House of Representatives
22 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2145

ELECTORAL DIVISION OF GRAYNDLER

Issue of Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that on 1 5 May I issued the writ in connection with the byelection for the division of Grayndler and that the dates fixed were those announced to the House on 9 May 1979.

page 2145

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

Then reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baume, Mr Burns, Mr FitzPatrick, Dr Jenkins, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Keating, Mr Martin, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Scholes, Mr Street and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

The the compulsory tactics being used to force the changes are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Anthony, Mr Braithwaite, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Chapman, Mr Hurford, Mr Martyr and Mr Scholes.

Petitions 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:

  1. That in his 1977 election speech the Prime Minister supported by a majority of Members of the House of Representatives gave an undertaking that in exchange for electoral support he would guarantee the retention of twiceyearly adjustments of social security pensions in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index.
  2. That this undertaking of the Prime Minister and a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives has been repudiated causing severe hardship to pensioners.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will take action to require those members who have not honored their undertaking, to resign from the Parliament in order that the people of Australia can choose Members who will represent the wishes of the electors and who will honor any undertakings they gave.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Holding and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill

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: Commonwealth Employees (Employment and Redeployment) Bill 1979.

We, the following Commonwealth public servants employed in Kalgoorlie wish to protest to you about the Management Initiated Retirement proposals embodied in the above bill, whereby according to the attached ACOA bulletin:

Compulsory early retirement will occur for the following:

  1. Surplus staff who cannot be redeployed
  2. Staff retired because of invalidity
  3. Staff who are inefficient or incompetent
  4. Staff whose services cannot be reasonably used ‘for any other prescribed reason ‘.

This seems to indicate by its broadness that any public servant can be sacked/compulsorily retired by ‘management’ for any reason. The implications of this section of the Bill are to completely destroy what used to be a career public service.

The public are already receiving reduced service from their public servants, now it appears that attrition, not being sufficient, sackings may be instituted.

We urge you to voice your opposition to this legislation, which by its insinuation that the public is paying through taxation, for surplus, inefficient and/or incompetent public servants, casts an unwarranted slur on all public servants.

Your reply to this petition would be appreciated.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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 say we are concerned about the deteriorating standards of ABC radio and Television programs.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to appoint an independent inquiry into the ABC which:

  1. Investigates the practical experience and qualification of the commissioners to perform their duties.
  2. Determines the effects of staff ceilings and reduction of funds, in real terms, on standards.
  3. Thoroughly reviews the organisation to determine its present effectiveness.
  4. Ascertains if any external or internal censorship exists.
  5. Makes recommendation to reduce censorship and improve the efficiency and standards.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting Licences

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 Parliament take note of the following facts:

  1. That Community Radio Albury-Wodonga Co-operative Society Limited is fully equipped with two broadcast studios and full transmitting facilities for FM stereo broadcasting in Albury-Wodonga and surrounding districts.
  2. That the people of Albury-Wodonga and surrounding districts have created these broadcast capabilities by their heavy investment of time, labour, money and enthusiasm, and that this investment is lying wasted and idle.
  3. That no FM stereo broadcasters, or public broadcasting facilities exist for the 80,000 people of the Albury-Wodonga region.
  4. That a licence for public broadcasting in FM stereo can only be issued for the Albury-Wodonga area after the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has set a date for the hearing of all applications.
  5. That Community Radio Albury-Wodonga Co-operative Society Limited is prepared for such a hearing and has been waiting two years for the date to be set.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the date of the hearing of all such licence applications for the Albury-Wodonga area be set immediately and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife.

Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef : Oil Exploration

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

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region,
  2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
  3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray. by Mr Graham.

Petition received.

Universal Disarmament

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in Parkes, NSW, respectfully showeth that taking note that the very survival of mankind is at stake, with the stockpile of nuclear weapons able to kill every person on Earth 24 times over; and this at the inflation-causing cost of$ 1,000m per day for the World, $7m per day for Australia; and noting that the energies released by lifting the burden of armaments could solve such problems as:

World hunger: The cost of one nuclear missile could feed the entire population of Bangladesh for 2 months; and 1 per cent of military budgets could finance the World Food Conference plans for increased food production and emergency reserves.

Malaria, smallpox, even cancer: The total cost of WHO’s campaign for the eradication of Smallpox was $83m- the cost of one bomber; with $450m-½ day’s spending for military purposes, WHO could completely eradicate malaria; similarly with cancer.

Education: At present, there are as many soldiers as teachers.

Unemployment: $49m- one week’s worth- 1/52 of Australia’s defence spending- could create 3,000 jobs.

And noting that the Prime Minister, in his speech to the UN Special Session, said that ‘conscience and reason demand that this waste of resources cease’ and ‘that disarmament is a matter of political leadership ‘.

Call upon the Australian Government, as a matter of the highest priority, in the interests of the Australian people no less than those of other peoples, to give this political leadership by acting promptly and effectively to further the disarmament which is the desire and determined will of the vast majority of the people of every nation in the World.

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

Petition received.

Replacement Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Defence

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

We wish to express our deep concern at the present state of Australia’s defences, which we view as totally inadequate; and

We respectfully draw your attention to the deplorable lack of coastal defences, particularly the vast North Western coast of Western Australia. Regular coastal surveillance should receive top priority as the first step in a program to greatly improve Australia ‘s military strength.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you take immediate measures to upgrade Australia’s military capacity, in both equipment and preparedness.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrKillen.

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

That we 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 and 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 Martyr.

Petition received.

Pensions

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

The humble petition of pensioners and citizens of the community of Geelong respectfully showeth that they believe pensioners should receive half yearly indexation of the pensions.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take such action as is necessary to ensure that pensioners receive this consideration, and your petitioners as in duty bound will forever pray. by Mr Scholes.

Petition received.

Service Pensions

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

We are ex-British servicemen who feel that the Government could provide us with a Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pension of $101 .90 per week, as we are totally and permanently incapacitated. We are all on the Invalid Pension.

We feel that it is not right that only Australian ex-servicemen should get the TPI pension, as we worked here and live here now permanently. This rule should be now changed for our benefit.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Australian Government to review our much needed pension claims.

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

Petition received.

page 2147

AUSTRALIA’S DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICIES

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House-

) Regrets that the Association for International Cooperation and Disarmament is a lineal descendant of the World Peace Council whose interests in foreign policy have consistently supported the Soviet Union;

Expresses amazement that a major policy change concerning the Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape defence and communication stations should be announced on behalf of the Opposition to an audience of the AICD found to be acceptable;

Is disturbed that a subcommittee of AICD (remove American bases in Australia) should be the precise organising authority for the meeting addressed by the shadow spokesman, Senator Wriedt, on 20 May1979, and

Declares that this proposal can only humiliate the United States of America and is not in Australia’s best foreign policy or defence interests.

The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Macquarie.

page 2148

LOW ALCOHOL BEER

Notice of Motion

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That this House commends the Carlton United Brewery for its introduction of a low alcohol content light ale, and, in the belief that such a product could be beneficial in helping lower the road toll and also in raising the level of community health, this House recommends that the excise tax for lower alcohol beer be reduced in order to make it less expensive and thus more acceptable to the beer drinking community.

The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Franklin.

page 2148

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2148

QUESTION

PRICE INCREASES

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. It concerns today’s announcement of an increase in food prices of 3. 1 per cent for the month of April, which is the largest monthly rise since February 1973. It brings the annual rate of increase in food prices to 14 per cent. Does the Treasurer agree that this one month’s increase in food prices will alone increase the consumer price index by 0.6 per cent? With large increases in petrol prices, building costs and manufacturing inputs also to be included in the June quarter index figures, does the Treasurer concede that the ongoing rate of inflation by the end of the financial year could be double the Budget estimate of 5 per cent? In view of the Government’s arguments in the current national wage case that price rises in petrol, alcohol and tobacco products resulting from last year’s Budget added 1.9 per cent to the consumer price index in the past two quarters, will the Treasurer acknowledge that the Government’s budgetary actions have been a major factor in accelerating the rate of inflation?

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

-The Government and I are concerned about the level of increase in food prices which was published today. There is no point in anybody’s disguising his disappointment that such a very important component of the consumer price index has risen by the largest amount since 1973. The facts speak for themselves. How the honourable member for Gellibrand relates an increase in food prices to actions taken in the last Budget, which the latter part of his question seems to imply, completely escapes me. Of course, there is a number of cost pressures in the Australian community at present. Some of them are the result of movements in commodity prices which are good news to the producers of those commodities and for

Australia’s balance of payments. They are long overdue increases. Nonetheless, they have a very significant impact on the consumer price index. What this means, of course, is that the Government must sustain, even redouble, the efforts that it is taking in the monetary and fiscal policy area to ensure that maximum downward pressure continues to be exerted on inflation.

page 2148

QUESTION

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the draft resolution of the present assembly of the World Health Organisation in Geneva which proposes to suspend Israel from the World Health Organisation and terminate the services to Israel from that Organisation. Can the Minister inform the House who sponsored this resolution? Why was the resolution proposed? When will it be voted on? Can he assure the House that the Australian Government, through its delegation in Geneva, will oppose this resolution?

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

-I have already indicated-I think it was on 14 May- that the Government is absolutely opposed to this sort of resolution. It has been put into the World Health Organisation assembly by a group of Arab countries. It is a resolution to suspend Israel’s voting rights and World Health Organisation services to Israel. If it were to be adopted by the committee, it would pass to the World Health Organisation plenary for further debate before being put to the vote. As indicated at the outset of the answer, this Government absolutely opposes this resolution. I said it last week and I reiterate it. Such resolutions introduce needless political questions and debate into specialised agencies. This Government is utterly opposed to the poll.ticalisation of these specialised agencies. We believe it is essential that the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations’ organisations be maintained. After all, if we brook this sort of principle- expelling a nation state from the United Nations- I think that we will be taking a walk down a path which is perhaps endless.

The Australian delegation at the Assembly, led by the Minister for Health, has also spoken out against the moves directed at Israel and will continue to do so. In regard to other questions posed to me by the honourable member, I state that in an attempt to highlight the serious implications of this draft resolution Australia cosponsored, along with Ghana and also Fiji, a procedural motion which will make the suspension of a member of WHO what is termed ‘an important question’ requiring a two-thirds majority of the votes. The passage of this resolution, which, I am pleased to say, was adopted in committee stage of the Assembly by a very significant majority, will reduce the prospects of the substantive resolution being adopted. The draft resolution on the suspension of Israel is expected to be voted on in the next day or so. We will continue to employ all appropriate measures to oppose the adoption of this draft resolution.

Mr Cohen:

– What will you do if it is passed?

Mr PEACOCK:

-The first thing we would do, at a minimum, would be to walk out of the Assembly the moment it was passed.

page 2149

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Government promised to ‘bring taxes down- not increase them’, that the tax surcharge would be ‘a temporary measure for 1978-79 only’ and that ‘full automatic indexation’ will be introduced in 1978-79? Will the effect of these promises be to reduce the tax paid by the average income earner with a spouse and two children by about $6.50 a week? Has the Treasurer seen reports that the Government’s decision to abolish gift duty from 1 July will enable widespread tax avoidance with consequent revenue losses of more than $600m? In the absence of this change, could the tax burden on those who cannot avoid tax be reduced, so facilitating the honouring of the promises to bring taxes down ‘?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I will take the last part of the honourable member’s question first. I have seen some reports that suggest there are certain tax avoidance consequences as a result of the abolition of gift duty. I remind the honourable member that the great bulk of the abolition of gift duty took effect back in November 1977, not from 1 July this year. So if the consequences to which he is referring are correct, perhaps they would have been observable by now. I doubt the figure that the honourable member cites. There are obviously some consequences in terms of revenue diversion as a result of the abolition of gift duty. I doubt very strongly whether it is the figure that he has cited. Of course, the Opposition has a terrific track record when it comes to taking action against tax avoidance. It is quite fascinating that members of the Opposition continue to drag the issue of tax avoidance into questions on the overall area of taxes. I do not mind if the honourable member for Burke, the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Gellibrand want to keep asking me questions about tax avoidance. I will be delighted to answer as many questions as they like to ask me.

So far as the other matters in the honourable member’s question are concerned, I inform him, in case he was away when the Leader of the Opposition asked me similar questions, that I have nothing to add to what I have previously said on the subject of the 1 Vi per cent increase and tax indexation.

page 2149

QUESTION

INDEXATION

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Has the Minister for Industrial Relations seen recent advertisements by the Australian Bank Employees Union which begin with the statement ‘Full indexation or else’? Do these advertisements warn of disruption in the banking industry if full indexation is not granted? Will the advertisements prejudice the Australian Bank Employees Union case before the national wage case currently being heard by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Does the Minister consider that these statements are provocative in the extreme?

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

– I have seen the advertisement to which the honourable gentleman refers. During the current national wage case hearing the Government has drawn to the attention of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission statements by various union leaders of a similar kind to that made in this advertisement which, if pursued, would put the whole wage fixation process at very serious risk. The heading ‘Full indexation or Else’ in the Australian Bank Employees Union advertisement, which the honourable member quoted, really speaks for itself. It is a threat. It is a threat that unless the union gets what it wants it is prepared to embark immediately on a campaign of disruption which the union must realise cannot change the decision which the Full Bench hands down. The union is attempting to blackmail the Commission. It is threatening its own industry and the community with quite unnecessary disruption because it may be unhappy with a decision which has not yet been made.

I emphasise again that once that decision is made it cannot be changed. Therefore, members of the ABEU may well ask their union officials what they hope to achieve. In the light of their irresponsible and- I agree with the honourable member- provocative statement, the union’s expressed concern that it does not want people put out of work is seen for what it is. It is nothing but a smoke screen to hide the union’s very selfish and, I might add, totally contradictory motives.

page 2150

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer to the Treasurer’s recent statement that at least $ 1.4m has been lost to revenue through tax avoidance. I refer also to the enormous losses incurred by policy holders and shareholders in collapsed financial institutions such as VIP Insurances Ltd, Associated Securities Ltd and the troubled Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd. Is the Treasurer aware of claims in the VIP Insurances liquidator’s report and other liquidators’ reports that more than the present level of 50 staff is needed to protect policy holders in more than 200 companies? Further, is he aware that the Taxation Office staff is being forced to take short cuts in assessments because there is insufficient staff to handle the work load? If the Treasurer is serious about reducing the appalling level of tax avoidance and financial institution collapses, when will he take steps to lift staff ceilings so that this can be done? Finally, for how much longer will he fiddle with the petty cash while corporate incompetency and corporate criminals continue to plunder the bank vault?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The honourable member for Hawker has asked me really two separate questions. I will deal first with the question about financial institutions. I think it is regrettable that the honourable member for Hawker inferred that shareholders and debenture holders in Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd have lost or are under threat of losing money. That is not the case. On my understanding of the situation I specifically repudiate the suggestion contained in the honourable member’s question. I think it is extremely regrettable that he should have made it. So far as VIP Insurances Ltd is concerned, there have been investigations into the circumstances surrounding its collapse. Much of the investigation into the alleged misconduct of people concerned with VIP Insurances was of course the responsibility of the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Corporate Affairs -

Mr Jacobi:

– That is not what the liquidator’s report says.

Mr HOWARD:

-I am not suggesting for a moment that the New South Wales Government has not done its job because on this occasion there was significant evidence to justify the investigation by the New South Wales Government. I am glad that the honourable member does not dissent from what I have said. The second question raised by the honourable member concerns the allegation that in some way the Government’s activities regarding tax avoidance are being hampered by staff ceilings. That has been the subject of discussion between the Commissioner of Taxation and me on a number of occasions over the past several months and, whilst no section of the Public Service ought to be totally immune from a policy of staff ceilings, I can say to the honourable member that there have been increases in the staffing levels in the Taxation Office. I am satisfied that no significant damage is being done to the anti-tax-avoidance activities of the Commissioner of Taxation. Indeed, if any evidence comes to my knowledge or the knowledge of the Government that the Taxation Office is being hampered by the present staff ceilings, something will be done about it. This is a classic example of people trying to jump on to the bandwagon. The honourable member for Hawker and the honourable member for Chifley both sat on the back bench when the Whitlam Government was in office, but for the 18 months that I was here while they were members of the Government back bench they never raised a squeak about tax avoidance.

Mr Jacobi:

– I rise to order. In fairness, Mr Treasurer, you have had two reports from two liquidators -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Jacobi:

– They were on the lack of staff in the Insurance Commissioner’s Office. Don’t talk nonsense.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hawker knows that he should not behave in that fashion. He will resume his seat.

page 2150

QUESTION

DEFENCE AND COMMUNICATION BASES

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to a statement by a wellknown political leader on defence and communications bases? What assessment has been made of this statement and, in particular, its implications for Australian security?

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

– I would not seek to anticipate the debate initiated by the honourable member for Lilley, but I would take leave to say that I share completely every sentiment that resides in the notice of motion that he has given to the House. It is not just a matter for mere astonishment that a political leader could make the speech of the character that he did; it is to be deeply deplored. I would adopt this language with respect to the bases in question: ‘This Government will not yield to pressure to break the American alliance, withdraw from the ANZUS treaty or divulge secrets about American defence bases in Australia’.

Mr James:

– Shame !

Mr KILLEN:

– ‘Shame’ says the honourable gentleman. That language was used by the former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr E. G. Whitlam, when he held the responsibility.

Mr James:

– Circumstances have changed.

Mr KILLEN:

– Times have changed, but I venture to say this to the honourable member for Hunter: If the Treasurer imposed a tax on brains he would get a massive refund. I regret very much that the honourable gentleman in question made the speech he did. I am bound to say that personally I respect him and I have a great deal of affection for him, but he has entered upon a highly dangerous field. I believe that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition would do his party a singular service if he were to state the position of his party with respect to these bases. For my part- I know that I speak for the whole Government and for the Government parties which are not parties to repudiation- I believe that to follow the course advocated by the honourable senator in question would mean a repudiation of the ANZUS agreement, and we do not propose to do that.

page 2151

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I welcome the Minister for Health back to Australia. I am sorry to see that he has not followed the initiative of other Ministers who take their opposites on trips to meetings of organisations such as the World Health Organisation. My question is directed to him on the basis of evidence that was given by Mr Matt Carroll, First Assistant Director-General for Insurance, Hospitals and Nursing Homes, before Senate Estimates Committee C on 4 May 1979. 1 am not sure whether the Minister was in Australia at the time. Referring to an unnamed health insurance fund and to the fact that that fund was being very tough in the application of its rules, he said:

One particular fund has had to take a very literal interpretation of its rules in relation to the supplementary hospital table because it was having financial and liquidity problems.

Can the Minister tell the House the name of this fund? Are the contributors not entitled to be aware of any financial and liquidity problems that this fund may have?

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

– I thank the honourable member for Prospect for his very warm welcome back to Australia from the World Health Assembly. I understand that Mr Carroll, the officer in question, gave evidence before the Estimates Committee on 4 May during my absence. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the transcript.

However, I will do so, and I give an undertaking to the honourable member that, if possible, I will provide him with the information that he requires, at least on a confidential basis.

page 2151

QUESTION

EXPORT INCENTIVE CLAIMS

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Trade and Resources seen reports which imply that the Government’s export drive will be prejudiced by delays in payment of export incentive claims? If so, what steps is he taking to rectify the position?

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

– Over a period a number of complaints have been made about the delay in meeting payments from the export market development grants which are one of the forms of incentive the Government has given to people to export. Recent articles have dealt with this matter. The delays have been caused by a number of factors. Some of the forms have been incorrectly filled in by claimants. In some cases there have been disputes between companies and the Export Development Grants Board. These factors have caused delays of about six months between the time of application and the grant being approved.

Some of the delay has also been caused by a lack of staff since the legislation covering export market development grants was broadened to include internal services and tourism. This together with the introduction of the Export Expansion Grants Act has meant that the work load of the Export Development Grants Board has increased considerably. It was only recently that the Public Service Board agreed to a staff increase of about eleven and permission was given for the Board to get temporary staff to meet any surges. I believe we will be able to keep up with most of the requirements.

page 2151

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES: AERIAL SURVEILLANCE

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Defence: What capabilities do member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, particularly Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, have to conduct aerial surveillance for Vietnamese refugee boats? Have any of these countries made requests to Australia for assistance in conducting such surveillance and, if so, what response has the Government given? Would it be feasible for Australia to provide such assistance, for example, by Orion aircraft based at Learmonth?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I am not aware of any specific proposals or requests that have been made to the Government. I will inquire as soon as possible from my colleague the Foreign Minister. The capability of the three countries to conduct surveillance of the character to which the honourable gentleman refers varies considerably. Under its military assistance, this country is providing Indonesia, for example, with Nomad aircraft. All the information available to me is that those aircraft have been highly successful for the role assigned to them. I will treat the honourable gentleman’s question as being a question on notice and will provide him with the information forthwith.

page 2152

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

-Will the Prime Minister give a clear and unequivocal statement of the Government ‘s position in respect of oil drilling on or near the Great Barrier Reef?

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

– I have already made it clear to the House that the Government will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef. That is a categoric and absolute guarantee. I have indicated on other occasions that more information is required for the permanent preservation of the reef in a number of circumstances. Accordingly, the Government has taken steps towards the consideration of what information is required concerning the reef environment and what research ought to be undertaken. The Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee- AMSTAChas been asked to submit advice on a program of research on the reef environment for consideration in the Budget context.

I hope all honourable gentlemen will be able to look upon the accomplishment of that research under the proposals of AMSTAC as something which will advance the cause of the preservation of the reef in all circumstances. Let me say in the most clear and categoric terms that we would not allow anything to occur that would in any way or could in anyway damage the reef. If there is a doubt about whether an activity would damage the reef, that activity would not take place.

Mr Morris:

– I take a point of order. Under Standing Order 32 1 1 require the Prime Minister to table the document from which he has quoted or preferably to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Was the right honourable gentleman reading from a document?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– No, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

page 2152

QUESTION

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Prime Minister agree that ratification of SALT II is to the strategic advantage of Australia and its allies and that failure of ratification by the United States Congress would have profound serious consequences in respect of nuclear proliferation? What action has the honourable gentleman taken to support the United States President’s action to urge ratification upon the United States Congress? Does he consider that the acceptance in Australia of United States defence installations of strategic significance gives us an obligation to put views to the United States? Will he discount the view that the connection we have through the bases should be applied only on bilateral issues such as those relating to trade? Further, when does the next round of Australian and United States strategic consultations as established by Barnard and Schlesinger in January 1974 commence?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-At the United Nations conference on disarmament I expressed in the strongest and most categoric terms the Commonwealth Government’s policy- I believe it is Australia’s policy- in relation to disarmament and all matters concerning it. Negotiations on strategic arms limitations matters are obviously a very important part in halting an arms race and in achieving a world where there is less suspicion and less tension than there might otherwise be. This Government certainly places very great importance on the negotiations of adequate and appropriate arrangements between the Soviet Union and the United States. We welcome the agreement that has been reached. The United States Administration would know from statements made in the United Nations and from statements made by my colleague the Foreign Minister that this Government very strongly supports its endeavours in this regard. We would hope that the treaty, therefore, would be ratified.

These matters are of the highest concern. It is not only the question of the arrangements in SALT itself but also the changed environments and the changed perceptions of the relationship between Russia and the United States that properly negotiated arrangements between the Soviet Union and the United States can acheive. If there is a lessening of tension in that area, if there is an extension of co-operation on matters of importance, not only to those two super powers but to the whole world, the cause of peace and disarmament generally is advanced. Let nobody think that the signing and the ratification of SALT treaties is an end to the problems and difficulties of disarmament. It is a continuing matter. However, an advance on one point is important in making it easier to achieve successive steps on the general road to disarmament. This Government’s efforts will certainly be maintained.

page 2153

QUESTION

RELATIONS IN ASIA

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent visit to the Philippines and Indonesia, in particular his visit to President Suharto, was well received and understood in the national Press? Has he any information or any statements to make to this House so that we could know more about the discussions which he had concerning refugees from Vietnam?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The discussions with President Marcos, Prime Minister Ohira and President Suharto were particularly useful. I think it is worth recalling that in the past there have been difficulties in the relationship with the Philippines over trade matters. A trade treaty was negotiated and initialled many years ago, but after initial discussions with the President it was clear that the relationship was developing in such a way that it was well worth while to bring that treaty out of the dust covers. The President expressed a willingness to undertake the ratification procedures virtually forthwith. I think that is a recognition of the efforts that Australia has made over recent years to provide access to Australian markets not only for the Philippines but also for the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is worth noting that ASEAN products have been increasing their access to our markets at over 30 per cent a year. The Philippines has exceeded that. It is increasing its access by over 45 per cent a year. Admittedly that is from a small base and the ratio is still against the Philippines, but it is nothing like it was seven or eight years ago. Also I think new tensions in South East Asia- much closer to the Philippines and to ASEAN than to Australia- have increased the awareness of the need for close co-operation and consultation in many matters between the Philippines and Australia and between ASEAN generally and Australia.

The visit was timely not only because it enabled those discussions and discussions with Prime Minister Ohira to take place but also because of the importance of the general trade matters that were being debated at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I think that it might not generally have been understood that the Foreign Minister of the Philippines, in introducing me to the UNCTAD forum, took the very unusual step of making some very complimentary remarks about the role Australia has played in the Common Fund negotiations and about the way that we have been prepared to compromise on air fares matters. He welcomed the compromise that had been reached in Kuala Lumpur. He made those remarks from the chair in an open forum.

In Indonesia, the discussions were very relaxed and forward looking. There is clearly a recognition by President Suharto that Indonesia and Australia are two important neighbours and that we need to look in a constructive way to the future of that relationship. I am quite certain that it is the wish of the Government of Indonesia to work in many ways to advance the relationship with Australia as it is the wish and the determination of my Government to advance the relationship with Indonesia. I expressed appreciation of the way in which the Indonesian Government, on a number of occasions, has brought about the intervention of refugee boats. Some boats get through, but quite plainly the cooperation of the Indonesian authorities is preventing larger numbers of unheralded arrivals. That is important when considering the number of refugees that Australia can take. We both expressed the view that the seabed negotiations now under way should be resolved as quickly and as agreeably as possible. We both expressed the view that further reunification of Timorese refugees should occur. We expressed the hope that the program could be continued and concluded as soon as possible. To this point there has been co-operation from Indonesia. I expressed appreciation to the President. At the same time, the President expressed his determination that further progress should be made. A number of other important matters were touched upon during the visit to the Philippines and Indonesia. It is my intention to report fully to the House on this matter at 8 p.m. this day.

page 2153

QUESTION

TIMOR

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

-The Prime Minister has given us a lengthy resume of his discussions on trade and so on with the President of the Philippines, but he skirted around the Indonesian aggression against Timor. Did the Prime Minister receive any guarantee from the Government of Indonesia that it would take action to ameliorate the sufferings of the people of Timor, make Timor a free country and give the people the freedom of choice that they had before they were improperly incorporated into Indonesia?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is certainly my understanding that Indonesia will be going to very significant lengths to advance the cause and the wellbeing of the people of what was formerly

Portuguese Timor. At the same time, the various co-operative programs involving that area obviously need to be taken into consideration in the development of future aid programs for Indonesia. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman, for all his concern in this matter, would well recognise that the future purpose of both Australia and Indonesia will be advanced by working together in a constructive manner. I cannot say that I see anything constructive or anything that could be achieved from the thrust of the honourable gentleman’s question.

page 2154

QUESTION

SAUDI ARABIA: TRADE

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will forgive me if I mention that all honourable members must note with pleasure that we have the Saudi Arabian Minister for Commerce in the House. It is very nice for him to be here with us. Because of the Deputy Prime Minister’s long and very fruitful association with Saudi Arabia and similar countries, I think it would be opportune for him to indicate to us -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to ask his question.

Mr KATTER:

– It is coming right now. Will the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources indicate to the House what opportunities exist for trade between Australia and this great country of Saudi Arabia?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am sure the House will welcome the Minister for Commerce from Saudi Arabia.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I think we are all very pleased that we have the Minister for Commerce from Saudi Arabia with us today. I know that the honourable member for Kennedy, who has a special association with the Middle East part of the world, would be particularly glad to have him here. The visit of the Minister is in response to a visit that I made to Saudi Arabia a few months ago. He has brought with him a number of officials and businessmen to talk about furthering trade relations between our two countries. Saudi Arabia is going through a phase of enormous development which opens opportunities for extending trade and for Australian construction companies to be involved in some of the development in that part of the world. This morning I had the pleasure of initialling a trade agreement between our two countries which establishes a framework for businessmen to be able to operate with a degree of confidence knowing that they have the imprimatur of government behind them.

For Australia a very significant trade development with Saudi Arabia has already taken place in regard to meat, particularly sheep meats and also beef, and in relation to slaughtered and chilled meat. An enormous quantity of dairy products is also imported into Saudi Arabia. Additionally the potential trade in fruit and wheat is very significant. I am hoping that Australian construction companies might also become more deeply interested in tendering for contracts for some of the development work that is taking place. Indeed, I would like to see Australian manufacturing companies looking at the prospects of joint ventures with companies in that nation. The Minister has with him a number of very senior Saudi Arabian businessmen. They will be meeting Australian businessmen in both Melbourne and Sydney. I am very hopeful that as a result of that contact there will be further development of trade and business relationships between Australia and Saudi Arabia.

page 2154

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have just been informed that we also have present in the Parliament today Mr Ghemu, the Minister of Trade, Labour and Industry in the Solomon Islands Government. I am sure that the House will welcome him.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 2154

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2154

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment state how many candidates were considered by the Government for the position of permanent Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? What forms did the Government’s search for a suitable permanent Chairman take? Does the newly appointed Chairman of the Marine Park Authority have any qualifications pertaining to marine biology? Is it a fact that he is a munitions expert and an engineer with extensive experience on the Woomera Rocket Range? Is it also a fact that while Acting Chairman of the Marine Park Authority for 12 months, he was also Director of Environment?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

-Mr Horrie Higgs has been appointed by the Minister as full-time Acting Chairman of the Authority. Mr Higgs has been a very well respected officer of the Environment Division over a number of years and has been very active in ensuring that the environment of Australia has been properly protected. The honourable member asked a number of detailed questions. I will take those on notice and refer them to the Minister. I will let the honourable member have a full answer as soon as possible.

page 2155

QUESTION

SANTOS LTD

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Treasurer aware that the South Australian Government has announced its intention to limit shareholdings in Santos Ltd? Further, is the Treasurer aware that shareholders with more than the prescribed holding may be required to forfeit their shares in a forced sale situation? Does the Treasurer agree that such action will harm Australia’s and South Australia ‘s prospects for further investment?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I am aware of the attitude, and it appears to be the final attitude, taken by the South Australian Government in the Santos matter.

Mr Young:

– And the Liberal Party.

Mr HOWARD:

-I think that it is a matter of regret. I have already made the attitude of the Federal Government clear and I will repeat it for the benefit of the honourable member for Port Adelaide who may be under some misapprehension about it. In terms of the reputation of this country for foreign investment, I think that the South Australian Government’s decision is very damaging. In the eyes of many people, it amounts to a confiscatory action by the South Australian Government. It is precisely the sort of action on the part of a State government which creates a reluctance on the part not only of overseas industries but also of people inside this country to invest in that particular State. I think that the great majority of people in South Australia, irrespective of their political allegiance, want to see the maximum incentive for industry in South Australia. This is not the sort of action by governments which will encourage industry into a country. It is the sort of action that sits very poorly with the expressed statements of the South Australian Premier and the Minister for Mines and Energy in South Australia. I state this as a mattter of principle and repeat that any action by a State government, irrespective of its political allegiance, which demonstrates the degree of commercial provincialism which this decision demonstrates, does not help the cause of investment, either in Australia or in that particular State.

page 2155

QUESTION

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact that the Federal Government’s subsidy towards the provision of the Meals on Wheels service now stands at 30c a meal? Is it also a fact that the provision of this one hot meal a day, combined with the visit of a volunteer to deliver the meal, has a highly beneficial effect upon the lives of the recipients? Is it also a fact that if this service were to be discontinued most of these old people would graduate to a public hospital or a nursing home at enormous economic cost to the Government and at great humanitarian shame to the community? Will the Minister therefore ensure that the 30c subsidy that the Commonwealth now pays towards the Meals on Wheels service is brought to a reasonable and humanitarian percentage of the estimated cost of $2 for each meal?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-The Meals on Wheels service is one service that Liberal-National Country Party governments have consistently supported. I am certain that it was a Liberal-National Country Party government that introduced the measure. This Government believes in encouraging people in the community to try to help those less fortunate than themselves rather than leave all welfare on the shoulders of big brother government. We do appreciate the service that is rendered through the system that has been in operation for some time. However, I will take into consideration the support that the honourable gentleman has obviously shown for the program and some of the views that he has expressed and I will pass those on to the Minister for Social Security.

page 2155

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs aware of a recent statement by an Opposition shadow Minister that young people in receipt of unemployment benefit should be allowed to go surfing so that job vacancies can be filled by 40-year-olds? Does the work test allow for the situation proposed by the honourable member for Prospect to occur, that is, that people who do not want to work need not do so but may continue to receive unemployment benefit?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. As it happens, both he and I were at a conference on employment at Penrith in his electorate at which the honourable member for Prospect made the statement referred to by the honourable member for

Macquarie. I happen to have with me a copy of the transcript of” that conference. I shall quote from it. The honourable member for Prospect said: . . what’s the point of pushing say young people into a particular job? Let’s assume, take the worst case, that a bloke wants to be a surfie or whatever and he doesn’t particularly want to get a job, let’s admit that there are some number of people that are in that position that would rather get the $36 per week than get a job . . .

He went on to make some comments about why we should not chase those people and force them to take a job. He continued: . . we are just being narks to try and push people who, and it is the whole community not just the Government, but there are large numbers of people in the community who feel very strongly about it, that this young kid really doesn’t want to work, we ought to chase him and make him work. Completely ridiculous.

I venture to suggest that a great many people in the community do not accept the proposition of the honourable gentleman and do not believe that surfies should be allowed by their own choice not to try to get a job. Having attended that conference at Penrith, I was rather interested to read of the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition about certain people in the community who were proposing that people who want to follow an alternative lifestyle should be allowed to do so at the expense of the Government. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is at odds with the honourable member for Prospect and another leading member of the Labor Party. In his speech to the Labor Economists Conference the Leader of the Opposition said:

There is lip service to the principle that we cannot live with five to six per cent unemployment, but there is a lack of stomach to do anything much about it.

Such a lack of urgency in public policy terms is reflected in visionary concepts directed to the development of alternative living patterns as a solution to mass unemployment.

I would think that the prominent leader of the Labor Party would be flattered at being described as a visionary. The Leader of the Opposition continued:

To my mind, it is fanciful to assume that great masses of people and young people in particular, can be lured into Utopian solutions of this sort.

The Minister for Social Security and I have undertaken a review of the work test. The Government does not believe that people of the kind to which the honourable member for Prospect has referred should be allowed to get away with not working, at the taxpayers’ expense, when they are fit and able to work and work is available to them. One aspect of the review of the work test procedures which I expect will be announced within a reasonable time will be to cover precisely the situation to which the honourable member for Prospect referred.

page 2156

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 I present the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2156

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Third Schedule of the Airlines Agreement Act 1952 I present the annual financial report relating to the operation of air services by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd for the year ended 1 July 1978.

page 2156

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘National Highways Linking Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra- Third Report: Canberra Connections, 1979’.

page 2156

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared by the Department of Transport entitled ‘The transport planning and research program: Report of Progress to June 1978’. The report, which was produced at the request of State authorities, provides an example of the co-operation being achieved between States and the Commonwealth under the Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. Because of the long delay in the tabling of the Australian National Airlines Commission report and the report on the activities of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, will the Minister inform the House when he received each of those reports?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr Nixon:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

page 2157

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 I present the annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2157

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an interim report by the Industries Assistance Commission on fixed resistors.

page 2157

ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 I present a copy of an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Tasmania in relation to the provision of financial assistance made under that Act together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment relating to the Agreement.

page 2157

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES

Mr McLeay:
Acting Minister for National Development · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1 978 1 present copies of agreements with South Australia and Victoria in respect of projects by way of salinity control in the Murray River Valley.

page 2157

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr McLeay:
Acting Minister for National Development · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present a notice under clause 5 (2) of the Agreement with South Australia and for the information of honourable members I present a project approval under section 4 of the Act.

page 2157

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to add to an answer I gave to a question from the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi).

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr HOWARD:

-For the information of the honourable member for Hawker and the House,

I have received further information on the question of staff ceilings in the Taxation Office.

Mr Jacobi:

– What about the Insurance Office?

Mr HOWARD:

-I am still working on that. That information confirms the answer that I gave and further indicates that the additional staffing provision for this year has allowed the Taxation Office to expand its enforcement activities to a greater area than had been the case in the previous year. I am still working on the insurance question.

page 2157

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr COHEN:

-Yes. Mr Speaker, before the House adjourned on 10 May I raised with you the question of sitting hours. I believe, as many other honourable members believe, that the hours can be arranged more conveniently so that staff, members and even representatives of the Press would not have to remain here until 1 1 o’clock at night. My proposition was that we should sit for the same number of hours but at more convenient times. In the Daily Mirror the following day under the headline ‘ ‘Easy hours’ call for MPs’ an article read:

Federal Parliament may break a long tradition by arranging to sit earlier to ease the strain on MPs and senators.

The proposal to sit earlier- and thereby close each day’s session earlier- was raised last night by the Opposition spokesman on the environment, Mr Barry Cohen.

