their profession that they too would like to see the system altered to cut out the malingerers, the saboteurs and the exploiters of the scheme. They do not enjoy the taint which is frequently attached to the Service when people in the Service are seen to be exploiting the provisions that are available. A suggestion has been made from the other side of the House that we have been totally heartless, and no doubt the next Australian Labor Party speaker will hammer the line that we take everything away from everybody. The facts are that 12 weeks fully paid leave is still available for a person who has been in the Service in excess of 12 months. If a woman has not recovered at the end of that 12-week period she has access to her sick leave entitlements as long as she provides a doctor’s certificate.

Mr Innes:

– Great stuff.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Great stuff: That is the sort of comment I would expect from the honourable member for Melbourne. So many Labor members foster the view in the community that sick leave is something that should be taken at any time if a person has not already taken it. I have always held the view that sick leave is available in the event of a person becoming ill and being unable to carry on working. I also hold the view that if a person does not take sick leave because he does not get sick he is fortunate and that does not mean that he has to take off three or four weeks ‘on the boss’ because his sick leave is unused. That is my view and I make no apology for it. I am quite sure that thinking Australians would concur with the view I have expressed.

I do not wish to make any further comments on that Bill but would like to refer to the Superannuation Amendment Bill. I recall to the House a question I directed to the Minister at the table on 1 9 October, and I will read it:

Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister aware that there exists in the community much argument and animosity about the degree of generosity extended to Commonwealth public servants because of their superannuation scheme? In view of the fact that this animosity is most harmful to the image of public servants and may be ill-founded, will the Minister take steps to obtain a comparative actuarial analysis with other schemes in Australia, particularly in the private sector, and establish how many people benefit from each scheme? Will he then make the findings available to members of this Parliament for consideration?

I will not read the Minister’s reply, but he gave no such undertaking. I am not criticising him for that; it is his prerogative to answer as he wishes. However, following the publicity surrounding that question a number of public servants rang me and suggested that I was being critical. I explained to them that I asked for a study to be made because there is so much comment without real knowledge in the community about the superannuation available to Commonwealth public servants. I really and truly believe that this Government has an obligation to make a comparative study of the major superannuation schemes available in this country. It could well turn out that Commonwealth public servants are treated far from generously. It could also turn out that they are most generously treated. Very few people have the capacity or the facilities to get down to the task of making such comparisons, but the Government has an acturarial section which specialises in superannuation. It has access to this manpower. I believe that in the long term interests of this country a great benefit would accrue if a proper study were made on a comparative basis. I am not simply saying that if Commonwealth public servants turned out to be exceedingly well looked after that that would be the end of the benefit of such a study. What I am suggesting is that if employers throughout the country had something to look at and compare we could stabilise the superannuation which is offered. Commonwealth public servants in Brisbane have said to me that they would love to be in the Queensland Public Service superannuation scheme because in comparison it is infinitely more generous than the scheme to which they contribute.

Mr Innes:

– Do you know anything about newspaper proprietors?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am directing my comments to the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Melbourne will shortly have the opportunity to debate the subject. The honourable member for Fadden will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I would like the Minister to take great note of the fact that contrary to the comments he made in response to my question on 1 9 October there is a lot of feeling within the community. He has the staff available to make this study. I believe that the whole nation would be more enlightened and have a better understanding of exactly what is being given to different sections of the community if such a study were made. We can find out how much money people are paid through various awards which exist throughout the country. That is public knowledge. But it is hard to know what is happening in the superannuation arena. I conclude with the comment that when it comes to the expenditure of public money the public has the right to know what is going on. The Minister might well say that I could sit down and do the work and find the answer. I think it is the Queensland Employers Federation who wrote to the Minister saying that if he could provide the information it would be interested because with all its efforts it had been unable to obtain the information necessary to make a study such as I suggested.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The measures in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill once again reflect the ‘cut-back, slash government expenditure, make the workers pay for the recession’ attitude of the Federal Government. The budgetary cuts to pensions and the unemployment benefit reflected this attitude in social welfare. The cuts in housing expenditure and capital grants to the States reflected this attitude in Commonwealth-State relations. This Bill, which proposes to reduce maternity benefits to female public servants and to wipe out paternity benefits to male public servants reflects the same sort of cutback policy in labour relations within the Commonwealth Public Service.

Since the Second World War all over the world and in Australia, industry and commerce has relied on an increasing rate of participation by women in the work force. Now approximately 2.2 million women are in the Australian work force. The participation rate by women has risen from 29 per cent in 1960 to 44 per cent in 1978. During this period women have been confronted with a deeply ingrained bias against their being allowed to compete on equal terms in the labour market. How often have members of this House heard the arguments in their own electorates that the current atrocious rates of unemployment are caused by married women occupying jobs that rightfully belong to young people, especially single females. This concept seems to have been deeply instilled even in the working women themselves, that is, that they are somehow extremely lucky to be working and that they should be grateful to society for allowing them to work. The result has been to make Australia’s working women rather fearful of pushing for their legitimate rights as working contributors to our society.

In a sense our working women remain second class workers. They are intimidated by the mores of the establishment and sometimes, to my own great personal regret, by working class males. We need to accept that many married women work because their husband’s wages are too low to support their family. As I informed this House in the debate on a matter of public importance last Tuesday, a steelworker in Port Kembla can earn as little as $ 1 80 gross per week. This is by no means the lowest wage in the steel industry. Perhaps there is something to the argument of” those who say that we should pay such women to stay at home by increasing tax concessions for the dependent spouse of a working male. But even this argument ignores the genuine and pressing desire of modern women who find self-fulfilment in active careers outside the family unit. These people should not be suppressed, they should be encouraged.

There can be natural reluctance on the part of women to insist upon the application of equal pay for equal work. There is a tendency for factory workers, especially migrant women, to accept without protest the extremely low wages they receive. Similarly, in the private sector working women have avoided seeking better conditions in the general labour market such as the extension of maternity leave benefits which have applied up to now in the Public Service. They have avoided seeking the establishment of facilities such as creches in factories and major offices. This Government seems to believe that it can best meet the problems encountered by working families by reducing maternity leave provisions in the Public Service and by retarding the movement to equal wages for equal work and equal opportunity in the work place. They would warn women that they must not be too demanding lest they price themselves out of the labour market. These exhortations are similar to the rhetoric put forward by Government members in this place in favour of lower penalty rates for night and weekend workers, especially in the tourist industry. They are similar to Government demands that workers must accept lower real wages or be replaced by capital, technology or machines.

In his second reading speech the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner) stated that the provisions of Labour’s original Bill which became the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act was still ahead of community standards. If that is so, it is a shocking indictment of Australia’s attitude towards women. Let us compare the attitude of the Australian Government with overseas viewpoints. I refer to a document providing the rationale for . maternity and paternity leave through parental insurance in Sweden. It states:

The situation of young families has changed considerably since the mid-1960s, above all due to a steady rise in the numbers of gainfully employed women. The greatest relative increase in this respect has occurred among women with children of pre-school age.

A great deal of the changes occurring in Swedish family policy have been prompted by this trend. It has been commonly agreed that no financial support for families can match the earnings of a family where both parents are able to go out to work. The best economic support for families is to enable those parents wishing to do so to obtain gainful employment. Quite clearly, too, the prevailing opinion among young families themselves is that both parents must be able to combine gainful employment with the care of their children.

To make this possible, social amenities are needed, above all in the form of child care. Great efforts have been made and are still being made to this end.

That is the type of rationale that is motivating enlightened governments overseas. As I said, this might apply overseas but it does not apply in Australia. In many Western European countries paternity and maternity leave can be shared by both males and females during the post-natal period. Why is the Government wiping out paternity leave? Is it because paternity leave in the Public Service becomes too costly? In 1977 this provision cost less than Sim. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions has pointed out. the important point is that the issue of joint family responsibility in raising children should be encouraged. The abolition of paternity leave in the Public Service is a blow to a commendable reform instituted by the Labor Government. Paternity leave is already well entrenched in overseas Western democracies.

The Bill seeks to introduce also a 12 months qualifying period before maternity leave can be taken. Apparently, this is based on the typically chauvinistic behaviour that we have come to expect from the bureaucratic males in the top echelons of our Public Service and, I might add, in this Government. This seems to imply that pregnant women might deliberately seek to join the Public Service to enjoy 12 weeks maternity leave. What a poor opinion this Government has of Australia’s women, particularly those women who seek to serve in Commonwealth employment. Perhaps these senior public servants think that women might seek jobs with them simply so that they can have a child on paid time at public expense. Do these people really believe that any sane woman would behave in such a way?

Since the original legislation was implemented only 2.7 per cent of women commencing maternity leave had less than one year’s service with the Public Service; 88.8 per cent had between two and 10 years’ service; and 8.3 per cent had 10 or more years’ service. I am indebted to the Australian Clerical Officers Association for supplying these figures. Surely this Government had access to them also. If it did, why does it seek to mislead us by claiming that abuse of this provision exists? Government speakers have cited several examples of alleged abuse. They have cited the alleged case of a woman who used the full provisions for benefit, resigned and then picked up her leave entitlements. Is it the intention of the Government to blackguard every young woman in the Public Service because of the actions of several people who have abused the system?

In this legislation the Government also seeks to remove automatic access to sick leave during the pre-natal period and during unpaid maternity leave. The Bill provides that access to sick leave will depend upon a medical certificate being obtained in the normal way. One does not envisage this constituting a major change. I believe that even the Australian medical profession under the circumstances would not deny those women their sick leave certificates which would enable them to obtain their rightful entitlement to leave. But is this not a petty thing to do? The

Government really is just harassing its own employees. Why does it not leave them alone? They are entitled to their sick pay. Who is more entitled to sick pay than the mother of a future Australian? The provision is in tune with the more miserable of the Budget changes, such as the abortive attempt to impose a tax on paperboys through penalising their mothers and removing their family allowance.

The last major change in the Bill is to limit paid maternity leave to a maximum of 12 weeks. The Minister said that this will remove any possibility of staff members notifying an early expected date of confinement to maximise their entitlement to paid leave. In other words, the Government believes that its employees are cheats. I ask every female working member of the Commonwealth Public Service to take note of that fact. The Government is changing the legislation because it believes that they wish to cheat the Federal Government. If the Minister looked at the statistics instead of casting aspersions on the Public Service he would see that 70 per cent of the women who have taken maternity leave took exactly 12 weeks paid leave. The changes in this Bill are petty. They should have been avoided. They are anti-female and they are in the same vein as the much vaunted Lusher motion on abortion that would use a Federal health law to deny medical benefits to women who have operations which are legal under the law of the State in which they live.

Let me prove even further my case that the existing provisions applying maternity and paternity leave entitlements in the Public Service are certainly a lot less than what applies overseas. Let us consider the situation in the country of Norway. The rationale for its policy is to encourage persons with family responsibilities to work outside the home. It aims at women as well as men because both women and men should have equal responsibility towards their children. Accordingly, the Storting has adopted legal provisions on entitlement to full pay during absence in the case of a child’s illness for all employees caring for children under 10 years of age. Some government institutions will experiment with a six-hour working day for parents with children under three years of age. With regard to the maj ternity leave provisions in Norway, since July 1977 the entitlement to maternity leave has been extended on the basis of parental leave. Parents will now be entitled to parental leave of up to one year, of which six weeks is definitely reserved for the mother.

In Sweden, parents have been entitled to a total of seven months absence from work in connection with childbirth provided they have been employed by their present employer for at least one year. At the commencement of leave an employee must have been employed for the past six months or for a total of at least 12 months during the past two years. The seven months ‘ leave may be divided between the mother and the father. Periods for which mothers and fathers are eligible are not equal. A mother is entitled to 60 days prenatal parental leave from the sixtieth day before the anticipated date of confinement. Moreover, the mother is always entitled to parental benefit for 29 days after her confinement, even if she does not have custody of the child. Otherwise, the main rule is that parental benefit goes to the parent mainly responsible for the care of the child after its birth. Parental benefit is payable to the parents for a total of up to 2 10 days, but on no account after the child is 270 days old. That is the situation that exists in many enlightened countries overseas, such as Sweden and Norway.

Is it not amazing how the Government changes its tune, breaks its promises and switches its policies? The original legislation was introduced on 29 May 1973 by the then Labor Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). The shadow Minister of the then Opposition, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), had the hide to criticise the legislation as ‘a totally inadequate and isolated response to these needs which must be examined by the Government’. He said on 29 May 1973:

This Parliament itself provides a salient example of a major structure of society in which women have had a minimal involvement and therefore is seen by many women to represent a narrow and unsympathetic legislative authority. In the terms of the Government’s social services program, the needs of the pregnant regrettably are going very much by default.

He stated further:

The needs of women in the Australian community are too important to be treated in isolation.

They must be subject to a concerted program by the Government and which will place the needs of pregnant women in what must be the Government’s response to the total needs of women everywhere in Australian society.

What marvellous rhetoric. Now when the Government has a chance to do something, what does it do? We see it instead exposed for all its mealy-mouthed hypocrisy. Where are its attempts to implement this concerted program which will provide policies to meet the needs of pregnant women everywhere in Australian society? This Bill will be rated by the men and women in the Public Service as another of the

Government’s broken promises. They will regard it in the same category as the broken promises on pensions, Medibank, taxation and unemployment. There is no doubt that, in the spring of 1980, these men and women in the Australian Public Service will remember these attacks on their working conditions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2656

SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2656

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

– I seek to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Yes. There has been a call to my office from Mr Creighton Walsh stating that he has made a statutory declaration which he has handed to the Fairfax group and which he has sought to withdraw. Mr Allan Walsh has forwarded to the Speaker a telegram which reads:

I am the principal of A. Walsh Investments and the head of Allan Walsh Pty Ltd and I am completely opposed to what my son Creighton is doing from an insane hatred of Sinclair. It is all erroneous. Allan Walsh.

I seek to table that telegram. I am not aware of the contents of the declaration but I believe from the discussion I had with Mr Creighton Walsh that he now seeks to withdraw those allegations. I believe, therefore, in view of this telegram that it is necessary that I lay it on the table of the House and rebut whatever allegations are made within that declaration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Innes:

– I take a point of order. Is the Minister tabling the document as a Minister or as . . .

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Of course I am tabling it as a Minister. What else do you think I am doing? I am in the House as a Minister; didn’t you know?

Mr Innes:

– I would have thought that you were. You never act as such. I am putting it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the honourable gentleman’s withdrawal of that remark which I regard as offensive.

Mr Innes:

– You are very testy, aren’t you?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes, I am on personal matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I will deal with the matters in sequence. The honourable member for Melbourne took a point of order on the entitlement of the Minister to table a document. The Minister has the right to table a document if it is not interrupting proceedings presently before the House and if the document is in order to be tabled. There is no substance to the point of order. The remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne -

Mr Innes:

– You did not hear my point of order, with all due respect.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The remarks by the honourable member for Melbourne to the Leader of the House could be regarded as offensive and I call on the honourable member to withdraw them.

Mr Innes:

– What part of them? What does he take offence to?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne, I am sure, is aware of the remarks to which the Leader of the House has taken exception.

Mr Innes:

– What was offensive? He is very testy. How about telling me what was offensive?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Come on. You are not that bad. I know you are a bit childish at times, Ted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House is not helping the matter.

Mr Innes:

– The Minister is thick. He has a vacuum between his ears. You don’t have to say things like that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw the remark.

Mr Innes:

– I withdraw.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Thank you.

Mr Holding:

– I take a point of order. Is it in order for the Leader of the House, on the basis of what are clearly quite substantial telephone conversations, to walk into the House and present some document which names someone who is outside the House as having a somewhat jaundiced and prejudiced view of the Minister and only present the House with half the story? Surely the honourable member should give us some more detail of the conversation he had.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

page 2657

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no doubt about the need for long term rural finance in Australia. In 1971, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics report on debt reconstruction and farm adjustment stated:

There is need for a long term credit facility for agriculture because access to capital will become an increasing problem to the predominately unincorporated enterprise type of farm business and particularly because it is necessary to facilitate the development of farm enterprise.

Then there was the important report of 1974, the Green Paper entitled ‘Rural Policy in Australia’, tabled by the Labor Government, which stated:

There has been a gap in the long term credit facilities available to rural producers.

Obviously the banks, the large finance companies and pastoral nouses all had failed in this respect. All had failed to provide finance for Australian agricultural industry.

The peculiar nature of agriculture in Australia has led to a situation where those involved in agriculture are peculiarly in need of long term finance. Because of the harsh conditions under which farmers operate in Australia, because of the long production cycle and the length of time before cash flow comes from new developments, because of fluctuating conditions and because of the harsh climate that farmers have to endure, of course there is a need for long term concessional finance. The Liberal Party in 1975, being aware of this and in its normal cynical fashion, produced in its election policy speech a promise to establish a rural bank. For nearly two years nothing was heard of that proposal, except that the Australian Bankers Association, comprising the private banks, was using its considerable muscle within the Liberal Party to kill that proposal. Two years later in November 1977, just before the then pending election, the Government introduced, again for electoral purposes, and passed the Australian Rural Bank Act which authorised the establishment of a banking corporation.

In his 1977 policy speech the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised that the bank would provide long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. Every farmer in Australia realises what a false promise that was and how readily he was duped. However, when we think of the other promises which the Prime Minister made at that time it is not surprising that the farmers were duped. Let us look at a few from this litany of broken promises. There was the promise to maintain Medibank. We all know how that promise has been shattered. The promise to maintain wage indexation was never honoured. There was a promise to cut interest rates by 2 per cent, and he has about seven weeks left in this year in which to produce the proof of the worth of that promise. The tax cuts which people were promised in 1 977, of course, have turned out to be an extra imposition of tax on every person. Then there was the promise that unemployment would start falling in February and continue falling for the rest of the year. Of course, the rural bank was just another one of the broken promises of that election campaign.

Apart from that, the legislation as it was introduced was vague on such important details as equity capital, magnitude and source of funds for lending, and the directorship of the corporation. It stated that there would be 12 directors, including a chairman and one other representative appointed by the Government and only two directors representing primary industry. Who the other eight would be was a complete mystery. The legislation authorised the Treasurer to make funds available on conditions determined by him, but did not say how much. The Act explicitly forbade the Bank to deal directly with primary producers. It could provide funds only for on-lending. Trading banks and the fringe financial institutions, like the stock firms, became in fact the lenders. The Primary Industry Bank lends only to them. There is no doubt that the private banks demanded that restriction. There is also no doubt that the Fraser Government, as is its custom in dealing with such strong faceless bodies as the Australian Bankers Association or the Australian Medical Association, weakly complied with their request.

In January 1978 a joint release by the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry stated that funds would not be available for farm plant or livestock purchases, thereby further restricting the Bank’s role. The Bank’s facility was only to lend for capital works- for the purchase of the farm, not to stock it. It was not really a primary industry bank at all. On 1 1 May 1978 the Treasurer introduced an amending Bill which changed the Bank’s name from ‘Rural Bank’ to Primary Industry Bank’. It also amended section 7 of the original Act- the section which authorised the Treasurer to make funds available to the Bank for lending ‘on such terms and conditions as he determines’. The amendment added ‘and agreed to by the Bank’- obviously another little foible of the ABA which weakened the structure again.

The second reading speech of 11 May 1978 announced that the trading banks would appoint seven of the 12 directors and the State banks would appoint one. The pretext for giving the private banks directorial control was that they would supply most of the equity capital. This was so, but the equity capital of” $6.25m in total was but a tiny fraction of the funds required to give the Bank any significance at all in the realm of banking. These actions delivered the Primary Industry Bank completely into the hands of the private trading banks- the traditional lamb delivered to the slaughterhouse. Because we in the Labor Party were worried about this situation we moved to reduce the private bank directors from seven to four and to increase the farmer directors from two to four. One National Country Party member- funnily enough, apart from the Minister for Primary Industry I cannot see one National Country Party member in the House for the debate on this Bill which is of such significance to the rural industry; I guess that that is a sad reflection on the fact -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Order! I am in the chamber. I am a member of the National Country Party.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There is one in the chair. I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your are neutral when you are in the chair; so we cannot count you. It is fairly typical of their attitude towards us that at the time when the Labor Party moved to increase the primary industry directors from two to four only one of them was in the House.

Mr Sinclair:

– What do you mean by saying that there are no National Country Party members in the House?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-We do not include the Minister either.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We have three very important -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the right honourable member raising a point of order?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes. I object to what the honourable member is saying, because there are three very important people here representing country interests, whether they happen to belong to the Liberal Party or the National Country Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am proud to be able to represent any farmer in this place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Now that cattle prices have improved the right honourable member for Lowe does not mind admitting to being a farmer. I can remember about 12 months ago when he was crying about being ripped off by the butchers. I am pleased to see that he is a happy farmer now.

When we moved to have primary industry represented by four directors instead of two, only one National Country Party member saw fir to cross the floor and to vote with us. No Liberal member, no other National Country Party member and no Australian Democrat member in either House voted with us. I guess that that fairly sums up their reaction to our amendment. These events had induced suspicion that the private banks would simply use the institution as a receptacle into which they would dump their bad debts. On 25 May that possibility was explicitly denied by Mr Ives, the newly appointed chairman, when he said:

An impending borrower will go to his own bank and, if that bank decides that his proposition is viable, then that bank will go to the Primary Industry Bank and ask for funds, but the prime lender, the trading bank, takes the risk.

On 7 June the Treasurer repudiated- without acknowledging the fact, I might add- the Prime Minister’s 1977 election promise for funds at concessional rates of interest when he said that interest rates would be set at approximately the same level as for overdraft accommodation on similar amounts of money. The position then was: Firstly that loans would be at normal overdraft rates; secondly, that applications for loans would be assessed by the client’s trading bank; and, thirdly, that the trading bank would carry the risk of default. Collectively, those conditions allowed no valid reason- other than as a political gimmick- for the Bank’s existence. All it would do was add to the cost of borrowing by interposing another tier of bureaucracy between the borrowers and the money they so earnestly wanted.

The next revelation showed that conclusion to be correct. In July it was published that the interest rate would be 1 1 per cent, one-half per cent above the overdraft rate. Predictably, this produced an angry reaction from farmer groups and others. Predictably, it produced that sort of reaction from the right honourable member for Lowe. The farmers realise that they had been duped. The Minister for Primary Industry tried to defuse the protest on the ABC’s National Farm Report program of 28 July by prevaricating about the interest rates charged by other banks. He stated that the 1 1 per cent interest rate was identical to the rate charged for term loans of eight to 10 years of amounts up to $100,000. The truth is that the Commonwealth Development Bank’s rate for term loans of up to $ 100,000 for up to 20 years is 10½ per cent.

At the Australian Agricultural Council meeting on 7 July the Minister for Primary Industry used another tactic to get himself and the Government off the hook when he said:

The Government had never intended the bank to provide cheap money for farmers.

