House of Representatives
29 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. C. Millar) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2501

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.

The 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 Dr Edwards, Mr Holding, Mr Lynch and Mr Martin.

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;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change 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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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 Haslem and Mr Lynch.

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 objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support the South Sydney Municipal Council ‘s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support the Leichhardt Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.
  3. We support the Marrickville Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew’ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Community Health Services

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Annandale, Forest Lodge, Glebe, Ultimo and Pyrmont, New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

That we protest at both the reduction in the Federal Government’s contribution towards the funds of the Community Health Service in New South Wales, and the Government’s proposed introduction of annual as opposed to triennial funding arrangements for that service, since they will have the effect of reducing the standard of health in the community, without any reduction in overall health costs.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will maintain its financial contribution toward the cost of the Community Health Service in New South Wales at real 1976-77 levels, and re-introduce triennial funding arrangements for the Service.

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

Petition received.

page 2502

GOVERNMENTS INVESTMENTS INQUIRY

Notice of Motion

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

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

That this House is of the opinion that:

the Government should forthwith establish an independent inquiry into government enterprises in which the Commonwealth Government has been called upon, for a variety of reasons, to invest taxpayers’ funds in enterprises which could be conducted by private enterprises, and

the inquiry should investigate the Ranger Uranium project, Mary Kathleen Uranium, the Australian Industries Development Corporation, Qantas, TAA, the Pipeline Authority, ANL and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

This motion will be seconded by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon).

page 2502

UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adeliaide

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

That in view of the Government’s admission that there will be at least half a million unemployed early in 1980, in the opinion of this House, and as a matter of urgency, a Joint

Committee should be established to inquire into and report upon unemployment in Australia, with special reference to:

1 ) The extent of unemployment and the degree to which it has become a long term problem;

The degree to which unemployment bears particularly upon certain industries, regions and sectors of the workforce;

The social implications of prolonged large-scale unemployment;

The applicability to Australia of innovative employment creating schemes operating in other comparable countries;

) The extent to which unemployment could be reduced by implementing and expanding manpower programs;

Other means by which unemployment could be reduced; and

The extent and nature of possible conflict between the objectives of reducing unemployment and other policy objectives.

The motion will be seconded by the socially conscious honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis).

page 2502

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House denounces and condemns the Leader of the Opposition for his gross deception and fraudulence in endeavouring to pass himself off as a supporter of lower taxation, notwithstanding his atrocious record as Treasurer and his recent public threats exposed at the National Press Club on15 March this year that if elected to power, he would impose additional and iniquitous taxes on the people of Australia, including, a capital gains tax, resource rental tax, and a restructuring of personal income tax involving marginal rates, conservatively assessed as being as high as eighty cents in the dollar.

The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore).

page 2502

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2502

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Treasurer to the 1978 annual report of Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd which showed that the Federal Commissioner of Taxation withdrew an assessment for income tax against Yanchep Estates Pty Ltd in respect of some $5. 86m additional to that provided in the accounts. The report makes it plain that this decision considerably increased shareholders’ funds and increased the borrowing ability of the corporation, thereby enabling the sale of remaining interests in Yanchep Sun City to Tokyu Corporation of Japan. What representations were made to either the Treasurer or his predecessor about this assessment? Under what provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act was it withdrawn? Will the Treasurer make a full investigation of the circumstances?

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

-I do not recall offhand sufficient details of the matter to be able to answer the honourable gentleman’s question. I will investigate it. For the moment, I will treat the question as being on notice and I will give the honourable gentleman a detailed response as soon as I have conducted that investigation.

page 2503

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN HOSPITALS

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Health aware of statements which were made by the Tasmanian Health Minister to the effect that 500 jobs would be lost in Tasmanian hospitals as a result of the Treasurer’s statement last week? Are Mr Barnard’s predictions of massive cutbacks in Tasmanian hospitals accurate or are they the result of despair caused by inefficiency? Can the Minister outline the true situation?

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

– A number of State Ministers have made such statements for their own political reasons and they are obviously designed to create panic. I said in my statement in the Parliament on Thursday night- and I repeat- the form of the inquiry has yet to be determined after discussions with the States. I hope that it will be a royal commission into the administration of hospitals. I stated:

The Government would wish that its contribution to operating costs of public hospitals for the 1979-80 financial year be held at the 1978-79 levels. I recognise that this constraint may have widespread effects on some States’ hospital systems. Early discussions between the Commonwealth and the States will look at this aspect. The Commonwealth will be seeking the participation and co-operation of the States to ensure that an inquiry will be fully successful in making recommendations to improve the efficiency of the hospital system.

The purpose of the discussions with the State Ministers on 8 June will be to ascertain the level at which we should hold hospital costs without causing widespread difficulty and without reducing the level of services. We do not want to close hospitals down before there is a royal commission. That is what a royal commission is all about. We are seeking to achieve rationalisation in the hospital system. We are not in the process of taking some arbitrary decision to close one hospital or another. There are State governments that are battling with their consciences about excess bed capacity. Ultimately they will have to close some hospitals here and there. In the meantime, if they can blame the Commonwealth Government for the hard decision that they will have to take at some future date, that is a plus to them. Let us understand the motivations for some of the statements which have been made by some State Ministers such as Mr Barnard- a whole pack of them.

Mr Young:

– I rise to order. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the inquiry is a royal commission. That is not the original statement that was given to the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

page 2503

QUESTION

TRADE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister indicated in any way to the United States Government that it has an obligation to provide trade access for Australia or otherwise assist Australia in trade negotiations because of the presence on Australian soil of American defence installations? If so, when and why did this occur?

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

-The point that has been put very strongly to the United States is very similar to the point that the United States has put to Japan. In relation to its trading relationships with Japan, the United States has argued that because there is a very favourable balance with Japan in that bilateral relationship, Japan should make special provision for United States exports to Japan and special attempts to buy from the United States. The trade relationship between the United States and Australia, on a relative basis, is even more favourable to the United States than is its relationship with Japan. That indicates that there is no justification whatever for any arbitrary limits on our exports to the United States. I believe that Mr Strauss, in constructing the arguments he had between the United States and Japan, constructed very powerful arguments to assist Australia in the relationship between Australia and the United States.

page 2503

QUESTION

UNCTAD V CONFERENCE

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Special Trade Representations was present at the first three weeks of the current meeting of the fifth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD negotiations? In particular, can he say what happened to the Australian resolution on inflation, protectionism and structural adjustment?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The negotiations are entering their final stage. It is already clear that agreement will be reached between the developed and developing countries on a number of important issues, including commodities, shipping and arrangements in favour of the least developed land-locked countries and island developing countries. The future of other negotiations is not so clear; in particular, marked differences have appeared between developed and developing countries on trade issues relating to protectionism and structural adjustment. Last Saturday Australia tabled its draft resolution on inflation, protectionism and structural adjustment with a view to bridging the gap between the two groups. The Australian resolution was warmly welcomed by all developing countries. Their spokesman indicated that developing countries agreed with the thrust of the resolution and that it would be taken into account fully in the negotiations. China, Group D and other developing countries also supported the Australian resolution. As a result of this initiative Australia now holds an important position in the fifth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and is strongly contributing to its final resolutions.

page 2504

QUESTION

ECONOMIC STRATEGY

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister whether on 27 November 1975 he stated:

More investment will lead to jobs, both will lead to more revenue. That will be a significant fact in reducing the deficit.