His plan drew the support of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden.

Sir Billy said he would recommend to the Government that a parliamentary committee be established to examine the idea of earlier sittings.

Mr Cohen said the present arrangements saw politicians working through 22% hours in a three-day week, but TA hours of this was lost through listed meal breaks.

As I anticipated, because of the way that article was written, it did not take long before I received correspondence from people. I wish to quote from just one of those letters -

Mr Baillieu:

– That is not misrepresentation.

Mr COHEN:

-Wait until you hear it. The letter read as follows:

I was very deeply moved when I read in today’s Sydney Daily Mirror that the overpaid and underworked loafers in Canberra called politicians may arrange to sit earlier to ease the strain on MPs and Senators and that present arrangements saw politicians working through 22% hours in a three day working week but TA hours of this was lost through listed meal breaks.

I am sure that I speak for every member of this House when I say that I resent the way in which the Press consistently and continually perpetuates the myth that the only time politicians are working is when the House is sitting. I think I speak for every member when I say that the average member works between 60 hours and 80 hours per week. I resent the statement. I resent the media in the Press Gallery who know damn well the truth continuing to perpetuate this myth.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes. During Question Time, I think following a Dorothy Dix question from the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard), asking his second question in this chamber, the Minister for unemployment quoted–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I draw to the attention of the honourable member the fact that he ought not to use terms such as ‘Dorothy Dix’ when accusing a member of asking a certain type of question. He has no grounds on which to know that is a fact. It is an implication on the honourable gentlemen. He should not do that.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I do of course apologise.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He knows very well that the title of the Minister is the Minister for Employment, not unemployment. That ironical reference is unnecessary and unparliamentary.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I obviously apologise. I did not realise that the honourable member for Macquarie asked the question and the Minister for Employment (Mr Viner) was lucky enough to have a transcript with him in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman claims to be misrepresented, I advise him to proceed.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I emphasise what I said at that conference because the House was given selective quotations by the Minister today. I recall emphasising at the particular conference that while there are insufficient jobs available- I emphasise that there are insufficient jobs availablethere seems to be no point in pushing young kids into jobs contrary to their wishes, contrary to the benefits to their employers and where another person who has family responsibilities and who wants to do that job loses his job or does not get a job. We were trying to have an intelligent discussion there on unemployment. I am not in the slightest bit ashamed for having said that. I hope the Minister will have the decency to include in

Hansard the whole of the transcript and not just the particular selective point where I said that there was no point in pushing young kids into a job. What I said, and emphasise again, is that while there are not enough jobs available it is wrong to push young kids into jobs that are taken away from older people who need the jobs. It is not to the benefit of employers. It is not to the benefit of this country. It is not even to the benefit of the taxpayers of this country.

page 2158

AUSTRALIA-KOREA NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave- For the information of honourable members, I present the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Transfer of Nuclear Material, together with the letter sent to the leader of the Republic of Korea delegation which negotiated the agreement. The agreement was signed in Canberra on 2 May 1979 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources, Mr Anthony, and the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea. The agreement entered into force on signature.

Consistent with the practice that I adopted regarding previous nuclear safeguards agreements, namely with Finland and the Philippines, I have sought to present the agreement to Parliament as soon as possible after signature. The agreement is a further step in the establishment of a network of bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements between Australia and other countries. The purpose of these agreements is to ensure that when Australia supplies uranium for peaceful purposes it will not be diverted to non-peaceful or explosive uses. To this end the agreement incorporates stringent safeguards and controls on the use of the uranium we supply to the Republic of Korea for peaceful purposes. The agreement incorporates all the Government’s nuclear safeguards requirements as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 24 May 1977. These are: an undertaking that nuclear material supplied by Australia will not be diverted to military or explosive purposes; the application of International Atomic Energy Agency- IAEA- safeguards, which provide an international check against diversion of material; fall-back arrangements to ensure continued safeguarding of nuclear material should IAEA safeguards for any reason cease to apply; a requirement for Australia’s prior consent to any retransfers, to ensure that uranium supplied by Australia cannot be re-exported unless we are satisfied as to the ultimate destination and as to the controls that would apply; a requirement for Australia’s prior consent for high enrichment or reprocessing of material supplied by Australia. This ensures that these operations can only take place if Australia is fully satisfied about the arrangements and conditions. This effectively reserves our position on reprocessing, as we have said we wish to, pending the outcome of international studies, including- INFCE- the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation; provisions ensuring that adequate physical security will be maintained, to guard against theft or other illegal use of nuclear material by groups or individuals; provisions for consultations to ensure the effective implementation of the Agreement; and all these safeguards and controls to cover nuclear material derived from Australian uranium so long as it remains in a form relevant from the point of view of safeguards.

The agreement also contains: a sanctions Article acknowledging Australia’s right to suspend supplies and to require return of material in the event of detonation of a nuclear device, failure to comply with IAEA safeguards or breach of the agreement; and arbitration procedures for the settlement of disputes.

The agreement itself establishes safeguards obligations which the Republic of Korea and Australia have accepted; the accompanying letter concerns the practical application and implementation of these obligations. It does not change or dilute the agreement itself.

The purpose of the letter is to provide a degree of reassurance to the Republic of Korea of the manner in which Australia intends to exercise its prior consent rights and to handle administrative problems that might arise from multiple labelling, that is the attachment of different national nuclear safeguards conditions to material as it is transferred internationally for processing purposes on its way to the end user. The letter also deals with the implementation of the noncompliance and fall-back safeguards provisions, and the intended scope of the administrative arrangements. The letter states Australia’s intention of being a reliable supplier and its attitude towards a possible international convention on the physical protection of nuclear material.

The Republic of Korea’s nuclear program is a large one, and envisages over 40 reactors by the year 2000, at which time nuclear power would account for 60 per cent of electricity generation and 20 per cent of the Republic of Korea ‘s total energy requirements. One reactor is already operating, two are under construction and two are on order. Under present plans, work on two new reactors will start each year. The Republic of Korea estimates that its cumulative requirements for yellowcake between now and the year 2000 will be of the order of 80,000 tonnes, a very substantial quantity. The conclusion of this nuclear co-operation and safeguards agreement with the Republic of Korea provides a basis for shipments of Australian uranium to that country under commercial contracts. It therefore opens the way to an important new link between the two countries. Further nuclear safeguards agreements with other countries will follow. I assure the House that each agreement will be made public as it is signed. The Government’s nuclear safeguards policy is a comprehensive, stringent and highly responsible policy aimed at contributing to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is also an eminently practical and internationally workable policy. The willingness of potential customer countries to accept Australia’s nuclear safeguards requirements, thorough and stringent as they are, is evidence of this.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-by leave- the agreement tabled today was released to the Press 20 days ago. On that day, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) provided some information on the visit to Australia by the Korean Prime Minister. It will be on record also that when the Opposition sought to debate this matter the week before last, the Government gagged that debate. In examining the text of this agreement, we note it is essentially the same as the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement between Australia and the Philippines. We note that the document emphasises co-operation in peaceful use of nuclear energy and the transfer of nuclear material. The Minister will agree that this text is derived from what is referred to as the model safeguards agreement. The title ‘Nuclear Cooperation ‘ is more appropriate than safeguards as the intent of this agreement is to pave the way for very substantial co-operation with the Republic of Korea in these matters. It is also significant that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) now has policy control in this area. During Question Time on 2 May, the Deputy Prime Minister made clear that he regards economic relations with the Republic of Korea as having great prospects particularly for the export of our raw materials from Australia to meet the industrial expansion of the Republic of Korea.

Mr Peacock:

– Policy control in what area?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-In the area of safeguards.

Mr Peacock:

– He certainly does not.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is a matter for comment.

Mr Peacock:

– It is fairly important to know who has the responsibility.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am making the point that -

Mr Peacock:

– You are factually wrong.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not factually wrong. All the statements concerning this matter are made by the Deputy Prime Minister, not by you.

Mr Peacock:

– His responsibility in these matters relates to commercial dealings. I agreed with him that he sign the agreement.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Don’t get too impatient. You are overacting for a change. The Deputy Prime Minister made clear that the Republic of Korea bases its expansion plans in substantial part on nuclear generation of electricity. This is all from the Deputy Prime Minister. The pre-occupation of Australian foreign policy with China and Japan and the pre-occupation of conservative Australian governments with security issues has obscured the rate of growth and economic importance of Korea. We welcome the fact that the Government recognises the importance of relations with Korea other than as an aspect of the security of Japan. We are concerned about the future security and stability of the Korean peninsula and the avoidance of war there. The Minister will recall that it was the Labor Government which, in 1974, extended recognition to, and established diplomatic relations with, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It is gratifying that the present Government has not withdrawn that recognition although relations with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea are in a state of suspense. We take the view that Australia should keep open the prospect of restoring relations with the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, recognising the isolation from the rest of the world which that country has suffered, or has inflicted upon itself, for three decades. Any dialogue with a country so isolated for so long must proceed with difficulty, but such difficulty ought not to turn us against the dialogue itself.

It is in the interests of the Republic of Korea and of ourselves, among other countries in the Asian-Pacific region, that relations between North and South Korea be placed on a more peaceful and stable basis. That objective can be achieved only with meaningful dialogue with North Korea, as well as development of relations with South Korea. We welcome the progresshowever slight that may have been- in the recent past towards resumption of dialogue directly between North and South Korea. There will be no solution to the so-called ‘Korean problem’ other than one initiated and settled by the Korean peoples themselves. We hope that it will be a peaceful solution. These remarks are relevant to the tabling of this Agreement because the Government has made quite clear the Agreement is to provide for significant co-operation between Australia and South Korea into the 21st century in an area of energy production and of sweeping social and international security significance.

We have discussed with the Foreign Minister in previous debates the details of other nuclear co-operation agreements during the last session of the Parliament. Since that time, of course, events in the world affecting nuclear energy have not stood still. We note, for example, that the Government has extended the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-large for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguards Matters. Mr Justice Fox is on record in a paper published in November 1978 by the International Consultative Group on Nuclear Energy as proposing quite new approaches to the avoidance of nuclear proliferation. His proposals, made in a personal capacity, are forms of international control of weapons-usable material. These proposals reflect a different approach to that evident in the Government’s continuing program of negotiating nuclear safeguards agreements. We also note that a very senior officer of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, again in a personal capacity, has proposed a quite radical new approach to international nuclear co-operative activities for the avoidance of nuclear proliferation. It is our interpretation of views that he has expressed that they bring into question the effectiveness and manageability of these safeguards that the Government has established.

Quite apart from these personal and creative initiatives associated with the Government, the Government, of course, is now caught up in the events in Iran and Harrisburg. The decline in confidence in petroleum supplies brought about by events in Iran undoubtedly increases international interest in nuclear energy. The events at Harrisburg, however, have greatly increased public apprehension about the safety of nuclear reactor operations. In many of the democracies, nuclear power programs will be set back. We note arguments whether Babcock and Wilcox reactors, like that at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, should be shut down. We note arguments by some commentators that pressure water reactors should be replaced by gas cooled reactors. We note that the United States and Japan have agreed to a joint study of the safety of light water reactors. We note that Sweden will now hold a referendum on nuclear power. The Deputy Prime Minister has told us of the projections by the Republic of Korea of its nuclear reactor requirements over the next 20 years- 40 reactors requiring 80,000 tons of uranium. These are ambitious plans. Were it solely within the capacity of the South Korean Government to determine how many reactors it could buy, one might consider these ambitious projections reliable. They are, however, open to considerable doubt to the extent that the major manufacturing countries will be able to continue to supply reactors if the reactors are judged to be suspect in operation. The magnitude of the Korean nuclear program can be illustrated in comparative terms by saying that the Koreans wish to buy, by the year 2000, a quantity of uranium equal to twice the current annual world market for uranium and five times the amount the Deputy Prime Minister would like Australia to be able to export annually by 1988.

We wish to express the following reservations and concerns about this proposed nuclear cooperation agreement. These are: First, neither the Parliament nor the people of Australia have been provided with an account of the profound economic, political and strategic consequences of the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans for cooperation with Korea. Secondly, the projections made by the Deputy Prime Minister are, to say the least, suspect and, if accepted, could lead to investment decisions on the basis of unrealistic market estimates. The prospect is that, if the Government were permitted to proceed with its plans on such a basis, we could find ourselves so substantially committed to uranium exports a decade from now that we would be a desperate seller rather than a seller concerned, as we should be, about the safety, environmental, weapons proliferation and waste disposal problems of nuclear energy. Thirdly, the Government clearly denies any responsibility for these issues generally and as they particularly affect Korea.

The advocates of nuclear energy have included two camps: Those who see the nuclear option as a major long term contributor to energy needs; and those who, especially more recently, have justified nuclear energy as essential to fill an energy deficit which may be upon us in the mid 1980s.

Some argument persists whether there will actually be such a deficit. But in terms of confidence the deficit is clearly upon us already and is reflected in the market place. The two approaches to nuclear industry lead to different conclusions. If nuclear industry has a long term future, the reviews, adjustments and options made remain relevant. If, on the other hand, nuclear power is supposedly only a stop-gap to be replaced by more benevolent, renewable alternatives several decades from now, we must doubt very much whether nuclear power now has the viability to be a gap-filler. The immediate future probably lies between these two alternatives. There are reactions against nuclear power, but other countries with major nuclear programs will continue with these and are likely also to press for exports. Exports may be in increasing demand, in spite of risks, in middle level countries facing the increasing pressure of oil prices. The Republic of Korea is a country in such a position.

At the same time, the Republic of Korea is a country which has quite clearly contemplated the” acquisition of nuclear weapons in the past. In fact, evidence available to the United States Government as far back as 1976 led it to bring pressure to bear on France and on Korea to prevent the export of a nuclear reprocessing plan t by France to Korea. That pressure also culminated in the Republic of Korea becoming a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty after many years of avoidance of that commitment. The facts remain that, firstly, South Korea is a country with an understandably great concern for its defence and which cannot be considered to have excluded from its future plans the acquinon of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty provides for withdrawal of any country ‘if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country’.

Secondly, neither the Treaty tabled today, nor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would prevent the Republic of Korea- or any other country similarly bound by Treaty- from accumulating over time and within its so-called peaceful’ nuclear fuel cycle, both the materials usable for nuclear weapons and the technology and skills for converting that material into weapons in less time than the three months required for withdrawal from the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. The provisions in the Agreement, at Article X, enabling Australia, as supplier, to suspend or cancel further supplies of uranium, or enabling us to require return of uranium or material derived from Australian uranium, provide no effective force to stop the Republic of Korea acquiring weapons, not least because of the proportional principle contained in the Treaty and now defined for the first time.

This means that if, for example, Australia provides 40 per cent of the Republic of Korea’s- or any other country’s- uranium supplies, those uranium atoms will undoubtedly be mixed with uranium atoms obtained from other countries and the extent of our eventual fallback safeguards controls will be proportional only to the 40 per cent of our supply. That is, if the Republic of Korea withdrew from the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and from the safeguards regime, and if it further declined to accept the full scope safeguards required, Australia would have the capacity to exercise its safeguards or retrieval rights only in respect of, say, 40 per cent of the nuclear material. It may be that similar safeguards commitments entered into by Korea bilaterally with other countries could commit it similarly in respect of part of the remaining 60 per cent, but any such obligation is beyond the reach of this Treaty.

In making this point, I do not wish to isolate for accusation the present or future policies of the Government of the Republic of Korea. That country is nonetheless a country with an interest in nuclear weapons. My primary intention is to identify the ineffectual nature of the safeguards adopted by the Australian Government. It must also be noted that since the subject of nuclear non-proliferation was last debated in the Parliament in November 1978, announcements by the Deputy Prime Minister about uranium sales contracts have made even more clear than was then the case that the Government regards the safeguards as little more than a political cosmetic to facilitate exports. It is common knowledge that other areas of the Government, including the Department of Trade and Resources, regard the work done by and the interest taken in the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to nonproliferation and for the enhancement of safeguards, as merely peripheral.

The harsh facts are that, firstly, the Government is continuing to do no more than mouth its commitment to selective elements of the proposals in the Fox report; secondly, the Government has not kept abreast of, and has not informed the Parliament of the pace of international developments concerning nonproliferation; and thirdly, the Government is pursuing a policy which is dangerous in terms of economic investment, political, social and environmental consequences and national security. Finally, nuclear exports policy is now unqualifiedly in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister, who we say is not competent to manage this policy.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in regard to this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is the honourable member for Reid seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr Uren:

– Yes, I am.

Mr Peacock:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted. The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– What are you frightened of? You know there are no safeguards.

Mr Peacock:

– I will debate this with you anywhere, at any time. Do you want to do it now?

Mr Uren:

– Give me the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will remain silent.

page 2162

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Thomson to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Mr Katter.

page 2162

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee sitting in Conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report will be circulated to honourable members.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2163

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Report

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– I present the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the preservation of the Quinkan Galleries, Cape York Peninsula, together with copies of extracts of minutes and proceedings and the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HODGES:

-by leave-The report that has just been tabled is the third report of the Committee established in the 3 1st Parliament. The inquiry upon which this report is based resulted from the inspection of Aboriginal art located near Laura in north-east Queensland on the Cape York Peninsula. Committee members were impressed with the paintings and were concerned that this area which is clearly of national importance be properly preserved. The first major discovery of Aboriginal rock art on Cape York Peninsula was in 1 960. Since then, several hundred galleries containing thousands of paintings have been discovered. These galleries contain one of the largest bodies of Aboriginal art in Australia and were described to the Committee as one of the largest and most exciting bodies of pre-historic art in the world. The earliest art styles in the galleries could be more than 20,000 years old. In the past, the sites have been protected by their isolation. As roads in the area improve and the existence of the sites becomes more widely known, tourist pressures will increase and so will the potential for damage. The Committee believes that a proper plan of management for the area needs to be developed before tourist numbers increase to an extent that irreparable damage occurs. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has developed plans for similar sites for the Northern Territory. While it is recognised that the Queensland Government is responsible for the management of the parks and reserves in the State, the Committee believes that the experience gained by the Commonwealth parks service would be of great assistance to the development of a management plan for the Quinkan reserve.

The Committee has recommended that the parks service offer assistance to the Quinkan Reserve Trust. The Committee hopes that the Queensland Government will accept any offer that the Commonwealth Government may make to assist in the preservation of this spectacular and unique area of Australia so that the paintings can be maintained undamaged for the enjoyment of future generations. It is vital that areas of such significance should be preserved for posterity and therefore every endeavour must be made to ensure proper control and management of these galleries. The Committee also recommends that a research program be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to determine whether the traditional owners of the art are still living. The Committee considers that unless the traditional owners can be located some of the myths and legends of the area will be lost forever. I commend the report to the House.

page 2163

TAXATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Speaker has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), 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 Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The Government’s failure to honour its promise of lower taxation.

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

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The newspapers, television and radio are currently ablaze with speculation about the latest batch of broken promises about to be served up to the Australian public. Their commentary is preoccupied with the concern about how the Fraser Government- the selfproclaimed low tax government- is about to hoist taxes once again. It is not a matter of moving towards a record level; that has already been established by the Fraser Government. That is indisputable. That is verifiable from the official statistics. Quite obviously, the Government is determined to improve even on that level. It is not a matter any longer of the Government’s credibility being at stake. Nobody disputes that it has any credibility left. That has been shot to tatters by its own actions. The succession of broken promises leaves its credibility beyond any redemption. What does concern people is the way that there can be massive alienation in the community from a Government which should have responsibility for very serious economic management matters at a time of crucial economic concern. The speculation in the Press does not arrive there by chance. It has been initiated and is being fostered by Government sources and by members of the Ministry. What we have to be clear about is what is behind this tactic. It is an effort to have a re-run of the very successful ploy which was adopted in relation to the release of the March quarter consumer price index figure. Honourable members and the public will recall how there was informed speculation in the newspapers about the likely level of the consumer price index measurement, that is, 2.4 per cent, for the March quarter. Even the night before the release was made by the Bureau of Statistics, a senior Minister- the Treasurer (Mr Howard) knows him better than anyone else here- was advising any interested journalist in Perth that the figure would be 2.4 per cent. However, it was 1 . 7 per cent.

Mr Howard:

– I was wrong.

Mr HAYDEN:

– You were not wrong. You were clever with your tactic. It was a very successful tactic of deception and misrepresentation npt only of the Press but also of the Australian people. Let me explain what the Treasurer was about in seeking to deceive so successfully not just the Press but also the Australian people.

Mr Howard:

– I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition, in making an explicit charge of deceit is not complying with the forms of the House. It is not a question of rejecting the Leader of the Opposition’s criticism on a matter of merit or substance. The Leader of the Opposition is making a direct charge of deceit and I ask that that charge be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the Leader of the Opposition moved to withdraw?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will not withdraw. I was not suggesting but stating that he was clever; he disputes it. The point I want to make is that there is a replay going on of the same sort of tactic that we saw in relation to the March quarter CPI figure. The public was enormously relieved to discover that the CPI figure was not 2.4 per cent but 1.7 per cent, which was better than the bad forecast. The 1.7 per cent increase was far worse than the 1.3 per cent increase for the same quarter 12 months earlier. Moreover, what the public lost sight of was that the March quarter figure divulged beyond any question that inflation was breaking out again and there were enormous problems on the doorstep not only of this Government but also of this country. The same thing has been attempted now. The broad spread of informed leaks on taxation matters, coming from Government sources, represents much more revenue than the Government really will need. Accordingly, even though they are about to be ripped off again with increased revenue charges, the people will undoubtedly be led to believe that they are better off than it was projected they would be a few months or weeks ago when the announcement was made on forthcoming revenue increases, in whatever form they take. That is the tactic. The point that we must not lose sight of is that revenue is going to be increased and it is going to be increased because of impulsive promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which have only narrow sectional appeal and narrow sectional benefit. The appeal and the benefit do not go to the vast majority of the people in this community. I will come back to that.

What really is on trial here is the integrity of the Government. There is a long list of broken promises. Promises from the Fraser Government specifically in relation to taxation matters, have the staying power of snowballs lobbed in hell. In the 1975 election campaign the Prime Minister said:

We will encourage people ‘s initiatives and enterprise, not batter them into the ground with punishing taxes. We will reduce the taxation burden.

After three years under a Labor Government, revenue raised by Government from all forms of taxation and charges on the public was 27.8 per cent of total national income, which is the best way of putting it. In three years under the Fraser Government the rate has risen to 29. 1 per cent on average and it will rise higher than that in the forthcoming Budget, or in any ad hoc arrangement made between now and then in anticipation of the fiscal needs for the year 1 979-80. In his 1977 campaign speech the Prime Minister said:

We have reduced taxes, revived incentive and restored fair reward for achievement. We have ended the big tax rip-off.

The fact is that in three years, although average weekly earnings under the Fraser Government increased by 31 per cent, pay-as-you-earn income tax increased by 47 per cent, a much faster rate than actual income increased for people in the community. In addition, increasing this form of tax at a far faster rate than the actual movement in average weekly earnings, meant simply that the amount of real income left for people to spend after tax was reduced over that period. That is the way in which people’s living standards are being depressed. More disturbingly, over the same period other direct personal tax payments did not go up but went down by $3m.

That is a measure of the level of tax avoidance which is going on at the present time.

If the Treasurer were genuine in expressing concern about the need to eliminate tax avoidance- I understand, he has estimated that this costs the community some $3,000m in lost revenue in the course of a year- he would do what has been done in Great Britain and introduce a legislative provision with retrospective effect. Almost overnight, in the experience of the United Kingdom, the tax avoidance industry dried up. Why does he not do this sort of thing so that the people who should be paying their taxes, the wealthy people, will be forced to pay them. When that is done the vast majority of people in the community who are ripped-off by this Government’s taxation policies will have a far better chance of making ends meet and of avoiding the depression of living standards that they have had to bear. There can be no disputing the fact that there has been a rip-off. The average income earner would need to have his income before tax increased by $8.50 a week if in real terms he were to have as much spending power now as he had in 1975.

In the matter of tax indexation, the Government has given firm pledges that the community would have full income tax indexation. It never has and, if it does get it, serious questions would have to be raised about how it has been advantaged or disadvantaged. Indexation in the first Budget of the Fraser Government was only 90 per cent and in the next Budget it was 80 per cent. It is now down to 35 per cent. Inspired leaks in the newspapers, coming from Government sources as close as one can get to the Treasurer’s office, are suggesting that full indexation will be established in the forthcoming Budget. It will not, of course. It will be partial indexation. If the indexation situation is improved it will be probably to a higher level than the 35 per cent now, but it will not be to 100 per cent indexation. The claim of the Government before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the national wage case makes it clear that the Government wants wages discounted by the increase in charges imposed on the community by Government measures- that is, by 1.9 per cent. That ignores the countervailing proposition that the savings coming from health insurance charges of 1.5 per cent ought to be applied as an off-set. Accordingly, if there is to be any discounting it should be only about 0.4 per cent.

The point I want to make is that there will be a price for any improvement on the level of income tax indexation applying at the moment. That price, according to informed speculation in the newspapers, is the imposition of a 2’A per cent levy on income tax. After allowing for any savings from tax indexation improvement, even if 100 per cent indexation were imposed, and applying against that the cost of an increased tax levy introduced from 1 July, the taxpayers in Australia will be $500m worse off in the course of a year. The Government is in this jam because of the knee jerk responses of the Prime Minister on the very important matter of revenue. Let me explain how much of this situation has come about. There was the abolition of death duties at a cost of $50m, the abolition of the coal export levy at a cost of $93m, and the effects of the Government’s oil pricing policy, flowing from the increases of petrol charges, costing $ 120m. That is a total cost of $260 m. All these factors benefit those who are largely much better off than the great majority of people in the community. Because of these and other concessions, which have to be paid for and which come to about $800m to $900m, the Government will have to make someone pay. Because it is pandering to preferred groups, the wealthy groups that represent a minority in the community, and because it wants to protect privilege, the Government is going to make the rest of the community pay.

Let us look at the abolition of death duties, as desirable as it may be in the view of so many people. It is desirable in my view too but only after other priorities have been attended to first. By abolishing death duties a substantial advantage goes to a few people, but it has to be paid for by the rest of the community. In 1977, 6 per cent- only 750- of the estates in Australia out of nearly 14,000 which were processed involved estates in excess of $200,000 but provided 55 per cent of the duty. If the exemption had been lifted to, say, about $100,000, the cost to the public purse would have been of the order of no more than $14m. If the Government really wanted to ease the burden in this area it would have lifted the exemption. People with estates in excess of $100,000- after all, people not hard up- would still be making a contribution to public revenue. The fact that only 750 estates worth more than $200,000 each on average have been exempted from death duties means that the rest of the community has to make up the shortfall. That is why the community is going to have to pay more tax.

Abolition of the coal export levy adds to the profits of Utah Mining Australia Ltd. Utah’s profits last year were $138m of which $104m was exported overseas to the parent company. Australian taxpayers will have to pay more tax so that that can take place. I refer now to oil pricing. As a result of the Government’s pricing policies for petrol, the gross profits of domestic oil producers will be more than $300m higher this year than would otherwise be the case. They will be more than $420m higher next year- 1979-80- than would otherwise be the case. Some $120m of that amount which goes to gross profits next year comes directly from revenue otherwise available to the community. Those companies do not need that revenue; they are doing very well. Esso Australia Ltd and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd recorded profits of $ 104m yet they are receiving this windfall gain. Because the Government has conceded this revenue to these companies the taxpayers, the average wage and salary earners, will have to pay more tax.

We make no apologies about avoiding these sorts of impositions on the public by introducing a capital gains tax which would raise about $100m conservatively, a resource rental tax which would raise $150m and a crude oil levy which would raise $450m, and by cracking down on family trusts- so beloved of the conservatives in the Liberal National Country Party- which would raise $ 100m. This total of $800m could be raised from people who are well able to pay. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) said in 1975 to the State Council of the Liberal Party that the Liberal Party’s options should be kept open on the matter of a capital gains tax. He could see virtue in it then as shadow Treasurer. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who was Minister Assisting the Treasurer in 1977 in a speech in Perth lauded the virtues of a resource rental tax. I quoted the profits of the domestic oil producers to indicate the rip-off they are receiving. This is completely unfair. We make no apologies for raising revenue from other sources. It is inescapable that additional revenue will have to be raised as a matter of responsible economic management. The argument between the Government and us is: Who pays? We say that those who have been escaping for so long, those who have so much wealth available to them and who are not paying tax on large amounts, as happens with capital gains, ought to be paying instead of the average income earners in the community.

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

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– This matter of public importance is about, inevitably, the comparative taxation records of the Government and the Opposition. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on the question of taxation. I will welcome at any time between now and the next election and during the next election the opportunity to debate the question of taxation with the Leader of the Opposition. I will be more than happy to draw comparisons between the taxation record of this Government in the time that it has been in office and the taxation record of the former Labor Government when it was in office and the likely taxation performance of a Labor government led by the honourable member for Oxley with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) as Treasurer.

Honourable members should note that the two speakers from the Opposition in this debate, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Gellibrand, are responsible for the economic statements of a party which still believes that one of the first obligations of a re-elected Labor government will be to go about persuading the Australian people that they ought to be prepared to pay much higher taxation in order to rebuild the public sector. There is no argument about that. That is not my charge. It is not my fanciful allegation. Those words were used by the honourable member for Gellibrand when he was addressing the Labor Economists Conference in Brisbane only a few months ago. He said that on the quite realistic assumption that the Labor Party would not be elected to government at the very earliest before 1983, one of its first jobs would be to go about persuading the Australian people that much higher taxation was needed in order to pay for an expanded public sector. The Leader of the Opposition still leads a party which, when last in government, believed fundamentally that its vast public expenditure programs could be financed through the huge and automatic impact of a progressive taxation scale in a time of high inflation. The then leader promised the Australian people that that was what would occur in December 1972 if a Labor government were elected.

The most important things to keep in mind when talking about taxation are the fundamentally different philosophies between this side of politics and the other side so far as the size of government is concerned and, as a consequence, the size of the taxation burden. Even the Leader of the Opposition and his economic followers know as well as I do that the capacity of a government to provide transfer payments, to provide public services and to function as a government is related directly to the revenue raising effort it is prepared to undertake and the revenue raising effort that the community is prepared to put up with. The fact of the matter is that we on this side of the House have demonstrated, whatever the test, that we believe in smaller government, we believe in making less demands on the community through taxation and imposts and we believe in giving to the individual in society a greater capacity to make decisions as to how he or she will dispose of his or her individual income. The first thing to remember when debating taxation policies of the Labor Party and the Liberal and National Country Parties is that we have a fundamentally different approach to the size of government. The Labor Party believes in high taxation because it believes in big and meddling government. The two parties have a fundamentally different approach to government. Over the past 3 years a number of changes have been made to our taxation system. I do not claim for a moment that the taxation system that we have at present is perfect. It is anything but perfect. It still contains a large number of anomalies both as to the actual levels of taxation and also as to the structure of taxation.

This Government has attempted a number of quite fundamental reforms. Honourable members will remember that when we came to government there were seven steps in the progressive rates scale; there are now three. That particular reform is of very major significance itself. It has meant that a person on average weekly earnings can earn in the order of $5,000 additional income through overtime or a second job without being moved from the basic taxation rate into the intermediate taxation rate, whereas under the old scheme if a person earned something in the order of $2,500 extra he or she passed immediately from the lowest taxation rate into the next step in the progressive taxation scale. That is one of the reforms we have undertaken which has made a major change to the incentive for people on low and modest incomes to undertake further work, to expend further effort, to undertake overtime and to take on second jobs. It is an illustration of the commitment of this Government through taxation changes and through taxation reform to give a greater sense of incentive to the individual. Nothing that the Leader of the Opposition can say, nothing that the honourable member for Gellibrand can say and nothing that anybody on the other side of the House can say during this debate will alter the fact that if the Hayden rate scales had been in place now this Government would be collecting $3,000m more in tax in 1 978-79.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What about the McMahon scales?

Mr HOWARD:

– Opposition members will interject. They will squeal and they will squirm, and they will not like what I say, but the fact of the matter is that I have given the sheer hard statistics.

Mr Baillieu:

– How much was that?

Mr HOWARD:

– It was $3,000m more in 1978-79. Nothing that the Leader of the Opposition can say can alter that fact. The standard response of the honourable member for Gellibrand to that charge- I have mentioned it before and I mention it again because the Labor Party keep bringing up these matters of public importance dealing with taxation- is: ‘Oh well, if we had stayed in government we would have indexed taxation. We would have altered the rates. We would not have kept the rate scales as they were’. The fact of the matter is that when the Labor Party went out of office it was not its policy to alter those rate scales. When it went out of government it had not given any commitment to make any changes to those rate scales. It was not until some time later that the Opposition realised, rather belatedly, that changes by the present Government were the sorts of changes that should have been made. Nothing that the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the honourable member for Gellibrand can say will alter that very simple statistical fact.

Nothing can alter the other very simple fact that notwithstanding the grandiose things that were said by the then Leader of the Opposition at Blacktown in 1972, such as: ‘We will end the tax lurks,’ nothing whatever was done by the then Labor Government to end the tax lurks in this country. It is a source of endless amazement to me that the Opposition, the champion of the pay-as-you-earn taxpayer, the champion of the battler, the little bloke who has his tax deducted each week without option, when it was in government did nothing about tax avoidance. It is only in recent months that this Government, in a way that no other government has since the World War II, has cracked down on tax avoidance, and it will continue to crack down on it. It is only because we have done something about it that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Gellibrand and other spokesmen for the Labor Party have decided that it is about time that they got on the tax avoidance bandwagon. Of course, having failed to do anything effective while it was in government, the Labor Party is now trying to exhort the Government to take more action against tax avoidance.

Honourable members on the Government side and the Australian people know that it is the Fraser Government that has done something about tax avoidance. For the first time since the World War II, it is the Liberal and National Country Parties that have made a concerted attack on the inequities of tax avoidance. It will be ever to the credit of this Government that it has done more in that area to protect the take home pay of the average taxpayer in Australia than was ever done by the Labor Party. Let us hear nothing more from the Opposition Leader or Opposition spokesmen about tax avoidance. They sound extremely hollow.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that gift and estate duty ought to be abolished. This Government has done something constructive about it. The Leader of the Opposition rails about the Utah company. The Opposition seems to have a fixation about a company which has been extraordinarily successful and which has exploited in a most economic fashion the vast coal resources of Australia. Of course, what the Leader of the Opposition did not say was that Utah pays about $50m a year in wages, that it employs a large number of Australians and that it pays about $60m in Queensland rail freights. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition does not mention that. All he talks about are the profits that Utah makes. The Opposition still has an eternal hang-up about profits. It still does not like profits. It still cannot grasp the simple economic fact that when companies make profits they have a greater capacity to employ people and to pay taxation.

What the Leader of the Opposition did not say was that Utah pays about $200m in taxes. He did not mention that. There is supposedly something wrong with that. He would have us believe that Utah pays no tax at all. He did not mention that this Government has introduced a branch profits tax to prevent a larger remittance of profits by Utah to the United States of America. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition does not mention those facts. He tries to have us believe that because the company makes large profits and because we have not imposed all the taxes that he would like us to impose, it follows as a natural consequence that that company is getting away absolutely scot-free. He does not recognise the royalties paid by companies such as Utah, the company tax paid by them, the freight charges that are borne by them, the wages bills they bear and the number of people they employ. It is about time that this House was treated to a more objective examination of precisely what are the realities of the profit levels of these very large companies in Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition also did not treat us to a comparison of the level of tax collections that have occurred in Australia over the past few years. I would have thought that a person talking about which government has taken the most in taxation- and that is essentially what the Leader of the Opposition’s matter of public importance is all about- would have had a look at a set of statistics called ‘Personal Income Tax Collections’. Copies are readily obtainable. They are official statistics. They show personal income tax collections between 1968-69 and 1978-79, the current financial year. In 1971-72 there was an increase of 11.4 per cent over the previous year. In 1972-73, the last year of the LiberalCountry Party Government, there was an increase of 2.4 per cent over the previous year. In 1973-74 there was an increase of 20.1 per cent over the previous financial year. In 1 974-75 there was an increase of 19.9 per cent. In 1975-76 the increase was 3.5 per cent; in 1 976-77 it was 7.6 per cent; and in 1977-78 it was 0.5 per cent. In 1978-79, for the first time, it is projected that there will be a fall of 0.3 per cent in the real level of personal income tax collections in Australia. If that fall eventuates, and the evidence is that it will eventuate, it will be the first fall in the level of real income tax collections in this country over the past 10 years. I would have thought that to someone comparing personal taxation collections made by various governments in Australia those statistics would not have been a bad guide or a bad indication of what this Government has done about taxation.

If the Opposition is not satisfied with that illustration, let us go to the most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures, which show that Australia ranks seventeenth out of 23 countries in taxation collections as a percentage of gross domestic product. They show that on that basis taxation collections are 6 per cent less in Australia than in the United Kingdom and West Germany. They are almost the same in Australia as they are in the United States of America. Of course, they are of the order of 20 per cent less in Australia than they are in socialist, welfare-state-ridden Sweden. That gives a good idea of the comparative taxation performance of this country under this Government. This Government is happy at any time to debate its taxation records and taxation performance with the Opposition. Our record stands very fairly and squarely as evidence of this Government’s philosophical commitment to smaller government.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-For the last quarter of an hour the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has blustered and thundered away on the subject of taxation, but he has not given any assurance whatever to the Australian people about the charges that have been made in the Press and in this Parliament that this Government is considering once again breaking more promises. This Government has one unparalleled record. It has broken far more promises than any previous government, State or Federal in our history. Apparently it is about to break more promises. For a quarter of an hour of prime time in the Parliament, the Treasurer has refused to give an assurance or a guarantee to the Parliament or to the Australian people that this Government is not about to break further promises. Of course, those promises relate to the surcharge of 1.5c in the dollar which the Treasurer solemly assured the House in August last year would apply only for one year and the promise made by his predecessor in the 1977 Budget Speech that full taxation indexation would apply in the coming financial year.