I hope that all the farmers listening take note of that. He also referred to ‘some misunderstanding of the Government’s objectives for the Bank’. The origin of the misunderstanding is the Prime Minister’s 1977 concessional rate of interest promise. The deception is now clearly revealed as such. Whether the Minister for Primary Industry believes that farmers should have known better than to take the Prime Minister’s promise seriously or whether the Prime Minister does not speak for the Government, the Minister did not explain. I guess that we will all make our own assumptions on that.

On his return from the Council meeting the Western Australian Agriculture Minister, Mr Old, complained that the Bank would not cover farmers’ hire purchase debt area. He said:

When the Primary Industry Bank was still in the planning stages firm indications had been given it would encompass hire purchase, but its final form was contrary to this expection

That is a quotation from the Countryman of 10 August. That is hardly a socialist document. The joint Howard-Sinclair statement of January 1 978 made it perfectly clear that the hire purchase area would not be covered. Evidently it has taken the Western Australian Minister seven months to catch up; but, seeing the form of the Western Australians on the other side of this House, that is probably not surprising. There are sound arguments against providing finance for agriculture at concessional rates of interest, even from the farmers ‘ own viewpoint; but there can be no justification for deceiving farmers with cynical, dishonest election promises.

There are also sound arguments for a specialist institution to provide a full range of banking services. This does not require a new corporation. lt can be done by amending the Commonwealth Development Bank’s charter. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) will have.something to say on that later in the debate. Such an amendment would have satisfied all interested parties but the Australian Bankers Association. Farmers have got from the Government what the ABA wanted. That is not just a Labor Party conclusion, I might add, because Mr Michael Davidson, the former president of the politically conservative New South Wales Graziers Council and now one of the two farmer representatives on the Primary Industry Bank board, stated on the ABC’s National Farm Report program of 1 1 August:

The policies that we wanted adopted were not adopted by the Government. The Government chose to institute a bank on proposals that had largely been prepared by the Bankers’ Association. I still say that we would prefer to see a bank with a different structure, a different board structure or more of a prime lending role in which we can ensure that the things we want to achieve as far as additional finance, to farmers particularly in respect to long term loans, is achieved.

That man is now a director of this Primary Industry Bank. Mr Davidson was asked:

Would a farmer have to go through the trading banks or the Commonwealth Trading Bank before they get to the new Primary Industry Bank?

He replied:

Under the present structure, yes. And that is exactly what we didn’t want and what I didn’t want in the development of these proposals.

That is what the directors of the Bank think about it. This Bank is just a ‘political gimmick’. It is an ad hoc shoot-from-the-hip election promise- ill-conceived and, to all intents and purposes, still-born. The concessional rates promised in the Prime Minister’s election speech do not exist. Interest rates of 10 to 12 per cent are hardly concessions. Even a multi-millionaire with a reckless sense of munificence would hardly claim that they were concessional rates.

Mr Innes:

– A spendthrift with a good sense of humour.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is right; a spendthrift with a good sense of humour as the honourable member for Melbourne said. The long-term nature of the loans is not as good as cheap interest rates, despite the salesmanship of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). They have been arguing that long-term loans are just as good to farmers as cheap interest rates. I have a table to disprove that. The Primary Industry Bank may provide loans of 30 years’ duration. I stress the word may’; there is no obligation for it to do so. On the mathematics of the question, most people realise that repayments are affected by both interest rates and the length of the loan. What is generally not realised is that the higher the rate of interest the less important the loan term becomes. Ironically, at interest rates above 10 per cent, little reduction in annual payments accrues from extending the loan beyond 20 years. I am sure the ex-Treasurer sitting on the Government benches, the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), would agree with me. I have a very simple table which points this out. I take a loan of $1,000 as an example. A loan of $1,000 at 6 per cent interest over 15 years involves repayments of $102.96 annually. The same loan of $1,000 at 10 per cent interest over 30 years- this is what the Primary Industry Bank is talking about- means that the farmer would have to pay $ 106.08; or more than $4 more for a similar loan at 6 per cent over 15 years.

I do not care what sort of argument the Government puts up to try to convince farmers that long-term loans are the answer to their prayers. They are not. What they need is what the Government promised- concessional rates over a long term. That is not what the farmers are getting. The Bureau of Agriculture report entided ‘A Review of Credit in the Australian Rural Sector’ published in 1977 sums up exactly what I have been saying when it states:

The major factor influencing annual repayments of longterm loans is the rate of interest.

I am sure that even my erstwhile colleagues on my left in the Country Party would agree that 10 to 12 per cent could hardly be considered concessional rates of interest to the people they are trying to support.

Mr Lloyd:

– It is a genuine concessional rate of interest for long-term loans. There is no doubt about it.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If the honourable member for Murray had listened to what I was explaining -

Mr Lloyd:

– I was listening. I could not help thinking of what the Labor Party did with respect to concessional interest rates when it was in government.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If the honourable member for Murray had listened to what I was saying he would realise the stupidity of his remarks now. I hope he reads the Hansard record tomorrow. I will point it out to him.

Mr Lloyd:

– What about the stupidity of your remarks in your whole speech?

Mr Innes:

– He has been out of the House all night.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is a pity he does not go out again.

Mr Lloyd:

– If you went out you might learn something. If you went out into the bush you might learn something.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If that is the greatest contribution the honourable member for Murray is going to make he might as well go out. In the past six months, the Labor Party has been saying that the Bank will be worse than useless, that it will just add to the cost of finance by interposing another tier of bureaucracy between the borrower and money. The Primary Industry Bank, as it is now called, will charge 10 per cent interest on loans up to $ 100,000. That is exactly the same rate as for Commonwealth Development Bank term loans and for trading bank overdrafts. For loans above $ 100,000 the interest rate will be 12 per cent. Why have the Bank? Why not extend the Commonwealth Development Bank as we have been suggesting?

Mr Graham:

– If you wait for half an hour you will understand.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will wait more than half an hour if the honourable member for North Sydney can make me understand anything. I will wait all night. The Primary Industry Bank will have $80m to lend- $30m from income equalisation deposits and $50m raised from the public at the semi-government loan rate of 9Va per cent to 9lh per cent. Thus, the Bank’s funds obtained from all sources will have an average interest rate of about Vh per cent but this will be lent out at a minimum rate of 10 per cent. The difference will be gobbled up by the superfluous bureaucracy and the clumsy administration set up by the Government at the direction of the Australian Bankers Association- that is, the private trading banks. Higher interest rates in the future are inevitable for two reasons. Firstly, income equalisation deposits now have negligible tax benefits and will almost certainly run down. This is as a result of the changes in the last Budget and even the Country Party would agree with that. These deposits provide the Primary Industry Bank with its 5 per cent funds. When they are exhausted, interest charges obviously will have to rise. Secondly, if the $80m is lent this year, how much will be lent next year? Where will the funds come from? Certainly another $30m will not be available from income equalisation deposits. Higher interest charges to the Bank’s customers can then be avoided only if taxpayers funds are not frittered away on a superfluous bureaucracy which has grown out of a political gimmick. This is hardly the action of a responsible government that claims to be the great saviour of the Australian economy.

If the whole $80m was lent in one year, it would provide a minimal addition to the total $3,000m debt of the Australian primary industry. So, its contribution to lending funds will be almost negligible. We have been given no idea of the period over which the $80m will be lent. If $80m is to be the maximum amount on loan at any time and its average term is to be for, say, 10 years then only $8m can be lent each year. So what a lot of ballyhoo that a Bank can find $8m a year to service an industry with a debt of $3,000m. There is need for a specialist institution to provide a full range of banking services, free of the iniquitous lender of last resort restrictions. For more than two years the Australian Labor Party has argued for an extension of the Commonwealth Development Bank charter to meet just that need, but these pleas, as usual, fall on deaf ears. This Government has propped itself up with empty election promises and now shows some sort of duplicity in its moves to prove that those promises were genuine. But the Labor Party realises, I am sure the electorate realises and I am even more sure that the rural end of the electorate realises, that this is just the case.

There are valid arguments against providing as an ongoing policy funds for primary industry at concessional rates of interest. For example, if concessional rates were available for land purchase the concession would be capitalised in higher land values. Farmers would end up paying about the same amount of interest on a greater principal at a lower rate. There can, however, be no justification of cynically deceiving people with interest concession promises which are valid only until polling day. With one exception, farmer organisations realised months ago that the Government had tricked them and that the Prime Minister had no intention of honouring his election promise. The exception, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and especially its President Sir Samuel Burston, as late as Budget night predicted that interest rates would be between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. Sir Samuel is now a sadder but hopefully wiser man.

The criticism of the Primary Industry Bank does not come from only the Labor Party. I have from eminent people in the rural industry some quotes that just might bolster my argument that the Bank is a fraud. I refer to what Mr Barry Cassell, the Chairman of the Cattleman’s Union said. He is not exactly a supporter of the Labor Party and I think he probably knows what is happening in the rural industry. He is reported as saying:

Private banking institutions had aided and abetted certain sections of the Federal Government in ‘frustrating, delaying and finally castrating Primary Industry Bank’.

Banks contributed heavily to election-time funds that helped return the Fraser Government to power in 1975.

What has that led to? It has led to no competition in the rural lending area. Mr Cassell said that the bankers’ control the rules by which the game is played. Mr Dick O’Brien, the newly elected President of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers said: if producers were required to meet capital repayments and interest rates in excess of 10 per cent, then the bank would provide little benefit to agricultural producers.

Well they are paying 10 per cent and the odds are that the interest rate will go up because the Government, as I explained, will not be able to call on income equalisation deposits because the pool of IEDs is frittering away. It is drying up because of the restrictions in the last Budget. Another gentleman, the President of the Australian Farmers Federation, Mr D. Eckersley, told the Treasurer, Mr Howard, that the Bank was little more than a joke. In a letter to the Treasurer, Mr Eckersley said that there was every reason for farmers to be disillusioned. A newspaper report stated:

Mr Eckersley said the Federal Government had not made one serious attempt to meet any of the necessary criteria to make the new bank successful.

The passage of time since the banks conception had seen the original concept ‘watered down and down’.

It had almost reached the stage of ‘why have the bank at all’?

This is the bank the Government has set up allegedly to help primary industry. This is what industry leaders think of” it. An article in the Melbourne Sun Pictorial of 25 September reports a statement by Mr Barry Cassell. This is a rehash of the other article I read so it is hardly worth repeating the statement. A media release from the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation states:

The Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation expressed its extreme disappointment with the new Primary Industry Bank of Australia. The President of the AWMPF, Mr E. L. (Dick) O ‘Brien, stated that primary producers have not received the type of banking institution suggested in 1 975.

The AWMPF is opposed to PIBA being a refinancing institution and continues to question why the Commonwealth

Development Bank could not have widened powers to incorporate PIBA.

We have a supporter. The media release continues:

Mr O’Brien stated: ‘The suggestion that a Primary Industry Bank would effectively stifle competition in the banking sector was invalid as no real competition presently existed in the bush banking facilities’.

On interest rates and debt readjustment, Mr O’Brien stated he was extremely disappointed, claiming it reaffirmed his fear that it is no better than existing facilities.

We on this side of the House have extreme sympathy for the problems of rural industries. Whether the Government admits that or not, it is the truth. The Government has sought to blame the Australian Labor Party throughout its threeyear term of office for all the problems that now exist in the primary industry field. I remind the people listening on the radio of some of the things that we did to help the rural industry between 1972 and 1975. 1 hope the wool growers remember the introduction of the reserve price scheme for their wool and the measure to see that payments for wheat were made more quickly.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-That is not true. You are not telling the truth.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The right honourable member will have his chance in a minute. The farmers know who helped them. But the Government has tried to convince farmers that three years of Labor rule caused all their problems. A Liberal-Country Party Government has been in power for almost all the period since 1949. In 1949 when it came to power 20 per cent of the population was engaged in primary industry. The figure is now six per cent, and that is not all because of increased efficiency; that is because of the way the Government has run the industry down. The farmers realise this and they realise that the Australian Labor Party wants to produce some sort of financial institution to help them. The Government has produced a fettered, castrated effort to produce a bank that will not do one thing for the farmers. The Commonwealth Development Bank could have been extended to do exactly what the Government proposes without the necessity of establishing another great bureaucracy which eventually will put up interest rates. The people out in the farmland know that the Labor Party is supporting them on this issue. We are endeavouring to see that the election promises which the Government so glibly made in 1975 and 1977 and which it has so conveniently denied since are recognised by everyone. We on this side of the House deplore the efforts that the Government has made to set up this Bank. We support the principle but we deplore the efforts the Government has made to enact it. I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Wallis:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I must confess that I was a little disturbed as I listened to the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). For some time I felt that he was eligible to join the Liberal Party. His performance tonight shows that he is not entitled to be a genuine member of any party, be it Labor, Liberal or Country Party. Now I will tell honourable members why. First he dealt with this important question of interest rates. I am as sure as I live that he could never go on television to debate interest rates with anyone, even my baby daughter aged five. The first thing that has to be remembered about interest rates is that somebody has to earn the money, save it and lend it. Does the honourable member think that those people who deposit their money in savings banks at investment rates should be enticed not to get an interest rate that is at least in excess of the rate of inflation? If they do not get an interest rate at least equal to the rate of inflation they have a capital loss and they get no profit out of the investment whatsoever.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why did you promise concessional interest rates?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Oh, do keep quiet son; I am trying to help you. The honourable member has just got to the stage where he has to learn a fair bit about the game. He should not think that he can act in the same way as on a racecourse; buy a race horse, give it to Bart Cummings and have it come about sixteenth in a field of seventeen. He has come here to learn and I hope to tutor him a bit. And which government pushed up interest rates? We should make absolutely certain that we do not have- as the honourable member would like- a yo-yo procedure with interest rates. The simple fact is that anyone in Australia today who forecasts the trend of interest rates for the future is having a big problem. For example, in the United States of America discount rates have reached 9.5 per cent in the course of the last few weeks. That is the rate at which market securities will be discounted by the Central Bank. Even prime borrowers have to pay at least 1V5 per cent more interest than the discount rate. The interest rate for prime borrowers in the United States is something of the order of 1 1 per cent. It is the same in the Euro-dollar market. That is an indication of how little the honourable gentleman knows about interest rates. He should also know that long term securities of the Commonwealth Government have an interest rate now of 9 per cent. Does the honourable member not think that a person borrowing up to $ 100,000 ought to pay something more than the Commonwealth bond rate? Commonwealth bonds are the most solid securities one can get in Australia and are recognised overseas as among the best securities. That is the first thing I put to the honourable gentleman.

It has been suggested that this measure is a political gimmick. I have been involved with this sort of legislation firstly since the days of the Lang Government and then since the devastating defeat of the Labor Government in 1949 when it tried to nationalise the banks. Can the honourable member come into this House as a decent, responsible and honest man and tell us that he loves the banks, and that he loves any sort of bank? As I said, I rather like him and I do not like to see him humiliating himself in a discussion such as this. He talked about a political gimmick. I remind him of the circumstances and the origins of what happened in 1949 and he has given me the time to be able to do it. I was a lawyer for the Commonwealth Bank as well as for the Bank of New South Wales and I knew a lot about Ben Chifley ‘s nationalisation proposals. I well remember that I came into politics with one commitment and obligation to the people of this country and that was to prevent the Australian Labor Party getting into government for as long as I stayed in Parliament. I missed out for a period of three years, but Labor now has another 10 years in Opposition anyhow. As long as Parramatta is represented by the present member, Labor will be 25 years in Opposition. His grandchildren will be waiting, in the passage of time, to take his place.

Let me turn to what happened. As a result of the Privy Council decision in the nationalisation of the banks case I gave certain assurances. I gave three that I felt ought to be honoured. The first was to divorce the Reserve Bank from the Commonwealth Trading Bank activities. The second was to keep the Commonwealth Savings Bank completely independent from either. I will mention that again later. In 1959 we brought down our first banking legislation. I refer not only to the Reserve Bank legislation but the Commonwealth Banks as well. For two years we in the Liberal Party had fought- as recently we have been fighting- to sustain private enterprise. We believe private enterprise is an essential part of European liberalism. In my early days in Parliament I had been shifting from one portfolio to another. I had a portfolio for a couple of years and would then pass to another. I well remember Artie Fadden saying when I was Minister for Social Welfare, and doing well: ‘Bill, we can’t bloody well put up with you any longer. We can ‘t afford you. You’ve got to move into the Primary Industry portfolio’. The Government formed, for my special benefit and to my pleasure, the Department of Primary Industry.

The Government brought down the ‘Banks’ legislation. I will take credit for this. My Department wrote into the Act the parts relating to the Commonwealth Development Bank. It was my intention that it should relate only to primary industry. I ask our friend from Parramatta: Do you understand that? Need there be any further justification for one’s belief in the primary industries, their basic role in this country and the wish to protect them and the obligation to provide them with their own bank? I remember these words, and they are written on my. heart. The function was to provide finance for persons for the purpose of primary industry, and for no other purpose. That is why the Development Bank was created. The man who gave me the inspiration was Dr Strong of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

I must admit that by the time the law came in- I was then Minister for Primary Industrysomeone had added ‘also for the establishment and development of industrial undertakings’. That hurt my feelings and I did not want any other section of industry to be included in the Development Bank. So to accommodate me particularly small business undertakings’ was added. That was something that I had to accept. But I wanted only a primary industry bank. That was the origin of a primary industry bank in this country of ours.

Again, I listened with horror to an untrue statement that was made by the honourable member for Parramatta, for whom up to that moment I had had some respect. He said that the Australian Labor Party introduced the policy with regard to a reserve price for wool. I happened to be the Prime Minister at the time we first provided funds to enable the wool corporation to obtain funds to meet the reserve price and buy in wool that did not reach the reserve.

We had two difficulties. I was Prime Minister when the price of wool dropped to below 40c per lb. Without legislative authority- I say it in this House- I approved of $250m being applied, as honourable members will know, firstly for the purchases by the Corporation and, secondly, to sustain the reserve price that we put on wool, each of which involved a commitment of about $125m. That was what we did at a time of great and unexpected anxiety and trouble. Yet this little boy over there is claiming Labor credit for it. He has not been a member for long enough to know what it was all about. That was the first point I wanted to make.

I go a stage further. In 1971-72 we again gave very close consideration to the introduction of a primary producers bank. We did it, but there was one stumbling block. If the honourable member wishes I will even dig out the papers and send them to somebody to read to him so he can understand what it is all about. I hesitate to say who was the head of the Liberal Government in 1971-72 -

Mr Hodgman:

– Modesty.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– No, not modesty. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics said: We think that what the government has done through the Development Bank through the extension of facilities to long-term loans’ has closed the gap which had existed in respect of medium to long-term loans. We went a stage further and provided assistance not only for long-term loans but also loans to reconstruction authorities throughout the Commonwealth and for term finance. A second reason was that although Treasury for the first time agreed to the proposals to establish a primary industry bank, the Treasurer was out of the country and knowing his previous attitude we did not think it proper to take immediate action.

Let me come now to the Bill itself. In 1959 we had the ‘banks’ legislation prepared. The Liberal-Country Party Government brought down the banking legislation which this Bill seeks to amend. Its purpose was to give the Commonwealth bank the right to carry on banking facilities in the same way as a normal trading bank would. The relevant legislation was introduced in July and September 1978. 1 come now to one very important problem, and that is the role of this Bank. During the time I was dealing with this problem- I want to put this accurately and clearly- the primary industry representatives were saying to me, including men such as Sir William Gunn, that they were stressing one, and only one, aspect. That was longterm banking facilities. They told me, as can be proven in evidence, that long-term loans for primary industries was critical. Interest rates were given a low priority. That is understandable because conditions are different in times of inflation compared with normal times. We were thinking about normal times. I have no doubt that, under the guidance of the Fraser Government, when international trade improves to a substantial extent it will be possible to reduce interest rates considerably.

Therefore, the power created under this Bill was for long-term lending to primary producers, including fishermen and foresters, thus augmenting existing facilities of banks and other lending authorities I emphasise ‘thus augmenting existing facilities ‘. It is of tremendous importance that that be known. One of the reasons why the Minister for Primary Industry was able to achieve agreement was that the trading banks would handle not only the refinancing of development but also the normal day to day operations of the man on the land and his family. What we had to do was draw a distinction between reconstruction or other proposals and day to day activities, and was to be complementary to other facilities available. We wanted to keep the family unit on the farm so that, on the death of the senior representative of the family, the surviving members would be able to obtain the facilities necessary to provide for probate and similar matters.

More often than not, it was found, as those who have been associated for a long period with war service land settlement will know, that the amount allotted was nowhere near sufficient for a farm to be run efficiently and with the advantages of the efficiencies of large scale production. Farmers wanted coverage in respect of fire, flood, storm, tempest and other acts of God. There were extensions as well. I cannot remember the words exactly, but I have here my legal friend who will, I understand, prompt me in a few minutes. So those matters were covered in the Bill. There are also the matters of pastoral improvement and water conservation. Here we find a very wide range of new banking functions. But we will have to distinguish between the two. These kinds of activities will be provided in addition to normal day to day accommodation. Decisions will remain within the jurisdiction of the trading banks. This Bill provides for long term proposals. That means that the Primary Industry Bank will be able to borrow from the five major trading banks and from two other State banks. The honourable gentleman has left the chamber; he cannot take his punishment. I did not think that he would be able to do so.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He is over here.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– He is talking to my relative over there.

Mr Hodgman:

– Your son.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member interjected ‘your son’. This is a refinancing operation. The banks will therefore have under their supervision and within their advisory capacity not just those matters relating to the new functions, but normal banking facilities as well. The banks will be able to advise their customers as to the changing conditions and the changing market demands and therefore the necessity to be able to change their production scales to meet the changing market circumstances. I believe that it was essential- I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) accepted it as essential- that the two functions should be kept together because if we have two banks advising the same people about the same or complementing problems of necessity that situation would cause trouble. More importantly, the honourable gentleman from Parramatta referred to the bureaucracy. The simple truth is that the legislation was devised in the way it has been to ensure that the growth of the bureaucracy would be reduced to a minimum because the trading bank will be able to do all the work that is necessary and above all it will take responsibility for the success or failure of the operation. I have already talked about the matter of eligibility.

As to the term, I personally believe that it was fundamental that we had long-term security. I can remind the House of the activities of another Labor man, a Premier this time- Jack Lang- in relation to mortgages. He brought down a law preventing lenders from calling up their loans even when the maturity date had been reached. I had to draw the securities and advise on legislation to provide for demand mortgages so that the banks would once again be able to re-enter the business of lending. I certainly believe that eight to 30 years is a reasonable period for a loan and I believe that that period ought to satisfy the primary producer.