When will that strategy be implemented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Over the last three years inflation in Australia has been reduced very considerably. As a result of that and as a result of stability in our economic policies, investment has been very much encouraged. New private fixed capital expenditure increased by 24 per cent in the year to March 1979. Mining investment was particularly strong with an increase of 56 per cent in 1978. The industry expects a further 32 per cent increase in investment throughout this year. In addition -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent. The question has been posed and the Prime Minister has the right to reply to it in silence.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– In addition, oil exploration and development are now being pursued vigorously. It is worth noting that in the time of our predecessors development in all of these areas was stopped dead in its tracks. Quite plainly, over the last seven months we have seen private civilian employment again beginning to grow in a way that it has not grown for six or seven years. That is a result of the policies that we have introduced. We have indicated on many occasions that it would take some time for employment to grow substantially and rapidly, having in mind the changes that had been encompassed in Labor’s time with wages going up more than 25 per cent in the course of a year and with female rates going up as much as, I think, 36 per cent or 37 per cent in the course of a year. That did a very great deal of damage to the employment base and capacity of Australian manufacturing industry. But investment has been moving forward very strongly indeed. I should think that it would be 18 months or 2 years after economic recovery began to show through in a strong way that there would then be some reflection in revenue collections because, quite plainly, revenue collections lag behind the actual development and activity.

page 2504

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: AIR SAFETY

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Acting Minister for Transport to the decision of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States of America to issue an airworthiness directive for all United States airlines to inspect their DC 10 aircraft and take immediate corrective action if necessary following the recent tragic crash of one of these aircraft in Chicago. Appreciating the history of safety of Australian airlines and the keen observance of safety regulations set by Australian authorities and appreciating that no Australian airline operates the DC 10 aircraft, can the Acting Minister inform the House what the Government can and will do to ensure that the five other countries whose airlines operate DC 10 aircraft into Australian airports will institute immediate safety checks on these aircraft similar to those being undertaken by the United States authorities?

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

– The honourable member is quite right in drawing attention to the high standard of safety required by the Australian Department of Transport over a number of years. He is also quite right in pointing out that no registered DC 10 aircraft are actually used by Australian airlines. It so happens that currently no DC 10 aircraft are actually in Australia, but the Department of Transport is pursuing inquiries as to the status of the DC 10 aircraft which are in fact licensed to fly into Australia. It is in contact constantly with the world-wide airworthiness system which is a flow of information which is very free and fast between nations on matters such as this. In fact, the Department is currently examining the directives issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States and is inquiring into the status of each of the DC 10 aircraft and the action being taken by the countries and by the airlines which are licensed to fly those aircraft to Australia. Honourable members can be assured that all that can be done is being done and can have confidence in the world-wide airworthiness system, which in fact is responsibly administered for the highest safety standards.

page 2505

QUESTION

FRASER GOVERNMENT

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls stating in Melbourne on 2 1 November 1977:

We have given Australia reliable and responsible economic government.

Should this claim necessarily prescribe three different budgets in 12 months?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The suggestion that there can be only one significant economic statement through the course of the year is, I think, an unreal one. If there are significant changes in the course of the year quite plainly it would make sense for the Government to react to those changes and not wait until the formal occasion of the Budget. If the honourable gentleman is suggesting that no matter what happens throughout the year, there should be only one economic statement, and that should be at the time of the Budget, and that there should be no adjustments in the intervening 12 months, he is promoting a nonsense proposition. We need only to remind honourable members opposite that if we have had one Budget and a mini-budget throughout the course of this year, the Australian Labor Party when in office had three or four Treasurers in the course of a year, one of whom never even had the opportunity to introduce a Budget.

page 2505

QUESTION

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Trade and Resources report to the House on discussions he has had with the Vice-President of the European Economic Community who is currently visiting Australia? In particular, can the Minister report on the present and likely future impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on Australia ‘s agriculture?

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

– We are very pleased to have Mr Gundelach, who is responsible for the European Economic Community’s agricultural policies, in Australia with a group of officials. They are in Australia to extend the negotiations that have taken place on a bilateral basis between the EEC and Australia through my colleague, the Minister for Special Trade Representations, and also to take the opportunity to discuss world trade matters. I appreciate very much Mr Gundelach ‘s being here. His presence is as a result of links that were established by the Prime Minister in Europe a couple of years ago, and by the Treasurer, and now by the Minister for Special Trade Representations.

The Common Agricultural Policy is probably the single most important element affecting world trade in agriculture. It does have a profound effect on commodity prices around the world. It probably has a greater influence on Australia’s international agricultural trade than anything else. We are concerned at the dimensions of government involvement in the CAP. Mr Gundelach has confirmed that the extent of government support has gone up three times since 1974. In that year government support was costing $4 billion. This year it will cost approximately $ 12 billion, half of which will go towards subsidising excess production of the EEC. Part of that export subsidy- almost $1 billion this yearwill go towards supporting the 3.7 million tonnes of sugar which is being dumped on the world market and which is gravely affecting the international price of sugar. This comes at a time when we have an international sugar agreement and when countries like Australia and many developing countries have been imposing disciplines on their production to try to get a strengthening of the international market.

I have expressed concern over the Common Agricultural Policy and I am pleased to say that Mr Gundelach shares the totality of our concern for what is happening in Europe. He wants to see adaptation of the EEC’s policies so that an end might come to the ever-growing commitment of the treasuries of Europe in supporting their agricultural policies. It is quite obvious that the extent of the European Treasuries’ contributions to their agricultural policies must eventually lead to their collapsing under their own weight. So there is need for some changes. However, Mr Gundelach gives me encouragement when he says that enormous pressures are now developing within the member countries of the EEC for some modification and some changes. We certainly would like to see this happen because to see this matter go on indefinitely, having a disastrous effect on efficient producers such as Australia, is not to the well-being of mankind.

page 2505

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR ABORIGINALS

We will maintain present levels of assistance Tor Aboriginals.

Was that promise kept?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In the time of the previous Administration there was enormous waste in expenditure on Aborigines, and that was readily admitted and conceded right around Australia.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. That is an outrageous, racist allegation. The Government tries to deny every underpriveleged person in the community his rights.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I would not want by what I have said to offend the honourable member for Wills in any sense at all. It was the environment in which the honourable member was working that led to the general situation where, in any program of the previous Administration waste was totally unavoidable, not least within his portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs, where there was widespread waste in every part of Australia. What this Government has done is to make sure that we get value for the dollar spent in this area, and effective programs for Aborigines have been maintained.

page 2506

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE-STRIKES

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters. What is the extent of compliance today with the strike call directed to public servants by some of the Public Service unions?