That is the issue that we have put to this Government. We have asked the Treasurer to give us that assurance and he has not given us that assurance. Indeed, he now leaves the House, having given us no comfort whatever about the Government’s intention in this area. Quite clearly, what this Government intends to do is break its promises once again in this fundamental and important area of the tax burden which is imposed on the Australian people. This of course is not the first time that we have seen such an enormous breach of promise but it is probably the most blatant of all because it affects every Australian taxpayer. Every Australian taxpayer will now know that promises made to him in previous years will not be kept by this Government.

The Treasurer made various allegations in the course of his speech. I will deal with a couple of them. He said that last year I advocated that we would need to have higher taxes. What he did not say was that I went on to point out what sorts of taxes should be imposed. What I said, of course, was that we needed to be looking at taxes- not the imposition of higher taxes on wage and salary earners, but on others who had the greater capacity to pay. I said that we should do more about tax avoidance and I will say more about that later. I talked about imposing taxes on the super profits of mining companies and imposing taxes on personal capital at a time when this Government is taking away such taxes. Those are the kinds of tax initiatives about which I was talking. I was not talking about increasing the tax burden on the Australian wage and salary earner. Somehow the Treasurer declined to mention that. The Treasurer said that the Fraser Government has done something about tax indexation. Of course it has done something about tax indexation- it has never introduced Full tax indexation. We had 90 per cent indexation in the first year, 80 per cent in the second year and 33’A per cent in the third year. But we have no guarantees at all about the future.

Let us trace in a little more detail what has happened in the past. In 1975 and 1977 this Government gave assurances to the Australian people that a lower burden of tax would be imposed on them. This, particularly in 1977, was one of the major issues of the election. Every Australian taxpayer knows that in 1978 the Government introduced legislation to give effect to that promise and then broke that promise later with the imposition of the income tax surcharge. Of course what has happened in the period 1976-77 and 1978-79 is that, as a result of all the Government’s efforts, the burden of tax has fallen much more heavily on the pay-as-you earn taxpayer, that is, the wage and salary earner, the person who does not have the chance for tax avoidance. If we look at the tax burden in the last two years- 1976-77 and 1978-79-we find that the total tax payments for pay-as-you-earn taxpayers have risen by 2 1 per cent, assuming that the Budget estimates for this year are somewhere near correct. The total tax payments of nonpayasyouearn taxpayers- these are people who are not wage and salary earners, but who derive incomes in other ways- are estimated to rise by 3 per cent. So that is 3 per cent against 2 1 per cent. Certainly there could be some explanation for this difference through a difference in the rate of increase in incomes. But I am very doubtful that there has been such a dramatically lower rate of increase in incomes for non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers as for pay-as-you-earn taxpayers. Certainly a large part of the explanation must be the fact that non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers have been able to slough off the burden of tax by some smart device or other. Despite all this Treasurer’s bluster about how much his Government has done in respect of tax avoidance, the reality is that this Government has a tremendous amount to make up in this whole area. Massive tax avoidance is still taking place.

Recently it was reported in the Press that a confidential Treasury document had estimated the loss of income tax revenue through tax avoidance as $3,000m- a tremendous loss of revenue. It is because there is such a large loss of revenue and because this Government is faced with much higher Budget deficits than the Whitlam Government ever faced-over $9.5 billion in the last three years as against less than $6.5 billion under the Whitlam Government in its three years in office- that this Government finds itself in this embarrassing position. It is not prepared to take the action to close all the tax avoidance loopholes. It is putting the burden on the wage and salary earner by continually breaking its promises in respect of tax- promises which it made solemnly in 1977, which it broke soon after and which it will break even more in the near future.

The effectiveness of the Government’s action to prevent tax avoidance was described last year by one observer as like patching a diseased elephant with worn out bandaids. That of course is the reality. This Government has introduced various devices to block tax avoidance, but it has still left the larger amount of tax avoidance untouched. Indeed, the Government’s own back benchers know that that is the case. Recently a good Samaritan delivered to me a document entitled ‘The Economic Outlook and Its Implications for the 1979 Budget’. It was prepared by the Treasury back bench committee of the Government and was dated 29 March 1979. This document, prepared by Government back benchers, presumably some of whom are sitting in the chamber now, states:

However, the incidence of tax avoidance procedures is a joker in the pack. According to the Treasury, there is accumulating evidence that tax avoidance schemes are increasing rapidly, and that this will cause a significant revenue drain unless serious and urgent action is taken.

There is what Government back benchers really think, despite the fact that the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) or some other Government member who will follow me in this debate might say that what I am saying is wrong. The fact is that what they say in their written document is that they are terribly worried about tax avoidance. Apparently they think the Treasurer is not doing enough to block off tax avoidance.

Mr Hodges:

– What did you do about it?

Mr WILLIS:

– If the honourable member would grant me a 10-minute extension of time I would be happy to tell him. The Labor Party has given its response time and time again as to what should be done. Quite clearly, this Government is not prepared to take the necessary action to block this massive tax avoidance. It is simply going to advocate, as was done in this document, that there be an increase in the surcharge. This Government back bench committee recommended that the surcharge be 2c in the dollar instead of 1 Vic in the dollar, which applied in this current financial year, and that it be made permanent and not another temporary measure. They said that that would only cause them the embarrassment of having to break their promise again- a fairly realistic approach I should imagine. Therefore they said: ‘Let us make it a permanent increase of 2c in the dollar’. So they know and recognise that their Treasurer is not doing enough about tax avoidance. But perhaps they do not want him to do enough because they do not recommend in their document that he do more. What they say is that we have to make up for the loss of revenue. Therefore they recommend this tax surcharge which it now appears highly likely that the Government will implement. This tax avoidance question is tremendously important and is a major factor which is relevant to all Australian taxpayers. All of us who pay tax on wages and salaries are going to pay more and more tax because those who are able to use tax avoidance devices are able to pay less and less. Yet the Treasurer boasts that his Government is the one that has done the greatest amount about stopping tax avoidance. The reality is that tax avoidance has become a mammoth problem only since the Fraser Government came to office. When the Whitlam Government and previous governments were in office there was always some level of tax avoidance. But it has become a much greater and a vaster problem since this Government has been in office.

Let me quote from an article entitled ‘The Tax Avoidance Merry-Go-Round’ in the Chartered Accountant in Australia of December 1978. It was written by Mr Pascoe, the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia. It states:

During the past year or two -

The past year or two’ in an article dated December 1978- tax avoidance became a big business in Australia. It became a disease which, being allowed to go unchecked, reached epidemic proportions. It is, perhaps, not going too far to say that the tax paying community of Australia almost went mad in its rush to become a party to a tax avoidance scheme.

So there we have it being said by a very authoritative person, the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia, that tax avoidance has become a major problem under this Government. Because this Government has been so ineffective or so undesirous of stopping tax avoidance, it is going to load more and more tax on the wage and salary earners of this country and make them carry the higher tax burden for this country. That is the reality. The fact is that this Government has also been involved in tax giveaways to high income earners. It has abolished estate and gift tax and the coal export levy. It has introduced the investment allowance and a stock valuation adjustment-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman ‘s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Keith Johnson) put:

That the honourable member for Gellibrand be granted an extension of time.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 77

Majority……. 50

In division-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– This discussion on taxation today is a matter of public importance because taxation is the fuel for the running of the government sector of the community. Governments are bound to organise this sector and to ensure that it operates as efficiently as possible in the interests of Australians. It is good to hear that the members of the Australian Labor Party want to debate taxation openly. As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has said, in any debate on taxation the Labor Party comes off pretty badly when one considers the way in which it went about its offices between 1972 and1975 and the way in which it would attempt to do so in the future especially if one is to believe some of the arguments that it is putting forward on taxes, such as the introduction of a capital gains tax.

There is always much talk about broken promises no matter which party is in office. There is no doubt that at the present time the Opposition, which does not have positive policies, is using the allegation of broken promises on the part of this Government constantly to try to gain political capital. I notice from the results of the opinion polls on the popularity of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that the Labor Party is not doing too badly at trying to con the Australian people into believing that this Government is a government of broken promises. Opposition supporters have said at various times that this Government has broken its promises on such important matters as Medibank, wage indexation, pensions and taxation. They have accused this Government of breaking promises on pretty well anything one could name. But when one looks at the facts, at what was said in the various election campaigns and the things that have been preserved, one sees that broken promises do not come too freely these days and that this present Government has a resolve to keep that very important promise that it made, namely, to put Australia in an economic position in which ordinary Australians can go about their normal work, make a profit, invest and have enough left over to spend on their children.

What is the record of the Labor Party on tax avoidance- the subject under debate? What is the Labor Party’s record on tax indexation and tax reforms? It is absolutely zero. On all of these things it has done nothing. However, the Hayden tax reforms had the effect of taxing many pensioners who had not previously been subject to tax. Those reforms taxed people who came to me at the end of 1 975-76 financial year and said ‘: We have not paid tax before. What is this? We have to fill in a tax return and we have to pay tax this year. It is only a few dollars but we are frightened about it. ‘ That is the record of the Opposition on taxation and that is the record that the Australian people need to remember. They also need to remember, despite the fact that so many pensioners came to Canberra a couple of weeks ago to complain about some of the things that had been done by this Government, that it was the government which removed taxation on low income earners that was imposed by the Opposition when it was in power.

This Government promised that there would be smaller government. The figures brought forward a short while ago by the Treasurer have demonstrated that this Government has a very firm resolve in that area. I hope that, as the economy can afford it and as people are relatively better off through good management, we will have smaller and smaller government. I believe that is what the Australian people want. If one can believe what is written in the newspapers and broadcast by the media this morning, the Australian people want smaller government, they want less taxation and they want less money transferred out of their pockets to go to those people who are already well off or to Governments which will spend it unwisely through bureaucracies that have built up so grossly in recent years.

This Government wants a lower tax regime. That is what we have created. Our first step was the one to stop the taxation gallop that was created under Labor- created, I must say, with due warning. Due warning was given in 1972 by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, when he told the Australian people that he would use the inflationary aspects of taxationeverincreasing taxation because of inflation- in order to fuel his grandiose programs. So let us not kid ourselves about that. Our first step was to stop that galloping increase in taxation. Our first step was to introduce one of the very solemn promises of the 1975 election campaign, and that was tax indexation. That was introduced forthwith on 1 July 1976 and has operated ever since. Every working man in Australia who picks up his pay packet every week or month has known every year since 1 July 1 976 that he has more money to take home because of tax indexation.

The second step which was able to be taken early last year involved the reformed tax scales. Those tax scales were tampered with unfortunately towards the end of last year because of the introduction of the tax surcharge but basically those scales remain. As I said, they removed the payment of taxation for many underprivileged people who, for the first time, had taxation imposed on them by a Labor government.

Let us look at the effect of this Government’s tax reforms through indexation and changes in the tax scales since 1975-76- since the Hayden Budget. I will give only one example although there are plenty of official statistics relating to people on all levels of income. Under the Hayden tax scales a man with a spouse receiving a wage of $ 1 80 a week would have paid $42.23 a week in tax. Under the coalition Government scales in 1976-77 this tax was reduced to $39.53. Following tax indexation on 1 July 1978, it was reduced to $36.99. It was further reduced under the new scales to $34.52 as from 1 February 1978. Since then the tax has gone up to about $36. Except for the tax surcharge there have been tax reductions because of the very firm policies of the present Government which promised lower taxation.

The Leader of the Opposition has had much to say. Of course, he always has much to say but he used a good deal of mendacity- something that annoys the Australian people and certainly annoys me a good deal. He used statistics about taxes going up faster than incomes. He chose to misuse statistics. For instance, he chose to discount the fact that family allowances were introduced in a way that prevented taxation deductions being made. In other words, there was no net change for most people but there was a good net change for people on lower incomes. In another part of his speech the Leader of the Opposition implied that the Treasurer knew about consumer price index increases before the release of the information. That is a completely untrue statement. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about tax avoidance. What a record he had on tax avoidance when he was Treasurer. Absolutely nothing was done. The court case on the Curran scheme appeal was a matter of record as from 1973, well within the Whitlam era, but what was done about the Curran scheme by the present Opposition when it was in government? Absolutely nothing.

What does the Opposition talk about now? It talks about a capital gains tax. Opposition members refer to it at every Question Time. They talk about it every day. I hope that the type of capital gains tax that the Labor Party wants to introduce, as is shown by its record, will be well known to the Australian people by the time of the next election. What is going to happen to pensioners under a capital gains tax? What is going to happen to the taxi driver or person on wages who has saved up and invested and, by his own efforts, has been able to buy a couple of flats? What is going to happen to people who own a block of land? What is going to happen to all the people in Australia who know that saving and investing is the only thing that will help them and their children in the future?

It is well documented now that the Opposition wants a capital gains tax. It wants to hit the soft underbelly of the ordinary Australian who is prepared to save and invest his money. Opposition members can talk about all those other things they would like to do for the ordinary working man by way of his pay-as-you-earn taxation, but they have not done anything about them. That too is a matter of record. Now the Opposition is talking about substituting any increases in personal income tax with a capital gains tax. It is an insidious tax, one that under a Labor Government would not be indexed. The Labor Party when in government has never indexed any revenue-gaining scheme, and that also is a matter of record. The Labor Party, in raising the tax matter again and again in this House, is putting nails in its own coffin. At least the Government is willing to admit that it wants less tax whilst at the same time wanting less in government programs. For the Labor Party to do this is absolutely mendacious.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 2173

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill reported from legislation committee with amendments.

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2173

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Stirling · LP

– I move:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979 will, together with the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 and the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979, which have been introduced in, but have not yet passed the Senate, provide the statutory framework for fundamental reforms to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. These reforms were recommended by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security constituted by Mr Justice Hope after a thorough and searching examination of the needs of the nation for a security service. That commission, I remind the House, was set up by the previous Government. In the very exhaustive consideration given to the Bill in the Senate, there was a large measure of consensus in relation to the Bill. Amendments moved by the Government took account of a number of Opposition proposals although the Government, after careful consideration, found that other proposals could not be accepted. Clearly, the national interest requires that a substantial bi-partisan approach should be taken to the legislation.

The legislation was foreshadowed in the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the House on 25 October 1977 when he outlined in broad terms the Government’s decisions to implement reforms affecting the intelligence security agencies recommended by Mr Justice Hope. This legislation enacts these reforms and substantially follows the recommendations of the royal commission which are set out in the reports tabled on 25 October 1977. The legislative reforms themselves are so fundamental and wide ranging that a completely new Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill rather than amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956 has been drafted. The existing ASIO Act which the Prime Minister of the day, the then Mr Menzies, introduced into this House 23 years ago, will be repealed.

In so far as the recommendations of the royal commission have not required legislation they have already been substantially implemented. Thus, there have been substantial changes to ASIO since the appointment of Mr Justice Woodward on 9 March 1976 and particularly since the recommendations of the royal commission were accepted in 1977. The managerial structure and methods of the Organization have been reviewed and substantially improved. A series of management training courses has been conducted by an independent team of professional management consultants from private industry. Mr Justice Woodward has instituted a rigorous system of internal checks to ensure that the Organization’s intelligence collection is geared as closely as possible to the assessed national security priorities and therefore that resources are most efficiently deployed.

The Organization’s financial control system is being put on a new footing with the assistance of professional advice from relevant government departments. The Organization produces regular assessments and reports on national security matters and participates with Government departments on a wide range of matters of national security interest.

Honourable members will appreciate that there have been substantial changes to the overall management of the intelligence community following the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of 5 May 1977 outlining new intelligence and security arrangements in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. A key aspect of the new system is that the budget of the community is scrutinised by senior officials outside of the intelligence community. Funds sought must be justified with respect to priorities and requirements and care is taken to ensure that activities are coordinated and duplication avoided. Overseeing the functions of officials and constituting a final venue for review and decision is the Intelligence and Security Committee of Cabinet composed of key senior Ministers. This system therefore provides an external discipline to ASIO in regard to its overall efficiency. I can report to Parliament that this new system, recommended by Mr Justice Hope, has brought substantial improvements to the overall management of the intelligence community and has prompted a range of on-going reforms. In the most recent international crisis affecting Australia’s neighbourhood, our intelligence was both timely and relevant and the assessments of our intelligence community accurate.

I shall now discuss the terms of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. Mr Justice Hope pointed out that the justification for the existence of a security organization in a democratic country should be reflected in its charter and, in particular, its functions as set out in that charter. He found that the proper fields of investigation by ASIO should be more clearly defined than in the present legislation and went on to indicate in detail what these should be. These recommendations by His Honour are reflected in the terms of clause 1 7 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill which states the functions of the Organization as:

To obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security.

For purposes relevant to security and not otherwise to communicate any such intelligence.

To advise Ministers and authorities of the Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security.

It should be noted that, in accordance with the recommendations of the royal commission, the definition of ‘security’ in the present Act has been expanded to include not only espionage, sabotage and subversion but also active measures of foreign intervention (meaning clandestine or deceptive action taken by a foreign power to promote the interests of that power) and terrorism. It should be noted that, while ASIO will be empowered to collect intelligence concerning these matters, criminal offences are not thereby created. ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. The provisions of clause 20 requiring the Director-General to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work of the Organization is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions and that the Organization is kept free from any influences not relevant to its functions, follow closely the significant recommendations of Mr Justice Hope in that regard. Honourable members will recall that an important theme in the Royal Commission’s report is that ASIO should at all times comply with the law. It has also been the concern of the present Director-General that ASIO should comply with the law but existing laws present problems for effective intelligence collection. This was recognised by the Royal Commission which concluded that the Organization required certain specified powers of intelligence collection and that the laws should be changed to this end.

After careful consideration, the Government accepted this recommendation. Thus, Division 2 of Part III of the Bill provides for certain powers to be exercisable by ASIO subject to significant safeguards. At the same time ASIO will be prohibited from carrying on these activities except under warrants provided in the legislation. The additional powers thus provided for are, to enter premises to search for records, to use listening devices, to open and inspect postal articles. However, before such powers could be exercised in any particular case, there will need to be a request by the Director-General to the Minister who in turn must be satisfied as to the need for the action before granting a warrant. In the case of listening devices, the DirectorGeneral will be empowered in emergency circumstances to issue a warrant of very limited duration.

Balancing this re-definition of the functions and powers of ASIO are a number of important considerations. First, recognising the key position of the Director-General and the need for a bi-partisan approach to the security of the nation, the Bill will require consultation with the Leader of the Opposition before appointment of the Director-General. Additionally, amendments moved by the Government in the Senate require consultation with the Leader of the Opposition before appointment of an acting Director-General- sub-clause 14 (2)- the Director-General to consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of keeping him informed on matters relating to security- clause 2 1 -and a copy of the annual report of the Director-General to be given to the Leader of the Opposition- clause 94. Further, in accordance with Mr Justice Hope’s recommendation, the provisions of the Bill relating to the Director-General, particularly as regards tenure of office and the grounds on which his appointment may be terminated, have been brought in line with provisions dealing with statutory office holders in other Commonwealth legislation.

A further major consideration is the creation in Part IV of the Bill of a totally new statutory framework for the preparation and communication of ASIO security assessments in respect of individuals and the giving to most persons affected by prejudicial security assessments of a right of appeal to a tribunal presided over by a judge. The effect of this Part is that, where a security assessment has been made in respect of an employee of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth contractor or, broadly speaking, in respect of a person for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the Passports Act 1938, that contains an opinion or information prejudicial to his interests, that person must ordinarily be given notice of the assessment. Further, the person will be given a right by this Bill to appeal to a tribunal to be presided over by a judge where the assessment will be reviewed. Commonwealth departments and other agencies will be required by the Bill to treat the findings of the tribunal as superseding the assessment. In determining the procedures to be followed by the tribunal, regard has had to be had to the special needs of security, particularly preservation of secrecy as to identity of informants. Thus, confrontation between the parties to the appeal is not possible but special provision is made to ensure that an appellant is not thereby prejudiced.

An amendment to clause 39 moved by the Government in the Senate will make it clear that Commonwealth departments and authorities may not take administrative action to which the Bill applies on the basis of an adverse or qualified assessment made before the legislation comes into force. A new assessment will of course carry with it the rights as to notification and appeal provided in the Bill. Thus, in effect, the legislation will cause ‘the slate to be wiped clean ‘ so far as past ASIO adverse or qualified assessments are concerned. A further amendment moved by the Government in the Senateinsertion of clause 40- will require the Organization to furnish assessments intended or likely to be used by a State for prescribed administrative action only through a Commonwealth department or authority, thus ensuring that the person concerned has the benefit of the rights as to notification and appeal provided in the Bill.

The statutory procedures for notification of security assessments and for rights of appeal in large part implement the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope. They represent the first attempt, at least in a common law country, to provide a comprehensive statutory framework regulating the making of security assessments of individuals and providing a right of appeal to an independent judicial tribunal. They therefore represent one of the most important steps taken in this Parliament for many years directed to the protection of the rights of individuals.

Honourable members will recall that the Royal Commission rightly gave much attention to what should be the relationship between the Director-General and the Government. Mr Justice Hope concluded that legal doubts as to the nature of this relationship that had arisen under the terms of the present Act should be removed and the relationship should be clearly defined. The Government has acted on this recommendation and clause 8 of the Bill defines this relationship, although on slightly different lines from those recommended by His Honour. Clearly, the Government must, in the ultimate, bear the responsibility for the security of the nation. It must also bear the responsibility for the general direction of the activities of the security organisation. At the same time it is proper that the Organisation should be under the control of the Director-General and that the Government should not be able to override the opinion of the Director-General on whether security requires or does not require the collection of information on an individual, whether information held concerning an individual should be communicated or on what advice should be given by the Director-General to a Minister or a department. Clause 8 of the Bill reflects these considerations.

However, while we must seek to express in appropriate statutory form the proper relationship between the Government and the DirectorGeneral of Security, I must observe that the personal calibre of the holder of that difficult and lonely position will remain of the utmost importance. In Mr Justice Woodward, Australia is indeed fortunate in having an outstanding Director-General and I am sure that members of all parties share that view. He has set a standard for holders of that office that Governments must seek to match in future appointments. The relationship between ASIO and State governments and agencies raises important considerations. In accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the Bill provides for ASIO, subject to directions of the Minister, co-operating with departments, police forces and authorities of the States. Similar provision is made for cooperation with authorities of other countries but in such cases the Minister must approve the country as being capable of assisting the Organisation in the performance of its functions.

The legislation that I am today introducing represents a balance between the needs of the nation for a strong, reliable and highly efficient security service and the need to preserve our individual rights and freedoms. Australia faces a number of serious threats to its internal security including persistent efforts on the part of hostile intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence from within Australia. This legislation will give ASIO a charter appropriate for the circumstances of today and the tasks it will be called on to perform. It will equip ASIO with the powers essential for those tasks and at the same time provide safeguards for the rights of individuals and the continuation of our democratic institutions. The national interest demands an approach above party politics to this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 2176

NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This Bill contains many amendments that were in the Navigation Bill 1975, which lapsed with the termination of the 29th Parliament. They were again in the Navigation Amendment Bill 1976, which lapsed also with the prorogation of Parliament on 28 February 1977. It also contains a number of other urgent, important measures. The amendments fall into groups for a number of important specific purposes and there are numerous other amendments mainly of a minor nature. Because of the complexity of the subject matter explanatory notes on the clauses are being circulated to honourable members. One particularly important aspect of the Bill is that it contains the legislation necessary for Australia to become a party to no fewer than five international maritime Conventions, four of which are Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation conventions. I shall deal briefly with each one.

The first is the International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-going Ships 1957. This Convention came into force internationally in 1968, but the relevant law in Australia still consists of the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1900 of the United Kingdom. One of the main practical effects of this group of amendments is to increase the amounts to which a shipowner will be able to limit his liability- unless he is held to be actually at fault himself- in respect of claims arising out of the specified occurences to which the Convention applies. The existing very low limits of about $28 a ton for personal claims and $15 a ton for property claims provided for in the Merchant Shipping Acts are to be increased to the equivalent of the Convention limits- about $179 and $57 a ton respectively at the present time.

In giving effect to the 1957 Convention, Australia, like a number of the European shipping countries, will, at the request of the States, exercise the option provided for in the Protocol of Signatures to exclude the application of subparagraph ( 1 ) (c) of Article 1 of the Convention. This means that shipowners will not be able to limit their liability in respect of damage to harbour works, or for wreck removal. The Bill specifically approves ratification by Australia of the Convention, subject to a reservation making that exclusion. The new section 338, which absolves shipowners from liability in respect of certain property claims, does not introduce any new benefit for shipowners but is a re-enactment of an existing provision in Part VIII of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, which is being repealed to make way for the new limitation provisions. New section 59B, however, will prevent shipowners from limiting their liability for claims by crew members serving under Commonwealth articles of agreement. This was sought by the unions, and is also a practice followed by many maritime nations.

The Bill will also enable Australia to accede to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, which prescribes new ‘rules of the road’ for ships on the high seas and in all connected waters navigable by sea-going vessels. Those international regulations came into operation on 15 July 1977, and were incorporated in Commonwealth and State regulations and so are observed in practice. However, the Convention could not be acceded to because the Commonwealth and State Acts under which the regulations are made do not enable the regulations to be applied to all the vessels covered by the Convention. The new provisions rectify this aspect.

The third Convention is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1 974, known as the SOLAS Convention, which consolidates and supersedes the 1960 Convention of that name and the up-dating amendments made over the intervening years. 1’he 1974 Convention, which is the latest of several such Conventions that have been drawn up over the years since the Titanic disaster of 1912, lays down more advanced technical safety requirements. It deals with such matters as ship construction and stability, machinery and radio and other equipment, fire protection, detection and extinction, lifesaving appliances and carriage of cargoes of potential danger and requires surveys and inspections to ensure compliance with the standards laid down and the issue of international safety certificates to ships that comply. The Navigation Act already gives effect to the 1960 Convention, and so the Bill makes the necessary amendments to cover the further-improved requirements of the 1974 Convention and the amending 1978 Protocol. The Protocol was adopted at the Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention Conference convened by IMCO at the request of the United States last year following a number of serious pollution incidents off the United States coast. It introduces a number of additional measures into the Convention, aimed at greater tanker safety. Although neither the Convention nor the Protocol is yet in force internationally, it is the Government’s wish that

Australia should become a party to these instruments as soon as possible and thus contribute to their early commencement. The Bill contains the necessary legislation to enable this to be done.

The fourth Convention being dealt with by the Bill is the International Convention for Safe Containers which was adopted in 1972 and has entered into force internationally. This Convention lays down requirements for the structure, testing, inspection, approval and maintenance of new and existing containers used in international transport, excluding air transport. Under the Bill approval is given to ratification by Australia and the necessary provisions for that purpose are inserted in the Act. Additional structural safety requirements or tests may be prescribed to the extent permitted by the Convention.

The other Convention concerned is the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969, which aims at providing a universally acceptable system for the tonnage measurement of ships, by volume of interior spaces, in place of a number of other systems that each have their particular adherents. The main purposes of such measurement are to facilitate the levying of dues and charges and to enable ships to be compared for size by measurement of interior volume. All the present tonnage measurement formulae have disadvantages, particularly for roll-on roll-off and container ships, and these will be eliminated under the much simpler methods of the Convention, which has received almost enough support to put in operation the procedures for bringing it into force. The Convention is expressed to apply to ships on international voyages excluding ships less than 24 metres in length. For the first 12 years the Convention provisions are mandatory only for new ships and for existing ships that undergo substantial alterations. It will become mandatory for other ships at the end of that period. Whilst, therefore, the Bill contains the necessary provisions to enable ratification by, and application in, Australia, it also leaves the existing provisions to apply as long as they continue to be required.

In the case of the first four of these conventions the Commonwealth has agreed that it would be appropriate to include saving clauses in the Bill to permit State legislation to apply the conventions within limits appropriate to State responsibilities. In this context I use the word ‘State’ to include the Northern Territory. The effect of these saving clauses will be that to the extent that a State chooses to legislate on these matters within the limits laid down, the Commonwealth law contained in the Bill will not apply. The scope provided for State law on these matters varies with each Convention and, broadly speaking, is as follows: For the Limitation Convention and the SOLAS Convention State law will be permitted in the case of ‘intra-State ships,’ that is ships not proceeding on interstate or overseas voyages; for the Prevention of Collisions Convention State law will be permitted in the case of all ships in the territorial sea and internal waters, that is, on the landward side of the 3 mile limit; and for the Containers Convention State law will be permitted in respect of containers in the State. These arrangements reflect the Government’s policy of co-operative federalism and they are beneficial from the point of view of the Commonwealth as well as the States. From the Commonwealth viewpoint it is possible for Australia to become a party to the respective conventions once the Commonwealth legislation is enacted and without the need to await complementary legislation by the States. From the States’ point of view the benefit of the arrangement is that their legislative powers are not eroded by an unrestricted exercise of the Commonwealth’s external affairs power.

Two important related sets of provisions that have been in the Act since its early days are being repealed and replaced under this Bill. I refer to the provisions dealing with the manning of ships and the qualifications of masters and other officers and of seamen. The new provisions have been arrived at after considerable consultation with the industry and the State marine authorities.

The old inflexible manning provisions of the Act, designed for the shipping industry of half a century ago, have long been completely inappropriate. New section 14 is being substituted in place of the excessive detail now in the Act, with its precise but outmoded scales of officers and seamen in Schedules I and II. These provisions will enable the Minister to specify detailed requirements as to the minimum numbers and qualifications of officers and seamen to be carried in specified ships or classes of ships, to the extent that it appears necessary in the interests of safety or protection of the marine environment. The criteria to be applied in determining the minimum manning are to be set out in the regulations after further discussions with the industry. The new provisions have been arranged so that the changes can be implemented in two stages. Initially it will be possible to remove the application of the outmoded Schedules and other inflexible provisions, and then, following detailed discussions with the industry, to prescribe and bring into operation the minimum safety manning for ships when all aspects of the regulations have been satisfactorily resolved. Failure to carry officers and seamen as specified will be an offence for which the master and owner will both be liable to a fine of up to $1,000. A ship not carrying officers and seamen as required may be detained, or specified operations restricted, with a maximum penalty on both master and owner of $5,000 for non-compliance.

Turning to the related area of qualifications, which includes training and examinations, here too the Bill repeals the old outmoded provisions. A new section 15 is substituted which provides broad enabling powers under which standards of competence to be attained and other conditions to be satisfied in order to be ‘qualified’ for the purposes of the Act will be specified by regulation or by order under the regulations. Amongst other things to be so prescribed will be detailed requirements in respect of instruction, training and the conduct of examinations and the issue of certificates of competency, the recognition of certificates issued by other countries, and the review by an appropriately constituted Administrative Appeals Tribunal of administrative decisions made under those regulations and orders. The power conferred by section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will be used to make regulations prescribing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in these matters. Under these provisions there will be a new structure for certificates of competency designed to meet modern shipping needs and derived from the uniform shipping laws adopted by State marine Ministers and myself in the Marine and Ports Council of Australia following consultation between my Department, State marine authorities and the maritime industry. These provisions of the code are based on international requirements developed through IMCO, which in July 1978 were embodied in an international convention, and will provide the basis for courses of study at the new Australian Maritime College. Certificates issued under the new provisions will be acceptable to the various Australian marine authorities.

The Uniform Shipping Laws Code which I have mentioned extends to a wide range of matters besides qualifications and the Act contains powers to enable legal effect to be given to those other sections of the code. For some considerable time working groups of Commonwealth and State officials have been drawing up this code, which contains requirements for the survey and manning of commercial vessels to be uniformly adopted in order to overcome the present serious lack of uniformity between the requirements imposed by the various States and the Commonwealth. Under the Bill, therefore, it will be possible to put the code into practical effect.

A further important feature of the Bill, because it will make a valuable contribution to safety of life and property at sea, is that it gives legal effect to the ship movement reporting scheme, known as AUSREP, that has been operating voluntarily for some time. The scheme ensures that positive action is taken to search for a ship in the Australian search and rescue area if more than 24 hours have elapsed since the ship last indicated that all was well. Also, if a ship is in distress, it enables the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre of the Department of Transport to know immediately what ships are in the area and which of these would be best suited to assist in the emergency. In addition to improved safety, the system achieves significant economies in the use of search and rescue resources by providing a datum on which to concentrate a search if a ship becomes overdue.

As it appears that no such legislation exists anywhere else, Australia is the world leader in this important development. Information about the system aroused considerable interest in IMCO, and Australia proposed to IMCO that a uniform ship movement reporting system should be an integral part of any internationally agreed search and rescue plan. This led on to the recent International Conference on Maritime Search and Rescue held in Hamburg, at which the Australian delegation included two experts from my Department responsible for Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre and AUSREP operations. The conference adopted a new Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue providing for a global search and rescue plan incorporating systems such as AUSREP.

The other subject involving a group of amendments is historic shipwrecks. The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to declare particular shipwrecks and related relics of historic significance to be historic shipwrecks’, thus bringing them under the protective provisions of the legislation. This requires some consequential amendments of the Navigation Act.

The Historic Shipwrecks Act requires the finder to give notice of his discovery and does not prohibit salvage operations until the wreck is declared historic, when strict controls come into effect. The finder may acquire salvage rights under the Navigation Act, the United Kingdom

Merchant Shipping Acts, or at common law, before the wreck is declared historic. The Bill therefore provides that various provisions of the Navigation Act that deal with wreck and salvage matters do not apply to a wreck from the time it is declared historic and while it remains so. As salvage rights or liabilities under the Navigation Act acquired before a wreck is declared historic are to be preserved, the Bill also makes express provision for this purpose. There is provision to ensure that, for reasons of safety of life and navigation, the provisions of the Navigation Act giving the Minister powers regarding removal will still apply to any wreck, whether declared historic or not. The Minister is not to exercise any of those powers unless it is necessary to do so for purposes of safety or environmental emergency. Another provision ensures that his powers to deal with oil pollution threats arising from damaged ships continue unrestricted. The other amendments can best be classified as ‘miscellaneous’. Many are of a purely drafting or machinery nature.

One important amendment extends the references in the Act to the owner of a ship to include a reference to the operator, except in a few special circumstances. This is to ensure that where a duty or liability is imposed by the Act on the owner, responsibility for ensuring that that duty or liability is discharged is imposed on the person who is directly concerned with the relevant operations, for example, a bareboat charterer, as well as on the owner. Conversely, a benefit conferred on the owner will also, in appropriate cases, be available to the operator. Other amendments empower the Minister to make orders in relation to detailed technical requirements to be applied under the Act, so that such requirements can be quickly implemented, or varied without delay, in the light of ship casualties, equipment failure investigations, or technical developments. There are a number of amendments relating to the engagement and discharge of seamen and certain of the conditions of their employment, mainly to cater for modern developments in the industry.

In addition to the prescribing of penalties at appropriate levels for newly created offences, the opportunity has been taken, where sections are otherwise amended, to update some maximum monetary penalties for existing offences against provisions of the Act and regulations and to increase some general penalties and make consequential adjustments. Other penalties will need to be brought into line later. As was the case with the 1976 Bill, this Bill does not purport to effect a general revision of the Navigation Act. The need for such a revision has been recognised for some time and it is the Government’s intention to undertake such a task following the completion of discussions currently under way with the States and industry. Although not a general revision, the Bill now before honourable members provides the framework for a significant updating of Australia’s navigation laws in accordance with the latest international standards of safety and environment protection. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2180

LIGHTHOUSES AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This is a small consequential Bill arising out of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1979. Under that Bill effect will be given to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention in place of the 1960 Convention of the same name and the definition of the Convention in the Navigation Act will be amended accordingly. Australia will become a party to the 1974 Convention. The Lighthouses Act refers to Australia’s obligations under that 1960 Convention to establish and maintain marine navigational aids which will instead become obligations under the 1974 Convention when it enters into force for Australia. This Bill therefore amends the Lighthouses Act so that, in effect, the reference to the Convention under which those obligations exist will automatically mean the latest Safety of Life at Sea Convention to which Australia has become a party. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2180

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL (SHIPPING LEVY COLLECTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This is a small consequential Bill arising out of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1979. Under that Bill references in the Navigation Act to the tonnage of ships are being amended to make the tonnage terms uniform and in line with the terminology introduced when the amendments made by the Navigation Act 1972 were brought into force on 1 December 1976. The new amendments are being deemed to have come into operation on the same date as the 1972 amendments. The Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy Collection) Amendment Act contains a reference to ship tonnage which is being similarly amended, and that amendment also is to be deemed to have come into operation on that same date. As the amendment is one of terminology only, its retrospective effect does not affect levies already paid. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2180

SEA-CARRIAGE OF GOODS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This is a small consequential Bill arising out of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1979. Under that Bill provisions in respect of the limitation of shipowners’ liability are being inserted in the Navigation Act to supersede the old provisions of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of that subject that still apply in Australia. This Bill therefore makes the necessary replacement of a reference in the SeaCarriage of Goods Act, that in effect applies the old United Kingdom law, with a reference to the new Navigation Act provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2180

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

This is a small consequential Bill arising out of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1979. Under that Bill the term ‘prescribed country’ is to be used in various places in the Navigation Act instead of the term ‘Commonwealth country’. The Seamen’s Compensation Act uses the term Commonwealth country’ and defines it as having the same meaning as in the Navigation Act. To be consistent and to ensure that the term prescribed country’ is used, the necessary amendments are being made. They are expressed to come into operation at the same time as the main related amendment of the Navigation Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2181

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to adjust grants to the States for government and non-government schools in respect of cost increases which have occurred since this legislation was last before the Parliament. The amendment to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1977 will be the final adjustment as it makes provision for increases in the salary and wage content of 1978 recurrent programs to December 1978. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1978 will be amended again in the Budget sittings of the Parliament to take account of further cost increases in accordance with the Government’s announced policy. This Bill does not increase any of the nongovernment schools general recurrent and migrant education grants as the necessary adjust-, ments to these grants have been effected previously. To finalise 1978 grants, an additional appropriation of $ 1.6m will be necessary making a total allocation for that year of $639.6m. The adjustment of 1979 grants involves a further appropriation of $ 1 1 m which increases the commitment of the Commonwealth for this year to $673.6m. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2181

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1977 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1978. The Bill adjusts the approved programs of grants to the States for tertiary education for the years 1978 and 1979 by providing additional amounts in the light of variations in costs between June and December 1978. In addition to supplementing the grants for 1979 in respect of approved advanced education level courses in Technical and Further Education institutions, the Bill provides a further $485,000 for these courses. It also modifies the conditions relating to the provision of funds for special initiatives in the training of TAFE teachers in order that State instrumentalities as well as colleges of advanced education may become eligible to receive grants.