I turn to the matter of interest rates, which to some extent I have dealt with already. I personally believe that an interest rate of 10 per cent for a loan of less than $100,000 and an interest rate of 12 per cent for bigger loans are suitable figures. I have two statements to make about this matter. Under present conditions these are concessional rates. Therefore the Government has lived up to its election promises. Added to that it has given the additional assurance that, as ordinary rates come down, of course the concessional rates now being charged will be lowered. That answers the Labor Party’s main objection. I have mentioned the contretemps of 1972 with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I was surprised to hear the comments of the honourable member for Parramatta regarding the latest statements of the BAE for which organisation I have enormous respect.

I come to one further point. I compliment the Minister for Primary Industry for the effort and the devotion that he gave to the job and the success he has achieved. Much more importantly, I compliment him on the success that inevitably will be achieved in the future. This is a valuable measure. I find it hard to believe that those people who wanted to destroy the social system, the economic system with which we lived in 1 948 and 1949 can have the effrontery to come here and say that they love the farmer. Did that appear to be the case at the last State elections when the Labor Party had a wonderful victory in New South Wales. I give it credit for that result. But did it have the same devastating victory in the country areas as in the cities? On through its performance its approval will continue at the next elections, Federal or State. I expect the honourable gentleman from Parramatta will lose his seat when the next election occurs.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-I am sure that we have all enjoyed the discourse from the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) who led the defence on behalf of the Government. I say he led the defence for the Government because this Bill is utterly indefensible and honourable members opposite know it. There is no sense in arguing that point or in using sophistry. I tend to agree with what the right honourable member for Lowe said in respect of interest rates in general at the theoretic level. He challenged the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) to a debate with his five-year old daughter. This is the five-year old daughter, incidentally, who, the right honourable member for Lowe has said elsewhere, beats him at chess. I agree that there is nothing magical about interest rates. It is a question of supply and demand of money. But interest rates can be fixed by governments. What this debate is all about is not whether interest rates are magical but whether the Government when it took office made promises of concessional rates of interest. Of course I agree with the right honourable member for Lowe that the United States interest rate is 1 1 per cent and that the same interest rate applies to the Eurodollar. But how about honourable member’s opposite telling that to the Treasurer (Mr Howard)? Bill Hayden and I debated with the Treasurer recently the effect this Government’s policies are having on interest rates. It was this Government that was trying to put up some magical theory about interest rates. It is this Government that is trying to bring down interest rates in this country by jawboning rather than by allowing market forces to operate.

The right honourable member for Lowe says that we are doing fine in this country. We have about $4, 600m worth of borrowings and $3,000m worth of reserves. Yet this Government is trying to jawbone down interest rates. We all know that the right honourable member for Lowe has a long history of association with economic matters both as Minister for Primary Industry in the 1950s and as Treasurer in the 1 960s. As the former member for Grayndler said, his credentials for being Minister for Primary Industry at that time were a flat in Kings Cross, a geranium, a canary, and a plastic hose. Nevertheless he did not do too bad a job. We were very interested to hear him tell us about the origins of the Commonwealth Development Bank and that the legislation for this measure, this Primary Industry Bank, had been on the drawing board virtually since 1959. But why has it taken three years, for this Government to act when it had made a clear promise and when the need was so great, particularly in these last few years? Of course, the honourable member for Parramatta was not talking about the deficiency price scheme to which the honourable member for Lowe alluded with respect to the Australian Wool Commission. He was alluding to the fact that the Labor Government backed the floor price scheme for wool with the Australian Wool Corporation. .

This is a Government of broken promises in many areas; it is a Government of shattered expectations; and indeed it is often a Government of lies. There is no avoiding the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his November 1977 election speech about his 1975 election speech promise that the Primary Industry Bank would provide long-term loans for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. The Minister for Primary Industry in 1975 at a Western Australian farmers conference in Perth debated this subject with me. He said that a new national rural bank would provide long-term finance to producers at low rates of interest. There was no mention of 10 per cent of 12 per cent; it was low rates of interest. I think it was a startling piece of hypocrisy for the Minister for

Primary Industry to say on 7 August 1978 that the aim of the Government in setting up the Primary Industry Bank had never been to provide cheap money for farmers. He said that the undertaking, the election promise, was only to lengthen the terms of loans. If not hypocrisy, that was a lie or a dishonest election bribe.

There is no sense in saying, as do the apologists for the Government, that at no stage did the Government detail what it meant by ‘concessional’. A concessional rate of interest surely means a lower rate of interest. The promises were made. The Primary Industry Bank has come to pass and it represents quite clearly a broken promise to the rural sector. Spokesmen from all rural organisations have stated that the Government has broken its promise. The Primary Industry Bank will lend at commercial rates. In fact it was going to start off at 1 1 per cent but the Minister for Primary Industry had to back down on that. The Primary Industry Bank will provide no facility that could not have been provided elsewhere within the banking system without the creation of a new agency. Even the length of the loans under this new proposal is a bit of a confidence trick when it is coupled with the relevant interest rates. Annual payments of 6 per cent over 15 years are roughly equivalent to annual payments at 10 per cent over 30 years. The point is that there is little reduction in annual repayments through extending the term of a loan repayment beyond 20 years at commercial rates of interest. The major factor influencing annual repayments of long-term loans is the rate of interest. The examples of repayment periods given by the Minister for Primary Industry when speaking of the Primary Industry Bank have always used the same interest rate in the calculation. He gives a repayment calculation over 10 years, 20 years or 30 years, but always at the same interest rate. He knows too that he is pinned down by his broken promise. Of course, the Government will argue that it is concessional because it is over a long term.

Let us talk about what was expected by the rural sector, the people in the bush, because we need to talk about shattered expectations as well as broken promises. I well remember the Minister for Primary Industry constantly carping inside and outside this place throughout 1975. Then, at the request of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council, the Labor Government made $20m available to the beef industry at 1 1 lA per cent. That was in addition to funds being made available to the States through rural reconstruction agencies at much lower rates of interest. The rate for the Commonwealth Development

Bank for term funds at that time under the Labor Government was 6Vt per cent. On 12 February 1975 the present Minister for Primary Industry said in this Parliament that the rate for the beef industry should be 4 per cent. He built up the expectation that long-term assistance to the beef industry should be at the rate of 4 per cent. Of course, he ignored the fact that at that time loans at 1 1 per cent to the beef industry were being taken up a lot faster than the loans being made available cheaply through the reconstruction authorities.

Again, the Minister was always critical of the fact that interest was charged on moneys loaned to the Australian Wool Corporation. I would like to know what his Government has done about that practice. He built up the expectation that the Australian Wool Corporation would be charged greatly reduced rates of interest. All through 1975 he was talking of 4 per cent and 6W per cent. There is no way he can wriggle out by saying that 10 per cent or 12 per cent for 30 years is concessional. He built up that expectation. As the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) has said, the rural sector was and is asking for some forms of additional finance. The Primary Industry Bank falls well below the expectations built up by spokesmen of this Government when in Opposition. That is why people such as Mr Eckersley, the President of the Australian Farmers’ Federation, have said that it is little more than a joke. That is why the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) crossed the floor when the Bill was first introduced. That is why the rural organisations wanted more producer representation on the Bank Board. That is why Mr Cassell of the Cattlemen’s Union said that the Primary Industry Bank was a sellout of primary producers and that it would be of little use if interest rates were around 10 per cent. That is why the Australian Wool Growers Corporation has stated that the farm finance debate is not over.

Let us go into the background of rural finance in Australia. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics wrote a report entitled A Review of Credit in the Australian Rural Sector in which it was shown that primary producers owe about $3, 100m to financial institutions. The two main groups of lenders are the trading banks and the pastoral houses; the latter being basically onlending bodies. The BAE showed that there was little deficiency in the total availability of capital for primary industry but that there were some doubts about the ability and willingness of the Australian capital market to finance efficiently primary producers who were not commercial enough to justify trading bank funds but were not in a serious enough position to qualify for rural reconstruction loans. This was the only area where one could say that there was a gap in the availability of finance. The report of the BAE closely analysed some of the relationships between availability of money and interest rates, some of which the right honourable member for Lowe has referred to. For example, it noted that the banks had already allocated a substantial volume of funds as part of their normal lending to loans for specified purpose. Extensions of the purposes for which special purpose loans could be made could encourage the substitution from normal lending to lending through the special funds in the longer run. This could possibly limit the extent to which particular releases to these special funds increase the overall supply of funds to rural producers in the longer run.

What we are talking about eventually is the availability of capital. If the Government wished to plug that gap for long-term lending all it really needed to do was to take a political decision to allow the Commonwealth Development Bank to make loans at concessional rates over longer periods. The Commonwealth Development Bank could have done it. But the trouble was that when the Government proposed this sort of measure it immediately provoked a hostile reaction from the conservative Australian Bankers Association- the private trading banks. While prepared to see the Commonwealth Development Bank as a lender of last resort, they were not prepared to see it in the front line where it would have provided competition, and that is how the present situation developed. The banks said that what was needed was a refinancing organisation, the effect of which has been that the banks still control the Primary Industry Bank at the going rate of interest. It is not a primary industry bank for farmers, it is a bankers’ bank for bankers. It is not a farmers’ bank, it is a bankers’ bank. Eight out of 12 members of the Primary Industry Bank come from the private trading banks.

It will be argued that the Primary Industry Bank has some independence. It does theoretically, but in practice this messy, unnecessary arrangement will result in the trading banks being able to foist their problem clients onto the Primary Industry Bank while they scoop the cream. They will put hard core debts into the refinance area. In hard times the private banking system will be able to shift out of the sector to some degree. Any supposed attribute of the Primary Industry Bank could have been accommodated by a revamped Commonwealth Development

Bank. Having eliminated one attribute, the concessional interest rate, it surely would have been the simplest thing for the Government to set criteria for the length of loans for specific purposes for which the money was to be made available. I think that the Primary Industry Bank is an unnecessary joke. It is a great let-down. I do not know what good $80m will be for a sector where $3, 100m is the total size of the amount of money put out to it. That is not even 3 per cent of the total. Do we really need an extra bank to handle less than 2.6 per cent of the farm finances being made available?

I am quite happy to go on record as saying that what the Government is doing is quite legitimate and is economically responsible. I think that what it is doing for the rural sector with respect to interest rates is also economically responsible. But it made the promise and it built up the expectations. To my mind, the Primary Industry Bank will be offering borrowing terms through the refinancing of loans by existing banks over long periods at current overdraft rates. That is economically responsible and is an addition to the already often more than normally advantageous provisions made by the banking system for the benefit of farmers. The current overdraft rate which will be charged by the Primary Industry Bank on loans of up to $ 100,000 is not a high one in terms of the overall availability of credit and the still historically high rate of inflation in this country today; nor is the rate of 12.5 per cent on larger loans. I do not think that the $30m in income equalisation deposits of farmers in any way necessarily means that the Government has borrowed cheaply from farmers to lend back dear. Income equalisation deposits bear an interest rate of 5 per cent but they also bear certain taxation advantages which make their actual rate of return considerably higher, especially for the more prosperous. Their purpose, like that of tax averaging provisions for rural producers, is to lower the marginal rate of tax paid by such producers over a period of years. If they were not considered to give a higher return than any alternative form of making provision for future income fluctuations, it is obvious that $30m would not have been salted away.

The real objection that ought to be made to the Primary Industry Bank is the one I have already mentioned. It ought not to exist. It is totally superfluous and was created only as an election bribe. It is a rural fantasy of a bank which could lend funds at rates which would not reflect the interest rate structure in the economy as a whole. It cannot do this without receiving a much larger subsidy from taxpayers generally than it is already receiving. If the Government thinks it is desirable to ease up lending conditions for rural producers to some extent at present, then why does it not do this through the existing banking system? Why create a lot of shiny, new, highly paid jobs which only add to the cost of rural finance? There was nothing to stop the Government making additional funds available to the trading banks for lending to their rural producer clients. The banks know their clients well. They will be making recommendations as to which projects should be refinanced by the Primary Industry Bank. All they need is the funds. If for some reason it is thought that the trading banks should not control the funds, why not simply extend the function of the Commonwealth Development Bank? Of course, this would not do for this Government. The National Country Party, the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry made a promise in the 1975 election campaign knowing full well that the promise did not mean what the farmers liked to think. Above all, there was never any intention of setting up the kind of generous and fatherly financial institution that every hard pressed small farmer dreamed about.

In summary, what I am saying is that the real thing we are opposed to in this debate is the fact that the Government has broken another election promise. It has shattered expectations. It has created a bank that is a compromise. It has built up an expectation that rates of interest could be magically manipulated. It has built up the expectation that a concession could be extended. It has built up the expectation that a political decision could be taken with respect to the availability of funds and interest rates when it had no intention of doing so. What it has brought in is an unnecessary bank which is less than what it promised during the election campaign to the rural sector.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

– I hope that people listening to the debate tonight will have listened carefully to Opposition spokesmen, particularly the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) who has just concluded his remarks. If they have been listening they will have heard- I presume that the honourable member for Werriwa was expressing the view of his party- that there should not be a Primary Industry Bank of Australia and that there should not be a specialist bank which is designed specifically and exclusively to provide adequate, reasonable, long term finance to the rural sector at concessional rates of interest. If that is what the honourable member for Werriwa was saying then the rural sector of Australia now knows full well the general attitude of the Labor Party to the rural sector and rural producers, one of the life blood areas of our nation.

The Bill before the House fulfils a commitment which was made in the Budget to provide income equalisation deposits to the Primary Industry Bank. It is essentially a machinery measure. Its purpose is to facilitate the use of the income equalisation deposit trust account for the purposes of making funds available to PIBA. Contrary to what has been said by Opposition spokesmen, the Primary Industry Bank of Australia fulfils one of the Government’s important 1975 election promises, which was elaborated on in the 1977 election campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The 1975 election promise- that is when the promise was first made- was that the Liberal and National Country parties would provide medium and long term credit to rural producers through a specialist rural producers’ bank. I emphasise that this is the first time in the history of this nation that the rural sector has had its own specialist nationwide bank. From the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement during the election campaign of 1975 the bank has had a long history extending over 18 months or more of very detailed discussions and considerations between the Government, members of the Government parties and representatives of the rural sector, particularly the major rural organisations. I am glad to see the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) in the House tonight. He also played a very important part in the considerations that went on at that time.

Mr Dawkins:

– That is dobbing him in.

Mr SHORT:

– It is not dobbing him in. It is giving him the credit which is due to him. The people on our side of the House who engaged in those discussions over 18 months know, contrary to what the honourable member for Werriwa knows, what the people in the bush want. The people in the bush, virtually without exception over the 18 months when the proposal for a rural bank was being discussed, said that they wanted access to long term funds for farm development, restructuring, rural land acquisition and the like. It was the long-term availability of finance for rural producers that was the key request of every rural producer and rural organisation which spoke with Government members. That is precisely what the Primary Industry Bank of Australia provides. That is what it is all about.

The Opposition is claiming that the interest rate for loans from the Primary Industry Bank will not be concessional. The loans are concessional and no-one can deny it. The Primary Industry Bank will provide long-term loans at short-term interest rates. It will provide loans of up to $100,000 with a maximum rate of interest of 10 per cent and a maximum rate of 12 per cent on loans in excess of $100,000. Those interest rates of 10 per cent and 12 per cent are bank overdraft rates. I assume that the Opposition realises that they are short-term rates. If anyone can tell me where any producer, investor, manufacturer, rural producer or borrower in Australia can get funds on terms of up to 30 years at an interest rate of 10 per cent or 12 per cent, I would like to know. I am sure that hundreds of thousands of potential borrowers in Australia would like to know. I lay to rest completely the fallacy that is being presented by the Opposition that the rates are not concessional. They are concessional. They are short-term interest rates applying to long-term loans. This has been made possible only through the Government’s decision to make income equalisation deposits available to the Bank at the rate of 5 per cent which is the same rate that is paid to depositors of income equalisation deposits.

The spokesmen for the Opposition have talked about high interest rates. Of course, we on this side of the House would like the rates of interest applying to loans to rural producers to be lower than 10 per cent or 12 per cent. What the Opposition seems to ignore is the fact that one cannot move interest rates for any one sector of the community in isolation from the total interest rate structure applying throughout the community. One cannot move interest rates generally in the absence of appropriate movements in the rate of inflation and costs. I remind the House of the fact that when Labor left office at the end of 1 975 the rate of inflation, which determined very importantly the rates of interest applying in this country, was twice what it is now. In other words, in the last three years, through responsible, courageous economic management, this Government has halved the rate of inflation and has put the economy in a position where it can bear lower interest rates. As the rate of inflation continues to come down through the continuation of responsible economic policies, interest rates will fall as well.

For the Opposition to claim that the interest rates that will be paid on loans through the Primary Industry Bank will be too high, in my view, is completely hypocritical when one views it in the context of the situation in which it left the present Government when it took office. Had this Government not come into office in 1975, 1 hate to think what rural producers would be paying in interest rates for borrowed funds now. There is no surer fact, though, that instead of paying 10 to 12 per cent they would be paying a minimum of 15 to 20 percent.

I have already alluded to the fact that the Opposition has castigated the Bank and in so doing, in effect has castigated the Government for setting up a primary industry bank at all. As I said, the Opposition has ignored the fact that rural producers required, requested and needed the availability of long-term finance and an assurance that that long-term finance was available. That is precisely what the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is all about. Let no one be in doubt about the fact that the Bank has the overwhelming support of the great majority of rural producers. They realise the immediate benefits that will accrue to them from the Bank and they realise also the longer term potential benefits which the Bank will provide as it becomes established over time. What seems to be another crass misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition is the fact that the Bank is to be a refinancing institution. It is not to be a direct primary lender.

Mr Dawkins:

– That is not what you promised.

Mr SHORT:

– It is precisely what was promised. If the honourable member reads the 1977 general election statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) he will find that the Prime Minister spoke about a refinancing institution. It was realised and recognised, almost from day one- from the discussions which took place leading up to the establishment of this Bank- that it would be a refinancing institution. I am staggered to find that honourable members opposite do not even seem to realise the nature of the Bank. It will not be a direct prime lender; it will be a refinancing institution.

Mr Dawkins:

– Why shouldn’t the farmers be in control?

Mr SHORT:

-Because of the structure of the Bank, rural producers are represented on the board of the Bank. If the honourable member for Fremantle is saying that the board of the Bank ought to comprise solely representatives of the rural sector, I think he would find that the more responsible members of the rural sector, as is the case with most other rural matters, would disagree with what he is saying. Most of the major rural organisations have come out publicly in support of the Bank. They have congratulated the Government on the proposed establishment of the Bank. They have accepted and have congratulated the Government on so arranging the finances for the Bank that the concessional rates of interest will apply.

To hear Labor spokesmen speak, one would gain the impression that the Bank is being foisted on to the rural sector against its wishes. That is obvious nonsense, but it is a fairly typical example of the knowledge and the extent of the knowledge that the Opposition has about the feelings of rural producers towards what they want to see in Federal Government policies. For the first time rural producers will have certainty in their borrowing for development, for the refinancing of their existing short-term debts and for rural land acquisition purposes of a developmental nature.

The proposed establishment of the bank clearly demonstrates the difference in attitude towards the rural sector between the present Government and the Opposition. The Australian Labor Party has never recognised the real needs of rural producers. The Labor Party has never recognised that the rural sector needs cost stability and needs reliable access to long-term funds. The Opposition dislikes the proposed Primary Industry Bank; indeed, it says that it would not have a primary industry bank. That is simply because the Opposition dislikes the rural sector. It does not want to see the rural sector adequately serviced. Its policies when in government almost destroyed the rural sector, basically through the inflation of costs which it unleashed on the sector- inflation which in one year alone in the rural sector caused costs to increase by 30 per cent. As a result of that in 1974, 1975 and 1976 rural producers were faced with, and are only now recovering from, the greatest pressures of cost and real income reduction that they have seen in a generation.

The Government has done a great deal to help the rural sector to try to get back on its feet after the avalanche launched on it during the years of the Labor Government. As I said earlier, the rate of inflation has been halved. That is the most important benefit that one could possibly give to rural producers whose prices for their products are very largely determined on world markets. Therefore, producers are not in control of their prices and they suffer very greatly indeedprobably more than any other sector of the community- when their costs increase at the savage rate at which they increased under Labor policies. We have also helped the rural sector with aggressive policies to improve access to overseas markets.

We have restored some of the benefits that accrued to the rural sector before they were abolished by the Labor Government. The rural sector has benefited very considerably also from the investment allowance which this Government introduced- an investment allowance which the Opposition wants abolished. Not only rural producers but also thousands and thousands of people throughout the community, particularly small businessmen- rural or otherwisehave benefited through the abolition of estate duty. Again, this was a policy measure of the present Government which the Opposition opposed bitterly. In the past three years the rural sector has benefited also through improvements in tax averaging procedures, through the introduction of income equalisation deposits and through the restructuring of the taxation scales, again a measure opposed by the Opposition. Rural industry also has benefited from the reintroduction of a fuel price equalisation scheme which, again, was a scheme opposed by the Opposition. In fact, the previous scheme was abolished by the Labor Government. Rural industry also benefited from the assistance given last year to beef producers, improved dairy marketing arrangements, and the increase in the reserve price for wool in line with market conditions. As far as I know, it was an increase which was not opposed by the Opposition but that attitude contrasted very strongly with the attitude it took when in office and its government in 1975 wanted to decrease the reserve price for wool.

Mr Wallis:

– That is bunkum.

Mr SHORT:

-It is true. If the honourable member looks at the record, he will see that what I say is correct. There have been many other beneficial policies introduced by this Government, one of the most important of which is the establishment of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, a bank for rural producers. It is a bank which for the first time will provide rural producers with a specialised source of finance to meet their needs, a bank which for the first time in the memory of most rural producers will provide them with long term loans at rates of interest which on present day general interest rate structures are concessional rates of interest. It is a bank which is going to have great- not only immediate but also long term- and lasting benefits for the rural sector.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (10.2)-The Opposition does not intend to hold up the passage of this Bill. Our amendment seeks to point out to the House and to the nation that the 1977 election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was to provide through the Primary Industry Bank of Australia long term credit at concessional interest rates. The main thrust of our argument is that the Bill before the House does not provide these concessional rates.

The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) began his speech by falsely accusing the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) of saying that the Australian Labor Party was not in favour of a rural bank. That is quite incorrect. The Labor Party is saying that it is not in favour of a rural bank that does not provide concessional rates of interest. We have produced evidence to prove that many primary producers are very dissatisfied and hostile because this rural bank legislation has not provided for these concessional rates of interest. Because the honourable member for Ballarat has claimed that what he put forward was the Labor Party’s view, I will have to state the Opposition’s attitude once again.