Mr Innes:

– How would he know?

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

-Why not wait for the answer? Is it the fact that public servants now have the best of both worlds, namely, permanency of employment and terms and conditions of employment in many cases better than those enjoyed by the three-quarters of the work force in private employment? Has it not always been the understanding that in return for those benefits public servants will refrain from strike action? If that is no longer the case so far as the unions are concerned, what is now the justification for permanency of employment? If there is no longer such justification, will permanency of employment for the Public Service be retained?

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

– It is a fact that employment in the Public Service is based on security of tenure. There has, however, always been provision within the Public Service Act for retrenchment of staff. The weakness of the existing provisions of the Public Service Act is that, if operated by the Board or departments, they are summary in nature and can work an injustice against staff members. The virtue of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill introduced by the Government is that it will provide effective appeal procedures which are entirely just to any staff member affected by retrenchment procedures. Honourable members are aware of the call by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association for widespread strike action in Canberra in particular and in the States. I can inform the House that this widespread strike action is really a very minimal action indeed. The advice I received this morning just before I came into the House is that so far as the Board has been able to ascertain at this stage 80 to 90 per cent of public servants have reported for duty.

I also inform the House that there was an effort by ACOA to mount a massive ring-in to my office and also to the office of my colleague, Senator Carrick. The massive ring-in as a result of a public advertisement amounted to four phone calls. Two of those phone calls were against the Government and two were in favour of the Government. The two callers who spoke against the Bill to start off with were perfectly satisfied by the end of the conversation with a member of my staff with the explanations given. I have also been advised that a few staff are away in the Departments of Veterans’ Affairs, Education, Health, the Capital Territory Health Commission, Postal and Telecommunications, Productivity- except for the Patents Office, my colleague will be pleased to knowAdministrative Services, Home Affairs- except for the office of Women’s Affairs, my colleague will also be pleased to know- the Taxation Office and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Uren:

-i raise a point of order. It has two aspects. The first is that this time is set aside for questions without notice. This question is quite obviously a question which should be put on the Notice Paper. We will give the Minister leave to make a statement after Question Time. The second aspect of my point of order is that Mr Speaker’s ruling has been that Ministers’ answers should be relevant to questions asked and that they should keep their replies brief. This is an abuse of Question Time. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, to require the Minister to make a statement after Question Time so that the matter can be debated.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is required to keep his remarks relevant to the question, but the Chair cannot give a direction as to the manner in which the Minister may answer questions provided he remains relevant.

Mr VINER:

– I can also advise the House that 5 per cent to 10 per cent of employees are away overall in the Department of Social Security. In the regional office only nine out of 95 employees are absent. I am pleased to say that in the Commonwealth Employment Service, which comes under my administration, only two out of 40 employees are away. So much then for the massive demonstration which ACOA sought to bring against the Government and this Bill. For those who have been away the ‘no work, no pay’ principle will be strictly applied. I am also advised by the Public Service Board that there is no problem with regard to the provision of services to the public I think that this demonstrates very forcibly the attitude of the Public Service rank and file, as distinct from the executive of ACOA towards this Bill.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I require the Minister, under the provisions of Standing Order 32 1, to table the documents from which he has been quoting or, preferably, to incorporate them in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Was the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs reading from a document?

Mr Viner:

– No. I was reading from some notes which contained figures.

Mr Morris:

– That is an outrageous lie and an insult to this Parliament.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland will resume his seat.

Government members- Withdraw!

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland will withdraw the statement he made.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, you saw, as I saw, the Minister quoting from a document. I withdraw and substitute the word ‘falsehood ‘.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland is required to withdraw without qualifications.

Mr Morris:

– I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker.

page 2507

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER: POLICY SPEECHES OF 1975 AND 1977

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall -

Government members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat. When the House regains the decorum appropriate to a federal parliamentary chamber we will proceed with

Question Time. I call the honourable member for Sydney.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does the Prime Minister recall the practice of a recent United States President of declaring certain policies inoperative? Is the Prime Minister’s policy speech of 1 975 still operative? Is the Prime Minister’s policy speech of 1977 still operative?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-From 1972 to 1 975, the Australian Labor Party -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Neil:

– They are a rabble.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will remain silent. It seems a pointless exercise for honourable members to pose questions to the Prime Minister and Ministers and deny them the opportunity, by the volume of their disorder, to give the reply that is sought. I ask honourable members, having put their questions, to remain silent while receiving a reply. Whether or not the reply is to their satisfaction is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-From 1972 to 1975 the Australian Labor Party embarked on what an objective observer could only really regard as a deliberate course of destruction. It destroyed the capacity of Australian industries to employ. It destroyed the independence of people by breeding the view that they had only to ask something of governments and governments could provide. It established the philosophy that governments have unlimited resources because they can go to the printing press. It has established a view -

Mr Innes:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order relates to the issue of relevance. The question asked of the Prime Minister clearly was about the policy speeches of the Prime Minister, not about the track record of the Oppositon.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am glad that the honourable gentleman concedes the track record of the Opposition. It is necessary to indicate once again to honourable gentlemen- some of those on the Opposition side of the House seem to have short memories- what they did to the Australian economy because it is against that background that the policy speeches -

Mr Holding:

– Not as short as vours

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– There is one particular member in this House who was a total failure in the Victorian Parliament and he is utterly determined to be a total failure in this Parliament. I would like to congratulate the honourable gentleman because he is succeeding admirably.

Mr Hayden:

– Tell us more big fibs, Mai.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition, using a euphemism for an unparliamentary expression, reflected on the integrity of the Prime Minister. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– Unreservedly I withdraw. ‘Mendacious Mai ‘ is more appropriate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-To be concerned about what somebody says, one has to have some opinion of that person. Therefore, I would not have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. But since you asked, Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition withdraws totally and unreservedly.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. Honourable members on my right will remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition is experienced enough to know that a requirement for withdrawal by the Chair calls for that withdrawal purely and simply. Without qualification or supplementary comments I ask the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that requirement.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The policy speeches of 1975 and 1977 need to be seen against the background of total destruction wrought by the Australian Labor Party because this Government had to establish the circumstances in which this Government and State governments were living within their means and within the resources that it is reasonable to take from the people of Australia. We needed to establish the circumstances in which Australian industries could once again be independent to sell on the Australian market and move out to export markets with vigour and pride in being Australian. Members of the Australian Labor Party would find that pride utterly foreign to them. In addition, within the welfare society, we needed to establish the circumstances, particularly in relation to health, in which people would do for themselves what they could properly do for themselves, pay what they could be expected to pay for themselves and be protected by government only when the situation was likely to get beyond an individual’s or a family’s resources. That is what we have been working towards. That is what we are achieving.