In his statement to the Senate on 19 October 1978, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) noted that a shortfall in expenditure of the 1978 tertiary education capital programs would enable additional university and college of advanced education capital projects to commence in the second half of 1 979. This Bill makes provision for expenditure of up to $4.1m on the additional projects in respect of 1979, including $1,288,000 for commencement of the Australian Graduate School of Management building. With the additional amounts that the Bill provides in respect of 1978 and 1979, the total programs of grants to the States for each sector are as follows:

In accordance with the Government’s decision to restore fixed triennial funding for recurrent expenditure the Bill also provides recurrent grants for colleges of advanced education in respect of the years 1980 and 1981 at the same real level as for 1 979, and supplements the recurrent grants to universities, for these years, which were provided previously in the principal Act. The total provisions for recurrent expenditure, other than for equipment, for universities and colleges of advanced education are $6 15.8m and $422.2m respectively for each of the years 1980 and 1 98 1 . It is expected that arrangements for recurrent grants for technical and further education in respect of 1980 and 1981 will be announced during the Budget sittings after the Government has considered the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. In accordance with the new arrangements for funding non-government business colleges, announced by the Minister for Education on 6 December 1978, the Bill makes provisions for grants to the States for assistance to non-government business colleges in the 1979-81 triennium. The proposed level of assistance, $55 per student per month at December quarter 1978 cost levels up to a maximum of $550 per student per annum, is the rate which was recommended by the Tertiary Education Commission in its report on non-government business colleges. It will be adjusted to take account of cost increases.

Assistance in 1979 is being provided in respect of courses which were in existence in 1978 and met the guidelines recommended by the Tertiary Education Commission. Colleges will be required to achieve non-profit status by the end of 1979. In approving courses beyond 1979, the Minister for Education will be advised by a small standing committee. Assistance in general is to be restricted to courses involving more than 20 hours of teacher-class contact a week and of more than 20 but no more than 44 weeks duration. This would not include courses leading to registrable academic awards. Assistance will not be provided for courses in colleges which have not been recognised by a relevant State regulatory authority. The provisions will provide assistance on an equitable basis in an important area of training. However, the Government is opposed to the proliferation of small business colleges, and to any development of business colleges annexes by non-government secondary schools. The approval of individual courses is to be reviewed after three years and the overall scheme of assistance is to be reviewed after it has been in operation for five years. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2182

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second rime.

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1979 now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. (Quorum formed). The Bill, which contains 14 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariffproposals Nos 1-15 (1979) which have been introduced into the Parliament at different times since February 1979. Also included in the Bill are changes of an administrative nature.

In the main, the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission: Certain paper and paperboard; fisheries and fish processing industry; injection or puncture needles; inks; jewellery and other precious metalware, et cetera; timber and timber products and plywood and veneer; tyres, tyre cases, et cetera; umbrellas, sunshades, et cetera and parts therefor; vegetable oils and fats, animal oils and fats, et cetera; and work trucks, certain mobile machines, et cetera.

Honourable members will recall that when the Tariff Proposals were introduced into the House a summary in respect of each of the Proposals was circulated which set out the nature of the change in duty rates and the origin of each change. I have had a consolidation of these summaries prepared and copies may be obtained from the Table Office. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2182

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariffproposals No. 18(1979)

The Customs Tariffproposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Proposals implement the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in respect of injection moulding machines, which formed part of its report on miscellaneous industrial machinery. The Commission recommended that these goods be dutiable at 15 per cent and the industry receive special transitional assistance by means of a phasing bounty. The Government has accepted the recommendations and consequently the rate of duty on certain injection moulding machines will be reduced to 15 per cent from tomorrow. I will be introducing the necessary bounty legislation into the House as soon as possible, also operating from tomorrow.

The effect of these measures will be to replace the assistance previously provided to the industry by means of a 55 per cent customs duty with a customs duty of 15 per cent supplemented by a bounty which will be phased out over a period of five years. The Industries Assistance Commission stated that the corresponding effective rate of the existing duty is very high and that it could not identify benefits to the community commensurate with such high levels of assistance. The Commission considered that a reduction would encourage more efficient use of resources in the production of goods under reference and reduce costs to user industries. A summary of the tariff changes contained in the Proposals has been prepared and is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2183

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– Nowhere is the attitude of the Government towards the wage and salary earners of this country more epitomised that in the legislation now before the House- the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979. The Bill is certainly not accurately termed when one talks about retirement. As I say, it epitomises the very evil attitude that this Government has towards not only all wage and salary earners of this country but also specifically its own employees, this Government being the largest employer in Australia. The Opposition does not for one moment concede that provision should be made to allow a government maintaining attitudes such as those held by this Government to have the power to dismiss, to sack, to retrench employees of the Commonwealth Public Service at its whim. For Vh years we have had displayed to us this Government’s attitude towards wage and salary earners. It is coarse and unacceptable both to the Opposition and to the people involved.

I draw attention to correspondence dated 25 November 1977 from Malcolm ‘say anything at election time’ Fraser to the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations outlining his attitude on a wide variety of issues concerning the future of Commonwealth public servants. On the question of employment levels and job security, he said:

It has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

Overall staffing levels will be determined in the light of need. Although there may be both increases and decreases in particular areas of administration as work loads vary, the intitial process of streamlining has now been substantially completed and in general there will be stability in the service.

When this Prime Minister goes to an election, he is capable of saying anything to anybody in the hope that he will survive as Prime Minister of this country. The Commonwealth public servants are now feeling the thrust of this Government’s motivations, as did the pensioners with the Government’s broken promise to index pensions twice-yearly. The Government’s promise to the pensioners was broken last year; this promise to the public servants is being broken this year.

Continually we hear spokesmen from the Government say that these measures are being initiated by the Government after consultation with peak union councils involved. This Government does not believe in consultation with peak councils. Any consultation with the peak councils concerned with the employees who will be affected by this measure would certainly have told the Government that the course it had embarked on by way of this legislation was totally unacceptable to all those people who would be affected by it. The Government cannot stand on its record after having said that the Commonwealth public servant is safe from the politicisation of the Public Service by this Government, or safe in his job, or safe from the pressures that the Government can bring to bear on employees in the Commonwealth Public Service but not on people in the private sector. In the 3V4 years that this Government has been in power, we have seen thousands of jobs closed off in the Commonwealth Public Service. We have seen a breakdown in the service that the Commonwealth is supposed to give the community. The community is now receiving the worst service, by virtue of this Government’s imposition of staff ceilings, that it has received from any government of this country. This Government is on record as having broken promise after promise.

Let me reiterate so that everybody in this country understands that Malcolm Fraser, the Prime Minister of this country, will say anything to anybody at election time. But half way through his term, as we are now, and as far away from the last election as he is from the next election, he is about to break another promise to the people who work for this Government. We have received notification after notification of the attitude of the unions that represent Commonwealth employees. Could anybody have imagined that in this country, with all the terms already being used such as ‘receiving the sack’, ‘being retrenched’, ‘being put off’- all the terms that are recognised in industrial relations- this

Government would come up with the new term management initiated retirement’. Fancy telling somebody of 30 years of age that the management has taken the initiative to retire him. He can go home to his family and say: ‘I haven’t been sacked; the Commonwealth just used its initiative to retire me, 35 years before I was due to retire’.

Inherent in this Bill is a long sought after condition of employment by the Commonwealth Public Service and that is optional early retirement for some over 55 years of age. But the Government cannot even introduce that as a measure of goodwill, as a measure of understanding, as a measure of good industrial relations towards its own employees. The Government says to the Commonwealth Public Service, Here is something really decent that a government ought to do for you, something which everybody in this land supports and we are going to see a lot more of it’, but it cannot do it without bringing in the good hammer. At least the Commonwealth public servants have had the common sense to say: ‘We are not accepting one decent provision of this Bill because we realise that at the same time an axe is hanging over the head of everybody who works in the Commonwealth Public Service through the various clauses of this Bill which give the Government the power to ascribe any reason at all to a dismissal.’ The Opposition does not accept and it will not accept that proposition. As I have said, we have been notified time and time again by the peak councils of their attitude. As late as today we have been notified by CAGEO of its attitude. The Government cannot say that it has consulted with the peak councils in relation to this issue because time and time again the peak councils have made their attitude clear. The Government is acting in complete contradiction of both what the unions have said and what the members will accept. The following resolution was carried at the CAGEO conference held last week:

Conference notes policy determined at 1977 Conference that CAGEO vigorously and totally oppose legislation in any form which incorporates management initiated retirement provisions:

Calls upon the Federal Executive to actively implement such policy in opposing the CE ( RR) Bill:

Declares that the CE (RR) Bill is offensive to merit based career service employment and to CAGEO in numerous other respects:

Requires that the full support of CAGEO and its affiliates including if necessary collective industrial action be given to protect the interests or affiliated members who conscientiously refuse to co-operate in the administration of any Act which results from the CE ( RR) Bill in its current substance.

So if the Government is suggesting that it has consulted with the peak councils, representing the thousands of people who work for the Commonwealth Public Service, that consultation must have been one way traffic. The Government must have said: ‘Well, you can accept this or there will be no provision for early retirement or there will be no introduction of any legislation at all’. I have said that the Commonwealth Public Service is looking at this Government on its merits. The fact is that there are approximately 15,000 fewer jobs now in the Commonwealth Public Service than there were three years ago.

Mr Baillieu:

– Hear, hear!

Mr YOUNG:

-The idiot son of the establishment in Victoria, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu), says ‘Hear, hear! ‘ because he does not believe in full employment. He wants the kids to be unemployed. He wants them to be lying around the streets, involved in all the crime that is going on. He is so stupid that he did not even read the article in today’s Age about what is happening to the unemployed youth of this country. The people on this side of the House say that jobs have to be provided. This Government and government instrumentalities are providing 25 per cent of the work force. It has decreed that the Public Service has to be efficient and its functions carried out correctly, but that cannot be achieved the way in which this Government is attempting to achieve it. Firstly, it cannot be done by bludgeoning and using any reason for the dismissal of Commonwealth public servants. Secondly, it cannot be done through the mad, crazy staff ceilings which have been plucked out of the air.

There is well documented evidence in the Public Service annual report, the Coombs Royal Commission and for many other speakers of substance on the matter that the ceilings initiated by this Government are not working. The only thing that is occurring as a result of ceilings in the Commonwealth Public Service is that the people of Australia are getting worse service. People who are dependent on social security are not being given the service that they require from the Government because the Government has initiated ceilings which do not allow public servants to carry out their duties to the people of this country. If the unemployed, the pensioners and all the people who are completely dependent on this Government for assistance want to be critical of the service they are getting they should not blame the public servant, they should blame the Government which is taking the action to restrict the public servant in carrying out his duties.

This Bill demonstrates the confusion and bloody mindedness of present Government policies in relation to the administration of the Public Service. This is the second occasion on which this Bill has been before the House. Even at the second try the Government cannot get it right. Superficially, as I have said, the Bill demonstrates a worthwhile concern with the achievement of economy and efficiency in government administration. The Government has already been given a blueprint for necessary reforms in this area by the Coombs Commission- a blueprint it has chosen to ignore. The present legislation is badly drafted, inconsistent in places and illogical. Although it incorporates some improvement in conditions of employment long sought by Public Service employees, it also attempts to wield the big stick. Voluntary early retirement is the sweetener while the threat of wholesale redundancies or, to use plain English, mass sackings, is introduced under the guise of management initiated retirement and greater efficiency and economy in the Public Service.

The Labor Party is committed to economy and efficiency in the Public Service. As I said, when in government it set up the Coombs Royal Commission to look at the proper and efficient management of the Public Service. It was the first and only comprehensive review of Australian Government administration in over 50 years. The Coombs Commission produced a comprehensive list of recommendations concerning efficiency and economy in the service. ALP policy supports these recommendations. It is absolutely imperative to install checks and balances that compel greater efficiency in public administration. This Government’s record in the area of public administration is nothing short of gross negligence and complete incompetence. Putting aside the provisions of this Bill, an examination of its record of personnel management over the past Vh years reveals staggering false economies. I ask honourable members to consider the case of the employment officer in the Commonwealth Employment Service who was not allowed to notify unemployed workers of job vacancies by telegram because this miserable Government fails to appropriate enough money to ensure the efficient operation of a modern employment service. I want to quote from a minute from the former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The reference on the minute is 66/3608. It indicates the way in which the Government views efficiency in the Commonwealth Public Service. The subject matter of the minute is the use of telegrams by the CES. It states:

We have been advised that there is a funding difficulty of considerable magnitude in regard to the CES Postal Vote on a National level and unless expenditure is curtailed immediately, funds will very quickly be fully spent.

The minute then lays down the conditions under which people are to scrutinise the sending of telegrams. There are some interesting points in the CES document, dictated by the Government. It states:

  1. Restrict the use of telegrams to applicants registered at the vacancy office. Other OCES should display the vacancy only, but should not match unless asked to do so by the vacancy office.
  2. Use a ratio of two or three telegrams as a maximum for any one vacancy.
  3. Ensure that each applicant without a telephone is asked for the telephone number of a neighbour or friend.

In order to save money by not sending a telegram to the person seeking employment this Government says: ‘Let us use the whole community. If there is a telephone a couple of blocks away it is much cheaper to interfere with the private lives of the people who live down the street. They can take the telephone call from the CES office rather than the applicant being notified by the CES’. This is just another way in which this Government expresses efficiency in the mad dog fashion which has ensued in the last three years.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr YOUNG:

– I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour this day.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2185

REPORT ON OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement to the House concerning my recent visit to the Philippines and to Indonesia.

Leave granted.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Firstly, I would like to thank the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who was speaking before the suspension of the sitting, for allowing his remarks to be interrupted to enable me to make this statement.

Mr Young:

– You should come back and listen to them.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I might even do that. During the five days I was away from Australia I had discussions with Presidents Marcos and Suharto, and Prime Minister Ohira of Japan, and addressed the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting in Manila. This series of discussions was held against the background of significant changes in the international strategic situation. There is continuing instability in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Developments in Iran continue to generate anxiety regarding oil supplies and about the security of the north-west Indian Ocean area. In Korea, new assessments of the north’s military strength have placed this at a significantly higher level than had previously been estimated, and concern over security in the Korean Peninsula has led to adoption of a longer time scale for United States ground troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea. Hostilities continue in Indo-China as Vietnam attempts to consolidate its position in Kampuchea. The tensions which led to fighting between China and Vietnam are -still in evidence. A resurgence of fighting would lead to the danger of wider international involvement. In this international environment my discussions with President Marcos and President Suharto made clear our common recognition that broadly based cooperation between Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia- and between Australia and the other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations- has become all the more important. We recognise our responsibility to press for moderation and conciliation in the conduct of international affairs. The movement toward greater cohesion among ASEAN countries is of particular importance to Australia’s interests. It provides mutual support, promotes co-operation, strengthens confidence and assists forces for stable development. Accordingly, Australia seeks to strengthen our links with the ASEAN countries.

My talks with President Marcos made manifest that Australia and the Philippines, as members of the same region with similar interests and attitudes, have a joint desire and determination to work together to respond effectively to the strains and tensions in the international situation. We both welcomed the normalisation of relations between Peking and Washington. It will assist the development of a more effective United States policy in the Pacific and Asia, which had been hampered by the absence of formal recognition. Normalisation, and the conclusion of the friendship treaty between China and Japan, creates new opportunities for these countries to play a positive and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region. We expressed the hope that the Soviet Union would make a similar constructive contribution to the peaceful development of the region- a contribution which would be of particular importance because there are areas in which the Soviet Union is not without influence. Australia welcomes the conclusion of agreements between the Philippines and the United States on military bases. These agreements are of major importance to the strategic balance in the western Pacific. By concluding them the Philippines has made a major contribution to the stability and security of that region.

Against the background of a potential world energy shortage the Philippine and Australian governments will co-operate on energy matters. A bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement has recently been concluded, opening the way for negotiations for the supply of Australian uranium to the Philippines. In an exchange of letters between President Marcos and myself, Australia has undertaken to be a reliable and reasonable supplier of energy to the Philippines and to give technical and other assistance to help the Philippines develop its own energy potential, including uranium exploration. With respect to other aid programs, it is noteworthy that Australia’s two largest current aid projects are in the Philippines. The growing co-operation between Australia and the Philippines is further reflected in the signature of a double taxation agreement and the ratification of the trade agreement between Australia and the Philippines that had for some time, indeed for several years, been put aside. The ratification of this agreement comes at a time when trade with the Philippines has been growing faster than our trade overall, with Philippine exports to Australia growing at more than 45 per cent a year. The joint commission, which will be established under the terms of the agreement, will pursue means of futhering our bilateral trade and investment. President Marcos warmly welcomed Australia’s strong support for ASEAN and the arrangements which Australia is making to assist the Philippines as a member of ASEAN to take up market opportunities for exports to this country.

The Philippines and Australia have many common concerns and common interests, a common perception of the challenges that confront us and that we can work together to surmount. The recent visit to the Philippines, at President Marcos ‘s invitation, resulted in the consolidation of a strong and constructive relationship between our two countries. The joint communique issued at the conclusion of the visit reflects the range of matters we discussed, and something of the spirit of the meeting. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the joint communique.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2187

JOINT COMMUNIQUE

President Marcos and Prime Minister Fraser Manila, 1 1 May 1979

At the invitation of His Excellency President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Prime Minister of Australia, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, made an official visit to the Republic of the Philippines from 8 to II May 1979.

During the visit the President and the Prime Minister held extensive discussions on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. The talks were held in a very cordial and friendly atmosphere, reflecting the important and expanding relationship between the Philippines and Australia.

Discussion covered three broad areas: regional and world stability; the international economic situation; and the bilateral relationship between the Philippines and Australia.

The President and the Prime Minister agreed that some aspects of the international situation caused considerable concern, with areas of instability affecting parts of Africa, the Middle East and Indo-China. In addition, they noted that international economic difficulties added significantly to world tensions.

In such circumstances, Australia and the countries of the ASEAN region had a strong mutual interest in working closely together to prevent such tensions from impeding the peaceful progress and development of the region.

The President and the Prime Minister noted the recent normalisation of relations between China and the United States and the conclusion of the Friendship Treaty between China and Japan, and agreed that these events created new opportunities for these countries to play a positive and constructive role in the Asia/Pacific region. They expressed the hope that the Soviet Union would make a similar constructive contribution.

The two leaders expressed serious concern about the situation in Indo-China and called for a settlement of differences among the parties concerned. They agreed that disputes should be settled by peaceful means, and without resort to the use of force.

The President and the Prime Minister referred to the critical importance of the Sth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, currently being held in Manila. They agreed that its location and timing made the present conference especially important. The immediately preceding period had been one of reduced growth of world trade caused by inflation and leading to the spread of unemployment and the dangerous increase of protectionism.

The two leaders recalled the part they and their governments have played to date in bringing about an agreement on the basic elements of a Common Fund, and welcomed the prospects it brings for greater stability in commodity prices at levels which are remunerative to producers and equitable to consumers. They expressed the firm conviction that the Fund should be established as soon as possible.

The also called, in particular, upon producers and consumers to proceed to negotiate expeditiously appropriate international commodity agreements and arrangements under the Integrated Programme for Commodities of which the Common Fund was a key instrument.

The President and the Prime Minister agreed further that there was a need to look to the future and to improve on the results of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. It was of critical importance to achieve significant reductions in barriers to world trade. In this context, they noted that high rates of inflation were a significant element in the slower growth in volume of international trade and in market opportunities for all countries, especially developing ones. They therefore called upon countries, and in particular the major industralised ones, to pursue policies to bring inflation under control.

The President and the Prime Minister were pleased with the contribution that had been made by ASEAN to political stability and the economic and social development of the region. The Prime Minister emphasized Australia’s strong commitment to South-East Asia and the whole-hearted support for ASEAN, which he referred to as an excellent example of the strength and stability which could be achieved through regional co-operation. It was a basic element of Australia’s policy to work closely and cooperatively with ASEAN in all matters.

The two leaders discussed the new Australian low air fare scheme and, in this connection, they welcomed the progress made in the discussions at the recent meeting of Australian and ASEAN officials in Kuala Lumpur, including the agreement to recommend to ASEAN and Australian Ministers a settlement on a package basis.

The President and the Prime Minister agreed to start discussions on arrangements covering routes between Australia, the Philippines and countries to the north.

The President and the Prime Minister reviewed the full range of the bilateral relationship between the Philippines and Australia and were able to settle a number of issues, thus clearing the way for the fuller development of the existing network of bilateral agreements.

Referring to the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement which has just been concluded, the two leaders agreed that this would be the basis for subsequent arrangements for the supply of uranium from Australia to the Philippines.

The President and the Prime Minister noted that while the value of trade between the two countries has increased considerably, there remains a significant balance in Australia’s favour. In this context, they noted and the President welcomed the arrangements that the Australian Government was making to increase market opportunities for exports to Australia from the Philippines and other ASEAN countries.

The two leaders welcomed the exchange of letters of ratification which’ they had authorized to bring into force the trade agreement between Australia and the Philippines and agreed that this was a significant development.

The Prime Minister and the President further welcomed the signing of a double taxation agreement between the two countries which would help promote greater economic co-operation.

These various agreements, together with the accompanying strengthening of the political relationship, reflected the growing warmth and co-operation between the Philippines and Australia.

The two leaders recognised the considerable prospects for the substantial growth in tourism between Australia and the Philippines and agreed to consider early measures to realise this potential.

The President welcomed the continuing commitment of the Australian Government to the economic development of the Philippines through its various aid programs, and the Prime Minister confirmed that the Australian Government expected to maintain its aid allocations to the Philippines.

The Prime Minister said that the Australian Government had studied a recent Philippines request for assistance in the development of its energy capability, and confirmed that Australia would provide such assistance. The President welcomed the Prime Minister’s assurance that Australia intended to be a reliable and reasonable supplier of energy sources to the Philippines.

The Prime Minister expressed his pleasure and deep gratitude to the President and Government of the Republic of the Philippines for their invitation to him to visit Manila, and for the excellent arrangements and gracious hospitality that had been offered to his party. The President accepted an invitation by the Prime Minister to visit Australia at a mutually convenient time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The visit to the Philippines has contributed to making possible a relationship with that nation of a kind that I believe we have not had before. I wish to record my thanks to the President, Mrs Marcos, and members of the Philippines Government for all that they did to make my visit such a warm and very constructive one.

As honourable members will know, UNCTAD V is meeting in Manila throughout this month. It is a meeting of enormous importance. It comes at a significant time, towards the end of the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and before the Tokyo economic summit. It comes at the end of a period of some real progress on the North-South Dialogue, particularly on the Common Fund. Over the last five years, both developed and developing countries have come to accept the necessity for compromise- for movement from the rigid positions they adopted in the past. In this process, Australia has sought to set an example and has worked to build consensus. This is reflected in Australia’s work to advance the Common Fund, which has long been a policy of this Government. At one stage, both developed and developing countries took the position that the other side had to move first. Australia’s view was that, if such rigid stances were maintained, there would never be agreement, and that Australia, in the interests of progress, should take some initiative.

At the 1977 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London, Prime Minister Manley of Jamaica and I took the lead in establishing a Commonwealth technical group to define the realistic possibilities for a Common Fund, and how this could relate to an integrated program for commodities. A negotiating conference on the Common Fund was held in November 1 977. Its results were disappointing. The outcome was a virtual deadlock which held out the prospect of continuing frustration of growing conflict between developed and developing countries. To aid in avoiding this outcome, at the Sydney Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in February 1978, Australia took a new and positive position on the Common Fund. It was an advance of the position hitherto taken by the B group countries. In April 1978, my colleague, the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) represented Australia at a Commonwealth ministerial meeting, called to discuss the report of the technical group established at the London Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This ministerial meeting contributed significantly to a greater flexibility in the positions of the developed and developing country participants. And, before the November 1978 Common Fund Negotiating Conference, Australia circulated a paper setting out a suggested model on fundamental aspects of the Fund, with the aim of encouraging an accommodation between the two sides. Much of what Australia put forward was adopted by the Conference.

In addition to Australia’s actions in international forums, the Foreign Minister and I were active in discussions with the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and with many others, in advancing the idea that countries must be prepared to move if the Common Fund is to become a reality. The discussion at the December 1978 Heads of Government Meeting in Jamaica was instrumental in helping to reinforce developed countries’ support for the Common Fund. The most recent Common Fund negotiating conference, in March of this year agreed at long last on the fundamental elements of a Common Fund- a position that, 18 months ago, few would have thought possible. Australia made an important contribution to that, but there is much work to be done before the Common Fund becomes a reality. UNCTAD must build on the gains that have been made. At UNCTAD I announced the Government’s decision to contribute to the first window of the Common Fund, which will finance buffer stocks of international commodity agreements. Further negotiation is needed to define the formula for contributions to the first window. Australia will also make an effective contribution to the fund ‘s second window, which will finance other measures for the stabilisation of commodity prices, such as adequate research and effective promotion. It will also be important for commodities where it is not appropriate to establish a commodity agreement based on buffer stocking, for example, a perishable commodity.

Our support for a second window is firmly based in our own history and experience. We know from experience that such supports as research and promotion can be crucial to the success of a commodity agreement. Australia believes that with respect to the second window, although contributions are to be voluntary, it too needs a formula approach which would give more stability in financing and would do much to guarantee its success. Australia will continue to be involved fully in the further negotiation within UNCTAD, on the Common Fund. We know from our own experience, from earlier days when the Australian economy was very much dependent upon the profitability of two or three major primary commodities, how changes in the fortunes of those commodities could significantly affect Australia’s development and economic well-being. If that were true of Australia in years past, it is much more true of other countries that might depend solely on one or two commodities for their export earnings.

If the Common Fund is to work there needs to be international commodity agreements for certain commodities. Unfortunately there has been little progress so far in negotiating commodity agreements involving both producers and consumers and consistent with the policies of the Common Fund. Although some progress is being made in relation to rubber, the International Sugar Agreement is in jeopardy because of the attitude of the European Economic Community, while the United States Administration is experiencing great difficulty in having the agreement ratified by the United States Congress. Further, some aspects of existing agreements would need to be renegotiated to make them acceptable.

Developed countries must join, and agree to participate financially, in all viable commodity arrangements where they have a major interest in the trade, otherwise it will be difficult to see their agreement to the establishment of the Common Fund as other than an empty and rather cynical gesture. The effective translation of the commitment to a Common Fund into a reality will contribute to the well-being of developing and developed nations by contributing to greater stability in trade and commodities, but alone this is not enough. The dangers of inflation and increased protectionism represent major problems to both the developed and developing nations.

Inflation undermines both confidence in governments and the confidence of governments. It causes unemployment by reducing profitability and increasing uncertainty. With inflation, costs rise, industries are priced out of markets, firms invest less and employ less- creating a national and international unemployment problem. Inflation leads to disorderly exchange rate conditions and increases pressure for forms of intervention which inhibit market forces in general and world trade in particular.

We cannot overlook the conjunction between the increased rates of inflation since 1973 and the fact that the volume of world trade grew at only 4 per cent a year between 1973 and 1978, compared with 8 per cent over the previous 20 years. Therein lies a great deal of the current world economic problems. In Europe in particular, new protectionist devices have been created in recent years. Export subsidies and wage and agricultural subsidies in the EEC run as high as $25 billion each year. These are just as protectionist as tariffs, quotas or ‘voluntary restraint’ arrangements, which are hardly ever voluntary in their negotiation. They deny markets to developing countries and cause unfair competition for developing countries’ products in third markets.

Countries must move to adopt the positive adjustment policies advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and allow market forces to work. As my discussions with the Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Van Lennep, in Manila, made clear, the OECD’s view is that interventionist policies by government have the effect of locking labour and capital into particular industries. The removal or reduction of such policies would significantly enhance the prospects for growth in the international economy and international trade. It is worth noting that perhaps because of the name ‘positive adjustment policies’ there are not a few around the world who have totally misconceived the nature and thrust of the policies in fact advocated by the OECD and the SecretaryGeneral, Mr Van Lennep.

The Tokyo round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations has put some brake on the increasing move to protectionism, and that may be its greatest success. But although there are individual negotiations within, the round will be of significant benefit to Australia, and many of our exporters will have better assurance of market access than ever before in their history. In the world wide scene, the gains are modest and the impact of the negotiations is certainly not revolutionary. There has been some progress in the reduction of industrial tariffs but little has been done in relation to non-tariff barriers, particularly in relation to agriculture. Virtually nothing has been done in relation to wage subsidies and export subsidies. Against this background the world must look beyond the MTN and ensure the continuation of efforts to liberalise trade.

A lapse into protectionism would deny the basic truth that the success of the existing system, a system which has allowed enormous progress to be made in the fairly recent past, depends essentially on the growth of mutual trade, and on maintaining the conditions which allow and encourage that growth. Nothing would lead to greater bitterness and greater disillusionment among developing nations and would do more to strengthen the case of those who argue for extreme policies than the systematic frustration of access to developed country markets. If the reward for success is to be punishment by means of new protectionist devices, by selective safeguards perhaps to be sanctioned at the MTN, it will demonstrate that the economic principles by which the developed countries have professed to live apply only to those which have already arrived and not those which are on their way. The major developed countries carry a great burden of responsibility. Their management or mismanagement of their own economies has decisive effects on the international system.

Australia has proposed that UNCTAD should call on these countries when they meet at the economic summit in Tokyo to adopt policies that will bring inflation under control and to resist the temptation to surrender to the pressures of protectionism. It is a matter of great regret that in many of the major countries inflation is rising rather than still falling and the power of their economies is so great that we are all affected by what they do and by the decisions they make.

Australia is developing a resolution on inflation, protectionism and structural adjustment and it is expected that this resolution will be launched at UNCTAD tomorrow. It has been undertaken in close concert with a number of developing countries. We hope that the resolution will have a productive effect and will cut across group lines in UNCTAD. For Australia ‘s part, our record of trade with the developing nations is a good one and we should not forget it or be talked out of it. In 1966 Australia introduced the first system of tariff preferences to assist developing countries. The Australian system has been substantially expanded. Some 80 per cent of imports from developing countries now enter Australia duty free or at a preferential tariff rate. Australia’s imports of industrial products from developing countries have increased substantially. On a per capita basis, Australia’s imports of manufactured products from developing countries, excluding petroleum, more than doubled between 1973 and 1977- a better performance than that of the United States, the EEC or Japan.

In the sensitive textiles, clothing and footwear area, access to Australia is very high. Australia’s imports on textiles, clothing and footwear from ASEAN countries alone represent $A2. 14 a head of Australia’s population compared with 63c in the United States, 51c for the European Economic Community and 25c for Japan. If these three areas allowed imports to the same extent as Australia, on a per capita basis, ASEAN exports of these products would expand by $ 1 billion a year. The task before UNCTAD is a formidable and continuing one. In approaching it, we will all need to display moderation. But we will need also to display realism; we will need to display vision; and last, and perhaps most important, we will need to display the resolution to face formidable problems and surmount them.

A useful aspect of the visit to the Philippines was the opportunity it afforded for discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Ohira, whom I earlier met in Japan but before he became Prime Minister. At that meeting we discussed important international, economic, political and strategic issues. The broad based dialogue between Japan and Australia is something which I believe both countries find useful. It is a recent development which took shape primarily following my 1978 talks in Japan with Prime Minister Fukuda when the Australian Government engaged Japan in a broad discussion rather than focussing on bilateral issues. We did it out of our concern- the common concern shared by Japan and many other countriesfor what was happening in the international environment. Domestic issues, important as they are, are not the only matters of concern to Japan and Australia. In discussing the forthcoming Tokyo Summit, we agreed that the strongest action against inflation is necessary, especially in view of the link between inflation, world trading opportunities and the North-South dialogue. It was plain from our discussions that Japan and Australia have common views on many matters including the Common Fund, co-operation in the peaceful uses of energy and the continuing importance of the United States role in world affairs, and in particular with respect to the AsiaPacific region.

One particular point of interest raised in the course of our discussions was Mr Ohira ‘s concept of a Pacific Basin Community in which there would be closer regional co-operation and dialogue amongst Pacific nations. The idea has considerable potential and merits further discussion and consultation. At the moment the concept is tentative and exploratory and requires a great deal of thinking and consultation, and I have asked the Foreign Minister to develop ideas and approaches to this subject. The discussions with Mr Ohira confirmed that Australia and Japan have close economic relations, a growing political understanding and shared perceptions about the Asia-Pacific region. We now have a broad and mutually accepted framework for constructive dialogue with Japan across the range of bilateral and more general issues which can only be to the advantage of both our countries. At the conclusion of the meeting, I expressed the hope that Mr Ohira would be able to visit Australia at the earliest possible date. He would certainly receive a warm and friendly welcome in this country.

Finally, I turn to my visit to Indonesia. I had earlier enquired whether President Soeharto would, like Prime Minister Ohira, be visiting Manila for UNCTAD V, in which case we could have had an opportunity to meet there. As an alternative, he suggested having talks on my way back, an invitation which I readily accepted because it provided an opportunity for constructive forward-looking discussions on a wide range of international, regional and bilateral matters. Our talks made it perfectly plain that Australia and Indonesia recognise that, living together in one part of the world, we need to work closely together. A strong relationship between Indonesia and Australia is a fundamental foreign policy objective of this Government and, I believe, of President Soeharto ‘s Government also. The talks confirmed the strength of our relationship and served further to advance it. They revealed a high degree of common interest and common understanding on the many political and economic problems facing the region. There have in the past been some strains between our two countries. Those difficulties are now firmly behind us, and we are determined to look to the future constructively and realistically.

The President and I reviewed developments at UNCTAD including the debate on the Common Fund, and the renewed instability in Indo-China and its implications for the region. Australia welcomes Indonesia’s current efforts to strengthen its relationship with Papua New Guinea. On the issue of the Australia-Indonesia seabed boundary negotiations we were both hopeful that they will be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion. Progress has been made in the reunification of Timorese families and there was agreement that this program should be continued as rapidly as possible. The problem of refugees from Indo-China is a human problem of vast proportions which affects all of us. It is a problem which needs to be tackled at the international level. Indonesia’s co-operation in the IndoChina refugee problem is of importance in maintaining an orderly intake of refugees into Australia. Indonesia’s continuing help in forestalling unheralded arrivals of refugees is very much appreciated, for it is much easier for Australia to take in a significant number of refugees, I believe, when this is done in an orderly way and under proper immigration procedures and not arriving unheralded on our coastline. Indonesia’s generous and constructive proposal to establish an island processing centre for refugees was discussed. Shortly after my return, we made a decision to support this proposal firmly. It is welcomed and supported by Australia. We will be contributing towards the cost of the centre. The Government urges other nations also to make financial contributions.

Finally, we discussed the possibility of President Soeharto visiting Australia before too long. The Government looks forward to offering President Soeharto the hospitality of this country. I discussed the new Australian low air fares scheme with both President Marcos and President Soeharto. I believe that tens of thousands of Australians are voting with their dollars and tickets to show the success of that particular policy. We both welcomed the progress made at the recent meeting of Australian and ASEAN officials in Kuala Lumpur where, as a result of considerable goodwill on both sides, agreement was reached to recommend to Ministers a package proposal for settlement. As General Romulo, the Philippine Minister for Foreign Affairs said to the UNCTAD delegates, the joint communique on civil aviation agreed by ASEAN and Australian officials at Kuala Lumpur was ‘an example of the way in which differences can be reconciled in the spirit of compromise’. The Australian and Philippines Governments are to discuss arrangements covering routes between Australia, the Philippines and countries to the north. Mr Ohira and I agreed that lower air fares between Japan and Australia are necessary and we urged that the negotiations that are already underway between Japan Air Lines and Qantas Airways Ltd should be concluded as quickly as possible.