I remind the House that, when introducing the Bill, in his second reading speech the Treasurer (Mr Howard) pointed out that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and he intended to assist the Primary Industry Bank by making $30m available from the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account at an initial rate of 5 per cent. He went on to say:

This Bill, which is largely machinery in nature, will facilitate the use of the IED Trust Account for that purpose.

In my electorate, primary producers who have income equalisation deposits do not look upon the Government’s legislation as a simple machinery measure. They have told me that in their opinion it represents first class robbery and they have asked me to protest loudly on their behalf. They want to know why they are paid only 5 per cent on their income equalisation deposits when those deposits are able to earn 10 per cent and 1 2 per cent when they are lent to their fellow primary producers. Surely, the legislation before us is not the fruition of the great promise that the Liberal and National Country Parties made to solve the liquidity problems of primary producers, the great promise that was shouted from the hilltops by the Liberal and National Country Parties during the last two election campaigns. For too long our primary producers have had to be content with middle men who have doubled the price of their product between the farm gate and the consumer. We have heard in this House groans from the National Country Party benches about this very fact. But what does the National Country Party do when it is its turn to assist primary producers? It creates a bigger rip off in the provision of credit than the most vicious sharks in the money market.

The Bill before the House is much more than a broken election promise of the Fraser Government. It shows the Government’s disrespect for the intelligence of the primary producer. As far back as 1975 in his policy speech the Prime Minister promised to establish a primary industry bank providing low interest long term finance. In the two years after he became Prime Minister, he had done nothing in that direction. The primary producers throughout this country expressed their hostility and disappointment, so much so that in the dying stages of” the last Parliament before facing the electors the Government hastily passed the Australian Rural Bank Bill. That initial legislation, passed a year ago, made no mention of important details such as interest rates, the amount and source of the funds for lending and the directorship of the Bank.

Looking at the Bill before the House tonight, one can well understand why the initial Bill did not contain this information. If it had there would have been a cry from rural areas right throughout the nation and, of course, the Government would have lost an untold number of rural seats. Even the 1977 Bill raised the suspicion of many primary producers because it explicitly forbade the Bank from dealing directly with customers. Denying the Primary Industry Bank a prime lending role naturally raised the suspicion of primary producers that the trading banks would use the Primary Industry Bank simply as a receptacle for bad debts. It must be admitted that the Chairman of the Primary Industry Bank denied this on 25 July when he said:

An impending borrower will go to his own bank and if that bank decides that his proposition is viable, then that bank will go to the Primary Industry Bank and ask for funds. But the prime lender takes the risk.

That is, the trading bank takes the risk. So it should be quite obvious that here we have a Primary Industry Bank, or what is called a farmers’ bank, that does not lend money to farmers. What sort of a primary industry bank is that? The trading bank assesses the commercial proposition and carries the risk of default. Money is lent at or slightly above overdraft and Commonwealth Development Bank rates of interest although, as the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) said, there is no guarantee that this will continue once the income equalisation deposits fund is exhausted. It is clear from all this, as many honourable members have pointed out, that there is no valid reason for the existence of the Primary Industry Bank in its present form and as provided for in this Bill because it only adds to the cost of finance by interposing an extra tier of bureaucracy between the borrower and the money. If we turn to page 89 of the Rural Information Papers we can see what money is available to primary producers. It is under the heading ‘Rural Finance’. It tells us what money is available from the trading banks, namely, trading bank finance and finally from the Commonwealth Development Bank, the Reserve Bank, other credit sources and the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. Anyone can see that there is a considerable amount of overlapping in the credit that is available, so much so that one could really understand why we find such news articles as the one that was published in the Stock Journal of 17 March 1977. It states, under the heading ‘Rural Credit Needs Overhaul, but why a rural bank?’:

A National Rural Bank, a major plank of the National Country Party platform for many years, although still alive and well has not yet awoken from a deep sleep. Indeed, it was one of the National Country Party’s major election promises of 1975. Although it had some hope of becoming a reality, it would appear the Government has no intention of treating it with any real urgency . . . There is no suggestion the Government is getting cold feet on a rural bank; rather it might, on investigation, be facing up to the fact that there may not be such a gaping credit gap and that this is already filled by the existing lending institutions such as the Commonwealth Bank, other trading banks and pastoral houses who provide the bulk of the loans to the rural sector. It might also be asking itself: ‘Is there any real need to set up a costly separate institution?’ It is widely acknowledged that the main deficiency in rural credit is long term lending.

This is what the Opposition has pointed out. This has come from notable rural authorities. It is not just the opinion of the Opposition at all. An even better example of primary producers’ opinions can be found in the Cattleman of 2 1 September 1978. It is under the heading ‘Bulldust and Beer’. It is written by Mr Rick Farley. I ask to have the whole article incorporated in Hansard because I am running out of time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Viner:

– I have not seen it.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I will read part of it and the Minister can have a look at it later. It reads:

However, the latest whisper indicates the interest rate could fall below the rumoured level of 1 1 per cent to current trading bank rates; i.e. 1014 per cent or slightly less. In this context it is interesting to note the Government’s changed position. Mr Sinclair now is saying it was never the Government’s intention to provide concessional finance to primary producers through the Primary Industry Bank. Rather, the Government wished to provide longer term finance than previously available.

Further on it states:

Their long-heralded Primary Industry Bank is an unqualified flop in farmers’ eyes, and will do nothing to halt consistent producer criticism of the NCP’s performance within the coalition. The true inadequacies of the Primary Industry Bank are highlighted when placed in perspective with the Canadian model.

The article goes on to say how much better the assistance given to primary producers in Canada is.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted for the article to be incorporated in Hansard! There being no objection, leave is granted.

The article read as follows-

The controversy surrounding the Primary Industry Bank continues unabated.

Interest rates will have not been announced, although Primary Industry Minister, Mr Sinclair, met with Treasurer Howard last week to discuss the issue. It is uncertain whether a decision actually was made, but as membership of the bank’s board already has been public for six weeks, further delays in determination of interest rates can only make the Government look more inept.

However, the latest whisper indicates the interest rate could fall below the rumoured level of 1 1 per cent to current trading bank rates i.e., 1014 per cent, or slightly less.

In this context, it is interesting to note the Government ‘s changed position. Mr Sinclair now is saying it was never the Government’s intention to provide concessional finance to primary producers through the PI Bank. Rather, the Government wished to provide longer-term finance than previously available.

ABOUT FACE

This conflicts dramatically with statements by coalition members during the last Federal election.

At that time, the then Rural Bank was lauded up hill and down dale on country hustings as an institution capable of providing both concessional and long-term finance to farmers.

The contrast between promise and reality has not gone unnoticed. Mr Rod Black, former AWMPF president and now a producer representative on the PI Bank Board, has said he may resign if interest rates are not below commercial rates.

Australian Farmers Federation president, Don Eckersley, also has warned his members may boycott the bank, and a resolution to the Cattlemen’s Union convention this week recommends similar action.

In fact, the only producer support for the bank has come from AWGC president, Sir Samuel Burston, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister.

This of course creates a highly embarrassing situation for Mr Sinclair and the National Country Party.

Their long-heralded PI Bank is an unqualified flop in farmers ‘ eyes, and will do nothing to halt consistent producer criticism of the NCP’s performance within the coalition.

The true inadequacies of the PI Bank are highlighted when placed in perspective with the Canadian model.

The Farm Credit Corporation of Canada, backed by Government finance, loans funds direct to farmers at an interest rate 1 per cent below the current bank rate. Government funds are lent to the corporation at 8 per cent and producers are charged 9V4 per cent.

Loans are available for up to 29 years for any farm improvements, including building a home.

Most importantly, emphasis is placed on farm development. Established producers are directed to traditional lenders.

In this context, the failure of the Australian Government, and especially the NCP, to produce a more acceptable PI Bank is puzzling and distressing.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– The Fraser Government’s actions have clearly shown that it has no intention of establishing concessional interest rates for the rural sector. The trading banks will set the interest rates for the rural sector in the same way as they have always done. They set the overdraft rate and the Primary Industry Bank follows. They are in fact setting the rates for the Primary Industry Bank. It is little wonder, as pointed out by the honourable member for Parramatta, that Barry Cassell of the Cattlemen’s Association says that interest rates for primary industry are a sellout. It is little wonder that the national president of that organisation says that all farmers will be disappointed with this Bank. It is little wonder that Don Eckersley of the Australian Farmers Federation said that the Bank was nothing more that a joke. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation has expressed extreme disappointment with the Primary Industry Bank and Mr O’Brien has said that many producers have not received the type of banking institution suggested as far back as 1975.

Everywhere we see primary producers crying out for credit. We now have to face the problem of the high cost decision to stop acrosstheborder wheat trading, and these people are crying out for credit. Here we have another account from the Weekly Times of 1 November 1978, which says:

Sir Leslie Price, chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, has called on the Federal Government to allow the Board freedom to borrow on the best terms available.

Every primary producer organisation is crying out for credit. In my electorate many more primary producers are facing disaster with the introduction of the Wheat Board’s regulations following the court decision. I make it clear that I am in favour of orderly marketing, but I do say that something has to be done for these people, the small farmers who have been trading across the border. They are facing bankruptcy if they cannot get liquidity. So are the small traders and the carriers. The Government has a chance now to prove that there is something in this Primary Industry Bank. If these people can be saved we can say that the whole exercise was worth while. But I am afraid that it was only an election promise. I think it is up to the Government to try to prove that that is not so.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-In rising to support this Bill I just reflect on the speeches that have been offered by members of the Opposition. I just wonder whether they really feel what they have been saying. In fact, I think they have been rather hypocritical. The research has been so light that they have had to refer to, of all things, Press clippings which they have repeated time and time again. If they had gone back in time to December 1975 they might have taken a different view of the Press clippings at that stage and they might not have been so willing to flaunt them in this chamber. Either they are being hypocritical in what they are saying or they have just forgotten entirely what the circumstances between 1972 and 1975 brought out.

The last speaker, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick), mentioned that there is an expression of hostility in the rural ranks today. I suggest that he turn back to November 1975 and find out what the real heat of the hostility of the rural section was at that time. Some members of the Opposition have come into the chamber and argued against themselves. One honourable member came in here and said that it would have been his policy that the Rural Bank should not have existed. The last speaker was too busy quoting bits and pieces of other people’s speeches to catch that. Perhaps it would be in their interests if all members of the Opposition remained in the chamber to find out exactly what the others are saying. There has been no cohesion whatsoever in the argument. The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) made the suggestion that the Bank should not exist. It certainly did not appear in policy. I cannot recall it being part of any of the Opposition’s election policies in 1975 or 1977 that it would give any help whatsover to the rural industry. The Opposition was very keen in the last election to spend $500m or $700m on rebating payroll tax. Perhaps the Opposition might ponder now on how much that would have done for rural industry.

If we go back two members in the members for the electorate of Riverina, we recall that in 1972 the then honourable member for Riverina, Mr Grassby, made an election promise that $500m would be given to the primary industries at a concessional rate of interest of 4 per cent. What eventuated in three years? A lousy $20m through the Commonwealth Development Bank. And at what concession? Absolutely nil. That is the history of the Labor Party in that regard and the history of that former Labor member for Riverina.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– What about the floor price for wool?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– The floor price for wool was explained adequately by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). I thank him for being in the chamber to take up that particular point and to discredit the honourable member who made it. If members of the Labor Party want to look at rural Australia, they have come to the party three years too late. Let us look at what the Labor Government did between 1972 and 1975. What happened in respect of concessional rates of interest? It removed the 2 per cent concessional rate given by the Reserve Bank to rural statutory marketing boards. That was a great help! The Labor Government pushed up interest rates from 7 per cent to 12 per cent. What a great concession that was for rural industry. The Labor Government gave the industry runaway costs not only in interest rates but in every other imaginable cost, particularly labour costs. Let us consider the Labor Government’s taxation incentives.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How much are we selling to China?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– If the honourable member for Parramatta will calm himself for a moment I want to talk about taxation incentives. What taxation incentives did the Labor Government give? It gave absolutely nothing. What did it take away? It took away everything. It removed completely the special depreciation allowance to primary producers under section 57AA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. It discontinued as an allowable deduction under section 75 of that Act expenditure on land clearing and development. The investment allowance was removed in the middle of its period in office. The averaging provisions, which one honourable member opposite has been prepared to acknowledge as a reason for the income equalisation deposits, was absolutely wrecked under Labor. There was no benefit in it. Honourable members opposite talk about assistance but what did Labor do for the beef industry in the two years from January 1974 to December 1 975?

Mr Fisher:

– Ruined it.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It ruined it and did absolutely nothing for the beef industry. These are the people who now say that rural Australia is their pet concern.

Mr Corbett:

– What about petrol price equalisation?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I have been able to mention only a few of the steps taken by the Labor Government but there were many more. I am sure that the rural industry of Australia certainly was not impressed with the method of government of the Labor Party in those disastrous years between 1972 and 1975. There has been talk of rural assistance for the beef industry. Some people are talking of loans and concessional interest rates but let us consider what was done for the beef industry. There were no concessional interest rates. There was a grant of about $ 100m for the beef subsidy scheme to help the farmers stay on their feet until they could get the benefit of prices such as obtain today. Market forces are back in operation. The only people who gained during the years of the Labor Government were some of those butchers who were able to get into the market place and get cheap beef. The profits of those butchers certainly were greater than the profits to rural industry generally. I am sure that rural Australia remembers what happened. I am sure that if the people of rural Australia were able to listen to the broadcast of tonight’s proceedings they would regard members of the Labor Party as hypocrites for standing here and debating matters- they were not even consistent in their arguments- and conveniently forgetting the ruinous years that they gave to Australia from 1972 to 1975.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Tell us about the concessional rates you are giving them now- 10 per cent.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– Let us talk about the concessional rates of interest. Is the honourable member ready?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Go for your life.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– There are many aspects of rural financing which butchers do not have to face. There are many aspects of rural financing which attract high rates of interest. I need only mention hire purchase. Many people have been forced to use this form of purchase when other forms of finance have not been available to them.

Mr O’Keefe:

– And they pay 18 per cent or 19 per cent interest.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– Yes. There is also the cost of leasing which can involve payments of charges in excess of the 1 8 per cent or 1 9 per cent figure that was mentioned. I am sure that the rental costs would be greater than the repayment costs involved when a person has the opportunity to purchase. In talking about concessional rates of interest over the last 12 months, it has been said that Primary Industry Bank financing would be available for these alternative forms of borrowing. People have been forced on to the open market and have not been able to deal through banks. They have had to go to lenders. All these borrowings will now be available at the reduced percentage suggested. The concessional rate of interest will be available to those people who want to look a little further than their noses. The argument that has been put forward by some members of the Opposition tonight- this view has not been put consistently- is that the Labor Party would not have agreed to a primary industry bank at all. It would have given no assistance whatsoever.

Concessional interest rates have to be tied in with the type of security offered and the interest payments that were being made previously. The Primary Industry Bank entered the market-place last Monday for the receipt of applications for financial assistance. This is a rather unique situation, not only in Australia but throughout the world. It is unique in that it will offer hope to rural Australia. As rural producers take advantage of it we can adjust the guidelines to encourage people to seek funds to gain security. If the Labor Party believes that this is not a satisfactory alternative for financing rural Australia, I suggest that it is not interested in rural electorates. In my electorate inquiries have been made about the Primary Industry Bank, applications have been lodged and people are waiting for the financing to start. My great fear is that the initial funds to be available will not go nearly as far as rural Australia expects. It can be said that the expectation of rural Australia certainly will be greater than the initial funds available. In this regard it is foolish for the Labor Party to say that rural producers have not been interested. They have been interested. The Bank will provide an alternative form of long-term finance. As I said, this is rather unique in the financial world. Certainly I hope that the guidelines will be changed as we go along.

Mr O’Keefe:

– History has been created.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– History has been created in this regard. Believe me, the history that was created by the Labor Government will not be forgotten by the rural electorates of Australia. We have been talking about Press comments. Members of the Opposition have spent a great deal of time quoting particular comments. It is unfortunate that they did not refer to an editorial that appeared in the Australian about four weeks ago. The Australian is probably the major national newspaper in Australia. It was prepared to recognise that there would be advantages for rural producers in the Primary Industry Bank. That was just one favourable Press comment. Of course, there have been constant critics in the rural industry and in other industries of this Government, just as the Labor Party has been a constant critic. But how easy it is to be a critic and to put up counter suggestions that have no merit in the sure knowledge that nothing will ever come of such suggestions. It has been suggested, for instance, that the Commonwealth Development Bank should be the vehicle for financing rural producers. But who is to supply the funds and at what rate of interest? No matter what concessional rate of interest was offered by the Commonwealth Development Bank, a taxpayer input would be required. But there was no mention of that aspect by the Opposition. The Opposition merely said that the Development Bank should be allowed the privilege of performing this function. I am not a critic of the Development Bank but we need only look at the recent change of guidelines governing lending to small business. Up to this stage small business has not received any benefit. To come into this House and suggest that a contribution could be made by the Commonwealth Development Bank without giving it the wherewithal, the funds, and determining appropriate conditions serves no purpose.

Certainly, at the moment trading banks are lending funds to rural industry. However, as a result of this legislation further funds will be released through the Primary Industry Bank. I am afraid that the amount of $60m may be too small for the current year, but the Primary Industry Bank will give a better feeling of security to the people of rural Australia who will know that their debts will not have to be paid as fast as they would have to be paid through the normal trading banks. It may be suggested that the Primary Industry Bank will be a better lender than the trading banks, but that can be suggested only in respect of the amount of money that will be available. The system will still require a guaranteed form of security as good as that presently obtaining. Perhaps that is another matter we might examine. What stifles borrowing in this country today, by both small business and rural industry, is the fact that the security requirements of the Australian banking institutions are so high. Often people who could well service a debt and who would be good borrowers are not afforded the opportunity to borrow.

Debate interrupted.

page 2677

ADJOURNMENT

Use of Parliamentary Postage Paid Envelopes and Franking Machines- Newspaper Article: Aboriginal Affairs- Retail Trading Hours- Land Dealings in Victoria- Release of Commonwealth Land- Crown Privilege: High Court Decision- Melbourne Cup

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I am prompted to raise a matter in this debate because the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr N. A. Brown) last night made an attack on me and on a senator in another place regarding the use of envelopes and franking machines in our office. The honourable member for Diamond Valley is an individual who has more to worry about, I suggest, than Senator Evans or me. As I indicated in a personal explanation to the House, the honourable member raised a matter in respect of a letter distributed under the name of Councillor Healy, who is an employee of mine, a research officer. The letter is in respect of the Medibank Action Coalition of which I was the convener. The letter was distributed from my office. It was suggested to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), who is now sitting across the table from me, that an investigation ought to be carried out. I have in my possession a circular from Senator Lewis in support of the Liberal Party in Victoria which was distributed for a by-election in thousands of envelopes in the same circumstances. I welcome any investigation in respect to Senator Evans or me but I put it to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that such an investigation should also consider the matter I raise. I have a photostat copy of a letter sent by Senator Lewis covering the issues in respect of the Hamer Government and supporting the candidature of a Liberal Party candidate. Copies were sent in thousands of envelopes throughout the length and breadth of that electorate in Victoria. I refer to a document which sets out the postage facilities available for senators and members in relation to parliamentary or electoral business but not for party business. It states: 8.4 A senator or member shall be provided with a franking machine in his electorate . . .

The point I am making is that if Neil the cat is going to run around accusing people of what he regards as some terrible sin, and he says this more in sorrow than in anger -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr INNES:

– I withdraw that. The honourable member said that he raised this matter more in sorrow than in anger. But tonight in raising this matter the position with me is the reverse. It is in anger that I raise it. The honourable member for Diamond Valley ought to look around at his own colleagues within the Liberal Party to see how they are acting. He is a lawyer. If he is going to uphold a justifiable position and what is even and equitable between honourable members of the Parliament from Victoria then he has to have regard to what is happening in and around his own area of activity. I am prompted to raise this matter tonight by this terrible attack that the honourable member for Diamond Valley has made. He assailed a new senator, an individual who in the small time that he has been in the Senate-I am sure this is acknowledged even by those opposite- has acted with dignity and decorum in presenting his arguments. It seems to me that the honourable member for DiamondValley is scraping the bottom of the barrel by calling for investigations such as this. I am sure that the party Whip raised this matter not so much in anger but to make a political point about an investigation. I acknowledge that sort of thing. That is par for the course. I suppose we would all be in that. I can defend myself adequately and efficiently from the remarks directed to me.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We know.

Mr INNES:

– The right honourable member for Lowe acknowledges that. I am suggesting that an honourable member in this House has attacked a new senator for doing something which others are doing. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to have regard to what Senator Lewis has done and to take that into account.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I wish to raise a matter which came to my attention last week while I was in Alice Springs looking at various matters concerning Aboriginal affairs. I fully realise that governments and government departments are legitimate subjects for attack and public comment but I think that some journalists who take up various issues which are critical of governments ought to do a little investigation into some of the statements and allegations which are made from time to time about departmental action. I refer to an article which appeared in the Centralian Advocate on Thursday of last week concerning a report on certain educational problems in the fringe Aboriginal camps around Alice Springs. The report has been submitted to the Northern Territory Innovation Committee in Education. It seeks funds for a new kind of schooling for the children of the fringe camps of Alice Springs. The article deals with the way in which this report was put together. It says that the report was sponsored by the Tangatjira Council of Fringe Camps. It goes on to state:

The Council employed two researcher-teachers to examine the needs of the camps and assess the feasibility of the parents’ proposal.

Halfway through the project, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs cut off funds for the project and the teachers and a number of other assistants have completed the report unpaid.

I repeat that there is an allegation that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs cut off funds for the project. I have inquired of the Department just what happened. It appears that the following is an accurate account of the facts: The Tangatjira Council of Fringe Camps is in fact a housing council and is funded for housing purposes. It has no funds allocated for any education or other similar projects. It is there for housing purposes. Of course there are other bodies, such as the Institute of Aboriginal Development, which have funds available for investigatory projects. That type of organisation is the appropriate avenue to which to apply for funds for some sort of survey of educational needs.

What happened was that the Department became aware that the manager of the Tangatjira Council had hired two white Victorian school teachers to carry out this research project using funds- note this- allocated for employment of Aboriginals on housing projects. This situation had existed for several weeks before the Department sent the Council a letter asking it to desist from using those funds for a project entirely unapproved by the Department and not in line with the purposes of the original grant. As I understand it, a few weeks’ leeway was given to the organisation to finish the project which the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Alice Springs now believes has been finished and was finished before the funding ended. No action was taken against the Council and no funds were withdrawn. But we have this allegation in a Press article that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs cut off funds for the project and that the teachers and a number of other assistants completed the report unpaid. That article puts the Department in a bad light. In the past, I have criticised the Department and on a particular matter I have criticised the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner).