The policy speeches of 1975 and 1977 remain living documents of the kind of Australia these government parties support, the kind of Australia that we will work for- a liberal democratic society of free independent people with a pride in being able to do things for themselves, with a government that established circumstances which enables individuals and corporations to work out their own future in their own way. The Australian Labor Party sought to destroy the initiative of Australians. Inflation, encompassed by the Labor Party, was degrading to industry. It was degrading to individuals. It weakened the old and harmed the weak more than anyone else in this community. The Government is well along the road to achieving the great task of repairing the damage of the Labor Government. The philosophies and approaches in those two policy documents stand as an affirmation of our faith in the future of Australia.

page 2508

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Hodgman having addressed a question to the Prime Minister-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Chair does not consider that the Prime Minister is responsible for any utterances made by the Leader of the Opposition outside the House and therefore I rule the question out of order.

page 2508

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr UREN:

– Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that between March 1978 and March 1979 employment in the constructon industry fell by 9,500? Is he also aware that between June 1975 and March 1979 construction industry employment fell by 66,700 and that there are now 3 1,700 persons surveyed as unemployed whose last jobs were in the construction industry? Is the Minister aware that Government public works spending contributes to two-thirds of non-residential construction activity? Does he agree that further cut-backs in public works and public housing spending by this Government will increase unemployment?

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

-I thank the honourable member for Reid for his question because it gives me an opportunity to indicate to the House the improvement which is now taking place in the residential and non-residential side of the construction industry in Australia. As I have mentioned a number of times at public meetings and public forums, the figures on the improvement in the housing sector are very significant. They reveal an increase in employment in that area. Initially the Government was informed by the Bureau of Statistics that the December quarter figures showed a 4 per cent reduction in the number of commencements but those figures have been altered following receipt of further information. The Bureau’s figures of commencements for the December quarter now show an increase of 3 per cent in that quarter. In the March quarter there was an 1 1 per cent increase in commencements over the December quarter of last year. So there has been a substantial increase in the number of houses being built around Australia in the last two quarters.

In the calendar year 1978 over the calendar year 1977 there was a 10 per cent increase in real terms in the amount of construction in the private sector of the non-residential industry. Again, the result has been a substantial increase in employment. On the public side, the amount of money being spent by governments on public works around Australia remains at an historically high level. I believe that the honourable member for Reid should look at the figures, check them and understand them properly. The amount of money being spent on public works is at an historically high level. It will continue to be at that level this financial year and, I expect, in the next financial year. As a result there is now an increase in employment in the construction industry around Australia.

page 2509

QUESTION

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and refer to his answer to a question in this place on 22 May concerning attempts to expel Israel from the World Health Organisation assembly held in Geneva from 7 to 25 May. Does the Minister know whether the attempt by Arab countries to expel Israel was successful?

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

– Honourable members will recall that last week I expressed in this House the Government’s firm opposition to the needless politicisation of specialised agencies, such as the World Health Organisation, and our support for the principle of universality of membership. I am pleased to be able to answer the honourable member’s question by advising the House that attempts by some Arab countries to expel Israel from the World Health Organisation Assembly were successfully averted, principally through the adoption by an overwhelming majority of the assembly of a resolution put forward by Australia and co-sponsored by Fiji and Ghana. That was a resolution which indicated- I think I hinted at this last week- that the suspension of a member should be regarded as an important question, thereby requiring a two-thirds majority.

Following the adoption of our procedural motion the Arab states concerned and the state of Israel came to what could be called a gentleman ‘s agreement that discussion on the question of the health conditions in the occupied territories and the associated resolution to suspend Israel from WHO would be postponed until the 33rd meeting of the World Health Assembly in 1980. This decision was adopted by the plenary. The Australian Government regards this outcome as quite satisfactory in the circumstances. As I indicated previously in the House, as I recall, in answer to an interjection by the honourable member for Robinson- if the motion to expel Israel had been successful my advice to the delegation was unequivocal- Australia was immediately to walk out of the assembly. That, fortunately, proved unnecessary. I was particularly encouraged by the overwhelming support given by World Health Organisation members to our resolution that the suspension of a member is an important question.

page 2509

QUESTION

MINISTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls saying in this House on 1 1 November 1975:

There is no excuse for not telling the truth and the whole truth to Parliament.

I also ask whether he recalls adding:

There should be no place for verbal trickery in this Parliament.

I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the very long and growing list of broken promises for which he is responsible on matters such as unemployment, interest rates, inflation, taxes and pensions, does the Prime Minister still stand by that statement, specifically the claim that there is no excuse for not telling the truth and the whole truth to Parliament? If so, will he, as a matter of common propriety in terms of parliamentary conduct, now resign?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I suppose we see in that question the culmination of what the Australian Labor Party thinks is a campaign. Day by day Opposition members have been going through statements and asking: ‘What is the position about this and what is the position about that?’, so that the Leader of the Opposition could ask that kind of question. I really think that the honourable gentleman is one of the last people who should refer to the events of 1 1 November 1975 because that was an occasion when a government was dismissed because it would not take the proper course open to it. It was not only totally incompetent; it was also totally dishonest. It plainly sought to deceive a Governor-General about an Executive Council meeting. It is also quite plain, if one reads Lord Hailsham, that he indicated that the previous Leader of the Opposition -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Members of the Labor Party ask questions but they are not very good at listening to or hearing any answers. Lord Hailsham indicated that another person who tried to do what Mr Whitlam and the then Treasurer had done suffered a more severe penalty because Charles I had his head cut off. The only thing that happened to the Labor Party was that it lost a leader and two elections. Therefore the treatment it received was fairly lenient. Members of this House can judge that for themselves. The Australian Labor Party can live in its own fantasy land but while it does that it will stay in Opposition.

page 2510

COMMONWEALTH ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as existing prior to the amendment of that Act in 1977, 1 present the report of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate for the period 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1978.

page 2510

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 126R of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 I present the annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau for the period 3 October 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 2510

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Bowen) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The collapse of the Government’s industrial relations legislation as further evidenced by the recent Federal Court decision.

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

More than the number of members required by

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In the Federal Court of Australia on 9 May 1979, His Honour Mr Justice Smithers struck down one of the most important sections of the Government’s Conciliation and Arbitration Act proposals. Under that section, it was put that in this case the Melbourne City Council was liable to incur a penalty because it would not employ a person named Kane. However, that is incidental to the main thrust of this matter of public importance. Here we have a national Government which for some years has been passing what it deems to be important legislation. It has endeavoured to assist the economy of the nation, to guarantee that there would be fair play between employers and employees, by passing a series of Acts which the court has said virtually are invalid and not worthy of support.