In conclusion, this brief visit to nearby countries was a particularly valuable and effective one. It advanced our bilateral relations with the Philippines, Japan and Indonesia. It advanced Australian-ADEAN understanding. It allowed Australia’s views on major international economic issues to be put at the world forum of UNCTAD V. The visit allowed a warm and friendly exchange of views between Heads of Government on a range of issues which can only lead to better international co-operation and understanding on bilateral and on world issues and to enduring relationships between the peoples of our countries, our region and the world.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- Let me say at the outset that the Opposition generally supports the objectives of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. However, we are under no illusion about the enormous difficulties that confront the culmination of those objectives. We are under no illusion about the difficulties of arranging accord among the various nations which have to be involved in the discussions and negotiations and finalisation of matters associated with the objectives of UNCTAD, but also the very real and very large practical problems of making the general purposes behind UNCTAD, behind the Common Fund, and behind the new international economic order work successfully. These difficulties are very large. They are daunting in many ways. But the fact that they are daunting is not sufficient justification for retreating to a commitment to try to wrestle successfully with the challenge that UNCTAD lays before us.

I say that with some stress because it seems to me that there is a tendency in some quarters to approach this great and very important challenge with rosy spectacles, to gloss over the difficulties and to understate the real challenges which still lie ahead of the development of UNCTAD before we can conceivably regard it as being in the final stages of culmination. I regret to say that the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) tonight, for whatever else it did say- it did not say much- certainly left the impression that he was approaching the challenge of UNCTAD with this rosy spectacled view. He ought to recall that in the course of UNCTAD V discussions at Manila there was a considerable and disconcerting display of disagreement, if not conflict, between a number of the countries participating in those discussions, not on a bilateral type of dichotomy between the developing and the developed countries but on the basis of a breakup between several distinctive blocs within the countries participating.

It would be most unfortunate if this important undertaking were to fail, as have so many other idealistically motivated concepts which have been put forward in the past designed to try to assist the development of” developing countries. There is clear evidence in the community todaynot just in the Australian community but in the community of developed countries- that a certain cynicism is seeping through about ideas which are put forward to assist developing countries develop. It is cynicism based first of all upon grave doubts as to the genuineness of the credentials and motivations of the leaders of developed countries putting forward these views, and secondly, as to whether there will be enough drive, enough will and enough guts to really make these programs succeed. I recall clearly the enormous disillusionment that many people of my generation suffer today because of the very large investment they made in the decade of development during the late 1950s and the early 1960s. Honourable members will recall that in that period- within a decade- the developed countries of the world were each to contribute one per cent of their gross domestic product towards the development of the lesser developed countries. It never came off but in theory it was grand and we were all sold on the commitment. It was not that the people of the developed countries failed in the commitment; it was that the governments failed. I would hate to see this sort of thing happen again.

Another important aspect of the Prime Minister’s speech, which I wish to come back to a little later, concerns a fundamental conflict between the principles he has put forward in this speech and the principles to which he commits himself so doggedly in this country. It appears that overseas, especially on an international platform where there is a widespread audience provided from developing countries, he prefers to exemplify the qualities of free trade and of open markets and of much greater liberal access to the markets of developed countries for developing countries. He is against protection. He is against not only tariff protection but also non-tariff forms of protection, all of which exist in this country. More significantly, according to the Industries Assistance Commission, Australia has the second highest level of average protection of any country in the world.

There is no evidence that the Prime Minister has determined that he will reduce that level of protection in any effective way over any reasonable time span which would be consistent with the role he prefers to adopt when he strides onto that international stage before the representatives of developing countries seeking to exemplify the qualities of free trade and of greater market access. In Australia the Prime Minister adopts the grim and dogged role of an unrepentant protectionist. He cannot have it both ways. I want to come back to that point because there is a serious fundamental conflict between what he is stating to the developing countries of the world, what he has reported to the House tonight and what is generally his position in this country- specifically in this Parliament- when enunciating Government policy in this area.

Before I launch into the main thrust of what the Prime Minister had to say- it does very much come down to an interest in some of Australia ‘s regional neighbours but essentially in the recent UNCTAD V discussions in Manila- I have to comment on his references to the role of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the AsiaPacific region. I am not clear what the implication of his statement is when he endorses the view that a constructive role by the USSR in the Asia-Pacific region would be welcome. If it is a departure from the frenetic behaviour of the Prime Minister and his Government in 1976-77 when they discovered that Russia was about to provide aid for some of the small island developing countries of the south-west Pacific, the change is welcome. I would agree with him. Russia can contribute valuably not just in our own region- the south-west Pacific and the south and South-East Asian area- but throughout the world and ought to be encouraged to do so. That is not the same as saying that one should pardon the shortcomings, defects and wrong doings of the USSR, but it is adopting a simple proposition, that it will be more helpful to world accord to encourage a greater participation and involvement of the USSR in world affairs.

To the extent that the USSR can be encouraged to contribute to the development of independent countries while preserving thenindependent development, a most valuable contribution will have been made not just to those countries but to a more harmonious relationship between the super powers and the major powers of the world. If that is the purpose of the Prime Minister, it deserves commendation. But if it is meant as some sort of implied hectoring, some sort of implied lecturing to Russia, that because she has now conceivably a great deal of influence with Vietnam she has to behave herself and to train Vietnam to behave herself, that is ludicrous. To take that attitude is to take a particularly blinkered view of the complex relationships in the world today and within our region.

If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about stability in our region, instead of implying lectures in this way he ought to adopt immediately firstly, for Australia, the reintroduction of an aid program for the peaceful development of Vietnam.

Mr Neil:
Mr HAYDEN:

-Secondly, he ought to adopt an aggressive role in international forums in support of a vastly expanded aid program from Western developed countries in support of the development of Vietnam. I accept the proposition, if that is what is implied by the interjection, that we ought not to be providing so much aid at such a fast rate that it will allow Vietnam to become not only economically strong but also militarily strong and perhaps a destabilising influence in the world.

Mr Yates:

– It is strong enough.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Of course, but the obverse side of the proposition is simply that the debilitated state of Vietnam today leaves it almost exclusively dependent on the USSR for aid for its development. The more Vietnam is isolated from the industrialised countries of the world, the more those countries refuse to provide aid for Vietnam, the more Vietnam will be forced into the embrace of the USSR and the more its dependency will move towards total dependency and, accordingly, the more it will become a prisoner of the policies of the USSR. Australia ought to adopt a sensible attitude. A great deal of stupidity was spoken in this House in the 1960s from the Government side, from people who may have been different to those who are now here but whose views were no different to the views held by those here now. They were people who objected to the proposition that Vietnam could become an independent communist country within the world order of nations, that there are countries such as Yugoslavia which have established beyond any doubt that that is possible- not only possible but desirable- in the interests of the Western nations of the world.

That is the objective at which we ought to be aiming. Vietnam has made it clear that she requires about $5,000m of aid to rehabilitate the country after the damage caused by the extent of the Vietnamese wars. If we encourage the provision of that aid we will be making a far greater contribution to stability in the area and the independence of Vietnam. We will also be diminishing the possibility of an outbreak of super power tension in our region. Honourable members should remember that the only military super power bases that are established in our region at the present time apart from communication bases in Australia are American bases in the Philippines. There are no permanent Russian military bases in Vietnam yet, not at Cam Ranh Bay and not at any of the air bases. As the trend is now developing there is a very real likelihood that this could change. Accordingly, it was a matter of great disappointment for me to find that the Prime Minister made no reference to this issue at all.

What he did refer to on another topic was the improvement in Australia-Philippines trade. I think that we ought to put the record straight on that. The Australia-Philippines trade agreement ratification was deferred for four years. It was deferred for four years as a demonstration of dissatisfaction on the part of the Philippines with the terms of trade which it experienced with Australia. Accordingly, it applied discriminatory actions against Australia and it is only recently that trade has been allowed to develop again. So to say that exports to Australia from the Philippines have been growing by something like 45 per cent a year is meaningless. It is meaningless in the light of those experiences. Those experiences reflect an underlying problem that just has not been attended to by the Prime Minister in the comprehensive and broad framework that is needed if we are to talk about enhanced reciprocal trade relations between countries in our region and Australia.

Another topic that the Prime Minister has raised from time to time as an issue of some compassionate concern to him is that of human rights in countries within our region. It is an issue of such paramount importance to him that he made not one mention of it in his half-hour statement to the Parliament tonight. He made no mention about this fundamental principle of the freedom of man. Not one reference was made to this principle which is implicit in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. There is not one country in the South East Asian region where serious and extensive breaches of fundamental human rights do not take place. I recognise the limitations on a country such as Australia seeking to lecture developing countries on the issue of human rights. Indeed the proposition is, and I accept it, that it could be counter-productive to do this in a strident public way. But that is no excuse for not taking up the issue in any way at all. My own very strong impression, formed as a result of an extensive visit through most of South East Asia in the middle of last year, is that the Government really does not care to take up this issue but, to the extent that it may, it does it in a very off-handed manner.

The International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International have documented the extent of the repression of human rights in these various countries. The Prime Minister at least should have signalled a concern about these matters and then indicated clearly that wherever the opportunity had arisen he had taken it to discuss this matter with the leaders of these countries. I did this with the leaders of every country that I visited in the middle of last year. Some of them do not care for the matter being raised, but there is no doubt that in raising it and putting the point of view of countries such as Australia clearly but courteously, some helpful impact is made.

Let me deal with the main thrust of the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister spoke of the need for freer trade in the world order today and condemned those countries which deal in such nasty practices as protection by way of tariffs or non-tariff forms of industry. Everything that he condemned applies to this country. One wonders what he is trying to pull off with this brittle moralising, this hollow posturing and this unconvincing hypocrisy. A man cannot adopt one suit in Australia and change in to another on a different platform as the whim takes him, although this often happens here. Only a few weeks ago when he was speaking to the national conference of his party in Perth, the Prime Minister asserted that since he had become Prime Minister disruptions through industrial disputes had fallen dramatically. The same night he went on national television and condemned the trade unions for industrial action and accused them of seeking to destroy economic recovery. He is doing exactly the same sort of thing here. In Manila he proclaimed his commitment to free trade and in Australia declared that he is an unrepentent protectionist.

The latest case of the bottom lip policy making of the Prime Minister is in UNCTAD V. We had a classic case of this arising from the conflict about cheaper air fares between Australia and Great Britain, a conflict which arose because the ASEAN countries resented the way in which this matter had been handled by Australia. It was remarkable that the Government should allow such a sensitive issue of foreign relations to be handled by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). He may be very successful at negotiating toughly on butterfat subsidies, but he cannot understand the sensitive cultural differences between South East Asian countries and Australia. There was plenty of warning that difficulties were going to arise. I recall that well before these negotiations got under way, and whilst I was in the South East Asian area in the middle of last year, the leaders of those countries, especially Singapore and India, were signalling their concern. They felt that there was a sleight directed towards them in the foreign policy attitudes of the Australian Government. Here we have in relation to the air fares conflict a classic case of bottom lip impulsive policy making by the Prime Minister.

Honourable members will recall that for several days in the discussions on the cheap air fares there was a stalemate. No progress was being made by the negotiating parties because of the intransigence of the Australian delegation led by the Minister for Transport. Then, unexpectedly, in the closing hours there was a last-minute switch. It is now known why there was a last minute switch. The Minister for Transport had been discharging his instructions given to him from Cabinet. The change came at the direction of the Prime Minister who suddenly realised that he could not very well go to Manila to moralise about freer trade, about our respect for developing countries, our commitment to assist them, and at the same time be excluding them from the benefits of lower air fares. That was a clear case of economic and political discrimination. I refer also to the Prime Minister’s presence at UNCTAD V. Right up to the last minute the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was going to handle this matter in the usual sort of way, in the proper way and, I might add, in a confident way. The Prime Minister interceded at the last minute and he went to Manila instead. From the statement that he made there and from some of the comments that he made here tonight, I have no doubt at all that Australian industry will be experiencing great concern over the implications of the Prime Minister’s commitments for Australian industry. The simple fact is that the businessman’s government, the government allegedly of Australian industry, has not discussed these matters at all with Australian industry.

Mr Madigan of Hamersley Holdings Ltd has told the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that there could be serious implications for Australian industries, but more particularly mineral processing industries, which might otherwise have established themselves in this country, arising from what the Prime Minister has been saying. It may be preferable that these changes take place, but what will their effects be and what will be the losses and advantages to us as a result? Those are not things that the Prime Minister dealt with. He has indulged in empty, generalised rhetoric, but in none of the hard details which are necessary at this time of economic crisis in this country. In his statement the Prime Minister stated:

Australia is developing a resolution on inflation . . .

Based on his success till now that probably means there will be more inflation-

  1. . protectionism and structural adjustment and it is expected that this resolution will be launched at UNCTAD tomorrow.

I will not read the rest of the statement. I believe that Australian industry and the Australian community has a right to know what specifically is proposed in relation to protectionism and structural adjustment and what implications those proposals have for Australian manufacturing industry. Following on with this theme, the Prime Minister has not explored with us the implication of a so-called north-south dialogue which is essentially for the redistribution of resources and resource development opportunity from wealthy countries to developing countries. It is a very proper objective, but the implications have not been spelled out for us.

In case it is felt by honourable members opposite that I have been unfair in criticising the Prime Minister on these matters, let me point out what the people in Malaysia think about the Prime Minister’s brittle posturing overseas. Michael Richardson, an Australian newspaper correspondent in South East Asia, published an illuminating remark from a Malaysian Government official. He quoted the official as saying:

It would have been great if Australia were blameless. But any ASEAN country could have written the same speechand used it against Australia.

That is obvious to anyone who understands the economic conditions in this country and the protectionist policies practised by the Government and who has read what the Prime Minister said overseas. The Prime Minister has approached this matter too glibly. Let me quote some remarks attributed to Mr Oliver Long, the Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a few days ago. An Australian Associated Press telex reports:

Mr Long said he will press ;

The remarks relate to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at Manila- . . for governments to sign the final agreementsprobably in October- and thus commit themselves to the new machinery created by the negotiations, looking toward continuing reductions in barriers to trade.

The telex continues:

Mr Long hopes that a safeguards code can be concluded by the Tokyo round participants by mid-July. ‘I am going to do everything possible to see that an agreement is reached because I believe it is very important ‘, he said.

The safeguards code would establish the scope and limits of temporary import restraints governments could impose to protect their domestic economic interests against a surge of imports of particular products. It was the only major element of the Tokyo round negotiations that has not yet been concluded.

I believe that the Australian community is entitled to some detail about the implications of these matters. My argument, very simply, is that the Government is not approaching this matter in any constructive or practical light at all. Glib, empty, generalised rhetoric is no blueprint for the process of development and change we have to go through if the Government is genuine about providing greater access for the exports of developing countries. The implications of providing greater access for the exports of developing countries is that we also will have to develop our exports to a much greater degree than we have been prepared to do so far. We have to encourage Australian manufacturing industry to be much less inward looking than it has been so far. That process of change is dislocated, and it will develop all forms of tough political resistance if it is not understood and accepted. To be understood it must be explained in its comprehensive detail; to be accepted there must be programs which make it quite clear that the process of change will be a gradual one and one which will provide various forms of support for people who would be affected by it. We are not in the business of creating a painful process of change which uses human beings or Australian industry as sacrifices to some greater common good which is not understood by anyone except a limited few, such as the Prime Minister. If he understood it, only a limited few would understand it.

Let me give an example of the way in which we have been exploring this matter. We must bear in mind that we believe the problems we have in the economy today, both short term and medium to longer term, can no longer be left to market forces. There has to be government intervention- physical government planning, not command planning. We need indicative planning. Governments need to indicate to business, which desperately wants economic planning of this nature, what its programs will be over the medium term. It is no good introducing export incentives this year because the balance of payments are weak and whipping them away the next year because the balance of payments are picking up. Business engages in expensive investment programs which involve periods of several years of amortisation and which are based on calculations related to those investment allowances. If the allowances are withdrawn unexpectedly the whole economic viability of a business could be undermined.

The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) have developed in conjunction with their colleagues a program for a textile and clothing authority which is designed to ensure better long term planning and certainty within the industry. Its purpose will be to replace the functions of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Industry Quota Review Committee in respect of clothing and textile industries. It will involve representatives of employers and employees. It will monitor the industry and recommend policies. It will suggest measures to improve efficiency and will aim to provide a base for confident investment and development. Very importantly the authority, on behalf of government, will consult and plan with our trading partners so that Australian production of clothing and textiles is integrated to the greatest extent possible with the production of countries exporting to us.

The simple facts are that if there is to be any future for this country in its economic development and if we are to sustain relatively our per capita living standards in relation to other developed countries in the world we have to explore ways in which we can integrate our economic development with other nations’ economies. It is clear that the European economies are closing off from us. It is equally obvious that the opportunities available in America are limited and will continue to be so. It is therefore quite apparent that our greatest opportunities are going to lie in our own region- in east, south and South East Asia. But they will not be easy markets to tap. Already the volume of manufacturers in our total exports to ASEAN countries has dropped from 5 1 per cent less than 10 years ago to 39 per cent. This has occurred under this Government, which claims to be concerned about promoting these matters.

Let me outline very quickly some of the things that have to be done. A national trading corporation has to be set up with specialised negotiating skills and facilities to trade with countries like East Europe and China, and Third World nations where this sort of trading arrangement is understood and preferred. Payroll tax reimbursement for exporters ought to be re-explored. Such a system applied some years ago and was an excellent financial incentive for the development of exports. A research and development corporation ought to be established with the funds available to allow it to patent, develop, market and promote Australian inventions. Perhaps we should consider increasing the total volume of aid by exploring other forms of aid rather than making all aid exclusively untied aid. Many countries provide tied aid through the application of export credits.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the volume of aid in any relative sense but rather that we top up on that. It is far better to increase the total in this way than not to increase it at all. We will have to establish a financial institution to provide longer term credit with accommodating interest rates for developing countries so that we can sell our exports more successfully and more easily.

Other developed countries, especially Japan, do so. We will have to adopt a set of policies designed to influence the export policies of multinational corporations in this country and also to encourage them to invest a greater proportion of their profits in research and development in this country. We will also need a much more effective arrangement to follow up trade development missions that go to developing countries. The most persistent criticism I experienced last year in south and South East Asia was that Australia sent trade development missions to these countries, but there was never any follow up.

Mr Yates:

– Ha! Good point.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am telling the honourable member what the people of these countries said. They said that there was never any effective follow up. That was certainly true in India.

The Government has no room at all for complacency or satisfaction in the area of aid. There has been a 20 per cent cut in relative terms in aid for developing countries, a reduction of some $200m under the inspired leadership of the small 1’ liberal Minister for Foreign Affairs who may know a great deal about Gucci toothbrushes but who does not have anywhere near as great a commitment towards the development of developing countries. Aid to developing countries as a proportion of gross domestic product went from 0.6 per cent in 1975 down to 0.45 per cent in 1977. In 1978 it was indisputably even lower than that. That is the sort of priority the Government allocates for aid to developing countries. Instead of money being spent on spectacular investment programs and perhaps expensive electronic communications for developing countries, which very largely benefit the middle class of those countries, the whole set of concepts behind aid for developing countries needs to be reassessed and new principles and priorities established. For instance, within our region the two greatest needs fall in the areas of literacy and health services. We are eminently equipped to provide specialists- for instance, educationalists, health workers and nurses- who could work in those areas. It is a matter of properly designing a program, carefully selecting people because of their maturity, measured in terms of their personality, judgment and balance rather than necessarily their age, training them in the appropriate languages and developing grass roots literacy and health service programs, preferably at the village level. This is a far more effective and sustainable way of helping the development of these countries.

Finally, the Prime Minister should explore what I believe should be a high priority for the developed countries of this world, that is, a marshal aid type development program, funded by the developing countries of the world for the development of the lesser developed countries of the world. The marshal aid type program was outstandingly successful at the end of the Second World War in restoring the war ravaged economies and social systems of Germany and Japan, among many other countries. They were the main countries. It is indisputable, on that experience, that this sort of concept can and will work successfully. It is a two way benefit. Not only does it help the developing countries but also, at a time of depressed economic activity internationally, it can assist the restoration of economic activity in the developing countries.

In short, the Prime Minister’s statement is interesting very largely because of the conflict it reflects in the fundamental principles he has espoused, proclaiming the virtues of free trade overseas when, in fact, at home he does anything but that. It is disappointing because of the empty rhetoric and the brittle posturing which are part and parcel of his statement. It is most discouraging because it failed to face in any detailed way the complex problems which confront developing nations today and the implications of the various programs associated with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development V discussions, how they will affect Australian industry and how we will respond. The Prime Minister’s statement is interesting only for the questions it should have raised and should have answered.

page 2197

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is totally opposed to some clauses of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. Those clauses to which we are opposed aptly reflect the hostile attitude of this Government to the Public Service. Indeed, one can take a line through the Government’s policy on staff ceilings in looking at its general attitude to the role of the Public Service in providing a proper service to the community of Australia. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had pointed out that this attitude had been applied throughout most departments but in particular to the Commonwealth Employment Service at a time when this Government has brought about a record unemployment figure of 450,000 people. Yet it still seeks to cut back the service offered by the Commonwealth Employment Service by reducing the number of staff available.

That is not the only issue at stake. I draw attention to a letter which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) yesterday, a copy of which has been sent to me by a constituent in the Australian Capital Territory. It draws the attention of the Parliament to the irrational staff cuts that have taken place and how they are affecting people in the community. The letter states: .

Dear Prime Minister

I write to draw your attention to a situation which has arisen at my daughter’s school (Malkara Special School, ACT) as a direct result of your Government’s policy in relation to Public Service staff ceilings.

In short, the situation is that speech therapy services that once were provided at the school have had to be withdrawn because of starring constraints placed on the Capital Territory Health Commission. As the attached letter from the Commission says in part, ‘The Speech Therapy service of the Mental Health Branch does not have enough staff to service all areas or groups within Canberra which desperately require it.’ In the other copy of correspondence attached, the Chairman of the ACT Schools Authority acknowledges that . . a recognised need is not being met’

As I said, one can take a line through the Government’s policies on staff ceilings to see what it would do with the new power which is made available under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. People generally would not be opposed to the redeployment and the proper and efficient use of the resources of the Public Service. But giving it wide powers for the dismissal of people for any reason which is provided for under clause 7 of this Bill is something to which we on the Opposition side of the House and to which people who will be subject to the provisions of this Bill are opposed.

In New South Wales alone at the end of March this year a fully staffed CES office would have required an additional 279 people. On average that is three staff per office. Let us examine the administration of the export development incentives which this Government supposedly regards as so important. In the Export Development Grants Board there have been delays of up to two years in processing claims because this Government has not provided sufficient professional staff to cope with the expanded work load. Senior officers of the Board have had to work as receptionists and clerical assistants because the Government could not be bothered to hire any of the hundreds and thousands of school leavers it has relegated to the dole queues. For instance, in the last year of the Labor Government 3,226 school leavers were recruited as permanent employees of the Public Service compared with 1,430 in the first year of the Fraser Government. These examples of false economies could go on and on. In the 1978 annual report of the Public Service Board the Board warned the Government that its rigid and inane application of staff ceilings had grave implications for standards of service. Staff ceilings, the Board said: . . reduced mobility between departments countering the best usage of skills and talents available; diverted resources away from the training and staff development programs and activities relating to the achievement of long term economies.

Let me continue with the views of the Public Service Board. One can see from the comments made in its annual report from which I have read and from which I will quote again, how far this Government is going. The philosophy behind the Government’s move for termination of employment of people less than 55 years of age parallels its mad thinking in relation to staff ceilings in the Public Service. Again I quote from the Public Service Board annual report 1977. It states:

There are also indications that the restrictions are adversely affecting the efficiency of the Service in the longer term.

In order to meet immediate commitments, some departments have considered it necessary to divert resources away from training and staff development programs thus impeding the development of essential knowledge and skills.

In a number of areas in the Service it has been necessary to curtail review activities directed towards the achievement of long term economy.

This Government states that the Bill is directed to more efficient use of resources of the Public Service. But its previous decisions which were aimed at greater use and efficiency of the Public Service do not stand up to scrutiny. If the Government took time out to sit down with the peak councils and discuss these matters it would find that many reasons would be given by the peak councils as to why this legislation ought to be withdrawn. Greater negotiation ought to be taking place between Government and the employee representatives because some of the past arguments used by the Government have not turned out to be factual. The Public Service Board annual report also states:

In current circumstances, it is the Board ‘s view that any further general reductions in staff ceilings would call for corresponding decisions by the Government to forego functions or reduce standards of service.

During 1977-78 a large number of representations was made by departments and authorities for increases in their staff ceilings. The main increases sought were in the context of:

Increased numbers of people served by unemployment benefits administration in the Departments of Social Security and Employment and Industrial Relations.

The need for newly established bodies to consolidate their activities, for example, the Special Broadcasting Service, and the Industrial Relations Bureau, and

An increased emphaiss on some existing activities, for example, in the area of import controls.

One could go on quoting what the Public Service Board said or even what the Coombs inquiry said in relation to some of these matters upon which the Government has acted. But it has acted, as I have said, with false economies. The consultant’s report to the Coombs inquiry had this to say:

Substantial evidence exists that the vast majority of Cabinet Ministers are completely unaware of the impact of ceilings upon their departments and hence have paid them only lip service. Ceilings have assumed too much of the aura of a euphemistic political ploy. They have produced breakdowns in various parts of the government administration in the long term, and they have proved incapable of handling shortterm crises. They have proved incompatible with public sector planning. Although exerting some controlling influence over numerical movements in staff they have produced minimal influence upon efficiency and resource allocation in departments.

I think the Government would have to put forward a far more substantial argument in support of the Bill for this House to agree to it than the case put forward in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). The Minister argues that all is done for the proper, efficient use of the resources of the Public Service. But that is exactly what the Government argued when it put forward the view that the Public Service should be smaller numerically than it was when the Government came to power. But all the Government has done in reducing the number of staff in the Public Service is ensured that the community has a worse service and that the people in the Public Service cannot carry out their duties.

These reports make it plain that standards of service are falling. Activities are being curtailed and the structure and capacity of the Public Service are being undermined. Such results, testified to by the highest bureaucratic authority, indicate that the policies that this Government pursues are policies of false economy. At the same time as the Public Service is being starved of human resources, the number of unemployed is growing. In the name of efficiency, this Government justifies its irresponsible failure to staff adequately those parts of the bureaucracy providing services to or finding jobs for the unemployed. In marked contrast to the Fraser Government’s savage repression of employment in vital areas of the public sector, stands its extravagant use of committees of inquiry and task forces whose reports are usually commissioned to enable the Government to pass the buck for its disinterest in positive and compassionate proposals in the areas of employment, health and social security.

The Prime Minister, since his election, has set up some 80 inquiries at enormous expense to the Australian taxpayer. The Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, whose report was unique in that it failed to produce one positive proposal to alleviate youth unemployment, cost approximately $lm. Over the past three years, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, as it was called before it was broken up, has placed before Cabinet numerous submissions relating to job creation, education and training. All were rejected. During this time, the Government spent $lm on a cosmetic inquiry which produced a document renowned for its concern for privilege and inequality. Consultants, lawyers and university professors have profited from generous handouts while public servants are expected to grin and bear unfair staff ceilings, government vilification and disinterest. They are now threatened with the ultimate humiliation- management initiated retirement.

The problem with this Bill is not that it is concerned with efficiency and economy but that, given this Government’s record, it will be used as an instrument for pursuing further false economies, for justifying staff cuts in areas such as social security, employment and health. A Labor government, in its approach to these matters, would not want to see the numbers employed in Australian government areas run wild. What we would want to see would be staff numbers that were adequate to carry out the functions of departments at the standard that the public is entitled to expect. We would adopt the Coombs inquiry recommendation for the abolition of staff ceilings and would substitute the manpower budgeting system recommended by the inquiry. The advantage of that system is that it gears staffing levels to work requirements and standards of service. We would also expect the public sector to make some contribution to the easing of unemployment.

Nowhere in the Minister’s second reading speech did he make any attempt to explain why the Government has not followed the blueprint offered by the Coombs inquiry in respect of the matters to which the Bill relates. That blueprint was based on the existing and well understood provisions of sections 20, 67 and 85 of the Public Service Act. In relation to permanent staff, those provisions give the Public Service Board power to retrench staff excess to requirements, to retire persons who have reached minimum retiring age and to retire persons who are inefficient for reasons within or beyond their own control. The basic framework was already there. All it needed was some modifications such as the development of an appeal and review system, in which case we would not have the Public Service in the uproar it is in now. Instead, we have this piece of legislation which is woolly in its thinking, sinister in its possible means of application and open to arbitrary extension by administrative regulation and procedures effectively outside the scrutiny of Parliament.

The Labor Party acknowledges that there are some worthwhile facets of the Bill. Voluntary early retirement is one such provision. The redeployment provisions are much needed, but are ill-conceived. On the other hand, the manner in which the Bill is framed makes it difficult to bring forward amendments. There are some questions which require considerable thought and further investigation. There is a lot to suggest that the provisions of the Bill have not been adequately thought through. In the circumstances, the Opposition moves:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to incorporate-

specific reasoning for termination of employment; and

b) a comprehensive appeal system relating to termination of employment and redeployment’.

If, as will be the case, our amendment is defeated, we intend to fight in the Committee stage several clauses of this Bill. We join with members of the Commonwealth Public Service who believe that the manner in which this Bill is drafted leaves open to a government which has shown no sincerity at all to its own employees, powers that will politicise the Public Service in a way which is totally unacceptable to the Australian community, and a way which was never intended by the people who formed these parliaments that the Public Service should be used. It will leave open to the Government the opportunity to treat the Public Service in a manner which it is not able to treat any other section of the Australian work force. It is important that the Parliament does not treat the public servant as just another member of the work force. If the Fraser Administration politicises the Public Service in the standover way in which this Bill is drafted, it will be a very dark day indeed, not just for the public servants of Australia but for the whole Australian community.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Hurford:

– I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and reserve my right to speak.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I support the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979 and oppose very strongly the amendment moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young).

Mr Hodgman:

– A hypocrite!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison to stand and withdraw that remark.

Mr Hodgman:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr FALCONER:

– I believe that if this House were to accept the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Port Adelaide to withdraw this Bill with a view to redrafting it in certain ways, thereby delaying still further its passage through this House, the greatest scream of protest we would hear would be from the many public servants who are looking forward to the introduction of this Bill and its passage through this Parliament so that they can take advantage of the number of early retirement provisions contained in this Bill. Indeed, the members of the Opposition who are putting forward the suggestion that we delay the introduction of this Bill to enable further consideration would find that they would reap the wrath of many rank and file members of Public Service unions who are looking forward to this Bill. The Bill makes provision for the introduction of a scheme of redeployment and retirement in the Public Service and, where prescribed, in other areas of Commonwealth employment. The main features of the Bill are along similar lines to the scheme proposed in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1976.

The Bill before us imposes an obligation on managers in the Public Service to identify staff who cannot be efficiently utilised and to declare such staff as eligible for redeployment. The grounds for such action relate, firstly, to excess numbers of staff, secondly, to invalidity on the part of employees and, thirdly, to other reasons such as loss of licence where it is relevant to the performance of particular functions or limited efficiency in performing the functions of a position. The Public Service Board is required to attempt to redeploy such staff in other areas of the Public Service. In the event that staff cannot be so redeployed, provision is made for retirement with compensation in some cases. Discussion and negotiation with Public Service unions have resulted in improvements to the 1976 Bill, particularly with respect to the right of appeal against some of its provisions.

Under the Bill before us, staff have the right of appeal at three stages of the process of redeployment and retirement. They have the right of. appeal, firstly, at the stage when they are identified as a declared employee under the Bill, secondly, where action is taken by way of redeployment and, thirdly, where action is taken by way of retirement of certain employees. An appeals tribunal set up to hear appeals is required to have regard to procedures and principles notified by the Board or relevant authority as applying to such actions. The Bill incorporates significant amendments to the earlier Bill in the area of appeal rights following discussions with staff organisations, as I have outlined. It also makes provision for the introduction of voluntary retirement at age 55 with reduced benefits under the Superannuation Act. In some of the comments that they have made members of the Opposition and some Public Service union leaders are misjudging the mood of members of the Public Service. Members of the Public Service want the early voluntary retirement provisions. They are not afraid of the compulsory retirement provisions. Anyone in the Public Service of reasonable ability is confident of his or her ability and does not fear the provisions for management initiated retirement. Where such involuntary retirement occurs from the age of 55 onwards, an officer obtains significant additional benefits to compensate for that early retirement. Let me refer to the scale. If someone is retired one year before the age of 60- that is, at the age of 59- he or she receives an additional two months’ salary as a lump sum. At the age of 58, the benefit is an additional four months’ salary. At the age of 57, it is six months’ salary. At the age of 56, it is eight months’ salary. At the age of 55, it is 10 months’ salary. In other words, there is lump sum compensation for service foregone at the rate of two months’ salary for every one year’s retirement before the age of 60.

Not only are such persons paid a lump sum; they may also convert it into a pension entitlement. The lump sum may be converted to a pension which will provide significant additional benefits. Let us look at the example of a Clerk Class 5 retiring at the age of 55 years at a salary of approximately $14,000 after 30 years’ service. Under the provisions contained in this

Bill, if he uses the option to take out additional pension rights with his lump sum he can retire at 55 on a pension of $8,062 per annum. It would not take a great deal of effort to get some part time position to make up his total income to the level of the salary which he was originally earning. Some people on my side of the House have suggested that officers might even be tempted to try to get retirement under those provisions in order to qualify for the additional lump sum benefit which would not be available to a person who chose voluntarily to retire and simply took the option.

We have to take many of the protestations of members opposite with a grain of salt when they purport to say that members of the Public Service do not want these provisions and that they fear them. That is not the impression that I get. When those provisions are compared to the sorts of provisions available in private enterprise, they must be regarded as very attractive. In private enterprise generally, there is no guarantee that a person whose employment is terminated well before normal retiring age will get any additional lump sum benefit beyond whatever superannuation entitlement he has accumulated to that date. Certainly, with many of the larger companies in private enterprise, it is standard practice for an appropriate compensation to be made, for several months’ salary to be paid or for certain benefits to be extended to a person to compensate for the fact that he has been retired early and at an age when it might be difficult to find equivalent employment at an equivalent salary. However, many smaller and medium sized companies- probably most of them- would not be able to afford to provide those sorts of additional benefits in the case of employees who had their employment terminated at an age several years before normal retirement age.

The question has been posed: Will the Bill allow the Government to get rid of politically unacceptable employees? That is the sort of suggestion that has been floated by some members of the Opposition. They have suggested that the Bill will allow us to get rid of employees whom we deem to be politically unacceptable. That is just not on under the provisions of the Bill before the House. It does not provide for the Government to play any part in selecting individual personnel who will be affected by it. That role is in the hands of departmental heads and the Public Service Board itself. In the interests of maintaining an independent and impartial Public Service, the Bill continues the Westminster tradition of not involving the Government or Ministers in internal personnel matters. The Government’s general decisions might have an impact on the numbers of staff required but the Government cannot specify the individuals who will be affected under the provisions of the Bill.

There has been a suggestion also that the Bill gives excessive power to the Public Service Board to interfere in departments through the redeployment powers. Ultimately, the Board will have the power to redeploy staff in departments. That will happen at the end of the process spelt out in the Bill. But this general power is already given to the Board in the Public Service Act which is on the statutes at the moment. The more detailed provisions in the new Bill are consistent with the role recommended for the Board by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in handling excess staff cases. It is important to note that it also conforms closely with what some unions have wanted in excess staff situations- for example, in the Health Insurance Commission.

Let us look at the extent of the application of this Bill. It will apply to all staff of the Australian Public Service and prescribed statutory authorities except those on probation and fixed contracts and temporary employees with less than one year’s service. Initially, the Bill will extend only to staff of the Australian Public Service. But there is provision for it to be extended by regulation to cover employees of Commonwealth authorities but only where each particular authority agrees to be so covered.

Let me repeat the specific and specified grounds on which staff can be identified for redeployment or retirement. They are, firstly, where an employee is one of a class of employees excess to the efficient operating needs of their organisation. Secondly, they apply in the case of physical or mental incapacity; thirdly, they apply for any other reason prescribed in regulations under the Bill. Let me talk about these proposed regulations. Regulations prescribing ‘other reasons’ can be made only after the Public Service Board has consulted with employee organisations and reported to the Governor-General on the result of those consultations. The ‘other reasons’ that the Government at present has in mind proposing are, firstly, limited efficiency or an incapacity to perform work at a standard consistent with the efficient working of the organisation and, secondly, loss of an essential licence or qualification which is necessary of the performance of certain functions associated with a position. I suggest that they are very reasonable and limited provisions. Certainly, in private enterprise if someone was of limited efficiency or had lost an essential licence or qualification which was necessary for the performance of the functions of a certain position, there would not be much question about redeployment. In many cases, there would be direct termination of employment and there would be no rights of appeal or guarantees of compensation which are provided for under this Bill.

Another question which arises and which has been repeated is whether the Bill will allow for the arbitrary sacking of public servants for capricious reasons. The answer is, not at all. The Bill provides for the identification of staff whose services are not being used in the most efficient manner practicable. Staff can be identified only on specified grounds, in accordance with criteria and procedures to be notified in the Australian Government Gazette. Before retirement can take place, alternative employment opportunities must be thoroughly explored and all staff have rights of appeal to an independent tribunal against decisions taken under the legislation. As I have said before, that is far in excess of the guarantees that would apply in private enterprise.