Mr Cohen:

– Quite viciously, too.

Mr FALCONER:

-Quite viciously, yes. It is appropriate to acknowledge that unjust accusations have been made. I think that, if the facts had been stated, it would have not been the Department which was shown in a bad light but the people who misused funds, intended for Aboriginal employment, in the employment of white Victorian school teachers who were apparently visiting the area.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I refer to a headline in the Australian this morning ‘Call for 7-day shopping week’. It was a call from Charles Lloyd Jones, the chairman of one of Australia’s premier retailers. This is something that rears its head every now and then. Anyone looking for a good headline, a good story, calls upon Australian retail stores to open on seven days a week- Saturdays, Sundays and what-have-you. This debate has been going on for years. Frankly, I find it rather sterile because a number of things have to be taken into account in considering this question. Firstly, I would like to take the view of the shop assistants and trade unions. Quite frankly, they will not give up- quite rightly I believe- conditions that they have won over many years, conditions which accept the fact that weekends are a time for sport, recreation and leisure, a time to spend with one ‘s family; that if they are to be forced to work at those times they are entitled to some form of compensation therefor. I might point out that the article calls for penalty rates to be scrapped.

Then I would put the case of the small shopkeeper and some of the large retailers who recognise that opening on seven days a week might sound good for members of the general public, who will be able to shop for 24 hours a day if one likes. If one happens to run a small business and works something like 55 hours a week and one suddenly finds that one has to work Saturday and Sunday, because everybody else does, to compete, one realises that one will simply take in much the same amount of money and spread one’s overheads over a 7-day week, with increased lighting costs, wages and so on. The result will be that one will be working many more hours for the same profit. That is one reason why many large retailers, and certainly most shopkeepers, most small business people, are opposed to the suggestion.

We have had a lot of media rubbish saying that Norman Ross Ltd, the discounters, and this, that and the other will open on Sundays. Of course they will do that sort of thing, if only to get the jump on their opponents and get a few thousand extra dollars in turnover because others will not do it. The silly damned media carry on and say they have just done a poll and have found that 85 per cent of people would favour longer shopping hours. Of course they would. It would be nice to go out in the middle of the night and buy a pair of socks, but let us be reasonable. It is a silly damned poll to take. My point is that what has been missing from this debate has been some form of imaginative approach. I happen to believe that there is an opportunity for restructured shopping hours. The problem is that the retail stores are open during the same hours as commerce and industry are. Those are the hours when the clerks are at work with their pens and their computers, and when the factory workers are on the job. It is absurd that the shops should be open at the same time.

Most retailers find that their takings are concentrated in a few peak periods during the week. I have taken out some figures on this. I find that on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they take in about 10 per cent of weekly takings. On Thursday they take in about 25 per cent and on Friday they take in about 15 per cent. In three hours on Saturday morning they may take in about 30 per cent of their weekly takings. Most of the rest of the time the small shopkeepers and for that matter, employees of the big retailers, sit around looking at one another. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they take very, very little. My suggestion is that hours should be staggered. If that were done many benefits would result. We ought to think of the position in the outer suburbs. I am not specifying any particular area. Shops should close completely on Monday, open on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Thursday night, on Friday till 5.30 and on Saturday till 4.30 p.m. That would give those shop assistants a full weekend off. In the cities the shops could perhaps open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and on Thursday and Friday nights. All I am suggesting is that some sort of imaginative approach is needed so that everybody can get a better go, so that people in commerce and factories can have a better opportunity to shop, so that people in retail shops, small business people and sales assistants, can have a decent weekend, working at decent times and so that hours and overheads do not go up. There has been more rubbish talked about this issue than about anything I can think of in recent years and I am disappointed that no-one has suggested the staggered hours that are so essential.

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

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-I will be brief because I know that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) wishes to make a very important point on the adjournment debate. I would like to refer to last might’s adjournment debate. I ask the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) to listen for a couple of minutes. He and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) last night made one or two comments that I think require an answering comment from myself. I was referred to by the honourable member for Prospect in relation to alleged land deals in Victoria. The honourable member for Robertson apparently hinted to the honourable member for Prospect that there can be no greater cause at present in Victoria than that of getting rid of a mob of crooks. I would like tonight to register surprise that two parliamentary colleagues whom I thought considered matters of ethics and responsibility rather seriously could make allegations without any supporting evidence. That is the old tactic of the smear merchants and campaigners like the Jenningses of this world- Mr Jennings in the Victorian Parliament- who think that because they simply make reference to a particular point it can then be stated as a matter of fact, that it hangs around in the minds of people without being capable of being disproved, however much proof is brought forward.

The honourable member for Prospect made a reference to somebody sitting two seats back from the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr N. A. Brown). That happened to be me.

Mr Armitage:

– You have identified yourself.

Mr SIMON:

– I do not mind identifying myself. I have no worry about that at all. The comment was that I had taken a fairly definite stand on the question of land deals in Victoria. That, in the way in which it has been put, is quite wrong. I took a definite stand in relation to one particular issue, along with 474 members of the Liberal Party in Victoria, in expelling a particular member, the member for Westernport, Douglas Jennings, from the Liberal Party. It had absolutely nothing to do with the land deals, it had to do with matters that were relevant to the Liberal Party, as they would be to the Australian Labor Party- questions of loyalty, adherence to policy, platform and constitution, and denigration of a party. That was the issue that was at point there and I am surprised that the two honourable members opposite should try to interweave my name with land deals in Victoria.

Leaving that to one side, what really concerns me is something which is being practised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) at present. I refer to tactics of denigration by generalisation and by glossing over facts..

Mr Baume:

– Character assassination.

Mr SIMON:

– As the honourable member prompts me, character assassination. How can a person make a mistake about names when serious allegations are being made by a Minister of the Crown? To confuse the name of Creighton Walsh with that of Allan Walsh suggests to me that there was a great deal of deliberateness in a tactic that was applied. To come into the House 24 hours later and apologise by making the statement: ‘I think I may have used the wrong name’, and in fact saying it for the second time during the debate this morning, seems to underline the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is not capable of dealing with matters in a responsible way. To come into the House and deliberately to confuse names and make allegations against a Minister of the Crown which are very serious ought to be deplored. I hope that the people of Australia take note of that issue.

I conclude by returning to the issue of people denigrating groups. I refer to the Victorian Parliamentary Liberal Party being called a mob of crooks. If they are, name the crooks. Name the facts behind the allegations, but do not be cowards and hide behind denigration by generalisation, by the use of that tactic.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to say something about land deals also, but not of the type to which the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) referred. I refer to a Press release which appeared in today’s newspapers which was made conjointly by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Chaney) and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann). It concerned the sale of some existing holdings of land held by the Defence Service Homes Corporation. It disturbed me to some extent because I knew that a lot of this land had been garnered and collected with a view to the future for defence service homes by my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in his time as the exalted Minister for Housing. I was pleased to learn that in areas where housing land is scarce land would be available to respective buyers. I was delighted to find that in New South Wales there were 330 developed blocks and 238 acres still to be developed fully. I wondered what that meant.

Today I had two or three calls to my electoral office in Sydney from people who are interested in applying to buy a block. They had heard that they could apply to the nearest office of the Defence Service Homes Corporation to see exactly what they had to do and to put in a tender. They were a little doubtful what they should do so they thought that they should get in touch with their local member. So, I went to the trouble of looking up the land that was fairly near to my electorate. It is all in the electorate of Mitchell as a matter of fact, but it is fairly well on the borders of Parramatta. They spoke of land at Rouse Hill, Kellyville and Castle Hill. Rouse Hill is a nice rural area; it is nothing salubrious by any means. The reports spoke of 25 hectares of land available at Rouse Hill. I checked up on this matter and I found that the land in Schofields Road and Windsor Road is in fact in an area which has been frozen by the Blacktown Council to a 100-acre minimum and is unlikely ever to be released. Whatever that was going to do for prospective home buyers, I do not know.

I thought that Rouse Hill was apparently out and that I would go up the scale a little to Kellyville which is a rather more attractive area. So, I checked up on the land there. It is on the corner of Glenhaven Road and Uringa Road in Castle Hill. I found that that land is also zoned not for residential use and restricted to 5-acre blocks. It is known as non-urban rural land which is unlikely to be released for residential home blocks. So, that is another disappointment for the buyers. The last card left was Castle Hill. That is the top of the tree in our area; it is the place to be. It is very much a salubrious area, an area that is desired by many people as a place in which to live. There are 3 1 hectares available at the corner of Windsor Road on the eastern side of Old Windsor Road. I found that the same situation applies there. The land is zoned nonresidential rural and is unlikely ever to be released. It is controlled by the Baulkham Hills Council.

So, I had to tell these poor people who were inquiring about the possibility of acquiring this land that that was the situation. That led me to realise what a dubious Press release this was- a Press release about home building land. I would be much happier if the two Ministers responsible had given a true description of the land. It might be prospective home building land but it will probably not be able to be built on until the year 2020. Who is going to buy a block of land now, expecting to build a house on it then? I would have thought it would have been a more honest approach if the Press release had set out fully the disabilities that people would face if they wanted to purchase one of these blocks of land. I am quite disturbed that people, having had their hopes lifted by reading the newspaper this morning, have found upon further investigation that it was just another dupe by this Government, that it does not really intend to release home building land at all and that this is merely another headline to get a few votes. When people look under these sorts of headlines they always find the same thing- a certain amount of deception. I feel sorry that this sort of Press release has to be released with the result that people’s hopes are built up and then destroyed.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– It is rare in public life for anybody to be vindicated but I believe that tonight five barrister members of the Government parties have been vindicated by the historic decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Sankey v. Whitlam and others. Those who have already seen the judgment will note that it is in two parts. The first part relates to the question of Crown privilege and that is now concluded. The second part relates to section 86 of the Crimes Act 1914. That matter in my view is clearly sub judice and I therefore will not comment upon it. I rise tonight to place on record that I believe that the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) and I have been vindicated by the stand that we took in respect of a vital question of law in this case. That question was the matter of Crown privilege.

I believe that the right honourable member for Lowe on this particular matter showed determination and tenacity that was above average and that the honourable member for Wentworth who was Attorney-General at the time these matters were under great discussion showed the finest integrity and acted in accordance with the highest traditions, not merely at the Bar but of Attorneys-General. I want to read some passages from the judgment of the High Court because I believe it is important that the Parliament notes that the highest court in the land has now clearly and expressly stated what the law on this matter is. I refer firstly to the judgment of the Acting Chief Justice, His Honour Mr Justice Gibbs. On page 19 of the judgment the following statement appears:

It is in all cases the duty of the court, and not the privilege of the executive government, to decide whether a document will be produced or may be withheld. The court must decide which aspect of the public interest predominates, or in other words whether the public interest which requires that the document should not be produced outweighs the public interest that a court of justice in performing its functions should not be denied access to relevant evidence.

I turn to the outstanding judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Stephen. I refer to a passage on page 34 of that judgment in which His Honour in referring to the character of the proceedings said that there was a triple significance. He stated:

First, it makes it very likely that, for the prosecution to be successful, its evidence must include documents of a class hitherto regarded as undoubtedly the subject of Crown privilege. But, then, to accord privilege to such documents as a matter of course is to come close to conferring immunity from conviction upon those who may occupy or may have occupied high offices of State if proceeded against in relation to their conduct in those offices. Those in whom resides the power ultimately to decide whether or not to claim privilege will in fact be exercising a far more potent power: By a decision to claim privilege dismissal of the charge will be wellnigh ensured.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this judgment is a landmark judgment because it makes it clear that it is the courts of the land which will determine questions of privilige. I say without reservation that I regret that this case amongst other things has brought about the resignation of a fine Attorney-General, the honourable member for Wentworth. I believe that tonight he stands vindicated by the High Court of Australia. Even though it may bring some discontent to some members of the Government I want to say that this decision should be taken as an indication that never again shall an executive government in Australia apply pressure to any Attorney-General and never again shall an executive government in Australia usurp the functions of the courts of the land.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I refer to an old feud that has existed between New South Wales and Victoria relating to the disgraceful refusal by Victorians in 1863, to accept a Nowra race horse, Archer, as an entrant in the Melbourne Cup. This matter has now been satisfactorily resolved as a result of the outstanding win of Arwon last Tuesday. I trust that Nowra has enabled the honour of New South Wales to be satisfied and has softened this disgraceful performance by the Victorians which I believe led to a century of discontent and dismay and which certainly broke down any friendly relations that had existed in the past. I hope that the Victorians in this House will now recognise that Nowra, whether it is coming or going, is ahead of anything that Victoria can put up. I believe that Mr Etienne de Mestre who walked Archer to Melbourne in 1863- walked him all the way- will now rest happily in his grave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 1 1 o’clock, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2. 15 p.m.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2683

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Commonwealth Property in Lalor Electoral Division (Question No. 644)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

What is the total area of land in the Electoral Division of Lalor owned by Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities, indicating:

the area and location of each piece of land;

b) the controlling authority in each case;

the purpose for which the land,

was intended to be used;

is actually used at present; and

is intended to be used;

the details of rates in respect of each piece of land paid to the relevant local government authority or the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.

Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following information in respect of a property at Robinsons Road, Deer Park, Victoria in heu of data previously provided as part of the information relating to 63 properties in the Electoral Division of Lalor.

Penalties Imposed on Public Servants (Question No. 1571)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

What is the maximum penalty that can be imposed upon a public servant who, in relation to information sought by his Minister, knowingly gives (a) inadequate information, (b) misleading information and (c) false information.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Depending on the circumstances of particular cases it may be that disciplinary proceedings would be instituted. The severest action that can be taken under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act is dismissal from the Public Service.

If there were a serious case, it is also possible that sanctions of the criminal law could be attracted. For example, an officer who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent that the false document be acted upon to the prejudice of the Commonwealth, could be liable under the Crimes Act 1 9 1 4 to a penalty of imprisonment for ten years.

Public Service Canteens (Question No. 1612)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

Is it a fact that taxpayers’ money is being used to pay the costs of lighting, heating, cleaning, certain administrative services, worker’s compensation, medical expenses and leave entitlements for staff, alterations and repair of buildings and the initial cost of replacement of plant and equipment for public service canteens.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The policy adopted in 1946 for the provision of food services provided that, in accordance with normal industrial practice, the Commonwealth would meet all costs of providing the service and replacing capital equipment. The service was then to be operated on a self-supporting basis, except that the Commonwealth would meet the cost of lighting, heating and cleaning the public section of the lunch room and no charge would be made for administrative or accounting assistance rendered by departmental officers.

The division of the above costs, presently authorised, between the Commonwealth and cafeteria patrons, in Commonwealth employee food services, is: 1 Costs met from Departmental Appropriations:

a ) lighting and heating of dining-rooms and kitchens;

cleaning of dining-rooms, outside walls and windows;

administrative services provided by the operatorCommonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd;

d ) workers ‘ compensation insurance;

maternity leave for cafeteria staff, previously employed under the Public Service Act, who transferred to the Company;

furlough;

alterations and repair of buildings- Commonwealth property;

initial cost and repair of plant- Commonwealth property;

initial cost and replacement of equipment- Company assets. 2 Costs met from Cafeteria Operations:

power and fuel- food preparation and service;

cleaning of kitchen and servery areas;

food service staff salaries and wages;

recreation leave and bonus and sick leave;

repair of equipment- Company assets.

Rights and Obligations of Public Servants (Question No. 1630)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

Are the rights and obligations of public servants as governed by legislation, convention, regulation or precedent available in codified form and have they been brought together in consolidated form.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has released a document, prepared by a group of Board officials, entitled ‘Draft Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants’. This document attempted to bring together, in a consolidated form, details of relevant legislation, conventions and precedents.

The document was widely circulated and is being revised by the Board in the light of comments and suggestions received.

Public Service: Guidelines on Official Conduct (Question No. 1631)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

Has the Public Service Board yet finalised its recommended guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

See my answer to Question No. 1630.

Draft Guidelines on Official Conduct of Public Servants (Question No. 1632)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of the supervising officer responsible for the document entitled ‘Draft Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants’.
  2. Will he see that when the document is settled in final form copies are made required reading by all 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Division officers.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The document was a collective effort of a number of officers of the Public Service Board ‘s staff.
  2. It is the Board ‘s intention that the guidelines, when revised, will be given wide circulation and will be available to all public servants.

Economy in Public Service (Question No. 1650)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

Would he issue a directive to the Public Service Board that the Board bring to the attention of public servants authorised to incur expenditure the provisions of Finance Regulation 93 which requires such officers to exercise due economy in the purchase of goods and services and to see that surplus goods and materials are not disposed of unnecessarily.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The provisions in the Finance Regulations and Directions relating to the purchasing and disposal of surplus Commonwealth goods and materials are well known to officers holding the appropriate delegations.

The Government’s policy is to achieve economies and avoid waste in all areas of public expenditure, including purchasing and the disposal of surpluses.

China: Trade and Qantas Services (Question No. 1694)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Government of the Peoples ‘Republic of China insists on balancing trade bilaterally.
  2. If so, what extra imports does he expect us to be taking from China in return for the extra imports he expects us to sell to that country.
  3. Is it a fact that the previous history of negotiations concerning Qantas flights to China is a pessimistic story and that there is little likelihood of such flights being arranged.
  4. Was he embarrassed by the news item about possible Peking flights filed by the journalists persuaded to accompany him presumably seeking to justify their trips as well as his; if not, why not.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See above.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Pensioner Health Benefits (Question No. 1704)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons, including dependants, lost their entitlement to pensioner health benefits on each occasion when disability and other pensions were increased during the last 2 years.
  2. What was the average amount of increase in pension on each occasion.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The information requested is given in the table below:

Certain veterans who are ineligible for Pensioner Health Benefits continue to be entitled to free Medical Treatment from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, including veterans who are receiving disability pensions at or above the 100 per cent General Rate, First World War veterans and former prisoners of war.

  1. Information is not kept in the precise form requested. The table below gives the average fortnightly increases for disability pensions paid to veterans and the average fortnightly average increases in service pensions payable to veterans and dependants.

Application of Criminal Law to Aborigines (Question No. 1751)

Mr Roger Johnston:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to an article published in the Australian of 1 1 August 1 978 stating that an Aboriginal who killed a man by spearing him through the heart, and who was then released on a bond because tribal punishment had been meted out, has since expressed his remorse and been accepted back into his community.
  2. If so, can the Attorney-General say why Mr Hutt, other ethnic groups or even.other Australian families cannot get similar sentences for murder, if their groups are prepared to mete out their own punishment.
  3. Is this practice contrary to common law in Australia.
  4. Will the events described in part ( I ) encourage apartheid or separatism for the Aboriginal race.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. 1 have seen the article referred to and I have been provided with a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of the case in question. On 9 August 1978, Mr Andy Mamarika of Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory pleaded guilty before Mr Justice Gallop in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to a charge of manslaughter. Mamarika was sentenced to a term of 3 years’ imprisonment which was suspended upon him entering into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years. His Honour imposed that sentence after hearing submissions by the prosecutor and the defence counsel concerning the circumstances in which the offence was committed and expert testimony concerning tribal punishment inflicted upon the members of Mamarika ‘s clan by members of the deceased ‘s clan while Mamarika was in custody before the committal proceedings in this case.
  2. The Government is conscious of the difficulties that have, at times, emerged in the application of the existing criminal justice system to members of the Aboriginal race or the other problems that flow from decisions of the kind made by Mr Justice Gallop. With a view to finding a solution to those difficulties and to ensuring equitable treatment under our criminal justice system to all members of the Australian community, the Australian Law Reform Commission has been asked to examine the whole question of the recognition and application of Aboriginal customary law. In view of the complexity of the issues involved I shall await the Commission’s report before recommending any action in this matter.
  3. and (4) See ( 1 ) and (2) above.

Public Libraries (Question No. 1757)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

What steps has the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Horton Report calling for $20m annually to match investments of State and local governments in public libraries.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

The Government has not yet made any decisions on the wide range of recommendations in this report. The matter, however, remains under consideration and an appropriate statement will be made as soon as this is possible.

Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station (Question No. 1865)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the purpose of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station.
  2. Does this station collect data which would enable nuclear explosions to be distinguished from natural phenomena which cause seismic disturbances.
  3. Is the station equipped to analyse and interpret this data; if not, by whom is the data analysed.
  4. Under the terms of the agreement relating to the operation of the research station, does the Department of Science have the right to complete access to the results of the analysis and interpretation of data collected by the station; if not, what restrictions apply to Australia’s access to this information.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The purpose of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs is to gather seismic data which aid in distinguishing underground nuclear explosions from natural phenomena such as earthquakes. When combined with data from other Australian stations, such data also provide information on the geology of Australia.
  2. and (3) Please see the answer to ( 1 ) above and part (3) of the answer to Question on Notice 1 820.
  3. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Department of Science has access to all data collected by the station. The Agreement does not specifically provide for access to the results of the analyses and interpretation of the data. However, results of analyses carried out in the United States are made available to the Australian Government through established channels which are independant of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station.

Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station (Question No. 1866)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station detect nuclear weapons tests by France at Mururoa Atoll during 1978.
  2. If so, on which days were these tests conducted.
  3. On which days respectively was it determined as a result of the research station’s monitoring that weapons tests were conducted on those days.
  4. On which days respectively did Australian officials at the research station or within the Department of Science become aware that nuclear weapons tests had been detected by the research station.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The station was operating during the period of the French tests and the seismic data collected were fed into the international network.
  2. to (4) Please see the answers to Questions on Notice Nos. 1820, 1831 and 1865.

Proposed Technology Planning Council (Question No. 1878)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the comments of Mr Ashley Goldsworthy, a Past President of the Australian Computer Society and Chairman of its Social Implications Committee, in the Financial .Review of 12 June 1978, calling on the Government to establish a technology planning council.
  2. If so, what action does the Government intend to take in this direction, bearing in mind the effect computers in particular, and other technology have upon the social and economic structures of society.
  3. 3 ) If the Government does not intend to undertake such a task, what is the reason.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The Government has already initiated several studies having a close bearing on the matters raised. These include the Crawford Study on Structural Adjustment and the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training; in addition the Government has established an interdepartmental committee to consider what studies might be commissioned into the impact and implications of new technology on industry and employment.

The Government would wish to examine fully these reports before giving consideration to the question of whether any new machinery should be introduced in this area, including the suggestion for a technology planning council.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1657 (Question No. 2054)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1657.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 1657 (See Hansard, 24 October 1978, page 2242).

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1678 (Question No. 2072)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1 678.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 1678 (See Hansard, 12 October 1978, pages 1884-5).