It is interesting to look at the record of this Government from the point of view of industrial relations. Firstly, the Government has an obligation, and certainly a duty, to act in matters of conciliation and arbitration. I want to put to the Parliament this morning that this Government has done everything except talk about conciliation and arbitration. It has legislated in an atmosphere of hostility and confrontation. The point I make is that the issue came to a head in the decision in what is known as the Kane case that an Act of Parliament passed on the initiative this government is not worthy of support and in fact is invalid. The main thrust of the discussion today is this: For how long is this Government going to continue to have passed Acts of Parliament which really have no validity and no chance of success from the point of view of conciliation and arbitration. This Act of Parliament, which was pushed through on the basis that it was going to assist industrial relations, has done nothing but exacerbate the situation. In the Kane case, action was taken against the Melbourne City Council, under an Act passed by this Parliament, to prove that the council was guilty of some misdemeanour or crime. His Honour Mr Justice Smithers said that that could not possibly work and that the balance of probabilities was never there in the way the Act was drawn. For example, one has to talk about the state of mind of the Melbourne City Council. His Honour virtually said that it is an impossible piece of legislation.

How often have matters of an industrial nature caused confrontation in this society? If one considers the Melbourne case, one finds the incredible situation that within a State government, within a State instrumentality, federal legislation has caused nothing but chaos, concern and damage to the people of Victoria. Kane’s was a classic case. It was the case of a man who, when he belonged to a union, agreed to take part in a strike. As a unionist he agreed to do that. Some time after that he left the union, and then pretended to say that because he was no longer a member of the union this Act should apply and there should be some penalty against the Melbourne City Council. As His Honour said, it would be impossible to prove under this legislation that there was any intent to damage other people as was intended in the termination of Kane’s employment. Kane’s employment had to be terminated to guarantee that the Melbourne City Council could continue to function. This Government used confrontation tactics in the hope that some penalty could be applied which would guarantee that the union concerned would suffer.

I will give the record of this Government in chronological order. In 1977 there was an air traffic controllers strike. Air traffic controllers are not really part of the trade union movement. They are not affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. But they became the victims of the threat and bluster of the Fraser Government which said that it would deal with them. The industrial policy of this Government was designed by no less a person than Keith Compton Gale, who was the industrial adviser to the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He is the same Mr Gale who was one of the people mainly responsible for the disastrous company known as Gollin Holdings Ltd in which millions of dollars were misappropriated. When the same gentleman was in the witness box recently he spoke about cheques being given for what he deemed to be political donations.

That sort of philosophy has no place in the Parliament. To introduce it into legislation as has been done shows the disastrous nature of this Government. That is the reason why all its industrial legislation has virtually collapsed. If that concept had been applied to the air traffic controllers strike, as the Government intended to do, it would have led to further confrontation. Fortunately, that strike was settled without the legislation. Soon after that there was a dispute in relation to industrial conditions in the Redfern mail exchange. This Government rushed in with a piece of legislation called the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill 1977. It was aimed deliberately at the members of the Redfern mail exchange with the express purpose of enabling a Minister to sack any employee who would they have no right of appeal. The legislation did nothing to solve that dispute. How could it? Mr Acting Speaker, it may surprise you to know that the 1977 legislation has never yet been proclaimed. It is still not law. The Parliament went through the exercise of debating a piece of legislation that the Government has not yet put on the statute book.

The legislation was supposed to be related to industrial harmony. Employees under that legislation could be stood down, sacked, or have their employment terminated. Is there any harmony in that situation? The Constitution provides that a government should legislate on matters of dispute in an atmosphere of conciliation and arbitration. Where can we find conciliation and arbitration in the present statute which has been nullified by His Honour Mr Justice Smithers? That legislation is the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 3) which provides what the Government regards as primitive penalties of $400 to $500 a day. Where is the constitutional validity of legislation which provides for penalties, deregistration and gaol sentences? Where is the conciliation and arbitration?

What validity with regard to conciliation and arbitration has section 45D of the Trade Practices Act? Under that section the Government has moved the whole gamut of conciliation and arbitration from the industrial court into the Federal Court. I ask honourable members to consider the chaotic situaton that has arisen, particularly in Victoria. There was the Barbara Biggs case. She was a person who allegedly did not want to join a union. The Kane case involved a person who was in a union but who got out of it. Another example is the power dispute in Victoria. All of these matters related to Victoria and relied on Federal legislation which was intended to solve any one of them. It did nothing of the sort.

This Government was elected on the promise that it would be able to deal with the unions in a proper way. It has failed on every test. All its legislation is of no value. The constitutional validity of its legislation is now under attack as it should be, by the metal trades in the High Court in an attempt to justify the punitive powers of the Industrial Relations Bureau. How could the Government in making punitive provisions of this nature be acting in accordance with the Constitution by which it is duty bound to use conciliation and arbitration to settle disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any State? This Government has done nothing but confront the unions, disrupt this nation’s economy and cause damage to a large number of people. Every matter, as it turns out, has been settled by the conciliation and arbitration process and by those best qualified to do that. Every matter has been caused by legislation introduced by this Government. For example, in the Telecom Australia dispute the Prime Minister raced in to this Parliament and said to the employees: ‘You will not get paid, you will not get your back money and you will be denied what you think is your case’. But, of course, on the weekend following that statement the matter was settled in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by Justice Gaudron. Again today at Question Time we heard the Government say: ‘Let us attack Commonwealth employees. Those stood down today will get no pay ‘.

What we of the Opposition are putting to the House is the consitutional validity of the situation. This Government has a duty to conciliate and arbitrate. It has no power or mandate to pass legislation that will injure people, impose fines or deregister unions. It is on that basis that we have proposed this matter of public importance for discussion. We say to the Government that it should do virtually what it has done with the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill passed in 1977. The Government did not proclaim that Bill so that it could abandon it. It should do the same with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Act (No. 3) because the Goverment is unable to show that it will work. All that we on the Opposition side can do is prove that, by a series of actions and court judgments, all that the Government legislation has done has been to cause confrontation. It might be that it is a diversionary process for the Prime Minister, whose policies are in economic disarray, to blame the unions.

We can well understand some of the concern of the unions when they look at the broken promises of this man on, for example, wage indexation. I remind the House in talking about conciliation and arbitration that the trade unions have rights and duties. They rely on a promise that the Prime Minister made in 1975 when he said: ‘The Government will support wage indexation and we will maintain the purchasing power of wages’. This Government was elected on that basis in December 1975 but in the following January it went into the Arbitration Commission and opposed indexation, and it has opposed it ever since. I wonder how long the members of the Commission can put up with abuse by Ministers like the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) accusing members of the Commission of not doing their job and of acting irresponsibly. They listened to the evidence tendered on behalf of the trade union movement and it justified the union movement getting increased wages awarded by the Commission. Another promise broken by the Prime Minister is that the Government would abide by indexation. Yet this Government goes into the court and opposes it at every national wage case hearing. If the unions care to refer to the profits of companies they certainly have got something going for them because it will be noted that the profits of shareholders has increased from 9.6 per cent in 1975-76 to 1 1.3 per cent. It is at the highest level since 1963. The proposal that the Prices Justification Tribunal would control profits goes right out of the window. Yet this Government is trying to keep the workers down by punitive measures and industrial legislation which can only encourage more confrontation.