Another question is whether the Bill will affect the concept of the career service. We have been used to the concept of the Public Service offering permanency of employment. In the past that permanency of employment has been accepted, at least partly, in compensation for a lower rate of remuneration than would apply in private industry. That certainly has not been the case in recent years because we know that to a large extent the Public Service has been a pacesetter in remuneration and other conditions of employment while still retaining the conditions of permanency of employment subject to the termination provisions which exist under the Public Service Act.

Under this Bill the concept of a public service with security of tenure for career officials will be preserved. The concept has always been subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act relating to termination of employment of surplus officers, retirement on the grounds of invalidity, inefficiency or incompetence, and dismissal on disciplinary grounds. Indeed, the disciplinary grounds provisions have been used very rarely. I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on which such grounds have been used. This Bill does not effect the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act. It modifies the other provisions which have been described in the past as being of too summary a nature by providing a more extensive range of appeal rights available to staff affected and by setting out more clearly the framework within which decisions are taken.

As I have said, I believe that this Bill is looked forward to with anticipation by a great many people in the Public Service. The great majority of public servants does not in any way fear the provisions for compulsory retirement. Officers who are confident of their own ability and their own contribution have no reason to fear this legislation. Those officers who might be affected by these provisions have very extensive rights of appeal and in many cases they will obtain extensive additional benefits which are not available to other officers retiring voluntarily or to people in private industry whose employment is terminated for various reasons. I believe that the Bill deserves the support of this House. I believe also that it deserves a speedy passage and that its speedy passage is being looked forward to by a great many public servants who are not being represented by honourable members opposite who are seeking to delay its passage through the Parliament.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I would like to deal with one or two matters raised by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer). The honourable member put to the House that public servants would be angry if the Opposition saw fit to use any of the forms of this House to delay the passage of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. The honourable member guaranteed that the passage of this Bill would not ring the death knell for career public service. He also pointed out that there are comprehensive appeal provisions in the Bill. That is a load of hypocritical claptrap. In the first instance, if the Government were serious about the principle of a career public service, it would have introduced the voluntary retirement provisions as a first measure. It would have done that if it felt that the Public Service was not keeping pace with the availability of employment either now or in the future. In effect, that would have been the way to go about it, but the Government is not fair dinkum. It wants to apply the same philosophy it has applied in endeavouring to bring employees to heel both in the private and public sectors of the community.

Mr Viner:

– That’s a good philosophy.

Mr INNES:

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who is sitting at the table, said That’s a good philosophy’. That is typical of his union bashing concept. The individual whom he craves after- the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is precisely the same. The philosophy is spelled out chapter and verse in this legislation. It is inbuilt in it.

Mr Viner:

– I used to act for your union.

Mr INNES:

– The Minister took money off the unions for years and he sent them down the drain; so much for maintaining the principle of permanent career service recruitment. A person had to qualify for employment in the Public Service. Employees were guaranteed a career, a service they would render in the interests of all citizens of this country. But following the passage of this Bill a whole range of other conditions will apply in retrospect which were never anticipated by people who sought a career in the Public Service. This Bill will affect not only those who are sick or those who can no longer carry out their jobs. Efficient officers of the Public Service will be dismissed. A rose by any other name; call it what you may. This Bill is called a redeployment and retirement Bill but it is the sack in anybody’s language if the end result is the same. I will illustrate the effectiveness of the so-called appeal provisions and the fallacy that is involved in them. The provisions demand that an employee dob in his or her work mate for the sack. It is a competition of toe the line, be a noncontroversial, non-original officer in policy and administration work. The philosophy in this Bill is in keeping with the philosophy in other Bills that has been spelled out and spat out by individuals on the Government side of the House. Deceit and deception have been served up to the trade union movement and other employee organisations in this country. For instance, I would like to quote from a letter signed by the Prime Minister and sent to -

Mr Viner:

– Is that a union circular?

Mr INNES:

– It is a circular that was sent to Mr B. Gradwell, the Federal Secretary of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. It is signed by Malcolm Fraser. One paragraph is headed ‘Employment Levels and Job Security’. That is a beauty! Paragraph (a) reads:

It has been our express policy - says Malcolm- to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member may not refer to the Prime Minister as Malcolm.

Mr INNES:

– I withdraw and apologise. The second paragraph of this letter, written not by my friend the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) but by the Prime Minister, read as follows:

Overall staffing levels will be determined in the light of need. Although there may be both increases and decreases in particular areas of administration as workloads vary, the initial process of streamlining has now been substantially completed and in general there will be a stability in the service.

This Bill is presented not to apply the philosophy of voluntary retirements- the Government may not get an argument from this side of the House against the implementation of such a philosophy- but as a devious concept, with the sting in the tail, to apply a set of circumstances to individuals who bow to the pressures of the Government whether they be in a Government department or a Commonwealth authority, all of whom day after day are stood over by the Government in the carrying out of their duties. I refer to Telecom Australia, Australia Post and other authorities which have quite coincidentally adopted the staff levels that the Government has applied.

In the event of industrial disputation, such as we have in Australia Post, the philosophy of the Government applies once again. It is not left to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to resolve the dispute because by instruction and pressure from the Government the dispute is taken out of that area. I have often thought that the mateship principle, that great Aussie characteristic, has been overplayed in this country. I rather believe that the basic selfishness engendered by pressure from the Government, rather than the sugar-coated myth of mateship, operates when people are competing for jobs. If I am wrong and the spirit of mateship is a driving force in Australian life, in our homes and work places, then this Bill can be seen as a monstrous attempt by the Government to destroy that force. I am now referring to the great appeal provision in the Bill. Here we have a Bill which forcibly redeploys and, I suggest, in practice will forcibly retire public servants whose only means of saving their jobs, saving their careers, saving the income which maintains their families and lifestyles, is to appeal against the declaration which renders them redeployed or retired. But in an appeal, the victim must involve his or her work mates by seeking an alternative employee in the same section to receive the declaration. The only way an employee can escape the arbitrary powers of this Bill, as I indicated before, is by dobbing in his work mate. We have to realise that this is a disgusting and disgraceful position for a government to put its workers in. It is callous, brutal and insensitive- three words which appropriately sum up what this Government is all about- and is carried out very effectively by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who is seated at the table. I will return to this point later.

I would like to analyse the motivation for this Bill. It is motivated by the basic philosophy behind the Government’s inexorable aim since it stole government in 1975 which simply put, is to put endlessly increasing profits into the pockets of people who own and control and to ensure that the Public Service is going to be the ‘whipping horse’ of all the people whom the Government represents on that side of the House. So far as the Opposition is concerned, profits are soaring not only in the private sector but also among our authorities for Telecom also is in the business of making a profit. When we seek to analyse what is happening in both areas, we find once again a tax on the employees who are making those profits. The Government has been dedicated to this philosophy since it took office of applying pressure to the Public Service. It seeks to make it the ‘whipping horse ‘ and to hold it out as the scapegoat for the Government’s incompetence. Since this Government took office it has handed out investment allowances and massive profits to Government friends and sacked hundreds of thousands of workers whose place in the economic cycle has been taken by technology; but it has totally disregarded where we go from this point.

So far as the Public Service is concerned, surely the Government has a responsibility not to enlarge the ranks of the unemployed. The Government has a responsibility to the young people of this country to create training facilities and employment opportunities in the Public Service but not by throwing on the scrap heap those who are 55 years of age or thereabouts. In the climate that has been developed through the application of the economic policies of this Government, there is nowhere that a sacked 55-year old person can go. The question of taking away the livelihood of people in the work force and pressuring them into a situation so that they become one of the large group of people out there, hanging out like granny’s tooth, suffering the indignity -

Mr Viner:

– I do not understand this.

Mr INNES:

– You would never understand it because you have always had a silver spoon in your mouth. It would not matter how many people found themselves in this position, you have a total disregard for them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not a private debate. The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr INNES:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking for your protection from the interjections of the Minister. From the outset the Government has abandoned all its promises to people. I have just read a promise by the Prime Minister to maintain stability in the Public Service. The Government abandons indexation by arguing for no wage increase at all and yet workers who find their wages falling behind are threatened with draconian measures unless they abide by the guidelines. The same philosophy applies in the Bill.

All that I have said is relevant to the Bill before us because this Government has seen the Public Service as an albatross around the neck of private industry, a drain on the profitability of its friends. It has gone against all the principles of government spending in an unemployment environment by cutting back consistently in the public sector.

The next Budget strategy will spell out the same approach with the Government putting the squeeze on departments and, by utilising the provisions of this Bill, giving away efficient officers so that it can apply the staff ceilings in the way they have been applied in the past. At a time when the Public Service should be increasing, when money should be made available to local authorities to provide employment on works of public benefit, the Government is forcing its Public Service to operate at skeleton levels and it is undermining the initiative and morale of its work force.

The Government has imposed staff ceilings on departments, many times arbitrarily, and claimed that these levels can be reached by natural resignations and retirements. But obviously the rate of natural resignation and retirement has not been enough for the squire of Nareen and the other wealthy gentlemen opposite. They have decided to put the screws on their workforce even harder and in the most malicious way imaginable. I cannot think of a better way in which to destroy the morale of the Public Service, whose employees are those for whom the Government ought to have most concern.

One of the great attractions of the Public Service is destroyed in this Bill. As I have indicated before, the attraction of permanency has been removed. Let us be honest about it; there are many boring jobs in the Public Service, particularly in the early years, and one of its disadvantages is that promotions never really take aptitude and interest into account. A public servant conceivably could go through the normal promotional processes of a career and never do a job which he or she particularly liked or which fully utilised that person’s particular talents. Naturally I believe that that does not apply to all public servants. I do not suggest that it’ applies even to the majority. However, I do believe that one of the driving forces which leads a person to decide on a Public Service career is the security of permanency. That security, as I said, is destroyed by this Bill.

The Government is applying in a retrospective way a set of rules that will affect the lives of thousands of people who are working in the Public Service. The effects of compulsory retirement as set out in this Bill will shatter many of the individuals who have budgeted for their future. It is not a question of whether they are efficient or have the capacity to do the job; it is a question of whether they have become redundant by virtue of the fact that there are just too many people in a department or in a particular area.

The Bill refers to redeployment, but I believe the thrust of the Bill is to reduce the number of public servants. Surely that cannot be denied. I contend that, in a huge mapority of cases, it will be found that no suitable vacancy will be found elsewhere and the employee will be sacked. The euphemism used in the Bill is ‘retired’. I have seen exactly the same situation occur in the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. There we saw the same circumstances and the same processes, and the same sugar-coated operation was laid down in regulations that were provided for the purpose of retrenching people when the power houses in Victoria began to shut down to give way to changes in technology. The same sort of situation applied at that time. In the SEC in Victoria a person was confronted with two alternatives. Either he retired or he accepted a job many hundreds of miles away from where he was brought up, had his stakes or lived with his family, in which case he would have to pick up stakes and move to a place where one would not send his worst enemy. I refer to the coalfields around Yallourn.

The principle in this Bill is the same. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has been champing at the bit to talk about this wonderful system of appeals. We heard the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) spell out what a wonderful system it is. But it contains that very philosophy of a person having to toe the line, be non-controversial, non-original and prepared to barter with the individual alongside him by saying: ‘I should not be sacked; it should be you’. That is a great state of affairs. That builds up a great sense of comradeship and mateship in a work situation which is supposed to be a public service. The power to declare that employees are in excess of requirements is frightening, both from the viewpoint of the employees who become its direct victims and for those who remain. Those who remain then have the pressure applied to them.

Mr Baillieu:

-What is this all about?

Mr INNES:

– The honourable member for La Trobe will not be here after the next election so he will not have to worry about anything. Those who remain in the Public Service will find themselves working under increased and unfair pressure, working excessive overtime under the continual, morale-draining strain of wondering when the next round of cuts will be ordered and, again, when the department or section will be declared ‘in excess’. It is an arbitrary power against which there is no appeal. The appeals tribual established in this Bill gives the employee the right to appeal only against his or her personal declaration. The result is that we have this sad state of affairs when one individual has to compete directly against another.

Clause 7 also gives frightening powers to the Government and its permanent heads. It outlines the reasons under which an employee may be redeployed or retired and lists, first, the ‘in excess’ clause and, secondly, physical or mental incapacity. It then lists the most terrifying news for public servants: ‘for any other prescribed reason ‘. Fancy putting that power in the hands of individuals like the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu), the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs or the honourable member for Casey. For God’s sake, it would be like making friends with a rattlesnake. That power, along with the basic motivation of this Bill, means the end of permanency and the end of the capacity of public servants to see themselves as rendering a service without the fear of people applying undue pressure on them throughout their careers. They should be able to look forward to the end of their working life and not be forced into a situation of premature retirement. People may like all the sop that is being put to them, but if the Government is serious about voluntary retirement it should have introduced that provision in the first instance and given it a trial. If that had worked out there would have been no reason to include the other provisions now contained in the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Before discussing the matters which have been raised by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) I think it would be worth while going through the details of the Bill so that we know what we are talking about. It seems that both he and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) have read only the letters from the union secretary and have not read the Bill. On many occasions members of the Public Service have come to me complaining about what they see as inefficiencies in their departments. Some have suggested that they have insufficient work to do. More often they have come complaining of others in their department who are not being fully utilised. I think this latter problem is one which can be deleterious to the morale of any worker, be he in the Public Service or within the private enterprise sector. People who are doing a normal day’s work but who are consistently in the company of others who have little to do may feel distracted by the other person’s obvious free time, or may become concerned about the apparently inequitable work load or be genuinely embarrassed by the waste of public funds. Of course, depending on the nature of the person involved, they may even feel jealous of those with little or nothing to do. This sort of problem can arise in the Public Service because of the nature of the work involved, where the work load can change dramatically at different times throughout the year.

Another feature of the Public Service which concerned me was the lack of independent advice given to those responsible for the efficient working of the various departments or sections. I have spoken before in this House of the need for efficiency audits. I am pleased to say that these have now been implemented by this Government. These audits should enable an independent assessment of the means by which the objectives of the section or department are being met. I believe that this Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill will be of assistance in both areas which I have mentioned. The Bill aims to increase the efficient and economic use of staff within the Public Service.

Clause 9 of the Bill states that the permanent head of a department is responsible for ensuring that the department operates in such a manner as to make efficient and economical use of the services of the persons employed in that department. It then sets out the means by which this aim is to be achieved. Surely the role of government is not only to provide programs to serve the needs of the Australian population but also to ensure that those programs are carried out efficiently. After all, it is the general public, the taxpayer, who is paying for such programs.

This Bill enables employees to be redeployed. The objects are set out in clause 7. I think these objects are worth reading out to the Parliament. Clause 7 reads:

  1. ) The objects of this Part are- first, to ensure, to the greatest extent that it is practicable, that each Department and each prescribed Commonwealth authority operates in such a manner as to make efficient and economical use of the services of the persons employed in the Department or by the authority; . . . secondly, to ensure, to the greatest extent that is practicable, that each employee in a Department, and each employee of a prescribed Commonwealth authority, whose services cannot, consistently with the achievement of the first object of this Part, reasonably be used in the department or by the authority . . .

The clause then sets out the various grounds upon which employees may be declared to be eligible for redeployment or retirement. I think these are worth listing. They relate to people who, because of a physical or mental incapacity, are incapable of performing their duty or, secondly, to people who are excess to the number of employees required in that department or, thirdly, to those who come within the areas to be prescribed. The Government has already made it clear that it will be looking to prescribe those persons who no longer have an essential licence or qualification to be able to carry out the job, or those with limited efficiency or an incapacity to perform work at a standard consistent with the efficient working of the organisation. It is important to note that regulations prescribing these other reasons can be made only after the Public Service Board has consulted with employee organisations and reported to the GovernorGeneral on the results of those consultations.

Take the case of a person who falls within one of these categories and becomes eligible for redeployment. Clause 10 of the Bill makes it mandatory for the departments and the authorities to notify the Public Service Board that an employee or group of employees has been declared under this Bill. The employee also must be informed. The Board then has a responsibility to endeavour to redeploy the declared employee or employees within another area of Commonwealth employment. Included in clause11 is the obligation on the Board to look at the feasibility of retraining any declared employee. The honourable member for Melbourne had not read the Bill. He knew nothing about that; he was saying: ‘Why do we not put it in?’ Under this Bill the employee also has rights of appeal to an independent tribunal against decisions taken under the legislation. Appeals can be made against the decisions of the department or authority to declare any employee to be eligible for redeployment. The employee can also appeal against a particular redeployment action proposed to be taken by the Board. For example, where a reduction in salary would be involved he has the right of appeal. Similarly, a decision by the Board that redeployment is not practical can be appealed against. Clause15, sub-clauses (5) and (6) of the Bill allow for other employees to be joined as a party to the appeal where they may be affected by the result of the appeal; for example, in a case where a department head decides that he has excess numbers in his department.

It is these provisions which the Public Service unions have criticised. Newspaper reports suggest that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association is to strike over the passing of this Bill. I have read all the documents which were sent to me by a Mr Blunden, who I think is the Australian Capital Territory branch secretary of the ACOA, and Mr Munro, the federal secretary. An example of the contents of that information which was sent to members of parliament was Mr Munro ‘s statement, which reads as follows:

There will now be machinery potentially capable of being used to dismantle or discredit any element of the Public Service which offers objective and independent advice to a nonreceptive Government.

Those same words were used by the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Port Adelaide, who, as I have said, read the letters but did not read the Bill. I can understand Mr Munro ‘s position as secretary of his union. Obviously he would want to obtain Utopian working conditions for his members if he could. However, members of this Parliament have a wider responsibility, both to the Australian public and to the Public Service. We must maintain a balance between the efficient management of Government programs while ensuring proper pay and working conditions for those in the employ of the Government. This Bill enables departments, authorities and the Public Service Board to adjust the staffing resources of the departments to meet the changes in policies or priorities that the Government might make. In taking policy decisions, in creating or doing away with certain departments, the Government is continuously accountable to the Parliament and ultimately to the Australian public at elections. If the Government does not like the news reports emanating from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, it can pass legislation to abandon the ABC, or just the news section of the ABC. However, I suggest it would be a brave Government which undertook such a move on a purely political ground.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! Would the honourable member for

Barker resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide has been given enough time to make a passing remark to his friends.

Mr Young:

– He is only talking trash.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You will please resume your seat and behave like a member of parliament.

Mr PORTER:

-I was saying that the Government could undertake a move on political grounds to abandon the ABC or abandon the news section of the ABC. Obviously it would take a brave government to do that. Certainly this Bill does not make such a move any more practical than the current situation allows, despite what the honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Melbourne, as well as Mr Munro and Mr Blunden, might try to suggest to certain elements within the Public Service.

I now move to the retirement provisions of the Bill. I understand that a number of people are looking forward to the implementation of clause 1 7 of the Bill, which will allow those who have given their service to the people of Australia in the Commonwealth Public Service to retire at 55 years of age. Some may feel that after many long years of service they have done their job or they may wish to move to other areas. Clause 17 of the Bill provides that they will be entitled to retire on a pension which is less than that which they would obtain if they retired at a later date. In general terms, a person retiring at the age of 55 will receive approximately 36 per cent of final salary as compared with about 45 per cent for a person retiring at 60 years of age. We now have the situation that if a person on a standard government financed superannuation pension retires at the age of 65, he will receive 50 percent of his final salary plus a refund of accumulated contributions with interest, which reduces to 45 per cent of salary at the age of 60 and 36 per cent of salary at 55 years of age. In those examples I have assumed that the person involved has had a service of about 30 years. Of course, he would get additional benefits for the number of years served.

Clause 23 of the Bill provides the basis for making regulations for those employees who are being retired by management; that is, nonvoluntarily. It is intended that the regulations will provide benefits to persons who are retired by reason of their loss of qualification or limited efficiency of persons between 55 and 60 years of age. To them will be provided a lump sum payment equivalent to two months salary for each year of forgone service between 55 and 60 years of age. The other cases of management initiated retirement are already covered by the provisions of the Superannuation Act and determinations of the Public Service Arbitrators. Thus, a person who is compulsorily retired at the age of 55 could obtain up to 10 months salary as a lump sum compensation for service forgone. It is important to clarify this point because at first sight it could appear to be unduly beneficial to those who are compulsorily retired compared with those who voluntarily retire at 55 years of age. The person who is compulsorily retired gets this lump sum compensation which is not available to those who retire voluntarily.

I telephoned a number of the larger Australian employers and, having discussed the matter with them, I was satisfied that these provisions did not fall into the pacesetter category, bearing in mind the size of the employer and the job prospects of the employee. It ought to be remembered also that those who voluntarily retire at the age of 55 or later presumably do so for reasons best known to themselves. They may have greener pastures to go to whereas those who are compulsorily retired at the age of 55 or above may well not have many job opportunities open to them. I wish to deal briefly with some of the points which were raised by the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Port Adelaide in previous speeches. They were clearly political speeches based on the letters that they had received from their union bosses in the Public Service.

Mr Chapman:

– They would be fairly ill informed.

Mr PORTER:

– Unfortunately, they did not appear to have read the Act although they had read the letters. They quoted the letters but not the Act. They are very upset that people can be retired at the initiation of management or, as they like to say, sacked, without appeal provisions. I wonder whether the honourable members have read section 20 of the Public Service Act. It states:

If at any time the Board finds that a greater number of officers of a particular classification is employed in any Department or Branch of a Department than is necessary for the efficient working of that Department or Branch, any officer whom the Board finds is in excess may be transferred to such other office of equal classification and salary in the Service as the officer is competent to fill, and if no such office is available the officer may be transferred to an office of lower classification and salary but if no office is available for the officer the Board may retire him from the Service.

That is section 20 of the Public Service Act. That is already law. I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide where is the right of appeal. There is not one, and that is the law now. They complain about our not giving public servants the right of appeal. That is already the law, and there is no right of appeal. Section 67 of the Public Service Act states:

If an officer appears to the Board or the Chief Officer to be inefficient or incompetent or unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging the duties of his office efficiently, the Board may, after report from the Chief Officer, and after investigation into the circumstances, retire the officer from the Service from a date to be specified by the Board, or may transfer him to some other office, with salary appropriate to suchother office.

There is no right of appeal or, if there is, perhaps the honourable member for Port Adelaide could inform me of it. It would seem to me that his Public Service union bosses do not fully inform him. They told him one side of the story but not the other. We are providing the rights of appeal that are not there now. The honourable member might say: ‘Well, I do not like the appeal board ‘. Let us look at the composition of the appeal board. Clause 16 of the Bill, sub-clause (2), states:

A Tribunal established for the purposes of an appeal under section 15 shall be constituted by-

a Chairman -

Plus one person, nominated by management and:

  1. one person nominated as provided in the regulations to represent employees.

Not only do they have an appeal provision, they have a union member on the appeal tribunal. I find the political sorts of speeches that have been made by previous members on the other side of the House to be just that, pure politics and absolute nonsense. They are pretending to represent a section of the Public Service. I think if they start counting the numbers there are not very many. Most public servants want these provisions. They see that there is benefit in the provisions. I believe there are benefits for the whole of the Australian community.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I listened intently to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I made inquiries tonight and asked what he did before he was elected to Parliament. Somebody said that he was a lawyer. I thought: ‘Well, that cannot be right after that performance here tonight. No lawyer could make so many mistakes in reading a Bill and so misunderstanding a Bill as the honourable member for Barker did’. He spoke of political speeches in this chamber. For goodness sake, if this is not a forum for political speeches where is there such a forum? Like members of the Liberal Party, he likes to walk away from the fact that these matters are motivated politically. He even denies that the Bill itself is motivated politically. I have the great honour this week, to be acting Whip for the Australian Labor Party. As such I have the honour to preparing the speakers list for this debate and others. It came to my attention on reading the Bill that the member of this chamber who has greatest contact with the Public Service, the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), is not listed to speak. He is not in the chamber. He has not been in the chamber. When there is a division called on this matter I will be interested to see how he votes.

It is all very well for the honourable member for Barker, who I understand has three public servants living in his electorate in South Australia, to tell us tonight that those three people came to see him and that they are very curious people. They are working people. Public servants are working people. They came to see the honourable member for Barker and they came to say to him: ‘Mr Porter, we have no work to do in the Public Service’. Well, I will bet London to a brick that none of those three people came out of the Commonwealth Employment Service, the Commonwealth Social Security Department or -

Mr Porter:

– Wrong.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Barker is trying to deny what I am saying. If he really knows about public servants- I have grave doubt in my mind that he does after his speech tonight- then he would know that the people in those areas are really worked out of their minds because this Government, with your indulgence, sir, if I can engage in a bit of politicking at the risk of offending the honourable member for Barker, has done a most curious thing. The Government has increased the number of unemployed people in Australia. It has brought hardship to those people who are trying to collect their unemployment benefit. It has pressed down on those who are receiving their social security benefits. For goodness sake, with the highest unemployment rate that we have had in this country for 40 years or more, with more people seeking social security because of the actions of this Government, how does this Government solve the situation? It seeks to resolve the situation by decreasing the number of people who are providing a service. What sort of rationale is there in that? Only the honourable member for Barker could justify such a situation. I cannot, no member of the Australian Labor Party can and, I might say, more than half of the Australian community cannot. If the Government wants to test that assertion then let us have an election and find out. It will not pick up that challenge.

Mr Yates:

– Don’t you be too sure.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I hear the mouth from the north of Melbourne speaking. I was not sure whether it was the honourable member for Holt or his bees speaking. It was one or the other. They both make the same sort of sense. The honourable member for Barker spoke about the appeals tribunal. He made some great play of the fact that clause16 of the Bill sets up an appeals tribunal and he then read out that clause. I will repeat it because I want the House to understand how this appeals tribunal is loaded against the employee; how the employee has not got a hope in hell with such a tribunal. I spent a life time dealing with such tribunals. Let us see what clause 16 says about the first person to be appointed, the Chairman. Sub-clause (2) (a) states that the tribunal shall be constituted by a Chairman who:

  1. ) who shall be the person appointed by the GovernorGeneral to be a Chairman of the Commonwealth Employees Redeployment . . .

Except for one regrettable instance, and that was in1975, the Governor-General of Australia acts on the advice of his Ministers. So he would seek the advice of his Minister as to whom he should appoint as Chairman. That is the practice, is it not? Nobody denies that. There is no demur. It is accepted by the House that that is the practice. That is one against the employee. Clause 16 (2) (b) states that the Tribunal shall also be constituted by:

One person nominated as provided in the regulations to represent-

in the case of an appeal against the making of a redeployment declaration- the Department or Commonwealth authority concerned . . .

So the person who sacked him then becomes part of the tribunal to whom he appeals against his sacking. That is quite a fair proposition, is it not? At this point we have two people against the employee. The third person, the only one of those three who will fight for the right of the employee, is one person nominated as provided in the regulations to represent employees. The honourable member for Barker used more than once the expression ‘their Public Service union bosses’. Of course, the honourable gentleman is renowned for hislack of astuteness in the field of politics. Of course, if he were awake in that field and aware in that area he would know that the public servants of Australia did not give the Labor Party particularly great support in the last two elections. As a consequence, I think it is most incongruous that the honourable gentleman should talk about our Public Service union bosses. In fact, I find it offensive, but then I find the honourable member for Barker offensive too. But at least he is honest.

He then went on, and I was curious about this. It really got to me. Things seldom reach me, but this really did. After saying that there is a need for this Bill, he gave us all sorts of tendentious reasons why the Bill should be in existence. Goodness gracious me! The Minister referred to sections 20 and 67 of the Public Service Act. He told the House- I have no reason to dispute the honourable gentleman; he is quite noted for his honesty and straightforwardness- that those two sections of the Public Service Act are the same as the provisions of this Bill. Such a statement makes my mind all the more suspicious. I was suspicious the moment that this legislation was brought in. I do not trust the Liberals. In company with about 90 per cent of the people of Australia I do not trust the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I do not trust the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who introduced the Bill either.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Burke may not reflect on the honourable member for Barker by saying that he finds him offensive, may not reflect on the Prime Minister and may not reflect on the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I ask the honourable member to ensure that he does not reflect on another honourable member of this House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have quite a command of the language as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are well aware, but I have some difficulty in finding kinder words to describe these gentlemen. I will take note of your warning and will be very careful not to transgress. The last thing I want to do is upset you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I pointed out, I was suspicious of these gentlemen. I take it that that is not offensive. I was suspicious of the Prime Minister, the Minister who introduced the Bill and the Government. The honourable member for Barker proved my point. I knew about those sections of the Public Service Act to which reference has been made. I have read the Bill. I thought that, if those provisions existed, my suspicions of the Government would be even worse than before. I rather think that there is some -

Mr Cotter:

– What about your expectations?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My expectations, my friend, will be justified at the next election. I wil be sitting where the honourable member is sitting, and he will not be here to see it.

Government members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you, Sir. I am glad of your protection. I really need it. Let me refer to the language that is used in the Bill and to Division 2 which refers to ‘compulsory retirement’. Why cannot members of the Government be honest and use words such as ‘dismissal’ or ‘sack’? That is what ‘compulsory retirement’ means. It is a mee comfortable expression, but why does the Government not have the courage to say ‘sacked’?

I bring honourable members now to clause 7 of the Bill which is contained in Part II- Redeployment of Employees’. I note that the issue has already been canvassed. It needs canvassing deeply. When we speak about the rights of employees to appeal, we are talking about individual employees only. If the honourable member for Barker and other Government members read this Bill they will find that there can be no appeal against a declaration that a class of people is redundant. The declaration will stand. The only thing that can happen is that those who are declared to be within the class have a right to appeal against their dismissal because they are redundant. They can appeal individually. If 1 9 people in a department make up a class and a declaration is made those 19 people will be disposed of. They will be sacked. So, if the class comprises 19 people and one person appeals against himself being included in that 1 9, the only action he can take is to say, ‘It shan ‘t ‘ be me; it should be him’. He has to dob in one of his mates. His only right of appeal is against being included in the class of people about whom the declaration is made. If his appeal is successful, somebody else has to be dragged into the breach. The class comprises a number of people, and that number of people, irrespective of who they are, must go. I do not think many Government members understand that aspect, but that is the clear intention of the whole question of redeployment and retirement.

The most offensive part of clause 7 ( 1 ) (b) (hi) is the terrible expression ‘for any other prescribed reason’. We are talking about people. The prescription is not laid down. The expression is as broad as the horizon itself- it is 360 degrees broad. Nothing could be more offensive than that provision. Nothing could be more all embracing. In fact, the Government need write nothing else in that clause except that expression. I believe there is a need to delete that expression altogether. The clause loses nothing by the deletion of those words. If the Government were sincere, it would realise that the clause loses nothing by the deletion of that expression. The Government is not being sincere. It wants those words in the clause so that it can be used as a last resort. If the Government cannot get a fellow under clause 7 (1) (b) or (a) or paragraphs (i) or (ii) of sub-clause (b) it can rely on paragraph (iii) to clean him up ‘good and proper’, to use a colloquialism. The provision is so wide and all-encompassing that it allows the Government to do all things to the employee. Irrespective of what the honourable member for Barker says, they do not include the sorts of things against which the employee has a right of appeal. It is a most offensive provision. I suggest, in line with the amendment that has been moved, that there is a need to withdraw this Bill and redraft it.

Mr Chapman:

– No chance of that.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-No chance of it! How will the honourable member ever be persuaded by reasonable and rational argument if he has already made up his mind. This is the sort of reaction that we have to put up with. Honourable members opposite are intransigent. They will not listen to common sense. They are hopeless! The proposition really concerns two matters in the Bill. If the Government is really talking about reducing the size of the Public Service even further, I would not quarrel with the early retirement provision. As I understand it, the unions have no quarrel with that provision. Why does the Government not give that proposal a go and see how many people will take advantage of it before it uses these draconian measures and takes people out and puts them into stocks- that is virtually what it is doing.

I support the amendment that has been moved. I cannot see that there is a need for such a draconian measure unless the Government is of the view that it needs these sorts of broad brush open-ended clauses in the Bill so that it can do things that I believe should not be done. I am not putting public servants in a special position. I believe that they are employees of the Parliament. They are not the exclusive servants of the Government but employees of the Parliament because they do the work that the Parliament says ought to be done. I am very much afraid that the Bill leaves the whole matter in the hands of the Executive- that is the Government and Ministers. It gives no voice to the Parliament in this matter. The honourable member for Barker placed these people in the same category as, I suppose, the Ford Motor Co. Pty Ltd factory employees. There are peaks and troughs in their periods of employment. The Government wants to rub people out. The honourable member has misunderstood the fact that the Public Service is part of the political bureaucracy of this country. Anybody who denies that is misunderstanding the situation. There is a need for the Public Service in this country to work unafraid of pressure from the politicians. Yet, because of these provisions public servants will be forever terrified of the pressure of the politicians. It is an area to which no public servants should ever be exposed. They should be able to give advice to the government of the day on questions asked by that government and matters confronting that government without the fear of retribution should there be a change of government which, of course, will occur at the next elections. This aspect is misunderstood by Government members. They believe that they were born to rule. They believe that they will sit on that side of the House forever more. I have news for honourable members, and none of it is good. Honourable members will not. After the next elections, honourable members opposite who survive will be over here and we will be over there. Our numbers will be greatly swelled. We will sit on the Government benches. We would not want to see -

Debate interrupted.

page 2212

ADJOURNMENT

Employment- Government Fiscal Policy-Rhodesian Elections-Family Welfare Support -New South Wales Coal Industry- Australian Manufacturing Industry

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-This afternoon during Question Time in this Parliament we witnessed a rather unseemly attack upon the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) by way of a Dorothy Dix question which was addressed by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard) to the Minister for Unemployment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley has apparently overlooked the fact that the proper title of the Minister is the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I meant the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). I emphasise the word ‘affairs’. The honourable member for Macquarie and the Minister quoted selected sections from the transcript of an employment conference held recently at Penrith which gave an incorrect impression of what the honourable member for Prospect intended to convey to that conference. I thought that this was rather an unseemly attack upon his neighbour. I would not have commented on this matter tonight or referred to another transcript which I have of an employment conference if that attack had not been made. In fact, I have sat on the transcript for a long time- for over a year. I was not going to use it but I now feel that in view of that attack I must bring the facts before this Parliament. If I recollect correctly, there was an employment conference early last year. It was held at the same site as this recent employment conference. The honourable member for Prospect attended that conference in the morning. I attended it in the afternoon. I raised the need for Commonwealth assistance for the promotion of industry in the outer western suburbs of Sydney. That is a very vital need. I was advised that the honourable member for Macquarie had already given a statement to the conference that morning that these funds were available from the Commonwealth Government. As I knew nothing of that matter I asked for a copy of the transcript of that conference. I quote from a letter I received from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. It states:

After some discussion Mr Gillard stated that the Commonwealth had introduced a program of assistance for industry to decentralise to areas outside designated growth centres. The amount provided by the Government was $6.2m.

Upon receipt of this advice Mr Gillard was questioned by officers of the Region where it was stated that formal advice had been received from officers of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development that this program of assistance was not available in metropolitan situations.

Mr Gillard then stated that, and I quote:

This is not what I am saying. This is the statement by the officer concerned of what Mr Gillard said:

I am not sure that the advice of the officers are correct in this case. Mr Fraser has stated in the party room that this assistance is to be provided to any area outside designated growth centres and this includes metropolitan areas. The only areas which are excluded are Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst-Orange and the MacArthur growth centre in New South Wales.

Dr Klugman:

– I think that he was lying, was he not?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I think we might show that undoubtedly he was at least misleading the public, those people at the conference and the people of the outer western suburbs of Sydney which include his electorate. On 6 April 1978, 1 asked this question No. 872 of the Prime Minister:

Is it a Tact that an amount of $6.2m allocated for a program of assistance for industry to decentralise is to be provided in areas outside designated growth centres, including metropolitan areas such as the outer western suburbs of Sydney.

The Prime Minister replied:

The 1977-78 Budget provided $6.07m for the Commonwealth’s new program of support for general decentralisation -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Bendigo to speak on a point of order.

Mr Armitage:

– The honourable member is wanting to stop the truth from coming out. This man has been misleading his electorate and the people of the western suburbs. As usual the Government Whip is being disorderly by trying to take ridiculous points of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Bourchier:

– The honourable member for Prospect made an unparliamentary remark which was responded to by the honourable member for Chifley. I am afraid that it will be recorded in Hansard. I think that it should be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-At the time the honourable member for Prospect made a comment, I did not know with absolute certainty whether it could have reflected on another honourable member. If the honourable member for Prospect acknowledges making that remark, I call on him to withdraw it.

Dr Klugman:

-I made the point that either the honourable member for Macquarie or the Prime Minister was lying and the honourable member for Chifley has confirmed this. I am not saying that the honourable member for Macquarie was lying or that the Prime Minister was lying. It is up to the people to decide who was.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect is not entitled to debate the matter. He made the statement and used an unparliamentary expression reflecting on an honourable member. I call on him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Armitage:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Prospect made a remark. I made the remark that at the very least the honourable member for Prospect was misleading the people -

Dr Klugman:

– No, the honourable member for Macquarie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No point of order arises.

Mr Armitage:

– I am sorry, the honourable member for Macquarie was misleading the people of the western suburbs and of his electorate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Ballarat.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

-My remarks tonight are, I hope, the first in a series of some 10 adjournment debate speeches which members on this side of the House hope to make over the next couple of weeks on various aspects of the economic situation facing the Government and the policy options open to the Government in tackling these situations. I will attempt to couch my remarks in non-technical language because I believe that one of the problems the Government has in its communications with the Australian public is some lack of explaining its policies in simple terms. Tonight I want to talk about the effects of Budget deficits.