Intergovernmental Impact Statements (Question No. 2088)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Reports of the United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations of February 1975 entitled ‘Federalism in 1974: The Tension of Interdependence’ where there is mention on page 5 that each time a Congressional committee reports on a Bill providing new budget authority it must contain an intergovernmental impact statement explaining the Bill’s financial effect on State and local government.
  2. If so, has he investigated these impact statements with the possible view of introducing them into the Australian context.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The article to which the honourable member refers ‘ was published after the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344-July 12, 1974) was signed into law but before the new Congressional procedures took effect in 1975. Although the article envisaged comprehensive intergovernmental impact statements being included in reports of Congressional Budget Committees, Public Law 93-344 merely requires that . . a statement of any significant changes in the proposed levels of Federal assistance to State and local government . . .’be included in such reports; and a statement of that kind, for example, is attached to the report of the House Budget Committee on the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the financial year 1978.

The honourable member would be aware of the general difficulty in introducing Congressional procedures into the Australian Parliamentary system. Nevertheless, developments in Congressional Budget Committee arrangements will be followed with interest. For the present, however, I believe the Parliament is well served by the information provided in the Commonwealth’s budget documents, particularly Budget Paper No. 7- ‘Payments To or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities’.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2092)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. ) When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. 3 ) If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to question 2090 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2094)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between the Department of Education and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2103)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between the Attorney-General’s Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2107)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2090 (House of Representatives Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2109)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 15 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2090 in the Hansard of 17 October 1978, page 1972.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2110)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements exist between the Department of Science and each of the State Governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure, who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question 2090 (Hansard House of Representatives, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2115)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committee and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question on Notice No. 2090 (Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2116)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 2090 (House of Representatives Hansard foi 17 October 1978, page number 1972).

Technology: Interdepartmental Committee (Question No. 2159)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that his Department and the Treasury were originally excluded from the interdepartmental committee on the post-industrial implications of job displacement by the new technology; if so, why.
  2. Is it also a fact that the Department of Social Security is still excluded; if so, why.
  3. Will the Government now call a national conference with broad terms of reference to investigate the economic and social implications of post-industrialism, and invite submissions from all political parties, the trade unions, business interests and the public generally.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is the practice that any department having a relevant interest or contribution to make is co-opted to an interdepartmental committee for the purpose, or otherwise invited or enabled to make its contribution.
  2. There are already a variety of consultative mechanisms in place. In addition, the Government will be represented at the conference on employment which the Premier of Victoria has convened and at which a variety of employer and employee interests will also be represented.

Computers (Question No. 2251)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The Department does not sell, hire or lend any information stored in its computers. It does, however, give certain information to other organisations as pan of the normal operation of specific computer systems. Details are as follows:

In addition to the above, the Department provides statistical information in reply to queries such as parliamentary questions, letters to the Minister and queries from reinsurance brokers. This information is often derived from data held in departmental computers and takes the form of summary statistics with no reference to any personal information.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2070: Social Security Payments to Persons Arriving Without Entry Permits (Question No. 2319)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2070 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

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

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

The answer to the question appeared in Hansard on 24 October 1978. The answer to question No. 2070 reads as follows:

1 ) The Department of Social Security does not knowingly grant pensions or benefits to persons who have entered Australia without an entry permit. However, eligibility for pensions or benefits is not conditional on the possession of an entry permit.

The general position in relation to Vietnamese ‘boat people ‘ is that they are given temporary entry permits to regularise their immigration status while investigations continue. As a consequence it would be exceptional if any Vietnamese people who originally came to Australia as ‘unauthorised arrivals* are receiving Social Security benefits while not holding entry permits.

New and Permanent Paliament House (Question No. 2331)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has he made a decision to reverse the decision of the Parliament on the site for the new and permanent Parliament House.
  2. If so, when will the decision be conveyed to the Parliament.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Section 4 of the Parliament Act 1 974 provides that the new and permanent Parliament House shall be constructed on the site on Capital Hill shown in the Schedule to the Act. There is no decision of the kind referred to by the honourable member.
  2. See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Tuberculosis Pension Rights for Ex-servicemen (Question No. 2342)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will he review the decision to withdraw tuberculosis pension rights from ex-servicemen.
  2. What is the estimated cost of so doing.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

The Repatriation Acts Amendment Act was passed by the Parliament on 19 October 1978 and given Royal Assent on 26 October 1978. The Government’s position was fully stated in the debate on that Bill.

Army Research Unit, Ingleburn (Question No. 2343)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 27 September, 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the extent of the delays in his Department carrying out works at the Army Medical Malaria Research Unit, Ingleburn, N.S.W.
  2. What was the delay between the authorisation of this work and its commencement.
  3. What is the anticipated completion date.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The delays that have been experienced in this project are due to the problems that had to be overcome in air conditioning and adapting as quickly as possible an existing timber framed iron clad building at the Army’s Ingleburn Research Unit into a research facility capable of controlling temperature and humidity conditions to within very fine tolerances.

Because of the urgency and the need to minimise documentation the work was done by departmental day labour.

Stock item air conditioning equipment was also used to avoid the need and delay associated with the design and manufacture of special air conditioning units. When the operation of this equipment was determined to be not what the manufacturer had previously advised, design modifications had to be incorporated during construction, delaying completion by several months.

Although the bulk of the work was completed by March 1976, some complications with the electrical circuitry and switchboards delayed full completion until December 1976.

  1. The Department of Construction first became involved in the project in December 1974. Funds were provided in April 1975 and work commenced in August 1975.
  2. The work was completed in December 1976. Recently some further modifications were put in hand to overcome operational difficulties being experienced in controlling temperature and humidity conditions to the very fine tolerances necessary to carry out the research unit’s activities. These modifications are due for completion in November 1978 although commissioning of the plant to stabilise temperature and humidity could take several more weeks to achieve.

Territorial Sea (Question No. 2358)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General say on 22 June 1978 that 3 miles has been accepted as the limit of the territorial sea.
  2. If so, on what did the Attorney-General base this statement.
  3. What is the width of the territorial sea as denned by The Hague Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
  4. Which coastal stales that (a) are and (b) are not parties to The Hague Convention have proclaimed sovereignty over a territorial sea of (i) 3 miles, (ii) between 3 and 12 miles, (iii) 12 miles and (iv) more than 12 miles.
  5. 5 ) Does the Government intend to proclaim a 1 2 mile territorial sea under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 was explaining the agreement reached at the Premiers’ Conference on 22 June that the powers of the States should be extended to the territorial sea and I was making the point that for the purpose of that agreement the existing limit of 3 miles had been accepted. That is to say, that agreement would not apply to the additional territorial sea that would accrue to Australia if it were subsequently to claim a wider territorial sea.
  3. I assume that the honourable member is referring to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. The width of the territorial sea is not defined in that Convention.
  4. According to the latest information available to my Department, the position is as follows:

    1. Three miles: Australia; The Bahamas; Bahrain; Barbados; Belgium; Bermuda; Chile; Denmark; German Democratic Republic; Federal Republic of

Germany; Ireland; Jordan; Netherlands; Philippines; Qatar; Singapore; Solomon Islands; Tuvalu; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; United States*.

  1. More than three miles but less than twelve miles: Finland* (4 miles); Greece (6 miles); Iceland (4 miles); Israel* (6 miles); Ivory Coast (6 miles); Norway (4 miles); Sao Tome (6 miles); Sweden (4 miles); Turkey (6 miles and 12 miles in Black Sea); Yugoslavia * ( 1 0 miles).
  2. Twelve miles: Algeria; Bangladesh; Bulgaria; Burma; Canada; China; Colombia; Comoro; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; Cuba; Cyprus; Dominican Republic; Egypt; Equatorial Guinea; Ethiopia; Fiji; France; Grenada; Guatemala; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Kampuchea; Kenya; Democratic Republic of Korea; Republic of Korea; Kuwait; Libya; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius’; Mexico; Monaco; Morocco; Mozambique; Nauru; New Zealand; Oman; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Saudi Arabia; Seychelles; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Surinam; Syria; Thailand; Togo; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Ukrainian SSR; USSR; Venezuela; Vietnam; Western Samoa; Yemen Arab Republic; People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen; Zaire.
  3. More than twelve miles: Albania (15 miles); Angola (20 miles); Argentina (200 miles); Benin (200 miles); Brazil (200 miles); Cameroon (50 miles); Cape Verde (100 miles); Congo (200 miles); Ecuador (200 miles); El Salvador (200 miles); Gabon ( 100 miles); Gambia (50 miles); Ghana (200 miles); Guinea (200 miles); Guinea-Bissau (150 miles); Liberia (200 miles); Malagasy Republic* (50 miles); Mauritania (30 miles); Nigeria* (30 miles); Panama (200 miles); Peru (200 miles); Senegal (150 miles); Sierra Leone* (200 miles); Democratic Republic of Somali (200 miles); Tanzania (50 miles); Uruguay (200 miles). (An asterisk against the name of a country indicates that that country is a party to the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone).

    1. The Government will give consideration to the matter in the light of the outcome of the current United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Conflicts of Interests of Members of Parliament (Question No. 2361)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

What was the outcome of the decision taken by Cabinet on 23 May 1975 to appoint a Royal Commission consisting of 3 judges to inquire into and report upon the matters stated in the Senate Resolution of 22 April 1975.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The honourable member will understand that the present Government is not privy to the records of Cabinet deliberations of the Government of which he was a member. Publicly available records indicate that the Government of the day did not proceed, in accordance with the intention announced by the Prime Minister on 23 May 1975, to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matters dealt with in the Senate Resolution of 22 April 1975.

Bureau of Mineral Resources: Staffing: Petroleum (Question No. 2387)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the comments of the National Energy Advisory Committee on page 38 of its Second Report that the assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources currently in progress at the Bureau of Mineral Resources, with the assistance of the South Australian Mines Department and the co-operation of other Mines Departments, is being severely retarded by lack of expertise, statistical data and methodology and also that there are large areas for whch basic data and research are lacking to enable an adequate definition of viable plans for assessment and drilling and whose ultimate potential is unknown.
  2. If so, does the Committee’s report support the comments made by staff of the Bureau of Mineral Resources earlier this year of the deleterious effects of Government cutbacks on the Bureau of National Resources operations.
  3. Further to his answer to question No. 1215 (Hansard, 7 June 1978, page 3230) when did the Australian Science and Technology Council review of the Bureau of Mineral Resources activities begin, and when is it due to report.
  4. Is it a fact that the Petroleum Exploration branch of the Bureau of Mineral Resources had a staff of 37 in the last year of the Labor Government.
  5. Is it also a fact that in 1977-78 the branch had a staff of 27 only and that Budget estimates for 1978-79 project a cut in staff to 21.
  6. If so, and in view of the comments of the NEAC how can he claim that petroleum exploration is a high priority of the Government.
  7. As the review of the Bureau of Mineral Resources by ASTEC was announced prior to the Budget, why do Budget estimates allow for a cut in staff of 20 for the Bureau in 1978-79.
  8. Have any staff been dismissed from the Bureau or positions left unfilled since 7 June 1978; if so, what are the details of these decisions.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The Committee’s report also observed that ‘an assessment of undiscovered resources has only just begun at BMR’.
  3. The review commenced following the Prime Minister’s request of 19 May 1978. 1 understand the Council will provide its report in the near future.
  4. and (5) The following staff numbers have been employed in the Petroleum Exploration Branch: 30 November 1975-31; 30 June 1977-31; 30 June 1978-22; 30 September 1978-24.
  5. The high priority given by the Government to the stimulation of petroleum exploration and development is demonstrated by many important policy initiatives taken, for example in regard to crude oil pricing, taxation concessions, exemption of ‘new oil’ discoveries from the crude oil levy, opening up new areas to exploration, the development of the North West Shelf Gas reserves, and review of the foreign investment guidelines. These initiatives are clearly having the desired effect, with more exploration wells drilled so far this year than in each of the preceding three years, and with expenditure or exploration programs already estimated at over $500m for the next five years.
  6. In common with many other areas of activity, the Budget provides for a reduction in staff for the Bureau.
  7. No staff have been dismissed since 7 June 1978. Fulltime operative staff, excluding seasonal field work staff, employed by the Bureau at 7 June was 520. At 30 September 1 978, the number was 522.

Answers to Parliamentary Questions (Question No. 2451)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his replies to questions No. 1 997 and No. 2027 (Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1679) in what way does the reply given to question No. 1972 (Hansard, 2 1 September 1978, page 1338), drawing attention to the large number of questions asked by me of the Prime Minister have relevance to the very small number of questions asked by me of him.
  2. How many of my questions took 21 weeks to answer and what was the number of questions answered by me in each year of the period I was a Minister.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Question 1626, to which Question 2027 related, was answered on 10 October 1978. Question 1594, to which Question 1997 related, involved matters of greater complexity and is being answered today. Beyond that I have nothing to add to the answers to Questions 1997 and 2027 that were given by the then Acting Minister for Finance.
  2. I do not maintain such records but the information requested can be derived from the relevant Notice Papers and Hansard.

Rural Adjustment Scheme (Question No. 2464)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Since the inception of the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, now the Rural Adjustment Scheme, how much (a) grant and (b) loan money has been provided by the Commonwealth Government to each State annually.
  2. What sums has each State made available under the Scheme from (a) Commonwealth contributions and (b) its own resources annually in each sector of the Scheme.
  3. How many farmers, and in which types of agriculture, in each State, receive assistance under the Scheme annually.
  4. How much of the Commonwealth contribution has remained unspent by each State Government at the end of each financial year.
  5. Is there any net cost to State Governments with the Scheme after allowing for any direct contributions, and administrative repayment arrangements, etc.
  6. Is it possible for a State Government to profit by the Scheme?
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The amount of loan money and grant money provided by the Commonwealth Government to each State is given in the following table:

Alleged Behaviour of Minister (Question No. 2487)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article published in the National Times of 1-7 October 1978 in which the reporter responsible for the article states that a major airline has complained about the behaviour of a much travelled Liberal Minister during his frequent flights overseas.
  2. If so, has a formal complaint to the Prime Minister been lodged.
  3. Is there any substance to the National Times report which described the attitude of one of his Ministers as loud and abusive.
  4. If so, will he inquire as to the identity of that Minister and inform the House.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (4) I have no knowledge of the matters referred to by the honourable member.

Leukemia: Incidence in Ex-servicemen (Question No. 2526)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the findings of Mr I. H. Davies which suggest that the incidence of leukemia and allied disorders amongst World War II ex-servicemen who served for long periods in tropical areas is inordinately high and appears to be too great to be attributable to chance.
  2. If so, will he direct his Department to accept responsibility for the appropriate medical examinations of these exservicemen.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In July 1976, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs commenced a study to investigate the relation between malignancies of ex-servicemen and service with Armed Forces overseas.

This study provided no evidence to support suggestions that tropical service, or any of the tropical diseases studied, contributed to leukemia or allied disorders as suggested by Mr Davies.

The results of this study are available and are in a form consistent with the highest quality scientific reports. They are capable of independent assessment and verification by other scientists. The results are to be published in the scientific literature.

Secret’ Classification (Question No. 2528)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 2122 (Hansard, 28 September 1978, page 1587) how many officers (a) in the Attorney-General ‘s Department and (b) in the Attorney-General’s office are authorised to affix the word Secret’ to documents, correspondence and other papers.
  2. Which of these officers was responsible for incorrectly affixing the word ‘Secret ‘ to the letter to Mr Doohan.
  3. ) What is the penalty for the incorrect application of this classification.
  4. What action is being taken to (a) invoke the penalty and (b) prevent a recurrence of the error.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) As specified in chapter 3 of the Protective Security Handbook issued in June 1 978.
  2. It has not been possible to ascertain which officer made the error.
  3. None, other than under the general disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act.
  4. (a) None.

    1. Staff in the relevant areas have been suitably instructed.

Radiation in the Environment (Question No. 2633)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

Has the Government adopted or does it intend to adopt the United States Environment Protection Agency Standards promulgated in 1977 relating to the exposure of members of the public to radiation in the environment from the normal operation of the nuclear power cycle; if not, why not.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

No. These standards apply specifically to discharges from nuclear power stations of which there are none in Australia. However, if at some future time a nuclear power station is established here, the relevance of the U.S. standards will be considered when establishing appropriate standards.

Periods of Service of Senators and Members (Question No. 2669)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

What are the names of present senators and members of the House of Representatives who have completed 18 years service.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Present senators and members of the House of Representatives who have completed 1 8 years service are:

The Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, M.P.-from 14.9.57.

The Hon. G. M. Bryant, E.D., M.P.-from 10. 12. 1 955.

The Hon. C. R. Cameron, M.P.-from 10.12.49.

The Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, C.H., M.P.-from 10.12.55.

W. Graham, M.P.-from 10. 12.49 to 29.5.54, from to 22.1 1.58, from 26. 1 1.66.

W. James, M.P.-from 9.4.60.

The Hon. L. R. Johnson, M.P.-from 10.12.55 to 26.1 1.66, from 25.10.69.

The Hon. C. K. Jones, M.P.-from 22. 1 1.58.

The Hon. D. J. Killen, M.P.-from 10.12.55.

E. Lucock, C.B.E., M.P.-from 22.3.52

The Rt Hon. Sir William McMahon, G.C.M.G., C.H., M.P.-from 10.12.49.

Senator J. O ‘Byrne from 1.7.47.

The Rt Hon. Sir Billy Mackie Snedden, K..C.M.G., Q.C., M.P.-from 10.12.55.

The Hon. F. E. Stewart, M.P.-from 29.8.53.

The Hon. T. Uren, M.P.-from 22.1 1.58.

Powers of Permanent Heads (Question No. 1617)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

To what extent is a Permanent Head authorised to approve the use of official facilities for non-official purposes.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

There are occasions where use of official facilities for nonofficial purposes might properly be authorised by a Permanent Head, particularly where the activity concerned is important for staff relations and morale or is significantly related to Public Service functions. Obvious examples are staff social clubs, staff associations and union meetings, and the Royal Institute of Public Administration.

In deciding whether to approve the use of official facilities for such purposes Permanent Heads would be expected to take carefully into account the likelihood that any additional costs that might be incurred would be outweighed by the prospect of broader benefits to their Departments or the Service generally.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 1811)

Mr Kevin Cairns:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he say at Brisbane Airport on 4 December 1 977 as reported in the Courier-Mail of 5 December 1977 that$12m probably would be spent on Brisbane Airport redevelopment in the next 18 months and that $2m could be involved by June 1978.
  2. If so, does the allocation for Brisbane Airport development in 1978-79 in any way detract from that promise.
  3. Does the Government retract its promise that the new airport will be operating in early 1986.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The figures quoted in the course of my replies to questions asked at the Brisbane Airport on 4 December 1977 were given as a guide to the expenditures involved, not a promise as suggested in Part (2) of the question, and I stressed this at the time.
  2. No. Planned developments of Brisbane Airport facilities involve improvement to the existing airport in the shortterm as well as the provision of the new airport. The Commonwealth and the airlines will both be involved in funding these improvements which, with expenditures on land acquisition and site investigation for the new airport, will amount to a substantial portion of the expenditure indicated.
  3. No. It is the Government’s objective to have the new airport ready for use by early 1986.

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Ministerial Directive: Properties Purchased (Question No. 1817)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission written to him concerning the directive he gave on 10 February 1978 (Hansard, 7 June 1978, page 3220); if so, when.
  2. Has he replied; if so, when.
  3. Will he publish (a) the Chairman’s letter and (b) his reply.
  4. Has the directive been changed; if so, when and in what respects.
  5. When, and in respect of which properties, has the Commission (a) given him the information and statements required by the directive and (b) received his views.
  6. Which properties has the Commission purchased since 7 April 1978 (Hansard, 7 June 1978, page 3223).
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.On22 May 1978.
  2. Yes. On 22 August 1978.
  3. No. The Chairman’s letter to me was marked ‘Personal and Confidential ‘ and I intend to respect his expressed wishes in this matter.
  4. No.
  5. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the Commission’s negotiations, I will not identify properties which the Commission is considering purchasing.

I, or my Department, received preliminary advice of the Commission’s intention to investigate possible purchases and/or to make initial approaches to vendors of properties on the following dates. The date on which advice of my response was given to the Commission is shown in parentheses. 1 May 1978- (3 May 1978)-two properties 2Mayl978-(12Junel978) 14July 1978- (21 August 1978) 14July 1978- (24 August 1978) 20 July 1978-(24 August 1978) 10 August 1978- (24 August 1978) 10August 1978-(1 September 1978) 10 August 1978- (5 September)- two properties 17 August 1978- (5 September 1978) 14 July 1978-I have this under consideration and will advise the Commission shortly.

I received final statements outlining the reasons for proposed purchases, and the financial implications of them, on the following dates. The date on which advice of my response was given to the Commission is shown in parentheses. 14 July 1978- (21 August 1978) 4September 1978- (3 October 1978) 4September 1978- (3 October 1978).

  1. None.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2102)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 2090 (Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Aurukun Council (Question No. 2135)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he promise former Aurukun Council representatives on 20 August 1978 that nominations for a new Council would be called within a month and elections within a further month.
  2. Did the Aurukun Administrator on the same day state that the elections would not be held before March 1978.
  3. Will he make a prompt public statement of any firm undertaking given by the Queensland authorities bearing on the proposed election date.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I did explain at a meeting on 2 1 August that the Queensland Local Government Act required that a roll of electors should be compiled and that this might take at least a month. The roll must be closed a month before elections. I indicated it might be possible to hold elections in about 2 to 3 months.
  2. I have no knowledge of such a statement by the Administrator.
  3. I shall inform the House when a date has been fixed for fresh elections at Aurukun.

Aboriginal Affairs: Aurukun and Mornington Island (Question No. 2288)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether deposed Councillors of Mornington and Aurukun Shires have started legal action to challenge their sacking.
  2. If so, who is providing the finance, and where and when is the action to be heard.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I understand that, following an order made by the Queensland Governor in Council on15 August 1 978 dissolving each Council and appointing Mr K. P. H. Brown Administrator of each Shire, an interim injunction was obtained on 16 August which restrained the defendants (the Queensland Attorney-General, the Minister for Local Government and Mr Brown) from exercising any power to dissolve the Councils except after consultation with me, until midnight on 1 8

August. On 1 8 August the Court discharged the interim injunction and an order was made for a speedy trial. To the best of my knowledge the matter has not progressed further.

  1. My Department is meeting the costs of legal services provided for the two Councils and communities since March 1978.

Spraying of Aircraft Interiors (Question No. 2360)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) When was spraying of the interior of planes arriving in Australia first introduced.
  2. What substances are used in this spray.
  3. ) What is the specific aim of spraying.
  4. What (a) concentration of the substances in the spray and (b) exposure time are considered lethal to the organisms referred to in part ( 3 ).
  5. Which other countries adopt such faith-healing practices.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Spraying of cabins and baggage compartments of aircraft arriving in Australia was first introduced shortly after World War II.
  2. The ingredient in the aerosol spray currently used in the cabin is d-phenothrin in Freon propellant. For the cargo hold the aerosol spray contains d-phenothrin, pyrethrin and piperonyl butoxide with Shellsol T in Freon propellant.
  3. The specific aim of aircraft disinsection as carried out by aerosol spraying is to: eliminate vectors of human disease eliminate vectors of exotic animal diseases eliminate insects which may be significant agricultural, horticultural or forestry pests.