The big test, as I have said, is where has this Government had any win in any of the pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this place? It is quite ridiculous, for example, to suggest that, as in the Kane case, an employer should be fined because a man is stood down, when under the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill the Government has the ability to stand down an employee. This illustrates the inconsistency in the Government’s legislation. In one piece of legislation the Government is trying to threaten people, who have to try to keep their business going. It is saying: ‘We will fine you if we can prove intentwhich, of course, is impossible- if you dare to stand down the likes of Kane’. But if Kane worked for the Commonwealth and there was an industrial strike he could be stood down under the provisions set out in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill which this Government intended to proclaim but never had the courage to do so.

We look at this discussion on a number of bases. There has been the failure of the Government to honour its promises about how it could best manage industrial relations in this country. There has been talk about punitive legislation which does nothing but confront the trade union movement and virtually tries to ignore the conciliation and arbitration provisions. There has been talk about the conciliation and arbitration provisions relating to wage indexation. Why should the union movement not be entitled to rely on the promise made by this Government that it would adhere to it when the union movement knows that this Government is so treacherous that as soon as it gets its votes it will go into court and oppose wage increases. The unions see the profits of big companies going through the roof. Just look at them: Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited made a profit of $1llm Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd made $72m; the Bank of New South Wales made $71m; Shell Australia Ltd made $50m; CSR Limited made $48m; Hamersley Holdings Ltd made $46m; and Myer Emporium Ltd made $45m. Company profits are at a record level yet this Government claims that the trade union movement is not entitled to put its case. These phoneys like Kane and also Barbara Biggs and others are put up to cause industrial trouble, particularly in Victoria. It is very significant that both those people had to go to Western Australia to get their instructions. We wonder what the people of Victoria must think from the point of view of industrial harmony when all the disputes in that State- the Minister represents a Victorian electorate- have been caused by Commonwealth legislation. That is the important part. For that reason the Opposition has proposed this discussion of a matter of public importance.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– It really was an extraordinary speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). It was all over the place. Anybody who listened to the latter part of the speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must have thought that to make a profit was a crime. I merely draw his attention to the fact that companies that do not make profits do not employ people. It is as simple as that. Yet to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition it is apparent that he is quite happy for companies to go broke and for people who were employed by those companies to be without a job. But I do not want to waste time on that irrelevant part of the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because that has nothing to do with the real world.

But I do want to refer briefly to his reference to the Kane case. He seems as indeed does the Opposition, to be obsessed with the Kane case and I really cannot understand why. Certainly it was an interesting case and it does have implications for both employers and employees and the rights of the individual. But clearly from what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said today he is not interested in that. It is also apparent that he does not know what the Kane case is all about. Apparently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks it has something to do with section 144A, conscientious objection.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No.

Mr STREET:

-That is what the honourable member was talking about.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No.

Mr STREET:

– You were talking about certificates of conscientious objection in relation to the Kane case.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No, I mentioned about the two matters.

Mr STREET:

-Of course the Kane case has nothing to do with section 144A.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It has to do with section 5.

Mr STREET:

– It has to do with section 5 and section 1 88, and that is the right of an individual not to join in industrial action and the protection of an individual who makes that choice. Clearly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not know what the case is all about. He also does not realise that insofar as the Industrial Relations Bureau is concerned, the Kane case and cases of a similar kind are merely a minute part of the operations of the Bureau which, as the Deputy Leader does know, I am sure, took over the functions of the old arbitration inspectorate. I refer the Deputy Leader and the House to some of the statistics in the annual report which by coincidence, was tabled today. Certainly it has not been possible to differentiate between inspections in the period in which the arbitration inspectorate operated for part of the year and when the Bureau operated for the rest of the year. It has not been possible to separate those statistics into those inspections carried out by the respective organisations. But I draw the attention of the House to Appendix D of the annual report. Appendix D shows that the amount recovered by the combined activities of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate and the Industrial Relations Bureau on behalf of employees- the amount voluntarily paid- in respect of wages due and so on was over $lm. Does the fact that that amount of money has been recovered on behalf of employees not mean anything to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

I draw attention also to Appendix F which sets out the statistics on complaints re awards. It shows that something like 4,200 complaints have been received. Dealing with these complaints constitutes the great mass of the Bureau’s work. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know, the Bureau’s work is primarily concerned with protecting the rights of individuals and protecting the status and rights of organisations where such rights and status are infringed. It is an entirely proper function and one which has been carried out every day in hundreds and hundreds of cases. Yet the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in particular seem to concentrate on only one tiny aspect of the Bureau’s work.

Leaving aside the Kane case, I refer to the many Acts relating to industrial relations, and relating to industrial relations in a constructive way, that this Government has put through the Parliament. I refer to the secret postal ballot legislation and also the fact that that legislation encompasses adequate notice of forthcoming elections. I have referred already to the protection of the rights of individuals. We have established, by statute, the National Labor Consultative Council. We have also established that secondary boycotts imposed by unions will draw the same kinds of penalties as secondary boycotts which are imposed by companies. I fail to see why that should not be so, despite what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said.

It is interesting to contrast this constructive approach with the record of the Opposition when it was in government. Its approach was to do absolutely nothing. In fact the Labor Government’s approach was a minus because it took away some of the consultative processes which had been the norm under the previous LiberalNational Country Party Government. For example, during the whole of the three years of the Labor Government’s term of office, there was no formal tripartite machinery for discussion between government, employers and unions. The old National Labour Advisory Council as it then was ceased to meet after December 1972 and no formal machinery was established until this Government came back into office. We improved on the old arrangements by, as I mentioned a moment ago, establishing on a statutory basis, a National Labor Consultative Council. During the Labor Government’s term of office, the rights of individuals were ignored and economic stability crumbled to meet the demands of the trade union movement. That policy cost Australia dearly. Between 1973 and 1975 the number of disputes increased sharply, indeed alarmingly. The number of working days lost rose dramatically and there was a high increase in the amount of wages lost due to industrial disruption. In 1974, over six million working days and $ 128m worth of wages were lost.

Clearly there was a need for a whole range of legislation. The Labor Government had left a yawning gap in industrial relations and clearly that gap needed to be filled. But the Labor Party’s anxiety to undo, according to the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition, all that this Government has done to improve the standard of industrial relations, is quite clear evidence that the Labor Party would go back and do it all over again if it had the chance. I merely cite the figures again: Under the Labor Government, an average of 4.1 million working days were lost each year that Labor was in office as compared with 1.8 million working days lost each year under this Government, if that particular aberration, the Medibank strike, is excluded.