The deficit is simply the gap between the amount a government spends and the amount it raises in taxes and other charges such as excise on petrol, cigarettes and the like. This gap has to be financed by borrowing. Like any other organisation, such as a company, the Government’s books must, in simple accounting terms, balance. With a Budget deficit the gap is filled by borrowing. The Government can borrow in one of three ways: It can borrow from overseas; it can borrow internally from the non-banking public; or it can borrow internally from the banking system, including the Reserve Bank of Australia.

A Budget deficit has two effects: A fiscal effect and a monetary effect. Although both can be considered separately they are in fact closely interwoven. It used to be assumed in the Keynesian economic literature that a Budget deficit was automatically expansionary in a fiscal policy sense. Therefore, in an economy where there was a lack of sufficient overall demand to employ people in the work force and to keep industry working at a high level of capacity, the theory ran that government should add to overall aggregate demand by running a Budget deficit. Conversely the theory said that at a time of excessive demand, the Government should reduce its net call on resources by running a Budget surplus.

This theory assumed a world in which we no longer live. In particular, it assumed that the prices of the factors of production, including labour, would move upwards or downwards in real terms depending on the demand for them. This is no longer so- if it ever was. For one thing, the strength of the trade union movement in protecting real income ensures that. The theory also suffered from the major weakness of largely ignoring monetary effects of a Budget deficit. These monetary effects appear to have assumed increasing importance and significance in recent times.

Nowadays, the rate of growth of the money supply is generally regarded as being of great importance- although not necessarily of sole importance- in influencing the level of inflation. It is also, nowadays, generally accepted that a high level of inflation leads to increased unemployment and a reduced level of economic growth. A reduced level of economic growth in turn makes it more difficult for the community as a whole, generally working through the Government, to provide those welfare, education, health, and other services that modern communities seem increasingly to demand. The larger the Government deficit the larger the rate of increase in the rate of growth of the money supply, other things being equal. To maintain an increase in the money supply sufficient to provide for economic growth without at the same time being inflationary, if the Government’s contribution- via its Budget deficit- to the money supply increases, the less must be the contribution by the non-government, or private sector.

Mr Young:

– Do we have to listen to all this too?

Mr SHORT:

– If the honourable member were to listen, he would learn something. For example, if the desired increase in the money supply in a particular year is say 10 per cent and the Government is contributing say 6 per cent of this 10 per cent, then that only leaves 4 per cent increase for the private sector. On the other hand, if the Government’s Budget deficit contributed only 4 per cent of the 10 per cent increase, then this would leave 6 per cent for the private sector- in other words, 50 per cent more for the private sector than in my first example.

Therefore, if the Government pre-empts a large amount of the increase in the money supply to itself, this tends to starve the private sector of funds unless highly inflationary conditions are created. The result is a squeeze on the private sector and an increase in the rates of interest to be paid for money by the private sector. This in turn has serious adverse effects on private sector activity and, therefore, on employment. It must never be forgotten that it is the private sector in Australia which provides 75 per cent of all jobs.

The simple fact is that over the past five years successive Federal governments in Australia have been running very large deficits which have had major detrimental effects on the private sector. It may be thought, and, indeed, this may be so, that a policy of returning to a situation of healthy and economic private sector growth in this country through severe restraint on government spending, through increases in taxation or a combination of both, may have short-term difficulties, but the long-term difficulties are much more significant.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Unfortunately I do not have time to answer all the theoretical premises upon which the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) has made his learned dissertation tonight. But I hope that if we are to have 10 such speeches tonight, we do not get 10 fourth form essays in economics. I would have been much more impressed with the honourable member’s speech if, instead of saying categorically that the size of the deficit would do this to the inflation rate or that the size of the increase in the money supply would do that to the inflation rate, he had produced a document setting out the proof of it by comparing countries.

Government members interjecting-

Mr BRYANT:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps I had better speak to you because government members do not choose to listen. As I see it from an examination of the figures, there is a very great difference in the relationship between the growth in the money supply from country to country in relation to the gross domestic product and the actual money supply itself in relation to the trading position. The same applies to deficits. What does the honourable member mean by deficit’? As I understand it from looking at the figures, this year the Government’s current expenditure will be about $25,500m and its revenue will be about $26,000m so that on current account there will be a surplus of about $500m.

The other $2,000m or $3,000m or whatever mess the Government has made of the situation is to meet the capital commitment of the country. I am with the honourable member, if I gather correctly what he said at the beginning of his speech, that we ought to be looking at methods of getting that money other than from taxation. That is the Middle Ages approach to the economic system and it will not get us anywhere.

I rose tonight really to speak about a matter that has come to my notice as a result of a recent safari, one might say, that I made to Rhodesia. I am not making a report on that tonight; I am just making a retort. A Nigerian High Commission news release of 3 May 1979, issued in the Australian Capital Territory and entitled ‘Nigeria Government Statement on the April 20th Election in Zimbabwe’ came into my possession. I will not read it all, but I will read some of it:

The Federal Military Government has no desire to dignify the sham elections that have just taken place in Zimbabwe with even a statement of condemnation.

The elections, even if they were free and fair, which they were not, failed to meet the objective criteria established by Security Council resolutions . . . The elaborately contrived confidence tricks that characterised the elections were a deserving insult to the intelligence of those international meddlers and the institutions which sent them . . .

I regard that as an insulting remark by the Nigerian High Commission to the members of this Parliament who went to Rhodesia to make an objective survey of the situation. Since returning to Australia we have made no statement about whether we should or should not recognise Rhodesia or whether we should or should not lift sanctions. I suggest that honourable members get hold of this document and read it because it is simply a diatribe against the whole system. It bears very little relationship to the facts and it is issued by the high commission of a government that has not held an election for at least 13 or 14 years. Under its military government, Nigeria has suffered disastrous civil wars. There has been no freedom in the country. Its people would not know what an election was. I wish Nigeria well in its proposed elections in October of this year, but I hope that the Nigerian High Commission will understand what I am saying. I intend to ensure that, as far as possible, the people of Australia understand what the Commission has said about the representatives of this Parliament who visited Rhodesia.

Later in this diatribe one notes that threats are made against any country which chooses to lift sanctions or accord recognition. I do not think international relations will prosper while that attitude is adopted by one of the significant countries of Africa- indeed, its largest country- a member of the Security Council, and one upon which we rely to prevent wars. The great difficulty with the Security Council at the moment is that those countries which are supposed to be preventing war are sponsoring it. Britain and America are by their attitude sponsoring the Patriotic Front and the Chinese and the Russians are supplying it with arms. If tonight the Rhodesian forces were overwhelmed by Cuban and Libyan infantry, if Salisbury were invested and its people slaughtered, other countries would rush in and recognise the new government tomorrow. What kind of morality is that? That is the challenge that faces us, and faces the whole world.

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

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I want tonight to deal with something much closer to our homes and our families than the wider field that has just been discussed. If possible, this debate should be reserved for matters that concern electorates. The number of instances of breakdown in family life, of people suddenly, for some unknown reason, finding themselves thrown out of a home, of the collapse of family life, or of some such serious incident occurring in households, is now on the increase. Indeed, it is on a scale that has never been known before. We are supposed to live in a society which is infinitely prosperous, in which human relations are better understood than ever before, but my experience has been that our social services are not yet geared to deal with the tragedies that occur following family breakdown; that we do not know quite how to handle that situation.

For example, only a week ago a local newspaper published a photograph of a boy aged 13 who had nowhere to go. He had been found by a police officer sleeping out, and did not know what to do. There had been an upset in his household and he had virtually run away. I am very worried as to whether our welfare organisations are capable of handling the situation that we face. We all accept that the Uniting Church and the Catholic Church- indeed all the churches in our electorates- do their very best to assist broken families; but when it comes down to employing permanently people who can help, to finding a refuge for these people, or to these people being told what they should do in these circumstances, I am sorry to say that members of our society still seem to say: ‘Well, it is hard luck for them; it does not happen in my family’. I am sorry that I cannot accept that. Both the church community and the welfare authorities in my area have said that there seems to be some misunderstanding as to who is responsible for action in this field. Does responsibility lie with the governments of Victoria or New South Wales, or is the responsibility in such tragic circumstance that of the Federal Government? As long as this malaise occurs I believe that those who work in the welfare field will be at a disadvantage.

Therefore, I would recommend to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that upon the agenda of the forthcoming Premiers Conference there shall be placed without fail, at my request and that of this Parliament, an item requiring that a decision be taken as to who is in fact responsible for the support and funding of family welfare organisations in the States. Until this is done some people will say that the responsibility to support family welfare lies with the Federal Government. Other people will say that the responsibility to assist these organisations lies with the State Government. I am sorry that as a Liberal I simply cannot allow the situation to go on any further. Therefore, I call upon the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom), who is at the table, to take note of my speech tonight and communicate to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premiers that I am not prepared to countenance a situation in which there is no proper support, either State or Federal, where there has been a family breakdown because the State and Federal authorities are quarrelling amongst themselves about who is primarily responsible. I hope this matter is put right without any further delay.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I rise tonight to discuss an issue that is very important in my electorate. It concerns a matter that has reached the front pages of most newspapers in New South Wales over the last few days, that is, the safety of the Mount Ousley pass which is the main road into Wollongong. Last Friday a runaway coal truck claimed five lives. I believe there have been 13 fatalities on that road in the past two years. This raises the whole problem of the transportation of coal by road haulage in New South Wales, particularly in my electorate. We have a coal loader which at present loads about 6.3 million tonnes of coal a year, of which 4.6 million tonnes per year is currently transported by road. I should like honourable members to consider what that means. It means that there are at least 600 round trips per day to the Port Kembla coal loader on 350 days a year. When one counts the return trips that means 1,200 trips.

We are now considering the construction of a new coal loader which will export 14 million to 15 million tonnes of coal per year, mostly to Japan. It was proposed that 10.8 million tonnes be transported by rail and about 3.5 million tonnes by road. If that were the case it would mean that coal from mines such as Westcliffe, South Bulli, Avon and Yellow Rock would still be transported by road. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Public Works in New South Wales is saying that he will restrict the road haulage to 2 million tonnes. That will mean that the coal from the major mine at South Bulli will have to be transported by rail, probably by a rail link to the Illawarra line or a conveyor belt. It will also mean that all the coal from Burragorang Valley will have to be transported through the metropolitan rail system.

The point I make is that this will mean that coal from the Westcliffe mine and any excess coal from the Burragorang Valley will still come down the Mount Ousley road. Certain members of the Liberal Party in the Federal and State spheres have seized upon the recent deplorable accident to make the point that the coal loader should be constructed at Botany Bay. That is not the point. If a new loader is constructed elsewhere in New South Wales, coal will still be hauled by road from Westcliffe and the Burragorang Valley. Some 3.5 million tonnes per year would still come down Mount Ousley. A new coal loader is required. However, in my electorate we also say that the coal trucks must come off the road. That means that a rail line should be built between Douglas Park and Helensburgh, or a conveyor belt system constructed from the Illawarra line to the South Bulli line, thence over the escarpment to Westcliffe.

We then come to the question of who pays. That is surely the fundamental question. Should it be the taxpayer or should we apply the good old capitalist principle that the buyer or the user pays- in this case, the Japanese? I now want to protest about the fact that, while we were battling to get funds in the electorates of Cunningham, Hughes and Macarthur to get the coal trucks off the road, we saw the spectacle earlier this year of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) being unwilling to force his own parameters on export tonnages. The industry lost some $4.5m from two mines- $9m in total- over two years. That could have provided the tax or levy base to raise funds to construct railway lines or conveyor belts. The Federal Government should have taxed that tonnage and returned the funds to New South Wales to get the coal trucks off the road.

Many things can be done in the short term regarding Mt Ousley. We could put a weighbridge at the top, which would at least make the trucks stop at the check station. We could make the truck drivers use low gear or drive in one lane. But the fundamental question will still remain: Until we get an adequate tax base on coal and until the Federal Government plays its role and returns money to the States to provide the proper rail transport for a vital export commodity, lives will continue to be lost in my electorate because of the unwelcome coal haulage monsters carrying coal down the escarpment to the Port Kembla coal loader.

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

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– Tonight I want to talk about the difficult problem of making Australian industry, and particularly manufacturing industry, more competitive. This problem has been the subject of two major inquiries in recent years- those of Jackson and Crawford- in addition to innumerable lesser studies by government and private bodies. It has also had the continuing attention of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. One often hears the question: ‘When are the inquiries going to stop and action begin?’ Implied in that question, of course, is ‘action by government’. It overlooks a wide range of government measures designed to assist manufacturing industry, but also overlooks the more fundamental requirement for action by industry itself. Fortunately many businesses have taken action to put themselves into a more competitive position, thus protecting their long term investment and the jobs of thousands of Australians now and in the future.

Basically the message of Jackson, repeated by Crawford, is that the Australian market is not big enough for Australian industry to nourish, and that it can do well in the future only by exploiting carefully selected world markets. In other words there must be a switch from products and services designed essentially for the domestic market to new products and new services designed for export markets. The conundrum, of course, is that the process of change causes disruption of employment, but if change does not occur, employment prospects in the medium to long term suffer. I do not believe that the change is occurring rapidly enough for our longer term comfort. How many firms in Australia have as a major component of their business strategy, under the close surveillance of top management, a serious export marketing program? How many are devoting at least as much effort to product or service development and market analysis for exports as they are to the domestic scene? Not very many, I believe. If one asks each firm as one visits it about its research and development and export marketing functions, one will often find them only in embryo, or as a sideline to the main business activity.

I am convinced that this vital fundamental shift in business strategies will not occur until it becomes demonstrably more profitable to make the change, and demonstrably more dangerous to avoid it. This means a combination of carrot and stick- the carrot of export incentives, as recommended by Crawford, and the stick of progressive tariff reductions, as wrapped in cotton wool by Crawford. Half of our industry is owned by overseas business, established to exploit the Australian domestic market. We welcomed it; we encouraged it. Mr Chifley encouraged it. We are grateful for it. It has made a massive contribution to our managerial and technical skills.

Let us now take the steps necessary to harness this powerful machine to our new objectives, by making it more profitable to export and perilous to rely solely on the Australian market. It is essential that, if Australia is to swing the bulk of its manufacturing industry in the direction which is essential for our future survival, we ensure that the overseas-owned half of it plays a major part in that change. The way we can do that is to make certain that those who make the decisions in those companies, be they the Australian managers of them or the overseas investors in them, are required to examine where the future of their investment lies. They must be given the incentive to do that and to export. They run the peril of losing the investment by progressive tariff reductions, making it unprofitable to continue to exploit only the domestic market.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2218

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Trade relations with South Africa (Question No. 3615)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 29 March1979:

  1. ) What Australian companies conduct business in South Africa.
  2. What Australian Members of Parliament have directorships, share-holdings or other business links with South African Companies.
  3. What was the value of (a) Australian exports to South Africa and (b) South African imports to Australia during each year from1972-73 to 1978-79, inclusive.
  4. What are the freight costs for both the imports and exports referred to in part ( 3 ), by mode.
  5. 5 ) What is the value of direct South African investment in Australia, by industry, for each year from 1972-73 to 1 978-79, inclusive.
  6. What is the value of Australian investment in South Africa in the 3 categories of direct investment, portfolio investment, and other private investment, for each of the same years.
  7. Has the Export Finance Insurance Corporation been active in promoting Australian exports to South Africa.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Information supplied to the Department of Trade and Resources by Australian firms regarding their overseas trading and investment activities, is given on the basis that it will be treated as ‘commercial in confidence ‘. To ensure maintenance of this essential line of communication between the Department and Australian industry, it is practice not to divulge publicly such commercial information, relating to any overseas market, supplied by Australian firms to the Department.
  2. The matters raised in this part of the honourable member’s question do not fall within my area of responsibilities and I have no information available concerning the matters raised.
  3. , (4), (5) and (6) The Australian Statistician has provided the following answers to parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the honourable members ‘ question:
  4. The following table provides details of Australia’s international trade with South Africa for the years1972-73 to 1977-78 and the period July1978 to February1979.

Details for the period July1978 to February1979 are preliminary and subject to revision.

  1. The Australian Bureauof Statistics does not compile statistics on the freight costs on Australian exports to South Africa and Australian imports from South Africa classified by mode of transport. However, from data collected in its Survey of International Shipping Operations, the ABS has compiled statistics, for1973-74 to1977-78, on freight earnings on imports and exports carried by Australian shipping operators between Australia and South Africa and on freight earnings of South African shipping operators for cargoes loaded or discharged in Australia. These statistics are shown in the following table:

It should be noted that the statistics may include some freight earnings of South African shipping operators for cargoes carried between Australia and countries other than South Africa. The table excludes the earnings of operators from other countries carrying cargoes between Australia and South Africa. Similar details for freight carried by air are not available.

  1. (ii) Australian portfolio investment in South Africanot available
  2. (iii) Australian ‘other private’ investment in South Africa- not available

Notes on the tables:

  1. a ) Combined for confidentiality reasons
  2. Information for1 978-79 is not yet available.

The symbol (. .) means that the amount is NIL orless $0.5 m.

A minus sign (- ) denotes a net withdrawal of investment.

Discrepancies between sums of the component items and totals are due to rounding.

  1. No. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has not been active in promoting Australian exports to South Africa.

VIP Aircraft: Use by Governor-General (Question No. 3624)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 April1979:

What proportion of the $ 1.6m appropriated to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the1978-79 Budget for the conveyance of the Governor-General, Ministers of State and others by Royal Australian Air Force and Department of Transport aircraft, is allocated to the Governor-General.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

No specific apportionment is made of the Budget allocation between users of VIP aircraft.

I also refer the honourable member to an answer given on my behalf on 27 April 1976 (see Senate Hansard, page 1323-4).

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Question No. 3643)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 4 April1979:

  1. ) Is copper one of the commodities which is expected to be covered by the integrated commodities program at present under discussion in UNCTAD?
  2. Has the United States of America made proposals for a price stabilisation scheme for copper?
  3. 3 ) If so, what, in brief, are the terms of the US proposals?
  4. Is it a fact that the Australian Government is fiercely opposing the US proposals; if so what are the reasons for the Government’s opposition?
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Copper is one of the commodities specifically mentioned as being a subject for consideration under the proposed integrated program for commodities that has been under discussion in UNCTAD.
  2. At the Sixth Preparatory Meeting on Cooper (26 February to 2 March1979) the US delegation tabled a paper described as a contribution to efforts to develop a workable approach to stabilisation in the copper market. The delegation emphasised that its presentation should not be construed as committing the U.S. to a negotiating conference for an international agreement for cooper. The Meeting decided that an Intergovernmental Group of Experts, which will meet in Geneva in the period 25 June to 6 July1979, should examine the implication and effectiveness and the costs to both producers and consumers of copper, of an international arrangement for copper. The Group will be expected to take into account a number of proposals and statements which appear in the documents of the various Preparatory Meetings that have discussed copper, including the US paper.
  3. The US paper outlined the framework of a possible buffer stock stabilisation scheme that would have as principal objectives the reduction of copper price fluctuations and the stabilisation of copper prices around the longer term trend. The scheme would be based on a substantial international buffer stock, with a reference price to be adjusted according to maket price trends and the activity of the buffer stock. Supply and demand would determine market prices within ranges or bands above and below the reference price, these bands to be sufficiently wide to moderate cyclical price movements without interfering with seasonal or day-to-day fluctuations.
  4. No. The Australian Government supports multilateral action involving producers and consumers to overcome international commodity problems. The US proposal is one of a number of measures that has been put forward as a possible means of stabilising the world copper market. The Australian Government, in consultation with the Australian copper industry, is examining closely the implications of developments at the UNCTAD meetings on cooper, with a view to determining what measures, if any, would be practicable and feasible.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Question No. 3644)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 4 April1 979:

  1. ) Has agreement been reached at an UNCTAD sponsored meeting on the establishment of an international fund to finance commodity price stabilisation schemes.
  2. If so, what, in brief, are the terms of the agreement.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Yes. Agreement was reached on 20 March on the fundamental elements of the Common Fund at the UN Negotiating Conference on the Common Fund. However, many problems and issues remain to be resolved in drafting the Fund ‘s Articles of Agreement and translating the fundamental elements into a fully functioning and viable international institution.
  2. The following is a summary of the agreement on the fundamental elements of the Common Fund.

Objectives: The fund would be an effective and viable institution which should facilitate, among other things, the attainment of stable conditions in commodity trade and the conclusion of international commodity agreements (ICAs), particularly on commodities of special interest to developing countries.

Purposes: The Fund will operate on the basis of two separate and non-supportive Windows:

  1. A First Window to finance buffer stocks within international commodity agreements and arrangements.
  2. A Second Window to finance specified ‘other measures’, directed towards commodity market stabilisation, in the context of producer/consumer agreements and arrangements.

Capital Structure: The financial resources of the Fund will comprise:

  1. a ) Direct government contributions of US$400m for the First Window and voluntary contributions of US$350m to the Second Window. The allocation of financial contributions between individual countries has not been determined. However, there will be a minimum equal contribution of US$ 1 m per country (part of which may be allocated voluntarily to the Second Window), and assessed contributions will be allocated to the First Window in the following percentages between the UNCTAD country Groups’.

Group of 77 (Developing Countries)- 10 percent; Group B (Developed Countries)- 68 percent; Group D (Socialist Countries of Eastern Europe)- 17 per cent; China- 5 percent.

  1. Resources from ICAs, comprising cash deposits and callable capital/guarantees pledged directly to the Fund by member governments of ICAs.
  2. Other voluntary contributions, external borrowings, and net earnings.

Association of ICAs with the Fund: To qualify for association with the Fund, ICAs must:

  1. a ) be negotiated or renegotiated on the principle of joint buffer stock financing by all producers and consumers participating in the ICAs who should cover the bulk of world trade in the commodities concerned.
  2. Use the Fund as their only banker for their buffer stocking operations.
  3. Deposit one third of their maximum financial requirements (MFR) with the Fund which will provide them with credit entitlements up to their total MFRs. The deposits are to be paid either in full or in stages and will give rise to credit rights proportionately related to them. The deposits would be withdrawn when required for stock purchases.
  4. Assign all of their stock warrants to the Fund on modalities to be agreed.

Additionally, callable capital/guarantees will be pledged directly to the Fund by ICA members to the value of each ICAs borrowing entitlement. The ICAs and their members should be fully responsible for servicing and repaying their borrowings from the Fund. The members of ICAs will not be liable through their callable capital/guarantees for the default of ICAs of which they are not members.

Voting: Votes are to be allocated to Fund members on the basis of:

  1. a ) the equality principle
  2. b ) direct government contributions
  3. callable capital /guarantees from ICA members, within the framework of the following distribution of votes between the UNCTAD country groupings:

Group of 77-47 per cent; Group B- 42 per cent; Group D- 8 percent; China- 3 percent.

No group will have a simple majority of total votes.

Decision making: Decisions will generally be taken on the basis of simple majority but there will be requirements for two levels of qualified majorities (75 per cent and 66 twothirds per cent), for some decisions, with important constitutional and significant financial questions being determined at the higher majority.

Organisation: The Fund shall have a Governing Council, an Executive Board, a Managing Director and staff. The Governing Council will establish a Consultative Committee on the Second Window to help facilitate its operations.

State Railway Systems (Question No. 3686)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May1979:

What were the operating (a) profits or (b) losses for the railway systems of (i) New South Wales, (ii) Queensland, (iii) Victoria and (iv) Western Australia in each of the last five years.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The railway systems of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia are the responsibilities of the respective States. Enquiries concerning these State owned railway systems should be addressed to the responsible State Ministers.

Abortions: Statistics (Question No. 3722)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. ) What was the total number of procedures under Item 6469 during (a) 1976-77 and (b)1977-78, and what proportion of these were undertaken to terminate pregnancies.
  2. What was the total number of abortions (a) performed and (b) paid for from funds made available by his Department during(i) 1976-77 and(ii) 1977-78.
  3. What proportion of the female population is of childbearing age.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) and (2) The estimated number of services for which medical benefits were claimed under Item 6469 in the Medical Benefits Schedule, was 50,100 in the calendar year 1977, and 50,900 in the financial year1977-78. These figures are based on sample surveys of medical benefit claims processed by health insurance funds and Medibank.

No appropriate sample data are available for the financial year 1976-77. Because the figures relate only to services for which medical benefits were claimed, they do not include services to hospital patients in standard wards of recognised hospitals. Information is not available to my Department on these latter services.

There are other Schedule items, involving gynaecological procedures, which may result in the termination of pregnancy. Such items, however, were incorporated into the Schedule for reasons other than the termination of pregnancy, even though, in some cases, termination might result.

Termination of pregnancy is the invariable outcome of Schedule item 6469, although it is apparent that terminations may occur also through the rendering of other services. There is no information on either the incidence or cost of terminations in this second category.

  1. As at 30 June1977, 49.04 per cent of women were aged15 to 49. This is the definition of ‘child bearing age’ adopted by the Bureau of Statistics for age specific fertility calculations.

Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 3786)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May1979:

  1. ) What are the charges made under the national pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
  2. Is any reduction made in the case of (a) aged pensioners, (b) recipients of supporting mothers benefit or (c) recipients of unemployment benefit.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) All persons except those in possession of a Pensioner Health Benefits Card and their dependants are required to pay a patient contribution, currently $2.50, towards the cost of each supply of a pharmaceutical benefit.
  2. (a) Aged pensioners in possession of a Pensioner Health Benefits Card and their dependants receive pharmaceutical benefits free of charge.

    1. There is no reduction in the patient contribution for recipients of supporting mothers benefit.
    2. There is no reduction in the patient contribution for recipients of unemployment benefit.

Mrs June Tapp (Question No. 3529)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March1979:

  1. ) Is Mrs June Tapp of Killarney Station subsidised by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to advise Aborigines on community work.
  2. If so, (a) when was she appointed, (b) for what period and (c) what subsidies have been paid to her in each financial year since her appointment.
  3. What duties and responsibilities have been assigned to her, under what conditions and when were they assigned.
  4. Has Mrs Tapp provided regular reports on her work and are these open for inspection.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. ) Yes.
  2. (a) 1 January 1972.

    1. No period of employment was set at time of appointment.
    2. Annual subsidy is $ 1,600. Total subsidies paid for Mrs Tapp’s work since her appointment amount to $ 10,725.25.
  3. The following ‘Job Description’ for community advisers located on pastoral properties was drawn up when the scheme was originally established in1969 by the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration, and would have been given to Mrs Tapp on her appointment:

    1. Plan and implement a program of domestic training for Aboriginal women and senior girls paying particular attention to:
    1. ) General family care and personal hygiene.
    2. ii ) House cleaning and care.
    3. Care of clothes, including laundering, ironing and mending.
    4. Planning, preparation, cooking and serving of meals, food storage and the maximum use of cooked foods.

    5. Check on infant and child feeding programs and train mothers in improved mothercraft techniques; instruct in infant and child care and hygiene.
    6. Provide assistance with and training in budgeting for meals and clothes, for household items and furniture.
    7. Encourage group cultural, social and recreational activities amongst Aboriginal women and their families along lines tending to conventionally accepted patterns; act as a bridge between women and girls of Aboriginal and European descent providing common activities, e.g. school welfare associations in which both groups can participate equally.
    8. As necessary and appropriate give training leading to domestic employment.
    9. Maintain individual progress records and review and vary programs of training as necessary.
    10. Carry out such other activities as may be necessary to further the advancement of Aboriginal women to standards acceptable to the wider Australian community.
  4. No, oversight and assessment has been carried out during periodical visits to Killarney Station by officers of the Welfare Division and latterly the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The scheme has been progressively phased out and Killarney Station is the only pastoral property receiving this subsidy. My Department is negotiating with the NT Government on alternative arrangements to meet the welfare needs of people living on pastoral properties.

Air Fares to the Middle East: Discrimination (Question No. 3579)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March1 979:

  1. Has he received a complaint from the Australian Lebanese Association about discrimination resulting from the Government’s International Civil Aviation Policy.
  2. Is it a fact that as a result of the Government’s policy, the minimum return fare to Beirut or Damascus from Sydney is $1 , 025 while the minimum fare to London is $568.
  3. ) If so, what negotiations has the Government sought, or does the Government plan, to resolve this anomaly.
  4. What formula will the Government apply, using its present policy, to the calculation of new low fares to the Middle East.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have recently received representations from the Australian Lebanese Association concerning air fares between Australia and the Middle East and drawing attention to the current disparity in cost for air travel from Australia to the Middle East when compared with the cost for air travel between Australia and London.
  2. ) and (4) I am mindful of the importance of the Middle East and the need to introduce low fares to that region. In this regard, it is proposed that fares to the Middle East will be constructed on the basis of point-to-point travel over the gateways of Damascus, Bahrein and Dubai. Passengers wishing to travel to points not currently served on services from Australia would be able to combine these pointtopoint fares with normal add-on fares. In this way, it should be possible to travel to all points in the Middle East at fares lower than those currently available.

It will be necessary, however, to conclude agreements with at least one additional point in Europe before it will be possible to introduce low fares to the Middle East. I am hopeful that it will be possible to do this in the near future.

Australian Capital Territory: Water Supply (Question No. 3605)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 29 March1979:

  1. ) Are the existing water storages in the Australian Capital Territory sufficient to meet the current water requirements of the ACT without the use of water from the Googong Dam.
  2. Will the cost of water from the Googong Dam be passed on to the ACT ratepayer; if so, what will be the increase in water rates in the ACT for 1979-80 as a result of the connection to Googong Dam.
  3. What was the total cost of the Googong Dam, including construction of the (a) pumping station, (b) water treatment works and (c) pipeline to the ACT.
Mr Staley:
LP

– In the absence of Mr Ellicott the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. ) No. The existing Cotter system which includes the Bendora and Corin Dams can serve a population of 225,000 persons. The population of Queanbeyan and Canberra as at June1 979 is expected to be 242,000 persons.
  2. Costs associated with amortization, interest and operating costs of the Googong system on the basis of the capacity which is being utilized by the present population will be reflected in water charges determined for the1979-80 financial year. The actual level of these charges has not yet been determined.
  3. $46.1m.

Aborigines: Queensland Reserves (Question No. 3609)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 March1979:

  1. ) Is the Minister able to state whether legislation has been introduced in Queensland to provide award conditions for Aboriginal and Islander residents of reserves.
  2. If so, will this belated recognition of human rights be eroded by (a) persistence of slow worker permit laws and (b) imposition on wage-earners of new levies for rates, rentals, etc., on reserves.
  3. What action has the Australian Government taken to provide human rights and land rights in Queensland in accordance with (a) international conventions, (b) national policies and (c) anti-discrimination laws.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No. The Aboriginal and Islander Commission appointed by the Queensland Government in 1977 recommended in its report issued in November 1978 ‘that full award wages be implemented for those people working on reserve communities’. But, to the best of my knowledge, no legislation has yet been introduced (and no regulations amended ) to give effect to this recommendation.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. Commonwealth Governments have, from time to time over the past ten years, discussed with the Queensland Government the amendment of legislation affecting Aborginals and Torres Strait Islanders in that State. Progressive changes have been made to the legislation.

In 1975 the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Racial Discrimination Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act in order to supersede certain provisions of the Queensland legislation which had the effect of discriminating against Queensland Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. These laws are available for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to use and legal advice is available to those wishing to do so, in particular through the Queensland Aborginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service.

When the Queensland Government announced its intention of imposing direct official management by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement on the reserve communities of Aurukun and Mornington Island in March 1978, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act. When the Queensland Government revoked the two reserves the Commonwealth negotiated an agreement whereby the Queensland Government undertook to legislate to provide both for the self-management of the two communities within a local government framework and for the grant of longterm leases over the former reserves.

The Commonwealth Government has recently entered into discussions with the Queensland Government on policy issues relating to the management of reserve communities and land tenure. These discussions are continuing.

Mornington Island: Housing (Question No. 3634)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice on 4 April1979:

What is the present status of housing (a) construction, (b) repairs, (c) finance and (d ) needs at Mornington Island.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (b) A program of cyclone restoration works to be carried out by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement at Mornington Island was approved in August1 977. The program provided for the reconstruction of1 23 dwellings over a three year period.

To date, 40 dwellings have been completed and 10 are being constructed. Another 30 dwellings are to be erected as soon as possible.

  1. An amount of $1,480,500 was approved for grants from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for housing restoration at Mornington Island. This amount represents a 30 per cent contribution toward the total cost of cyclone reconstruction. The balance is being met from the Natural Disasters Relief funds. A total of $645,089 has been expended to date.
  2. ) Completion of the cyclone restoration program should meet present housing needs at Mornington Island.

National Aboriginal Council (Question No. 3690)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May1979:

When may I expect an acknowledgement of my suggestions dated 20 October1978 on behalf of Mrs N. M. Skuta, National Aboriginal Council Member of area VCB, and others, addressed to his predecessor.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The letter referred to was acknowledged by my predecessor on 8 November1978 and a full reply was provided on 14 November 1978.

Bureau of Customs: Staff (Question No. 3716)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many (a) temporary and (b) permanent staff are currently located at the Bureau of Customs Office at 30 Darcy Street, Parramatta, NSW?

Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Six.

Light Aircraft Accidents (Question No. 3801)

Mr Burns:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May1979:

How many light aircraft accidents have occurred in the period 1 January to 30 April1979 in (a) Victoria, (b) New South Wales, (c) Queensland, (d) Western Australia, (e) South Australia, (f) Tasmania and (g) the Northern Territory and how many deaths have resulted from these accidents.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 12, (b) 35, (c) 15, (d) 7, (e) 5, (f) 1, (g) 5. Deaths resulting from these accidents were (a) Nil, (b) 6, (c) 2, (d) Nil,(e) l,(f)Nil,(g)Nil.

Clayton Teaching Hospital

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-On 3 April 1979, Dr Cass asked me, as Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, pages1393 and 4) concerning the proposed private hospital at Clayton, Victoria, to replace the present Queen Victoria Hospital. The following is in answer to the honourable member’s question:

American Medical International, (AMI), the company to which the honourable member referred, entered the Australian health care market in1978 through the acquisition of The Avenue Hospital in Melbourne.

I have been informed that the Victorian Government is currently considering a proposal for AMI to participate in the ownership construction and management of a hospital associated with the proposed Queen Victoria Medical Centre at Monash University in Melbourne. I understand that the AMI proposal is that it will provide a teaching hospital on the campus of Monash University at no capital cost to the University itself.

I understand that the proposal involves the construction by AMI, on land owned by the Crown, of a 200 bed private hospital at a cost of approximately $20m. The basis of the use of the land is that it will be provided at a nominal rental and will revert to the Crown at the end of 30 or 40 years. I am also advised that a complement of beds will be provided for public sector patients at per diem rates guaranteed not to exceed the average cost of health care delivery to the Government in a representative cross-section of Government hospitals in the State of Victoria.

I have previously pointed out, in my reply of 3 April1979, that as long as the firm concerned meets all the requirements of the Foreign Investment Review Board, I can see no reason why it should not enter this field subject to any constraints imposed as a result of the rationalisation discussions presently taking place between the Commonwealth and State Governments.

AMI is said to be aware of the problems of overbedding in certain areas of the capital cities and is therefore looking very closely at where it should locate its hospitals.

The company is also said to be aware that private hospitals in Australia today usually provide only limited services, mostly of the ‘quick throughput’ surgical type. However, I understand it is its intention to provide a totality of services similar to that provided in a balanced public general hospital in Australia and similar to those provided in its hospitals in America.

Industrial Relations Policy (Question No. 2788)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on15 November1978:

  1. ) Did he state in an undated foreword to a phamphlet issued by his Department entitled ‘Industrial Relations, A policy for the People’ that all of the Government’s industrial relations policies have been developed in a spirit of consultation to promote understanding and consensus in the interests of employers, employees and the community.
  2. If so, with what employer and employee interests was each policy developed.
  3. What are the steps that the Government took to develop policies in a spirit of consultation.
  4. On what occasion did the Government, pursuant to its election policy on consultation with employee interest, actually invite comment from employee organisations on proposals under consideration before arriving at decisions affecting these groups.
  5. Were the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, the Public Service Arbitration Amendment Act and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Amendment Act examples of consultation to promote understanding and consensus in the interests of employers, employees and the community.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. ) Yes.
  2. , (3), (4) and (5) A fundamental step in the implementation of the Government’s policy concerning consultation was the creation in June1977 of the National Labour Consultative Council comprising representatives of employees, employers and the Government. As mentioned in the pamphlet to which the honourable member refers, the establishment of the National Labour Consultative Council means that for the first time effective statutory tripartite machinery is available to provide a continuing forum for consultation between the Government, employer organizations and the trade union movement. Its members are required to meet at least once each quarter to consult together on industrial relations and manpower matters of national concern.

Since the establishment of the National Labour Consultative Council all significant industrial relations legislation for which I have been responsible, with the exception of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, has been the subject of consultation in the National Labour Consultative Council. With respect to that Act, the Government regarded its introduction and passage as a matter of urgency having regard to the effect which a then occurring dispute was having upon the provision of services to the public.