Aircraft disinsection is carried out as a three part process. An initial spray treatment is carried out in the passenger cabin whilst passengers are on board and is designed to kill or stun insects which might otherwise escape from the cabin during disembarkation. When disembarkation is completed, a second spray treatment designed to kill all insect life in the cabin is carried out. Cargo holds are also disinsected thoroughly on arrival or, in the case of Qantas 747 aircraft, by the use of an automatic disinsection device developed by the airline in close consultation with the Department and with CSIRO.

  1. (a) For cabin aerosols the concentration is 2 per cent d-phenothrin. For cargo space aerosols, concentrations are 2 per cent d-phenothrin, 2.5 per cent pyrethrin, 1.25 per cent piperonyl butoxide and 6.25 per cent Shellsol T.

    1. Exposure periods for sprays are two minutes for the cabin before disembarkation of passengers; five minutes after passengers have disembarked and ten minutes for the baggage compartment, except for Qantas aircraft which have automatic disinsection of baggage compartments.
  2. It is not understood what the honourable member refers to as ‘faith healing’. Disinsection of aircraft is also carried out by New Zealand, Tonga, New Hebrides, Tahiti, Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands.

The honourable member should know that most aircraft coming to Australia from overseas leave foreign ports at night under lighting conditions attractive to flying insects. which frequently enter the cargo holds and to a lesser extent the cabin. Many of these insects are capable of surviving the relatively short flight time to Australia.

Ongoing monitoring of aircraft arriving in Australia amply demonstrates the continuing need for the disinsection procedure. The Department has developed a collection of some 7,200 insect specimens from those recovered from aircraft after disinsection. The collection embraces virtually all insect orders capable of winged flight, including beetles, winged termites, various moths, culicoides and various types of mosquito and fruit flies. The collection includes all categories of insects capable of introducing important exotic diseases and pests of humans, animals and plants into Australia including malaria, encephalitis, blue tongue and dengue haemorrhagic fever.

The honourable member’s reference to ‘faith healing’ is misleading, ill-chosen and provocative.

North Queensland Land Council (Question No. 2369)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the North Queensland Land Council operated for almost 2 years with 75 elected delegates from the 1 7 reserves and 23 towns in North Queensland with Aboriginal communities.
  2. Was $20,000 allocated by the Commonwealth Government to the Council in 1 975 but never paid.
  3. When will the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1 975 be gazetted to allow registration of the Council.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that the North Queensland Land Council was formed following a Land Rights Conference called by the North Queensland Land Rights Committee in January 1977. 1 am not aware of the precise number of delegates to the Council, which is an independently run aboriginal body.
  2. No. The Council was advised that funds would not be available because of financial restraints.
  3. The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 commenced to operate on 14 July 1978.

Aboriginal Affairs: Statement of Concern (Question No. 2413)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has he welcomed the Statement of Concern prepared by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to assertions in that document that (a) the economic downturn has been used to justify the cutting of expenditure and the breaking of election promises, (b) land rights are an urgent issue of national justice, (c) mining in Arnhem Land could be as destructive of societies and produce the same long-term effects as the dispossession in the rest of the continent, (d) even more threatened are communities in Western Australia and Queensland who have neither land rights nor the Northern Territory Act’s protection, (e) if contracting parties are too unequal, consent does not guarantee justice and the rule of free agreement remains subservient to natural law, (f) traditional owners are opposed to Ranger mining but feel oppositon is futile, (g) many government institutions apply assimilationist pressures, and (h) predators grant liquor licences against the objections of community leaders and Councils.
  3. If so, will the Government correct these injustices promptly and without reservation in immediate and constant close consultation with the Bishops concerned and/or the Commission.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 have read the statement.
  3. I have noted all the views expressed in the statement and will keep them in mind in continuing to implement the Government’s policies in Aboriginal affairs.

Aboriginal Affairs, Yarrabah (Question No. 2455)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has he received a request from the Yarrabah Community Council or a significant number of residents of Yarrabah Reserve for a referendum to decide whether he should declare the reserve under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities SelfManagement) Act.
  2. Will the referendum be held; if so, when.
  3. If the referendum will not be held, what are the reasons.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I understand that the matter was discussed at a public meeting on 24 May 1978. The meeting resolved that the Council should ask the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Porter, to explain the State Government’s stand, that I or my delegate should explain the Commonwealth Self-management legislation at a meeting held 2 1 days after Mr Porter’s explanation and that, 2 1 days later, a referendum organised by the State or Commonwealth Electoral Office should be held to allow residents to vote on whether or not they wanted the self-management legislation to apply at Yarrabah. To the best of my knowledge, the proposed meeting with Mr Porter has not yet taken place.
  2. 2 ) and ( 3 ) See answer to ( 1 ).

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 2457)

Mr Kevin Cairns:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

In replying to Question No. 1811 will he make it clear that the statement of 4 December 1 977 applied to expenditure on the promised new Brisbane Airport development and not to the provision of temporary facilities at the present airport site.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1811 in which I make it clear that planned developments of Brisbane Airport facilities involve improvements to the existing airport in the short-term as well as the provision of the new airport. Each will involve considerable expenditure.

Use of Hire Car Services on the Gold Coast (Question No. 2547)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 8 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have any arrangements been made for hire car services to be provided to Ministers or their staff from a firm located on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
  2. If so, (a) what is the name of the firm and (b) what are the hiring rates charged.
  3. Were competing quotations sought from major hire car firms such as Avis, Hertz or Budget.
  4. How do the hiring rates charged by this firm on this contract compare with major competitors.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. There has, in the past, been a small demand by Parliamentarians for cars with driver in the Gold Coast area that could not be supplied economically from the Commonwealth fleet in Brisbane. For the year ended 30 June 1978,24 separate bookings were made with a private hire car operator at a cost of $28 1.50.
  2. (a) Aura Hire Cars of Southport; (b) $12 per hour pick-up to drop of passenger.
  3. Quotations were not sought from Avis, Hertz or Budget because these firms do not provide car-with-driver services. Quotations have not been sought from other car hire firms who may service the Gold Coast region because of the small amount of business involved. There has been an increase in usage over recent months and if this is maintained over the six months ending 31 December 1978, consideration will be given to inviting public tenders for the service from firms interested in a contract to twelve months’ duration.
  4. See (3) above. The charges by Aura Hire Cars are considered reasonable for the services provided.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2582)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that an inferior and more expensive United States sonar system, SQS 56, supplied by a US Company Raytheon will be installed in the Australian frigates instead of the Mulloka system.
  2. If so, when was the decision taken to award the sonar contract to Raytheon.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The US Navy intends to install the SQS 56 in their FFGs and Australia has decided on the same sonar for the three Australian FFGs; SQS 56 is not expected to be more expensive than Mulloka, nor is it correct to say that it is inferior.
  2. Australia decided in January 1977 to install SQS 56 in the FFGs, subject to US Navy acceptance of that sonar.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2583)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is the United States SQS 56 sonar system more expensive than the Mulloka system.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

No. Neither equipment is in full production; the present estimated equipment cost, including spares, of SQS 56 is somewhat lower than for Mulloka; if Mulloka were to be installed in the FFG ships, installation design costs would have to be borne by the Australian Government; this could be expected to make the total cost of installation of Mulloka in the FFGs considerably more expensive than that of installing the SQS 56.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2584)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Why has the Mulloka sonar system not been completed in time for installation on the first 3 FFG frigates.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Mulloka is a high technology development with challenging electronic design problems which required complex and time consuming tests and trials. Although we did experience difficulty during the early days of experimentation, the timescale for development of the system has not been excessive by world standards. Even so, at the time that a sonar had to be selected for the FFG ‘s, it appeared that it would not be possible to secure an appropriate resolution of the earlier difficulties which had been experienced with the Mulloka system in time. The decision was taken in January 1977, albeit reluctantly, to install the American system as standard.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2585)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that certain technical problems with the Mulloka sonar system have not been solved because of lack of funding, brought about by cuts in the annual Defence Department budget since 1976.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

No. The required funds have been made available progressively throughout the development of this project.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2586)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that $2m was required to solve technical problems and that, once solved, the Mulloka sonar system will be the best of its kind in the world.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Approximately $2m was allocated for modification and refurbishment of equipment following sea trials in 1975 and 1976. Subsequent sea trials in 1978 have shown Mulloka to have superior performance to existing sonars in use in the RAN. Direct comparison with other sonars is difficult in the absence of comparative trials.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2587)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that the Mulloka sonar system has the potential to be a big dollar earner for Australia when exported to navies which operate in similar climatic conditions to the RAN, and that the successful development of the system would be a considerable and much-needed boost to the international reputation of Australian defence scientists who are frustrated and demoralised by the lack of Government support for Australian scientific developments in the defence area.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Mulloka does have potential for overseas sales and its successful development has given a boost to the international reputation of Australian defence scientists and engineers which is already high with overseas sales of Ikara to the UK, and Brazil, and Jindivik to the UK, US and Sweden.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2588)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that the Government has refused on 2 occasions, specific requests by the Department of Defence for funds to complete the Mulloka project.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The Government has not refused Department of Defence requests for funds for the development of Mulloka.

Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Question No. 2589)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that, of 600 Defence Depanment personnel who will be dismissed in the next 12 months because of Federal Government budget cutbacks, by far the greater number of this 600 will be sacked at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation at Salisbury, South Australia.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

It is planned to reduce Public Service Act staff throughout the Depanment by 650 in 1978-79, to accord with the civilian staff ceiling determined by the Government. Inevitably some of this reduction will be taken in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The allocation of the reduction over the various elements of the Depanment is being kept under continuous review to ensure the best use of available manpower resources. It has not been necessary to date to retrench staff to meet staff reduction requirements, and efforts will be continued to achieve staff ceilings by natural wastage or redeployment.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2590)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

What effect will the staff cutbacks at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation have on the development effort going into the Mulloka sonar system at the present time.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Staff ceilings will not reduce the effort going into the Mulloka sonar system.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2591)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which foreign owned companies or corporations have won contracts to develop pan or pans of the Mulloka sonar system.
  2. On which dates were these contracts awarded.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Honeywell Marine Systems Centre, Seattle, United States of Amenca was awarded contracts:

    1. to develop a prototype acoustic transducer array in July 1972;
    2. to refurbish the prototype array in March 1977; and
    3. for reproduction studies to finalise design for production arrays in March 1978.

Contracts were also awarded to Australian companies which have overseas-owned majority shareholdings:

Philips Holdings for hybrid circuits in 1973;

EMI Electronics was awarded contracts:

  1. for assistance in design in 1 975;
  2. b) for pre-production design in 1 975 and 1976;
  3. for prototype development assistance in 1 975;
  4. for development documentation, and preproduction design activities in 1977.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2592)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. Which Australian owned companies or corporations have won contracts to develop pan or parts of the Mulloka sonar system.
  2. On what dates were these contracts awarded.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

As detailed in my answer to question 2591, several contracts were let to Australian firms having overseas-owned majority shareholdings.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2593)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1 978:

What was the value of contracts awarded to

foreign owned companies or corporations; and

Australian owned companies or corporations for work performed on the Mulloka project.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Honeywell Marine Systems Centre, Seattle USA-$639,300; Philips Holdings-$60,600; EMI Electronics-$3,787,400.
  2. As stated in my answer to question 2 591, Philips Holdings and EMI Electronics are Australian firms with overseasowned majority shareholdings. Contracts to these Australian firms total over $3. 8m, as stated in (a).

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2594)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. Does the United States computer giant Honeywell have any interest in or connection with the Mulloka project.
  2. ) If so, what is the nature of that interest.
  3. 3 ) Is the interest in any way a proprietary one.
  4. Have any rights been assigned to the Honeywell Corporation or any other foreign owned company to develop, manufacture or exploit for profit in any way the Mulloka system, or part of this system.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, through its Marine Systems Centre, Seattle.
  2. As designer and suppliers of the acoustic transducer array.
  3. Yes; details of some processes used in the array construction are proprietary to the company.
  4. No.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2595)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that contract development work performed by the Honeywell Corporation has on 3 occasions been rejected by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation as unsatisfactory, and that these delays have seriously retarded the successful completion ofthe Mulloka project.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Work has not been rejected as unsatisfactory. Deficiencies affecting the life of the prototype became apparent after the 1975-76 sea trials. This is common with prototype designs and is one reason why prototypes are built. Some corrosion took place in the prototype in 1978. The company has been active (partly at its own expense) in overcoming these problems in a modified design for production. These difficulties have not been more significant than others which have been encountered and overcome in the project. It would not be correct to say that these difficulties caused delays which have seriously retarded the successful completion of the Mulloka project. Honeywell was selected because it is recognised as a world leader in acoustic transducer technology.

Naval Sonar System (Question Na 2596)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. What periods have elapsed since Honeywell was first commissioned to perform research or development work on any aspect of the Mulloka system and the time that this work was completed and presented to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Salisbury SA.
  2. On what dates was this work due to be completed.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Honeywell were first awarded a contract in July 1 972 and completed the work in January 1974. A second contract was awarded in March 1977 and the work was completed in December 1977.
  2. Both contracts were completed to schedule.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2597)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Can he say whether there is any corporate or working relationship, or any commercial arrangement of any sort, which might exist between Honeywell and Raytheon, the suppliers of the SQS 56 system which is now to be installed in 3 Australian frigates.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

My Department has no knowledge of any such relationship or arrangement, although it would not be unusual for major companies involved in defence contracts to have direct or indirect commercial arrangements of some sort.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2598)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1 978:

Has he or his Department investigated any possible connection between the delays connected with Honeywell’s work on the Mulloka system and the awarding of a contract to Raytheon to supply the SQS 56 Sonar System to 3 Australian frigates.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Honeywell have completed their development work on time, although there have been technical problems. There is no reason to suspect the sort of relationship between Honeywell and Raytheon which you imply. Indeed Honeywell and Raytheon are in competition in this field.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2599)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Will he guarantee that under no circumstances will development rights for the Mulloka project or any part of the project be sold or leased to a foreign power.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The rights for Mulloka have not been sold or leased to any foreign power. Any application for such rights will be judged on its merits by the Government.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2600)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Has he or his Department received any offer, or have any overtures been made to his Department by Honeywell or any other foreign owned corporation regarding total or part acquisition of the Mulloka project.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

There have been no offers and I am not aware of any overtures by Honeywell or any other foreign company for the acquisition of rights to the Mulloka system.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2601)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

What is the cost of the three SQS 56 sonar systems to be installed in the three Australian FFG frigates.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The main production contract negotiations are at present under way in the US and it would be inappropriate to release any cost details.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2602)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

What is the cost of any ongoing equipment provision or technical service contract signed in connection with installation of SQS 56 sonar systems in the 3 frigates by Raytheon.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The Australian Government’s contract for the FFG’s including sonars and other systems is with the US Government US Navy. The USN contract for procurement of the SQS 56 equipment has not yet been finalised with Raytheon. Contracts for sonar spares provisioning and any technical service assistance will be negotiated separately. The precise costs will not be known until this action is complete.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2603)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. What vessels were made available for testing the Mulloka system and for what periods.
  2. Were complaints received indicating that HMAS Yarra was not suitable.
  3. Was HMAS Yarra tied up for very significant periods during development testing.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Since January 1975:

    1. HMAS Yarra has been made available for a total of 104 weeks at sea and in harbour.
    2. Other destroyers for a total of 9 weeks at sea in company with HMAS Yarra.
    3. Submarines for a total of 29 weeks at sea in company with HMAS Yarra.
  2. As HMAS Yarra is one ofthe River Class DE ‘s in which we intend to install Mulloka, this ship has been eminently suitable as a platform for these trials. Although at first HMAS Yarra was considered to be a noisy ship because of mechanical problems, these have now been overcome.
  3. During 1975, 1976 and for the first half of this year, HMAS Yarra’s primary role was the conduct of Mulloka trials.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2604)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

What is the total sum expended on the Mulloka sonar system to date.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The total expenditure on the Mulloka sonar system to 30 September 1978 was $9.761m.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2605)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

How many Defence Department personnel, including the Defence Science and Technology Organisation staff, were engaged on the Mulloka sonar system project during the years:

1974-75;

1975-76;

1976-77; and

1977-78.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The numbers of Defence Science personnel engaged on Mulloka have varied according to the activities in hand from time to time. Average figures for each year are:

1974-75-37

1975-76-30

1976-77-57

1977-78-69

To these figures must be added the ship and submarine trials team and the Navy Project team of about 3, and the part time involvement of many other Defence Department staff.

Naval Sonar System (Question No. 2606)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Is it a fact that the United States SQS 56 sonar system is considered by international defence experts to be less efficient than the Mulloka system and not as well suited to Australian climatic conditions.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Both sonars are primarily designed for active detection. It is very difficult to compare ranges in different water conditions at different times of the year and in different sea states. It would not be correct to say that the SQS 56 is inferior in range. The Mulloka is superior to known sonars in detecting submarines beneath the surface iso-thermal layer whereas the SQS 56 has a capability for longer detections in the surface iso-thermal layer.

The only way that the question of overall comparable performance could be answered with precision would be to have side-by-side trials with both sonars against the same target at the same time in the same water conditions. Navy is confident that the SQS 56 will provide satisfactory submarine detection in Australian waters.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2032 (Question No. 2294)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2032 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in Hansard on 1 7 Ocotober 1 978 to Question No. 2032.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2033 (Question No. 2295)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2033 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2034 (Question No. 2296)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2034 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2035 (Question No. 2297)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2035 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2036 (Question No. 2298)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2036 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2037 (Question No. 2299)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2037 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2038 (Question No. 2300)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2038 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on IS August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2039 (Question No. 2301)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2039 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on IS August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2040 (Question No. 2302)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to Question No. 2040 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on IS August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2041 (Question No. 2303)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2041 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on IS August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2042 (Question No. 2304)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Adminstrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2042 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on IS August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2043 (Question No. 2305)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2043 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2044 (Question No. 2306)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2044 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2048 (Question No. 2307)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2048 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2294 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 2052 (Question No. 2308)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1978.

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2052 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on15 August 1978.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in the Hansard of today’s date.

Family Allowances (Question No. 2332)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

What is the estimated cost to revenue of the decision to drop the proposed means test on family allowances (a) in its original form and (b) as subsequently proposed at $20 per week.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. $21m in 1978-79.
  2. $ 16m in 1978-79.

Household Support Scheme (Question No. 2463)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

How many farmers in each State and each category of agriculture have been in receipt of household support during each week since the inception of the Scheme.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

State Administering Authorities do not provide statistics concerning household support on a weekly basis. They are provided monthly, on a cumulative basis, and only show the number of persons who have received household support since its introduction. The following figures indicate the most recent position:

Sales Tax on Aids to Blind Persons (Question No. 2474)

Mr Stewart:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he receive representations from me concerning a suggested amendment to Item 123, First Schedule, Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, which would substantially widen the exemption to include various aids to blind persons.
  2. Did the Minister Assisting the Treasurer reply that sales tax exemptions are not the most equitable form of assistance to handicapped persons, implying that some form of direct assistance would be preferable.
  3. If so, was the suggestion rejected on this basis.
  4. Does the Government intend to introduce some form of direct assistance to help handicapped persons to obtain these aids; if so, what form will it take and when will it be introduced.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. As the letter from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer indicated, budgetary considerations as well as equity considerations entered into the decision not to extend item 123.
  4. I understand that the relevant recommendations in the Second Report ( 1978) of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped are currently under study.

Indirect Taxes (Question No. 2512)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

Have simulations made using the National Income Forecasting model shown that indirect tax reductions have a more favourable impact on both inflation and employment than direct tax cuts of the same magnitude.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my reply to his question on notice, Number 2536, for information on simulations with the National Income Forecasting model.

Expenditure on Foreign Aid Since 1974-75 (Question No. 2515)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What has been (a) the budgeted level and (b) the actual level of expenditure on foreign aid for each financial year from and including 1974-75.
  2. What has been the shortfall between budgeted and actual foreign aid for each year since 1974-75.
  3. What proportion of GNP has foreign aid comprised for each year since 1974-75.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The following table sets out requested information on foreign aid expenditure. The figures used have been taken from Budget Paper No. 8 for the years involved. These figures are presented on a net basis in accordance with the Development Assistance Committee requirement regarding international aid reporting, and for this reason they might differ from aid expenditure figures shown in other budget papers.

Child Health (Question No. 2534)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the special supplement of The Medical Journal of Australia of 9 August 1975 recommending policies for minimising institutional stay and maximising public, professional and parental concern to meet the unique psychological needs of young children, and declaring as essential on-going evaluation of these policies at all levels.
  2. If so, what progress has been made by the Government in promoting implementation of these policies.
  3. What implementation has occurred in each State and Territory.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The primary responsibility for the detailed planning and operation of health services rests with the State and Territory health authorities. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Government acknowledges that it has an important role in relation to overall policies and strategies, national goals and priorities, and evaluations in the health care field. In this connection, the Commonwealth participates in joint discussions on health problems with the States. In this context, the National Health and Medical Research Council has endorsed the policy statements recommended in the document Health Care Policy Relating to Children and their Families’ to which the honourable member has referred. The Commonwealth ‘s general support for the aims and philosophies expounded in the article is further demonstrated by the Government’s continued funding, under the Community Health Program, of the national secretariat of the Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital which prepared the document and has, with the aid of the Commonwealth’s financial assistance, vigorously promoted these principles and philosophies.
  3. As indicated in (2) the National Health and Medical Research Council has endorsed the policy statements recommended in the document. The Capital Territory Health

Commission announced on 18 October 1978 its adoption of the policies advanced by the Association and the Northern Territory Medical Service has also accepted in principle the Association’s statements. I am aware that the New South Wales Health Commission has formally adopted as official policy the Association ‘s policy statements and while I am unaware of any formal pronouncements by the other States, I can confidently report that there is widespread acceptance of the principles expounded and that they are being implemented wherever practicable.

Impact of Reductions of Government Expenditure and Personal Tax Collections on Employment (Question No. 2536)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have simulations been made using the National Income Forecasting Model to examine the effect of a simultaneous reduction of Government expenditure and personal tax collections.
  2. If so, do these simulations show that the effect of a simultaneous reduction of Government expenditure and personal tax collections is to substantially reduce the level of employment.
  3. What quantitative assumptions were made for the simulations.
  4. What quantitative effect on employment did they show.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

A wide variety of simulation analyses utilizing the National Income Forecasting model have been reported in the professional literature by the authors concerned. The following are among the more significant:

I. Higgins & V. W. FitzGerald: An Econometric Model of the Australian Economy, Journal of Econometrics, October 1973.

N. Caton, E. A. Evans & H. N. Johnston: The Inflationary Process and the Impact of Wage Indexation on the

Australian Economy, Fourth Conference of Economists, 1974.