Against that background, apparently all that the Opposition can propose is the repeal of the Government’s industrial legislation. That negative approach is indicative of Labor’s whole position in relation to industrial relations policy. Let us hear, for example, Labor’s policy on wages. The fact that we hear so little from the Opposition on the need to control wage increases is clear evidence of its willingness to encourage that privileged group of people in secure employment to seek wage increases at the expense of the unemployed and those in less secure employment. We hear even less of the Opposition’s attitude to irresponsible and unnecessary industrial disruption. But members of the Opposition are certainly experts in it, as their record in government proves. As I have said, we have done a great deal to improve the standard of industrial relations. We have emphasised continually that the use of negotiation, conciliation and the arbitral machinery is the proper and most effective way in which to resolve industrial disputes. Indeed, to a large extent that process has restored order to industrial relations, as the statistics prove.

I mentioned earlier the establishment of a National Labour Consultative Council. It is a forum at the national level where governments, employers and unions can meet to discuss industrial matters of common concern. As I have already indicated to this House, the Government has always endeavoured to consult the Council on industrial legislation before it is introduced in this House, and I think it is evidence of the success of that policy that the legislation that has gone through that process is the better for it. That is a constructive way in which to approach this very complex and difficult policy area. We have encouraged individuals to join the relevant union which represents their interests and just as importantly, we have encouraged and enabled them to take a more active part in the affairs of that organisation.

I should like to mention now some of the figures in relation to the secret postal ballot legislation that I mentioned earlier. That legislation came into operation in August 1976. As the

House would know, the organisation concerned can elect to have the election conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office or the Industrial Registrar at no expense to that organisation or to conduct it itself. The number of ballots officially conducted has increased quite dramatically. From August 1976 to August 1977- the first year in which the legislation was enacted- there was a 33 per cent increase in the number of ballots officially conducted over the 12 months preceding the legislation. From August 1977 to August 1978- the second year of the legislation- there was a 42 per cent increase on the number of ballots officially conducted in the preceding 12 months making an 89 per cent increase over the two years. From August 1978 to February 1979, that sort of rate of increase was maintained. We have actively sought trade union involvement and participation in matters in which the unions have a direct concern. We have established, through my colleague, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee), a tripartite committee on worker participation. We have been active in consultation with unions on significant issues such as the training of our workforce and on uranium mining in Australia. We have also maintained the previous policy of consultation with the trade union movement in pre-Budget talks. In addition, another tripartite committee was formed out of the National Labour Consultative Council to examine the effect of a number of factors on employment, particularly in relation to young people.

So the Government has put into practice all the legislation that has been required. The legislation constitutes the industrial relations policies developed when this Government was in Opposition. But the Government is not content merely to rest there. It will continue to develop industrial relations policy in response to changing needs and circumstances. As evidence of that, I draw attention to the establishment late last year of a specialist Department of Industrial Relations. That is a recognition of the fact that in these days industrial relations affect everybody in the community. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that certainly all the problems cannot be solved by legislation. But the Government’s job is to provide the proper institutional and legislative framework within which the parties to industrial relations can carry on their business. That framework, of course, will not be static. It has to change in response to changing circumstances, and that is what the Government has done.

The Government will continue to change the institutional framework as necessary, but what is really required to achieve a long-term improvement in industrial relations is changed attitudes of mind, often in relation to long-held and firmly held beliefs. That, clearly, is not going to be an easy task. It is in everybody’s interest- the community, government employers and employees, to recognise that we have common goals. That must be the long-term objective in industrial relations policy. I must say it has not been helped by the sort of diatribe we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The Government’s industrial relations policy depends upon bludgeoning unions and workers into submission rather than relying upon compromise and the establishment of justice in the industrial area. I remember well the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation. It was put through the Parliament on my first day in this House in October 1977. This obnoxious legislation gives power to the Industrial Relations Bureau to summon trade unions and individual union members before the industrial division of the Federal Court of Australia. It gives that court power to penalise unions, employees and employers for a number of reasons. For instance, it can take action against strike breakers. It imposes the necessity for secret ballots at the say so of the Industrial Relations Bureau. It provides, in section 15, power to suspend members of trade unions, officials of trade unions, to deregister trade unions and to freeze the funds of trade unions. If court orders are not complied with it is perfectly possible for section 15 ( 1 1) to be used. Included in that section is the following:

Penalty: $400 or imprisonment for 6 months or both or, in the case of an offence referred to in sub-section (12), $400 for each day during which the offence is to be deemed to continue or imprisonment for 6 months or both. ‘

That is what this Act is all about, that is what the Government’s Industrial Relations Policy is all about and that is what section 45D of the Trade Practices. Act is all about. This obnoxious trade practices legislation, which was implemented in 1977 and tidied up in 1978, provides for heavy penalties against trade unions and trade unionists who impose so-called secondary boycotts. Workers such as those at Hay Point in Queensland who were struggling to obtain jobs on ships carrying Australian coal to Japan, should have been applauded in this recessionary situation for their attempts to obtain jobs rather than threatened with harrassment under section 45D under the Trade Practices Act.

The basic fact about this Act is that it has been unsuccessful. No dispute ever has been settled by this Government’s industrial relations policy. In addition to that, the Government has lost its first major case- the case instigated by the IRB on behalf of Mr Frank Kane against the Melbourne City Council under section 5 ( 1 ) (aa) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It would be interesting to find out whether Mr Kane had any official connection with the Liberal Party because he has certainly had a connection with the Liberal candidate for Coburg in the last Victorian State elections, a Mr Nick Kosenko, who, I understand, accompanied Mr Kane at all the Federal Court hearings against both the MCC and the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. It would be interesting to know whether he attended these hearings in an official capacity as an officer in Mr Street’s Department of Industrial Relations. That is what is being said around the unions in Melbourne. Perhaps we should get an answer to that question from the Minister. The Liberal candidate for Coburg had a very close association with this Mr Kane. It is very suspicious indeed. The Government, through the IRB, lost its case. I certainly do not object to employers’ actions in dismissing strike breakers, but the decision surely illustrates how stupidly ineffective and badly drafted this Act is at present. The position now seems to be, as the Australian Financial Review puts it, that:

Unless the legislation is changed, it will leave only unions open to prosecution under the sections of the legislation allegedly aimed at protecting the rights of individuals against actions by unions and employers.

What is the Government going to do about this anamolous legislation. While the Government depends on this sort of obnoxious Industrial Relations Bureau approach, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is still suggesting overseas that our track record in industrial relations is not so bad after all. The Prime Minister was asked this question on 12 February this year by the United States magazine Business Week:

Do you expect that your economic policies will stir labour troubles? Australian unions have a reputation for being militant and strike prone . . .

The Prime Minister answered:

That’s because of the rugged nature of Australians. In actual fact, our time lost through strikes is less than in the US … I think the general situation in Australia is about on a par with this country -

Mr Willis:

– Where did he say that?

Mr WEST:

-That statement was made to Business Week, an influential magazine in the United States, on 12 February this year, apparently in the United States. The Prime Minister then added that the Australian record on strikes was much better than that of the United Kingdom, yet he still attacks unions, individual union members and wage and salary earners generally.