Departmental Staff: Concorde Aircraft Travel (Question No. 2908)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 November1978:

  1. ) Under what circumstances are his (a) Departmental staff and (b) Ministerial staff authorised to travel on Concorde aircraft between the United States and the United Kingdom.
  2. ) What is the additional cost per journey.
  3. How many officers of his Department (a) sought approval (b) were granted approval and (c) were refused approval to travel on Concorde aircraft during (i)1976-77, (ii) 1977-78 and (iii)1978-79 to date.
  4. How many officers from his Department or personal staff have travelled on Concorde aircraft without seeking approval.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. ) The Public Service Board, which is the approving authority for departmental travel in Concorde flights, has advised all departments that such approval will be given only in exceptional circumstances. Overseas travel by a Minister, including numbers of accompanying Department and Ministerial staff, is subject to the Prime Minister’s approval.
  2. The fare in November for a Concorde flight from New York to London was $126.15 above the normal first class fare for a New York- London flight.
  3. No officers of my former Department sought approval, were granted approval or were refused approval to travel on Concorde aircraft during 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. However, the Secretary of my former Department travelled with me on Concorde between London and Washington in June1977, and paid the difference between Concorde fare and1st class fare personally.
  4. None- see references in (1 ) and (3 ) above.

Australian Uranium Export Office (Question No. 2986)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 27 February1 979:

  1. Has the Government established an Australian Uranium Export Office within his Department.
  2. If so, what date was the Office established.
  3. How many staff comprise the Office and what is the classification of each officer.
  4. What are the functions of the Office.
  5. Will the Office participate in negotiations over uranium exports; if so, at what stages of negotiations.
  6. Does the Office have access to full information associated with uranium marketing negotiations; if not, which information is not available to the Office.
  7. Was the Office established by statute; if not, will it be so established.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes. (2)12 October1978. (3)5 positions comprising:

Chairman

First Assistant Secretary

Assistant Secretary 3 Principal Executive Officers (Class11 ) 2 Executive Officers (Class 9) 3 Clerks (Class 7)

Clerical Assistant Grade 3

Personal Secretary

Steno-secretary Grade 2

Steno-secretary Grade 1

Some of these positions have yet to be filled.

  1. The functions of the Office are set out in my statement on uranium export policy which I made in Parliament on 1 June 1978.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. 7 ) See my statement of 1 June1 978.

National Acoustic Laboratories (Question No. 3194)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 February1979:

  1. Was a joint management review of the National Acoustic Laboratories of the Department of Health completed in late November1978.
  2. If so, why have appropriate staff associations been refused information on any review proposals for reorganisation of the Laboratories thus preventing an opportunity for them to submit comment.
  3. Do the review proposals contain any suggestion of diverting some of the services provided by the Laboratories to the public; if so, would this lead to increased costs to the public, especially pensioners, for the supply of hearing aids.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Yes.
  2. ) The Joint Management review report is regarded as an internal working document and, as indicated by the Public

Service Board in its1976 Annual Report (pages 18-19) in relation to such reviews (then known as efficiency reviews), normal arrangements do not provide for release of review reports to staff or other organisations. However, arrangements will be made for consultation with staff organisations, on relevant conclusions and recommendations of the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) review, before final implementation decisions are reached.

  1. The review proposals do not contain any suggestion for diverting elsewhere services provided by the National Acoustic Laboratories to the public; its proposals are primarily directed towards improving arrangements for delivery of the present range of services provided by NAL to the public.

Good Neighbour Council: Redeployment of Staff (Question No. 3217)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. ) Did the Prime Minister promise, when announcing the ending of Government funding for the Good Neighbour Council (Hansard, 30 May 1978, page 2730), that the Government would assist in the redeployment of staff and the placement of volunteers.
  2. If so, has the Public Service Board now ruled that redundant staff from areas not covered by the Public Service Act must compete on merit for vacancies open to persons outside the Public Service.
  3. What positive efforts is the Government making to assist Good Neighbour Council staff to find new positions.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Appropriate positions are open to persons both inside and outside the Australian Public Service and all applicants including the redundant staff are able to compete on merit in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act.
  3. The Working Party, recommended in the Ga1bally Report, was established on1 9 June1 978. Since then regional Committees (comprising the Public Service Board, the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) have been established in each State and Territory to interview all Council staff and assist in finding alternative employment. Detailed staff profiles have been sent to State and local government bodies.

In addition, Council staff are being referred for consideration for any positions for which they have relevant qualifications and experience that arc advertised as open to persons who are not officers of the Service, such as the recently advertised positions in the post arrival areas of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Commonwealth Employment Service is also actively pursuing alternative employment for Council staff.

Tertiary Education: OECD Countries (Question No. 3240)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

What proportion of the population aged from1 7 to 22 inclusive is undertaking tertiary education according to the latest OECD statistics for each of the OECD countries.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Although OECD statistics are available which enable the information sought by the honourable member to be calculated, it should be noted that the statistics are not generally comparable because of deficiencies in their scope and coverage. For example, the OECD statistics for Australia exclude persons attending teachers colleges and technical and further education institutions, while those for several of the other OECD countries are based on an incomplete coverage of between 80 and 90 per cent of tertiary education. Statistics for Japan are estimated. The different emphasis placed on parttime education is also of considerable importance when interpreting the data since the OECD statistics refer only to full-time students, as are the general differences in education systems. A description of how the education systems in each country are classified is contained in ‘Classification of Educational Systems- Summary Volume’ OECD Paris1 975.

Bearing the above cautionary notes in mind, the table below shows the proportion of the population aged from1 7 to 22 inclusive undertaking full-time tertiary education according to the most recent available OECD statistics.

Age Pensioners: Psychiatric Assessment (Question No. 3241)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

Who decides to which psychiatric specialist invalid pensioners should be referred when their pensions are reviewed.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Under the procedures currently in force, the decision is made by the Commonwealth Medical Officer who decides that a specialist examination should be called for, or it is made by another senior medical officer of the Department of Health.

Self-serve Petrol Stations (Question No. 3333)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

Will he initiate, in association with the States, an investigation of safety requirements and standards in self-service petrol stations in all States and Territories following concern expressed in the media by motoring authorities, service station associations, some State Ministers and myself.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I raised this question at the most recent meeting of Ministers for Consumer Affairs, held in Sydney on Friday 6 April 1 979. The meeting noted that the Commonwealth had raised the issue and resolved to discuss the matter again at the next meeting of Consumer Affairs Ministers.

Uranium Advisory Council (Question No. 3400)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 7 March1979:

  1. Did he state on 10 April 1978 that the Government had agreed that the Uranium Advisory Council should include representation from a national voluntary environmental organisation.
  2. If so, which organisation is represented on the Uranium Advisory Council and by whom is it represented.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Mr C. W. Bonython has been appointed to the Uranium Advisory Council as a representative of the World Wildlife Fund Australia of which he is a member of the . Board of Trustees. Mr Bonython has a long record of involvement in environmental organisations.

Alfalfa Aphid (Question No. 3403)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March1979:

  1. ) Has his attention been drawn to information placed before the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources that his Department has admitted that inefficient disinsecting of overseas aircraft may have been to blame for the recent introduction of the spotted alfalfa aphid which has devastated Australian lucerne crops.
  2. ) If so, why has his Department recently instructed field officers to reduce spray treatment on international aircraft arriving in Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Yes. My Department advises however that it has been unable to attribute the introduction of the spotted alfalfa aphid to inefficient aircraft disinsection or indeed to any other specific avenue of entry.

When reports of the aphid were first received, all possible means of entry for the pest (which also occurs in middle east countries, North Africa and USA) were critically examined. These include arrival by aircraft, by air currents, on smuggled plants or by deliberate means. However the foci of infestation were already too widely dispersed by this time for the initial site of entry to be determined. There is no evidence to substantiate which, if any, of the above means of entry were involved.

However, as a follow-up, quarantine officers were asked to report any omissions of disinsection which came to their notice. There had been no such omissions previously reported which may have resulted in the pest’s introduction.

  1. ) Field officers were not instructed to reduce spray treatment for international aircraft but because of contamination problems which had been reported, were instructed to abide strictly to the procedures which had been in force for several years.

Air Fares (Question No. 3494)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 March1979:

  1. ) Is it a fact that first class air fares of the Australian domestic airlines are 25 per cent higher than economy class fares.
  2. Is it also a fact that the margin of 23 per cent between Australian domestic economy class and first class fares is low by world standards.
  3. Are economy class passengers on the Australian domestic airlines subsidising first class passengers to a greater degree than is the case abroad; if not, why not.
  4. Can he state by what percentage Australian domestic economy class air fares could be reduced, without reducing airline revenues, if the margin of 25 per cent between economy class and first class fares were to be increased to a level comparable to the upper margins prevailing to (a) Canada, ( b ) the United States of America and (c) Europe.
  5. ) Will the Government act on the recommendation contained in Part1 of the Report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review that a detailed evaluation should be undertaken which takes account of real resource opportunity costs with a view to determining appropriate fare differentials between the various categories of fare types.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The table in the answer to Question No. 2479 indicates that the Australian first class margin lies within the range of the first class margins in the EEC sample and falls just outside the range in the US sample. However, there are indications that the US airlines are presently reviewing their fare differentials and proposals have been mooted to reduce the differential between first class and economy in a bid to attract more first class traffic.
  3. No.
  4. This along with all the DATPR recommendations is currently under consideration.

Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations (Question No. 3531)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March1979:

  1. ) Will he consider extending the period for submissions on Federal, State and local government relations, to be tendered to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations.
  2. Is it a fact that only 4 weeks elapsed between receipt of the Council ‘s invitation in members’ offices and the deadline for receipt of submissions.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. ) No. It is not within the Ministerial jurisdiction of any Commonwealth Minister to direct the Advisory Council in matters pertaining to its administration or research procedures. The Advisory Council is an independent body. I am informed, however, by the Advisory Council that it will welcome submissions even though the official closing date has passed.
  2. Yes. Only four weeks elapsed between receipt of formal invitations to Members and the deadline for receipt of submissions. Submissions, however, had been widely canvassed during October1 978 and the Advisory Council has been advised that the Commonwealth Government will make a formal submission to its enquiry. This submission is being prepared by officers of the Department of National Development, Local Government Branch. Individual Members of Parliament are, of course, at liberty to forward a written submission to the Advisory. Council on their own behalf.

Miss Liliana Gasinskaya (Question No. 3574)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March1979:

  1. Was special consideration given to Miss Liliana Gasinskaya ‘s application for residence in Australia.
  2. Was the decision by the Committee on Determination of Refugee Status in this case reached more quickly than on any other application.
  3. What are the requirements for refugee status.
  4. Has any spokesperson for him or his Department suggested Miss Gasinskaya may have received abnormal or speedy treatment of her claim.
  5. How many illegal immigrants, i.e. those who have entered the country legally and who have since contravened the Commonwealth ‘s immigration laws, as well as those who have entered the country illegally, have been deported during the period 1 January1978 to date.
  6. How many applications for migration to Australia were (a) received in the period1 January1978 to date and (b) rejected in the same period.
  7. How many applications by temporary residents in Australia for more permanent status (a) have been received and (b) have been rejected since 1 January 1978 and (c) are still outstanding.
Mr Mackellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. ) and (2) No. The Committee on Determination of Refugee Status examines all cases referred to it as soon as is practicable after all the relevant information sought by the Committee on a particular case has been obtained.

In this case, the information received by the Committee had been assembled by the Department of Foreign Affairs in considering her application for political asylum.

  1. ) The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol, defines a refugee as a person who, ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. ‘

Through its ratification of the Convention and Protocol, the Government is guided in its application of its refugee policy by this definition.

In order to be granted refugee status, applicants must be able to substantiate that their particular case comes within the parameters of the definition.

  1. I am not aware of any such suggestions.
  2. A total of 794 persons who had entered the country legally and who have since contravened the Commonwealth’s immigration laws were deported in the period 1 January1978 to 20 March1979.

In the same period a total of 303 deportations were effected in respect of those persons who had entered Australia illegally.

  1. Preliminary statistics indicate that15 1,346 individuals applied for migration to Australia from1 January1978 to 28 February 1979. 80,258 applications were rejected in the same period.
  2. (a) 7,515 applications were lodged by temporary residents in Australia for permanent residence in the period1 January1978 to 3 1 December 1978.

    1. 357 applications were rejected.
    2. 2,643 (of the 7,515 lodged) were still outstanding on 31 December1978.

Petroleum (Question No. 3584)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 March1979:

What share of the motor spirit market is supplied by (a) Shell Australia Ltd, (b) Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, (c) Esso Australia Ltd, (d) Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd, (e) British Petroleum Co. Australia Ltd, (f) Total Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, (g) H. C. Sleigh Ltd, (h) Ampol Petroleum Ltd and (i) Amoco Australia Pty Ltd.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

See Annexure ‘A’ No. 2.1 to the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum ‘Marketing and Pricing of Petroleum Products in Australia ‘.

Details for the years since 1 974 are not available.

Royal Commission on Petroleum: Report (Question No. 3586)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Royal Commission on Petroleum, in its 5th Report, conclude that, if available and appropriately employed, the use of condensate could postpone for some years the need for new grass roots (oil refining) capacity.
  2. Did the Royal Commission (a) report on the considerable benefits to be obtained from the use of condensate feedstock in refining, especially those derived from the North West Shelf and the Cooper Basin and (b) recommend that further detailed analysis of this proposed use of condensate be undertaken by the Government.
  3. If so, what further analysis has been undertaken by the Government and what were the findings and recommendations.
  4. What action has the Government taken, or does it intend to take, to see that condensate from thesefields is used in oil refineries, and on what basis is this action taken.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2)Yes.

  1. and (4) The condensate from the North West Shelf and the Cooper Basin could make a significant contribution towards requirements of refineries of petrochemical plants in Australia. The scope for this will be primarily a matter for commercial decision. However, the Government will permit exports only if sales cannot be made on the domestic market on a realistic and economic basis.

Crude Oil (Question No. 3592)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government support a continuation of the broad concept of crude oil refining self-sufficiency for Australia.
  2. ) If so, what measures does it propose to take to ensure a continuation of refining self-sufficiency.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See Mr Newman’s press statement on ‘Petroleum Refining Industry’ dated 1 June 1978.

Ministerial Directions and Financial Administration (Question No. 1592)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice on 15 August 1978:

Is a Permanent Head who believes that a Ministerial direction conflicts with the law governing financial administration expected to (a) advise the Minister in writing, (b) accept and follow the Minister’s written instructions or (c) report the matter to (i) the Auditor-General or (ii) the Prime Minister.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

If a Permanent Head had reason to believe that a proposed action or decision of his Minister is illegal, he should raise the matter with his Minister.

In the unlikely event that the problem could not be otherwise resolved, the Prime Minister should be informed.

Review of Australia’s International Civil Aviation Policy (Question No. 2876)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did his Department make a submission to the Review of Australia ‘s International Civil Aviation Policy.
  2. If so, (a) what was the substance of the submission and (b) will he release it for the benefit of the Parliament.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Postal and Telecommunications Department did not make a submission to the Review of Australia ‘s International Civil Aviation Policy; the Australian Postal Commission, however, did provide a submission.
  2. A copy of the submission has been forwarded to the honourable member.

Television: Effects on Children (Question No. 3205)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) In view of the findings of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on the possible adverse neurophysiological effects of television on children, what funds has the Government allocated or does it intend to allocate, to further research in this area.
  2. What other measures has the Government taken, or does it intend to take, to ensure that the Australian public is made aware of the possible dangers involved.
  3. Will the Government provide the funds necessary to test the Emerys’ hypothesis concerning the neurophysiological effects of television as recommended by the Committee.
  4. In each case, to whom have funds been allocated, or to whom will they be allocated.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government is presently considering the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts titled Children and Television. No decision has yet been made by the Government on the Report’s recommendations.
  2. to(4)See(l).

Recommendations on Children’s Television (Question No. 3206)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which of the recommendations relating to (a) advertising and (b) education programs made by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children has the Government (i) accepted or (ii) rejected.
  2. In respect of those recommendations rejected, what were the reasons for rejection in each case.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government is presently considering the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts titled Children and Television. No decision has yet been made by the Government on the Report’s recommendations.
  2. See (1).

Operation of Post Office Agencies (Question No. 3225)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What level of usage by customers is considered necessary by Australia Post to justify keeping a post office agency in operation.
  2. How many agencies with less than this level of usage are still in operation and why have they been allowed to continue in existence.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The level of usage by customers is not the sole criterion in deciding whether a non-official post office should continue to operate.

The network of post offices and mail delivery services is reviewed continually to ensure that the facilities and services provided best meet the needs of customers, having regard to economy in operation. In reaching a decision to close a nonofficial post office, Australia Post takes into account a variety of factors, including the volume of business handled at the office, the likely level of business in the future, the general trend of development in the area, the effect the closure is likely to have on the local community and the non-official postmaster and the capacity of the postal network and the alternative facilities in the area to meet the needs of local residents.

Action to close a non-official post office may be taken in isolation but, generally, closure would coincide with some other event such as the retirement or resignation of the nonofficial postmaster, the conversion to automatic operation of the manual telephone exchange or the expiry of the lease of the premises in which the post office operates. It is normal practice for a proposal to close a post office to be discussed with local representative bodies and for State and Federal Members of Parliament to be advised in advance of the proposed action.

  1. Not applicable. See ( 1 ) above.

Australian Aid to Oceania (Question No. 3283)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What aid projects are being undertaken by the Australian Government in Oceania during 1978-79;
  2. What sums are being allocated for each project;
  3. How many Australian nationals are being employed on each project;
  4. For what period will the Government continue to fund each project.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Australia is undertaking about 1 60 projects in Oceania in 1978-79 and the anticipated expenditure for each is based on current estimates. Individual projects and expenditure in 1 978-79 are listed in Table A as is the number of Australian Nationals employed. The total allocation for Oceania (excluding Papua New Guinea) for 1978-79 is $22.9m. For each project the approximate maximum number of Australian nationals employed or expected to be employed at any time during the year is shown. These personnel are employed either:

1 ) as aid experts or advisers appointed and paid directly by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau;

by managing agents and consultants;

by host governments with some funding provided by the Australian government.

Papua/New Guinea

The great bulk of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea is given in grant form for budget support. Project aid is at present confined to two airport projects which are due for completion in 1979-80. Expenditure on these projects for 1 978-79 is expected to be $399,00.

Postbox: Werribee (Question No. 3338)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

Further to his answer to question No. 2203 (Hansard, 20 February 1979, page 89) about establishing a post box in Chirnside Avenue, Werribee, near the Walwa Place corner, will he say (a) why the suggested site was rejected in favour of a site at the corner of Duncans Road and Yalonga Avenue, (b) what is the distance from the box to the nearest house and (c) whether the site has been the subject of criticism by local residents and the Werribee Banner.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. The Duncans Road/Yalonga Avenue corner was initially preferred to the Chirnside Avenue/Walwa Place corner as the site for a posting box because it was considered that the former location would cater for residents on both sides of Duncans Road. It was considered also that the location would be convenient for most local residents as Duncans Road is a major access road to the area. A subsequent review of the use being made of the posting box at the Duncans Road/Yalonga Avenue corner snowed that, in fact, little use was being made of it and Australia Post has now relocated the posting box at the Chirnside Avenue/Walwa Place corner.
  2. Prior to the relocation of the posting box, the nearest house was about 130 metres away.
  3. The initial site was the subject of some such criticism.

Telecom: Social Benefit Cost Analysis (Question No. 3351)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does Telecom use social benefit cost analysis to evaluate potential investment projects.
  2. If so, what discount rate and shadow wage were used in evaluating the current investment program.
  3. Have there been any changes in the techniques of investment appraisal since the Review of continuing expenditure policies of the previous Government, June1973.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. ) As a public trading enterprise which endeavours to recover the total operating cost of the services it supplies by levying direct charges on the users of those services, Telecom Australia employs cost benefit analysis to evaluate the financial impact of potential investment projects on Telecom and users of the services. Financial evaluation is only one input to overall consideration of a project. Other inputs are availability of resources, the effect on other programmes and social implications.

Telecom does not regard social cost benefit analysis, as generally understood, to be the most appropriate method, in its circumstances, of evaluating the social implications of a proposed course of action. It assesses these by interactions and discussions not only wth interested sectors, but also with the broad community as was exemplified in the activities leading to the publications Telecom 2000 and Outcomes of Telecom 2000. The Telecommunications Consultative Council and frequent interactions with Staff Associations provide an opportunity to gauge the effect on staff. In addition, environmental impact statements are prepared where relevant.

  1. Not applicable.
  2. In general the techniques used for appraising the financial aspects of an investment proposal are the same as they were in June 1973. There have, however, been a dumber of initiatives taken to improve the application of the techniques and to assist in their uniform application throughout Telecom. For example, regular training courses on investment appraisal techniques have been established and a number of guidelines and instructions have been issued which specify various inputs which are to be used in any appraisal and the way in which the techniques are to be applied.

Foreign Vessels Licensed to Fish Tasmanian Waters (Question No. 3354)

Mr Burr:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many foreign fishing vessels are licensed to fish in Tasmanian waters (a) within the 1 2- mile limit and (b) beyond the 12-mile limit.
  2. ) Is there a limitation as to the size of vessels.
  3. What proposals have been received from joint venture interests or foreign interests for licences to fish in Tasmanian waters and for what species.
  4. Has any proposal been received from any company in which Sir Frank Duval has an interest.
  5. What protection will be given to local fishermen in developing the proposed 200- mile economic zone.
  6. What arrangements have been made with the Defence Department for the surveillance and policing of the proposed 200-mile economic zone.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Currently there are eight Japanese squid catching vessels permitted to operate within 12 nautical miles of the Tasmanian coast but not within the 3 mile territorial sea.

    1. A total of 19 Japanese squid catching vessels including the 8 vessels listed in (a) above are licensed to operate in waters adjacent to Tasmania.
  2. . No.
  3. A number of proposals has been received involving the use of foreign trawl vessels to carry out feasibility fishing , in waters off south and south eastern Australia. These proposals are under consideration by Commonwealth and State Governments and industry.
  4. On 8 August 1978,I announced the approval of a joint feasibility fishing proposal in waters off Tasmania involving eight Japanese squid jigging vessels as well as nominated Australian vessels suitably equipped with squid jigging gear. The project is being carried out by the Tasmanian Fisheries Company Pty Ltd, a joint venture company formed by Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd, in which Sir Frank Duval has interests, and Zengyoren a Japanese consortium.
  5. Proposals involving foreign interests will not be permitted in fisheries fully exploited, or about to be in the near future, by Australians. In considering proposals from foreign interests for access to the Australian fishing zone, one of the

Government’s objectives is the protection of the Australian fishing industry. Foreign fishing activities within the zone will be regularly reviewed to ensure that operations do not conflict with the ability of the Australian fishing industry to harvest the resources. Feasibility fishing projects will only be approved for a maximum period of 2 years with a review after the first 12 months operations.

  1. Arrangements for the future surveillance policing and management of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone are agreed by the Standing Committee on Coastal Surveillance which is chaired by an officer of the Department of Transport. The Department of Defence is represented on the committee together with representatives from the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Primary Industry, Health, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Committee agrees on the level of patrols and response effort to be undertaken by Commonwealth Civil and military vehicles supplemented by chartered ships and aircraft. The level of utilisation on Defence force facilities is agreed within the Committee.

Security: Barton Telephone Exchange (Question No. 3384)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and

Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Barton, ACT, telephone exchange serve (a) Parliament House, (b) the Treasury, (c) the Department of Foreign Affairs, and (d ) the Defence Department.
  2. If so, what security arrangements exist to protect such a key national communication nerve centre.
  3. Do alternative exchange facilities exist in each instance.
  4. Have security arrangements been reviewed following the alleged proposal to attack Sydney’s water supply earlier this year.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. Security at key telephone exchanges is regularly reviewed and following a recent survey of the Barton exchange a number of additional security measures have been taken.
  3. The special national significance of some of the involved PABX’s has led to diverse arrangements being progressively implemented. These are designed to minimise the effect of a failure at Barton.
  4. See(2)above.

Security: Civic Telephone Exchange (Question No. 3406)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Civic, A.C.T., telephone exchange an essential link to Black Mountain telecommunications tower for Canberra ‘s telex services.
  2. Is it a fact that, while the security of the tower is very satisfactory, for the Civic exchange physical security is minimal.
  3. What other telephone exchanges provide vital links to the Black Mountain tower.
  4. Is he satisfied with the security of these exchanges.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is standard practice to have only one Telex exchange in a city where the number of services justifies provision of an exchange, and the Canberra Telex exchange is located in the Civic building. However, Black Mountain Tower is only one of a number of diverse paths for telex traffic through that exchange.
  2. Civic exchange has been the subject of a security survey and the recommendations of that survey are being implemented. This action will provide a standard of security appropriate to the status of the building and its equipment in the national telecommunications network.
  3. Many equipment locations are involved in signalling to and from Black Mountain Tower. However, the planned diversity of the national network minimises the impact of traumatic failure at any particular equipment location.
  4. I can assure the honourable member that Telecom Australia is conscious of the continuing need for security of the telecommunications network, and that security is a matter given continual review.

Cocos Island Quarantine Station (Question No. 3489)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) When will the Cocos Island quarantine station commence operation.
  2. How many and what type of livestock will be accepted for the first intake.
  3. From which country will livestock come and what will be the quarantine period.
  4. Who is responsible for establishing priorities for the use of the station and for determining the matters referred to in parts (2) and (3).
  5. How will priorities be established for the many prospective livestock importers wishing to use the station.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The expected completion date for the station is April 1981.
  2. It is planned that the first intake will comprise up to 120 adult cattle.
  3. 3 ) The intention is that the station will ultimately provide an avenue for importations of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs from all countries which have genetic material of benefit to Australia. However, importations from high disease risk countries such as Africa and South America will be delayed until the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory comes into operation in 1 984.

Quarantine periods for various livestock species have not yet been determined. They will depend inter alia on the disease status of the countries of origin.

  1. Livestock species permitted importation into Australia, the countries from which these species may be imported and the quarantine periods which will apply will be determined by legislation.

Priorities for access to the station as between species allowed entry into Australia under quarantine legislation or between breeds within those species will be determined by the Minister for Health on the recommendations of an expert advisory committee to be established for the purpose.

  1. See (4) above.

Quarantine Security (Question No. 3491)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the opinion expressed by the Livestock and Grain Producers ‘ Association in its submission to the inquiry into quarantine measures by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources that there was no justification for over zealous economy drives and staff limitations when these were considered against the potential massive costs of a breakdown in quarantine security.
  2. If so, what action does he intend to take to prevent such a potentially disastrous breakdown in quarantine security.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However my Department advises that it does not consider that over-zealous economy drives and staff limitations are being applied in the quarantine area. Quarantine staffing levels at ports of entry are kept under review by my Department and adjustments made where necessary to maintain effective quarantine screening procedures.
  2. See (1) above.

Community Youth Support Scheme Projects (Question No. 3571)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Annerley, Queensland, Community Youth Support Scheme project to be disbanded.
  2. If so, will this place increased demands on the Griffith CYSS Committee.
  3. Will part of the sum allocated for the Annerley CYSS be transferred to the Griffith CYSS.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Annerley-Moorooka project was approved by the Queensland State CYSS Committee in December 1978 for a six month period of funding which is not due to conclude until 13 July 1979. It is also anticipated that the Annerley-Moorooka Local CYSS Committee will submit in due course an application to the State Committee for continuation funding of the project after that date.
  2. 2 ) and ( 3 ) See answer to ( 1 ).

Drug Smuggling (Question No. 3676)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated annual street value of hard drugs entering Australia.
  2. How many persons arrested for drug smuggling in Australia during each of the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 have had in their possession forged passports and /or other identifications.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to estimate the quantity or place a value on drugs which are being illegally imported into

Australia. However detailsof the quantities of drugs which have been seized by my Department for the past 4 years are as follows:

The Department avoids placing a commercial value on drug seizures as it is believed that this tends to encourage persons to become involved in drug smuggling and trafficking.

Additionally, the black market (or street) value of these drugs varies greatly depending upon quality, availability and level of distribution.

  1. There has been no instance where an actual forged passport or other travel document has been found in the possession of a person arrested for a federal drug offence. However there have been several instances where offenders have been found in possession of passports which have been either fraudulently obtained or altered so as to provide the offender with a false identity. Details of instances discovered by my Department are:

1975-76-5; 1976-77-5; 1977-78-9.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations Agreement (Question No. 3693)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his press releases on the Multilateral Trade Negotiations Agreement with the United States of America, what duty reductions have been gained for (a) fresh pears and (b) dried fruits.
  2. What is the present level and value of exports to the United States of these products.
  3. What (a) is the present and just agreed import tonnage of chocolate crumb to the United States, (b) is the butterfat percentage of the product and (c) will the value be to Australia.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

As negotiations with some of Australia’s trading partners are still in progress and there is a need for ratification by the United States Congress of the overall settlement which has been reached in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, it would not be appropriate to disclose at this stage the details of the concessions which have been negotiated. This will be done as soon as practicable.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3749)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Department in each year from 1975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys (a) which Companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by my Department since 1 975.
  2. Not applicable.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3753)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Department in each year from 1 975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys, (a) which Companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) From 1975 to 5 December 1978 the functions of the present Department of Industrial Relations were performed by elements within the then Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I am informed that the industrial relations elements of the former Department did not commission any opinion polls or surveys during that time, and none have been commissioned by the present Department.
  2. Not applicable.

New Zealand Beef Prices . (Question No. 3784)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

Is it a fact that New Zealand steak can be sold cheaper in Australia than Australian steak; if so, why.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Beef prices in New Zealand and Australia are heavily dependent on prices received on overseas markets and have both risen steeply over the past six months in response to high export prices, especially on sales to North America. As both Australian and New Zealand exporters receive essentially the same price on export markets it is usually not profitable for the New Zealand exporter to ship to Australia as he is faced with additional freight costs. From time to time export of particular cuts to Australia can be profitable but this trade is relatively small and in the eight months ended February 1979 beef and veal imports from New Zealand totalled 527 tonnes. This is equivalent to 0.06 per cent of Australian producton or 0.1 per cent of Australian exports over the same period.

Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation: Furniture and Fittings (Question No. 3843)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What furniture and fittings were acquired for the Sydney office of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation at Westfield Towers.
  2. ) What was the total cost of these items.
  3. To whom were they disposed of when the Organisation was wound up, when and at what cost.
  4. Did Mr Harry M. Miller or any of his companies acquire any of these items; if so, what was the price paid by the Commonwealth to acquire them and what price did Mr Miller or his companies pay for them.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Nil. The furniture and fittings were provided from existing Departmental stocks.
  2. ) Not applicable. See ( 1 ) above.
  3. Furniture and fittings were returned to Departmental control.
  4. No. See (3) above.

Wages: Indexation Guidelines (Question No. 2652)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any food processing companies in Victoria or elsewhere recently been forced to agree to pay increases by the Food Preservers Union which are contrary to the indexation guidelines.
  2. If so, which are the companies, and how do the wage and conditions settlements breach the guidelines.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am informed that, commencing in mid- 1978, the Food Preservers Union engaged in a campaign against a number of food processing companies in Victoria aimed at achieving increased wages in the form of higher over-award payments. It is understood that some wage concessions occurred, in the form of private agreements outside the relevant award. As such there are very grave doubts that these reported increases comply with the wage fixing principles of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The honourable member will recall that on 26 September 1 978, in response to a Question Without Notice asked by the honourable member for Casey, I stated that if the report of a wage settlement by a particular company was correct, the Government would have to consider the appropriateness of an inquiry by the Prices Justification Tribunal into the pricing policy of the firm concerned. The honourable member will be aware that on 3 November 1978 the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced that the Prices Justification Tribunal had been asked to conduct an examination into the prices of processed foods. This enquiry is now proceeding. In announcing the enquiry, the Minister noted that, should it be felt necessary to do so, a separate public enquiry could be instituted into any company subject to the jurisdiction of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Motor Vehicles: Mazda Dealers (Question No. 2800)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that Mazda dealers throughout Australia have circulated a statement nationwide indicating that the effect of the increase in duty from 45 per cent to 57.5 per cent on imported cars was obviously not known or understood by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, who forwarded printergrams to Mazda dealers in their electorates, pointing out how beneficial the Budget had been for them.
  2. Has the Budget in fact raised the price of Mazdas and other imported cars, rather than reduced the price, as his 2 Ministers have claimed.
  3. Will he inform Mazda dealers how any Budget decision will assist Mazda dealers and other dealers in imported cars.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1) I am aware that Mazda dealers throughout Australia have been critical of the Government’s decision.
  2. and (3) The Budget reduced the rate of sales tax on motor cars and station wagons from 27.5 per cent to 15 per cent. The purpose of this action was twofold. Firstly, it removed an anomaly which was distorting the competitive position in the market between passenger motor vehicles and commercial vehicles. Secondly, the reduction in sales tax was intended to permit price reductions to consumers and so stimulate demand for motor vehicles, both locally produced and imported. Overall, available registration figures indicate that the passenger vehicle market has benefited significantly from the sales tax cut. The market in 1978 was 451,000 units compared with 430,000 units sold in 1977.

Since the introduction of the 626 model, Mazda’s sales have improved and their share of the motor vehicle market has increased to a little over 7 per cent during the March quarter of 1979 compared with 5.2 per cent during 1978.

The intention of the 12.5 per cent special additional customs duty was to raise revenue from the monopoly profits which accrue to importers of goods subject to quantitative import restrictions, including motor vehicles. Some dealers in imported cars may be reflecting the duty in their prices, but notwithstanding any attempt to pass on the special duty, the net effect of the Budget measures should not have resulted in a price increase for imported cars.

There are, however, other considerations, independent of the Budget, which may have influenced the prices of imported cars. One such factor is the appreciation of the Yen.

Unemployment Forecasts (Question No. 2937)

Mr Willis:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1978:

Were the forecast unemployment figures quoted by him during Question Time on 28 September 1978 (Hansard, page 1491 ), in seasonally adjusted terms; if so, what was the reason for comparing them with actual registered unemployment trends.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

In preparing its forecasts the National Income Forecasting Committee had made its own allowance for purely seasonal influences to give some indication of the underlying trend in unemployment, as part of the process of producing integrated forecasts. However, actual figures of CES registrants to which I referred are not published on a seasonally adjusted basis because of technical problems with obtaining reliable seasonal factors.

The National Income Forecasting Committee’s figures were not compared with actual figures but served as the basis for my statement that unemployment would fall from February.

Youth Unemployment (Question No. 3189)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

How many of the 1000 training and work experience opportunities offered by the Commonwealth on 23 January 1 979 to assist young unemployed persons have been given to unemployed youth in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Hughes and (b) Cook.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The 1000 training and work experience opportunities are being provided in two intakes of500. The placement of the first intake of trainees is completed but it is not possible at this stage to provide detailed information about trainees. However, the information is not normally available on the basis of electoral boundaries.

Employment: NEAT Scheme (Question No. 3498)

Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the reduction in numbers of National Employment and Training System trainees in (a) Australia and (b) each of the States, since the introduction of the new guidelines.
  2. 2 ) How many persons are being trained under the NEAT system in (a) Australia and (b) each of the States as at 21 March 1979.
  3. When did the peak in the NEAT system trainees occur and at that time how many persons were being trained in (a) Australia and ( b) each of the States.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. ) Since changes to the Special Youth Employment Training Program which forms part of the National Employment and Training System (NEAT) came into effect on 22 January 1979 the number of NEAT trainees at the end of each month is as follows:
  1. The statistics for March 1979 are included in (I) above.
  2. The peak in numbers in training under NEAT occurred in August 1978. The figures for the numbers in training as at1 September 1978 are given below.

Assistance Provided by Mr K. C. Gale (Question No. 3600)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. Was Keith Compton Gale Managing Director of Gollin and Co. Ltd when Mr Gale provided staff assistance to him as Shadow Minister for Labour for the purpose of preparing an industrial relations policy.
  2. ) What was the financial value of this assistance.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) I have nothing further to add to what I have said on this matter on previous occasions. (See Hansard, 4 June 1976, pages 3124-5; 4 May 1977, page 1514; and 16 August 1977, page 290.)

Relocation of Government Positions to Tasmania (Question No. 3655)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. With reference to the Government’s 10 point policy package for Tasmania announced in November 1977, has the Public Service Board conducted an examination of the scope for relocation or establishment of Commonwealth activities in Tasmania.
  2. If so, what recommendations have resulted from the examination, in particular (a) how many mainland Commonwealth jobs are recommended to be relocated in Tasmania and (b) how many new Commonwealth jobs are to be established in Tasmania.
  3. ) What action has been taken on the recommendations.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The transfer from Melbourne to Hobart of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Environment with approximately 120 positions has already been approved by the Government. This transfer will take place on completion of construction of the necessary facilities which is scheduled for April 1 98 1 . The Public Service Board has recommended that the possible transfer of certain additional agencies should be studied by the Interdepartmental Committee on Location of Austraiian Government Employment. This study is in progress.

    1. The Public Service Board’s examination showed that departments and authorities estimate expansion of the range or level of their activities in Tasmania which could amount to a net increase of some 1 40 staff in the next few years.
  3. Seeanswerto(2).

Family Court, Parramatta (Question No. 3710)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many (a) temporary and (b) permanent staff are currently located at the office of the Family Court of Australia at 34 Charles Street, Parramatta, N.S.W.?

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. One.
  2. Forty-one.

Compensation for Criminal Injuries (Question No. 3720)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which Australian States have provision for compensation for injuries caused by criminal acts, such as the New South Wales Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.
  2. Is there any compensation for these acts in the Australian Capital Territory; if not, why not.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. and (2) All States and the Northern Territory have statutory schemes that make provision for compensation for injuries caused by criminal acts. Development of a similar scheme for the Australian Capital Territory is well advanced and it is anticipated that legislation to establish the scheme will be ready later this year.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790522_reps_31_hor114/>.