N. Caton & C. I. Higgins: Simulation Analyses with a Macro-Econometric Model. Fifth Conference of Economists, 1975.

N. Caton: Some Macro-Economic Implications of Indexation of Personal Income Taxes, Economic Record, 1977.

W. FitzGerald & C. I. Higgins: Inside RBA76. Conference in Applied Economic Research, Reserve Bank of Australia, 1977.

L. Coghlan: Simulation with the NIF Model of the Australian Economy, SIMSIG Conference, 1978.

I refer the honourable member to those papers for a detailed discussion of the matters raised in his question. However, as a generalization it can be said that simulation analyses ofthe kind referred to ‘show’ only the mechanical consequences of imposing certain assumptions upon the assumptions (as to the working of the economy, etcetera) which are implicit in the model involved. In the particular case of the NIF model they are, as such, subject to the qualifications and limitations applying to that model. The paper by Mr Coghlan draws out these aspects in some detail.

Investment Allowance (Question No. 2537)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the investment allowance effectively reduce the cost of capital.
  2. Will the investment allowance tend to reduce the ratio of the price of capital to the price of labour and therefore encourage the use of more capital-intensive techniques than would be the case without the allowance.
  3. Will the existence ofthe investment allowance tend to reduce the rate of growth of employment.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. (3)1 would remind the honourable member of my answer to Question 9 1 9, in which I said that it is not possible to make an unequivocal statement regarding the immediate effects of the investment allowance on the rate of growth of employment. There is evidence that the investment allowance has been stimulating investment expenditure leading to higher employment in those industries producing investment goods. Furthermore, the reduced cost of investment may lead to the commencement of new projects and so create additional jobs.

The investment allowance is, of course, available on all eligible investment whatever its labour-saving characteristics. The evidence suggests that a good deal of the recent increase in investment has been in the form of labour-saving capital equipment, stimulated by the excessively high real cost of labour, which, in turn, has been the most important factor tending to work against employment growth. The resultant productivity gains, however, have been an important source of the progress that has been made in removing the imbalance between labour costs and productivity and, as a consequence, restoring the incentive for expansionary investment. That incentive, of course, will be all the more quickly restored, and the pressure for labour-saving investment all the more quickly reduced, the greater the restraint shown on the side of labour costs.

Government Securities Issued Overseas: Interest and Debt Repayment (Question No. 2539)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

What are the (a) interest liabilities and (b) debt repayment obligations of total Commonwealth and State Government securities issued overseas in Australian dollars at current exchange rates for each financial year up to and including 1988-89.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Note: Includes Japanese private placements announced in my Press Statements No. 107 of 18 October 1978 and No. 110 of 23 October 1978.

Figures are Australian dollar equivalents converted at the Reserve Bank’s selling rates of exchange to the Government at 25 October 1978.

Company Tax: Capital Gains (Question No. 2641)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Does Australia tax an Australian company 70 cents in each dollar on undistributed profits, thereby discouraging expansion, and a multinational company only 46 cents, thus enabling it to eliminate a small competitor by taking no dividend for a year.
  2. Do laws which distinguish capital gains from taxable income guarantee that there will be tax dodges which favour powerful companies which employ the best experts to ensure that they will never need to pay tax.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Differential tax treatment for income and capital gains can pose difficulties, but as it is not practicable to tax capital gains in an identical manner to income, some distinctions arc inevitable. In times of rapid inflation the divergence between money and real gains means that taxing capital gains on an equitable basis would be an exceedingly difficult task, as was recognised by the Labor Government in 1975 when it reversed an earlier decision to proceed with a capital gains tax.

Pathology Services (Question No. 213)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

Will he supply figures for claims per contributor for payment of pathology services in 1976-77 by (a) Medibank, (b) Medibank Private, (c) HBA, Victoria, and (d) private funds not allowing bulk-billing.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The figures for claims per contributor for payment of pathology services in 1976-77 sought by the honourable member are not available from my Depanment, the Health Insurance Commission or the private health funds. This is a consequence of the movement of over half of the population from the Medibank coverage to private health insurance subsequent to 30 September 1976. The number of contributors to, or persons covered by Medibank Standard, Medibank Private or the private funds is not known for the various pans of that year; the pathology services for which benefits have been paid by the Commission are not separated; and the statistics from the funds are not available.

I have been concerned about the need for more detailed information on health costs. I will be tabling in the near future, the results of a study which throws new light on the patterns of health expenditure in recent years. I have also ensured that the new health insurance and benefits arrangements to apply from 1 November 1978 are utilised to improve the availability of relevant statistical information.

I informed the House in my Ministerial Statement of 24 May 1978 that preliminary information indicated an appreciable decline in the quarterly costs of pathology. The gross benefits payout by Medibank for pathology decreased by 29 per cent from the June quarter 1977 to the March quarter 1978. These figures related to roughly half the population, and did not cover persons covered by the private health funds.

With the assistance of Medibank and the private health funds, it has been possible to prepare preliminary estimates of benefits expenditure for pathology services for the sixmonthly periods, July to December 1977 and January to June 1 978 for the total population. These are shown below in conjunction with the figures for January to June 1973 and 1976 that were shown on page 4 of the March 1977 Report of the Pathology Services Working Party (tabled on 25 May 1977).

A significant feature of these figures is that there is an absolute decrease in the benefits cost of pathology services for the period January to June 1978, compared with July to December 1977, though charges were raised for pathology services provided to privately insured persons by the following government laboratories for the first time as from:

Capital Territory Health Commission- 1 October 1977

Commonwealth Laboratories- 1 November 1977

State Health Laboratory Services of Western Australia- I January 1978

It is quite clear from these figures that the 1 August 1977 pathology benefits changes have not only arrested the previous year by year absolute increase in the benefits cost of pathology services, but they have resulted in a decrease. This proves that the work of the Pathology Services Working Party has been well worthwhile.

Medibank: Bulk Billing for Pathology Services (Question No. 369)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated increase in staff for Medibank and Medibank Private, made necessary by the proposed abolition of bulk billing for pathology services.
  2. What is the estimated increased annual cost in administering the proposed changes.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) At the same time as direct billing for nonpensioner pathology services was abolished there were other changes made to billing for these services.

A new schedule of pathology services was introduced and the doctor who requested the pathology tests had to be identified on the claim.

As a consequence of these other changes no direct comparison of processing costs before and after abolition of direct billing for non-pensioner pathology services is possible. It is estimated that, had the abolition of direct billing been the only change that occurred (i.e. had the schedule of pathology items remained unchanged and the requesting doctor not had to be identified), the number of staff required to handle the increased workload and the resultant estimated additional cost would have been as follows:

services provided to private patients from 1 July 1975 to 31 December 1976, consequently fees eligible for medical benefits for services provided during that period were not raised. (Apparent errors in addition are due to rounding)

Television Reception (Question No. 946)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

Which are the 10 to 15 regions in Australia where television reception is of the poorest quality.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Although the great majority of Australians have a television service, it would be impracticable to define 10 or 15 regions where reception is of the poorest quality or nonexistent as these areas are located primarily in isolated rural or outback areas where population is relatively small and scattered.

The Government is actively pursuing a policy of extending the national service to as many of those still without a service as possible. Some $3.9m has been allocated in the Budget for this purpose, as the first stage of a three year extension program.

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1270)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 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 1978 to date.
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees.
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods.
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, ( b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

Central Treasury; (1) (a) $64,230; (b) $52,909; (c) $ 15,706; (2) 43,736; (3) (a) 16, (b) 5, (c) 2.

This information is not available from official records.

Australian Taxation Office; (1) (a) $1,074,576; (b) $1,383,013; (c) $682,305; (2) 1,153,139; (3) (a) 185, (b) 179,(c)93.

This information is not available from official records.

Australian Bureau of Statistics; (1) (a) $437,856; (b) $566,149; (c) $373,599; (2) 434,376; (3) 173-breakup by years not available.

This information is not available from official records.

The Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Accounting Offices in the States were the responsibility of the Treasury until 6 December 1976. The following answers refer to these offices and relate to the period 1 January 1976 to 6 December 1 976 inclusive.

(a)$ 110,727.

Total figures not available.

Total figures not available.

This information is not available from official records.

Telephone Charges (Question No. 1311)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) In the event of a dispute over metered call charges what legal resource is available to a telephone subscriber who is not prepared to accept Telecom ‘s account for metered calls.
  2. What action can telecom take to recover outstanding moneys where a subscriber refuses to pay an account.
  3. What were the changes in total charges for reverse charged calls (reverse charge and surcharge fees) during (a) 1975, (b) 1976 and (c) 1977, and from what dates did these charges become operative.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Apart from the right to refer a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, there is no specific provision for referring a disputed account to a tribunal or court for determination. If Telecom commences legal proceedings to recover the amount in dispute, the other party can contest the matter as in any civil suit for the recovery of a debt alleged to be due and owing.
  2. Telecom can disconnect a telephone service and institute legal proceedings for the recovery of the moneys said to be owing. These are, however, actions of ‘last resort’ after a detailed examination of the subscriber’s past calling pattern, technical tests of equipment which might cause incorrect metering, and failure to reach a settlement acceptable to both parties through negotiations.

Postal Service in Lalor Electoral Division (Question No. 1425)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 June 1978.

  1. 1 ) Which areas within the Electoral Division of Lalor have no postal deliveries and collections.
  2. Has Australia Post surveyed the needs of industry in those areas for a full postal service.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The areas within the Electoral Division of Lalor which have no street postal deliveries or collections are as follows:

Altona North- the area bounded by Princes Highway, Dohertys Road, Kororoit Creek and the MelbourneGeelong railway line.

Laverton North-the area bounded by Princes Highway, Little Boundary Road, Boundary Road and Fitzgerald Road.

Laverton West- the area bounded by Forsyth Road, Old Geelong Road, Skeleton Creek and the MMBW outfall sewer reserve.

Sunshine North-the area bounded by Mclntyre Road, Ayton Street, Burwood Avenue, Munro Avenue, Vermont Avenue and Railway Road.

Little River- a small rural community which is located at the southern end of the electorate.

  1. Australia Post keeps under constant review any area which it considers could, as a result of further industrial or residential development, require mail delivery services and the installation of posting boxes.

At this stage, only a few firms and residences are located in those industrial areas of the Electoral Division of Lalor which do not currently have mail deliveries or posting box facilities. In some of these areas, roads are unsealed and in a poor condition and, in addition, many of the business premises are storage or holding facilities only.

Mail is available, however, through counter service facilities and/or private boxes at post offices in more closely settled areas of the surrounding districts, and, in some cases, through roadside mail boxes. Also, mail may be posted at the post offices and in any of the eighty-eight posting boxes which are located throughout the Electorate.

Because the benefits from the provision of street mail delivery services and posting box facilities in the specific areas mentioned would be shared by only a few firms and residents, and because of the relatively high costs of providing the additional facilities, Australia Post could not justify the implementation of such services at this time.

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1440)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 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.
  2. 2 ) If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementation of procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Neither metal waste nor glass waste is generated by my Department. Regarding the recycling of waste paper by my Department I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister for Administrative Services to Question No. 1437 (Hansard, 15 August 1978 page 334). I am also advised that the Statutory Authorities for which I am responsible have made arrangements for the recycling of waste to the maximum degree practicable and consistent with the need for economic management and security of records. Limited quantities of metal generated in the Reserve Bank’s note printing operations are recycled. With that exception, none of these authorities generates glass or metal waste.

Interest Rates (Question No. 1SS4)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

What was the interest rate on (a) investment deposit accounts with savings banks, (b) fixed deposit accounts with trading banks and (c) fixed deposit accounts with building societies for each month during the last 4 years.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Information relating to savings and trading banks is to be found in relevant issues of the Reserve Bank of Australia monthly Statistical Bulletin. Permanent building societies offer a wide range of interest rates on term deposits. There is also considerable variance among societies as to deposit length requirements. The Commonwealth has only recently commenced collecting comprehensive data on building society interest rates and publication of the data has not yet commenced. I am informed, however, that the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies has some relevant information derived from another source; the Honourable Leader of the Opposition may wish to approach the Association to see if the information could be made available to him.

This Day Tonight’ (Question No. 1680)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

When did the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission first inform him of the Commission’s intention to discontinue its This Day Tonight program.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

The ABC keeps me informed about major decisions but such decisions are strictly matters for the Commission.

Confravision (Question No. 1740)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. What sum has been spent on the implementation of Telecom ‘s Confravision system in Australia.
  2. How many conferences have used this facility since its inception.
  3. Is the system still being used; if not, why not.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Approximately $ 1 25,000.
  2. Yes.

Telephone Charging Zones (Question No. 1895)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Where is the centre of the telephone charging zone in the metropolitan area of each mainland State capital.
  2. What is the radial distance of the (a) inner and (b) outer zones from the centre in each case.
  3. What percentage of the (a) inner and (b) outer zones is over (i) land and (ii) water.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. GPO.
  2. The Sydney and Melbourne inner telephone charging zone areas embrace all telephone exchanges located within the radial distance of 24 km of the GPO while the outer zones embrace exchanges located within the radial distances of between 24 km and about 40 km of the GPO.

In the case of Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth, the radial distance ofthe inner zone area is 16 km and, for the outer zone area the radial distances are 16 km and 32 km.

  1. If the radii of the inner and outer zones were extended to form circles the approximate percentages of the respective areas over (i) land and (ii) water would be:

Commonwealth Occupied Buildings: Access by the Disabled (Question No. 1962)

Dr Jenkins:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many building used by Australian Government departments comply with the Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1977 design rules for access by the disabled.
  2. What steps are being taken to have these rules implemented in buildings which do not comply with the design rules.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At present there are no buildings used by Commonwealth Government departments that comply with all the provisions of the Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1977 design rules for access by the disabled. There are 57 Government-owned buildings that do provide access for the disabled and conform with some of the provisions of the new code.
  2. Wherever feasible and as opportunity permits the Department in conjunction with the Department of Construction, will be upgrading access to existing Governmentowned buildings in accordance with the code. In some cases it is not physically possible to convert a building. For new Government buildings the code is taken into consideration at the design stage.

With respect to leased buildings compliance with the design code is the responsibility of building owners. While some leased premises are upgraded to provide suitable access for disabled persons, this is not always possible because owners may not be agreeable to alterations or it may not be physically possible to convert a building.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1653 (Question No. 2052)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1653.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in the Hansard of 10 October 1978(page 1666).

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1672 (Question No. 2066)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1672.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 1672 (See Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1667).

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1673 (Question No. 2067)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1673.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 1673 (See Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1667).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2097)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 2090 in Hansard of 1 7 October 1 978.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2098)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to the Question No. 2090 (House of Representatives Hansard. 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2111)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Depanment and each of the State governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangments established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. to (3) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2090. (House of Representatives Hansard, 17 October 1978, page 1972).

Statistics Relating to Agriculture (Question No. 2197)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it the intention of the Australian Bureau of Statistics to reduce the collection or publication of statistics relating to agriculture.
  2. If so, which statistics presently collected will cease to be collected.
  3. What is the current list of statistics collected by the Bureau which relate to (a) agricultural production, (b) trade and (c) food and fibre processing.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Bureau of Statistics is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its agricultural statistics program. The review is designed to re-assess users’ needs and priorities for agricultural statistics and to examine the procedures used to collect and compile such statistics. Until decisions have been made on the basis of the review, which will take some months to complete, it will not be possible to indicate the extent to which the agricultural statistics program will be changed.
  2. (a) Currently the ABS has available data relating to more than 1,000 agricultural commodity items. The data are published in bulletins listed in the ABS ‘Catalogue of Publications 1978’. Most of the commodity based data are available at the Australian, State and Local Government Area level.

    1. Information relating to imports and exports, including agricultural products, is collected by the Bureau of Customs from importers, exporters or their agents. For imports, the Customs Tariff determines the commodities that are specifically identified; at present some 13,000 commodities are listed in the Tariff. For exports the Australian Export Commodity Classification (AECC), published by the ABS, determines which commodities are specifically identified; at present some 3,000 commodities are listed in the AECC.

The more significant items of foreign trade are published in ABS statistical bulletins each month. These bulletins are listed in the ABS Catalogue. In addition, a large amount of unpublished statistical data are available on request.

  1. An extensive range of structural and commodity data in relation to food and fibre processing industries is collected in the annual census of manufacturing establishments. Establishments predominantly engaged in these activities are classified to Sub-divisions 2 1-22 (Food, Drink and Tobacco) and 23 (Textiles) of the Australian Standard Industrial Classification (ASIC). The full industry classification which has been used for the 1968-69 to 1976-77 manufacturing censuses is contained in the ABS publication ‘Australian Standard Industrial Classification’ (Preliminary edition), Volume I.

Data relating to the structure of particular industries (including the food and fibre processing industries) such as number of establishments, employment, wages and salaries, sales, purchases, turnover, value added, capital expenditure, etc are published by the ABS in bulletins listed in the ABS Catalogue of Publications 1978’. Most data are available on a State basis.

Computers (Question No. 2222)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. How many computers are (a) owned, (b) operated, (c) in the process of being purchased or (d) rented by his Depanment and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the cost of purchase or rental of each computer.
  3. ) For what purposes is each computer used.
  4. What is the nature of the data stored by each computer.
  5. What interconnections exist or will exist between any of these computers.
  6. Who has access to each computer.
  7. What savings in staff numbers have been achieved or are anticipated as a result of the installation or operation of each computer.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The Department of Construction

1 ) The Depanment:

owns one NCR SOO computer used in its Victorian/ Tasmania Region.

operates-

Eight ICL 2903 computers in state and central offices; and

Five Digital PDP 11/34 computers in state offices.

is in the process of purchasing departmental computing facilities to replace and upgrade all of the computers presently leased.

leases the equipment in (b) above together with an ICL 1904A computer which is located at ICL’s bureau in Melbourne, operated by their staff, but made available for the Department ‘s exclusive use.

The costs associated with the various equipments are-

  1. The purposes for which the computers are used are- the NCR 500 maintains accounting ledgers. This machine is obsolete and the work will be converted to ICL by 1979. the ICL Network provides the data processing function for the administrative and financial systems of the Department including payment of accounts, project and appropriation ledgers, payment of day labour wages, project control and costing, maintenance of Assets and Building Cost Information, etc. Various systems are at different stages of implementation.

The 2903 ‘s in the Department’s offices are used to enter data to the 1904A and to print out reports generated by it. A 2960 computer at the bureau is also available to replace the 1904A should if fail.

The Digital computers are each used as an aid in the Engineering and Architectural design function of the Department as an interface for preparation and submission of runs and output processing of computer jobs sent via Telecom lines to either COMPUNET (CSA) or CSIRONET facilities for processing. Multiple terminals and line printers are controlled by each computer. the new Departmental facilities will perform all above functions plus provision of reports for use at Departmental, interdepartmental and government level.

  1. The data held on the-

NCR 500 computer is related to expenditure on Victoria/Tasmania projects.

ICL computer is related to the functions outlined in (3) above, i.e., Financial data, Building Cost data, Project Planning and Progress data, Personal data related to wages payments, Establishment data.

Digital computer normally consists only of input data for design calculations and output from these runs.

  1. Interconnection within each of the ICL and Digital nets exists but no connection exists between the ICL and Digital nets. All sites on the proposed departmental network will be interconnected.
  2. Only authorised staff have access to the computers in Departmental offices. ICL staff have access to the computer located at their bureau which they operate on the Department’s behalf.
  3. (a) Installation of the NCR 500 in 1968 resulted in a net saving of approximately 10 staff effected by redeployment and non-replacement of wastage.

    1. Installation of the ICL network has resulted in significant net savings as over 100 staff made available by more efficient procedures in heavily intensive clerical areas have been redeployed, to fill other vacancies.
    2. Acquisition of larger departmental facilities is expected to progressively enable savings of 250 staff to be achieved by redeployment and non-replacement of wastage.
    3. ) The Digital computers will increase the ability of technical and professional staff to investigate a range of design solutions to increase their cost effectiveness. No significant staff savings are envisaged.

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

  1. 1 ) The Corporation owns three computers- a General Electric GE 225 a Hewlett Packard HP 3000 an EAI Pacer.

No other computers are operated, rented or proposed for purchase but use is made of the CSIRO facilities as a bureau service.

  1. The order of cost of the computers when purchased was $ 150,000 for the GE 225 in 1966 $250,000 for the HP 3000 in 1 978 $ 100,000 for the EAI Pacer in 1 974.
  2. The GE computer is obsolete and its load of processing Costing Ledgers, Assets Registers, Salaries and Payroll systems and Technical Computing is being transferred to the new HP equipment. The GE computer will then be taken out of service and disposal action will proceed.

The EAI Pacer controls plotting equipment to convert technical computations to a graphical display of Survey Plots, Structural networks, Hydrographic charts and other design applications.

  1. The data stored in the HP 3000 is of a Financial, Costing and Personal nature to fulfil the functions in (3) above. Data for technical application is fed in for processing but, except for historial records of rainfall and riverflow, is not stored for any length of time.
  2. There is an interconnection between the HP 3000 and the EAI Pacer.
  3. Only authorised personnel have access to the computers.
  4. No significant staff savings have been achieved or are envisaged from the use of the computers.

Computers (Question No. 2252)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Construc tion, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable gentleman ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Current market costs of construction materials, labour and plant are held in an ICL 1904 computer leased by the Department of Construction and this information is made available to members of the National Public Works Conference.

Trends in these costs in different geographic locations and periods of time are available to these members and to other Australian Government Departments and Authorities such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Treasury and client departments.

No other information stored in departmental computers is available to anyone other than authorised employees.

  1. The information at ( 1 ) above is made available at no cost.

There are no current circumstances under which any other information can be sold, hired, lent or given.

  1. 3 ) On no occasions, other than that mentioned in ( 1 ), has data been provided in the past.

Information stored in the computer operated by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has not been made available to other than properly authorised employees.

Pesticides: Danger to Health (Question No. 2271)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in reply to a question without notice on 8 May 1978 (Hansard, page 1959) that some of the questions put to Dr E. J. Fitzsimons on the program Four Corners of 6 May 1 978 were outside his professional province.
  2. If so, which questions were outside Dr Fitzsimon’s professional province.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Questions related to purchases and usage of agricultural chemicals by specific persons or groups of individuals. These were raised in relation to possible untoward effects which such people might have experienced.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781109_reps_31_hor112/>.