He blames their wage increases for inflation despite the fact that the biggest inflationary factor in the last two years has been the Government’s inflationary import parity crude oil policy. The Government opposes any flow-on of the 4 per cent rise in the consumer price index at the current national wage case and then whinges when unions have the audacity to act outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to maintain their living standards. The Government has broken promises regarding the tax surcharge and health insurance and has imposed an extra $10.50 a week at least on workers. Yet the Government expects the workers to cop it. The Government expects the workers to abide by its present industrial relations policies.

Just look at the Government’s actions with regard to two major cases in the Public Service. I refer briefly in passing to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979 over which there is industrial trouble in the Australian Capital Territory today. No wonder because this Bill makes it possible for workers between 55 and 60 years of age to be put out of the Public Service on a reduced pension, only 36 per cent of their current salary at age 55, under Determination 509 of the Public Service Act. There is nothing extra for them. Similarly, there is no incentive for people under 55 who are made redundant. For instance, a person put out at 40 years of age would only receive 9 per cent of current salary on retirement in addition to the notice provided under Determination 509.

Look at the situation with regard to employees in Australia Post where they are placed off pay after refusing one simple task only, although they may work the rest of the day or the rest of the week. I have here a particular case, the pay slip of a worker in Australia Post who only took home $8.49 for the fortnight after working the full 80 hours. How does the Government expect that to stand up as an equitable industrial relations policy? This is the reason why workers and trade unions are not content to sit back and accept what this Government hands out to them. Let me refer to the position of the members of the Federated Ironworkers Association in my electorate, the great steel electorate of Cunningham. Tradesmen’s assistants still receive only $146.10 through the three components of their wage for a 40-hour week. At the same time, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has announced a profit of $ 161m for the last financial year.

It is understandable that there is widespread industrial disputation. This Government has no wages policy whatsoever. There ought to be a policy of equity for the workers of Australia. That is one of the things for which the Australian Labor Party stands. How can we tolerate a situation in which steel workers, the backbone of the country, receive $ 146 a week whilst the company that employs them makes $16 lm in profit for a year. We advocate the fair wages policy of full indexation at least up to the level of the national average wage.

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

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-The is no doubt in my mind that the raising of this subject as a matter of public importance is a political ploy on behalf of the left wing and communist unions. It is being acted out in this Parliament today using the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) as nothing more than mouthpieces for the communist unions. I think that those honourable members are performing a despicable act here today. This Parliament and the people of Australia might well ask what has happened to those honourable members who act as genuine spokesmen on industrial matters for the Australian Labor Party. What has happened to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)? Why is he not speaking on behalf of his party on a matter relating to industrial relations? What has happened to the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), who usually speak for their party on industrial matters? The spokesmen for the Labor Party on this occasion are the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Cunningham, both of whom act as spokesmen in this place for the Left and the communist unions.

What is happening today is obviously part of a political tactic on behalf of the Left. I think that that is evidenced even more by the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He referred very little to industrial relations. He made some reference to the Kane case and its effect in the High Court, but most of his speech was taken up by references to economic matters. The booklet produced recently by the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union- we all know that it is a communist-led union- called Australia Ripped Off contains most of the statistics that were produced in the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is not true.

Mr BURR:

– It is true, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows it to be so. The statistics used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came from a booklet produced by a communistled union, the AMWSU. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in fact launched that booklet earlier this year. What do we find in some of the commentaries about that booklet? Following the launching of the booklet by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, News Weekly in its summary, stated:

There are no wealth statistics collected in Australia.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech that ‘there are no wealth statistics collected in Australia’. The summary continues: . . so, where did the information come from?

The source of information from which the pamphlet’s statistics are extracted is the obscure marxist Journal of Political Economy.

Although the AMWSU does not say it, this publication is produced by Marxist economists from a number of universities and colleges.

That statement shows from where the statistics used today in the House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came. The people of Australia need to understand clearly that this debate today is a political ploy on behalf of the communist and left wing unions of Australia. They are using the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Cunningham as spokesmen in this House for their political tactics.

What are they trying to do? I think the people of Australia need to understand what political tactics are being employed here today. The left wing unions are trying at the moment to have the Industrial Relations Bureau in Australia disbanded. I think we need to understand why those unions want the Bureau disbanded. Certainly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Cunningham referred to the Kane case and some of the matters that have flowed from the High Court decision on that, but they failed to bring out in their speeches the fact that during the 12 months to 30 June 1978 the Industrial Relations Bureau made 23,868 inspections of award provisions in Australia and that, as a result, over $ lm extra was paid to workers in Australia. I notice, unfortunately, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just left the chamber. If he wants the IRB -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had to go outside to get some papers because he is leading in the next debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)That is not a point of order.

Mr BURR:

– It is unfortunate that the Labor Party does not want these factors brought out to the people of Australia. I cannot help it; it is in my nature to speak the truth. The Australian Labor Party and the left wing unions failed to bring out the fact that, as a result of the inspections, over $ 1 m extra has been paid to Australian workers. The Labor Party does not want those facts brought out because it wants to get rid of the Industrial Relations Bureau and it wants to get rid of any constraint that might be exercised over actions of the left wing unions.

Members of the Labor Party did not tell us that the IRB is charged also with the responsibility of over-viewing union rules and union actions and that it can take action in the courts to protect the interests of the community and to protect the interests of workers because of the overbearing action of these unions. That is what honourable members opposite did not tell us. That is what the unions are desperately trying to avoid telling us. In particular, the left wing and the communist unions do not want anybodyany organisation or group- overviewing their actions. People such as Mr Gallagher, Mr Halfpenny, Mr Carmichael and Mr Clancy- I can name many others- want to have an unrestrained influence over the economy and over the industries of Australia. They want to exercise their communist doctrines without restraint by any section of the community. We hear all sorts of spurious arguments by the Opposition, but this Government has made the point at all stages since coming to office that its industrial relations policy has been designed to protect the community. It is to that end that we will continue to mount our industrial relations policy, regardless of what puppet spokesmen from the Opposition or the left wing unions might care to say. The overriding direction of our industrial relations policy will be to protect the community.

We need to look at what has brought this matter to a head. It is interesting to note the political tactics that are being employed by the communist unions at the moment. A recent election within the AMWSU for the position of national organiser has really put fear into the hearts of the left wing unions, the communist-led unions and Labor Party supporters of the Left. A communist organiser, Mr Baird, who had held the position for some years was seeking re-election. He was opposed by Mr R. W. Miller. Mr Miller, in the opening line of his election material for the position, stated:

I am standing against the candidate of the Communist Party of Australia.

Some 23,000 members of the AMWSU voted and Mr Miller won by a margin of 13,500 votes to 9,500 votes. It is unbelievable, and that is what has caused this political tactic today by the left wing of the Labor Party. If we reflect on the election of the. National president of the AMWSU in 1977, only 2,100 people in that union bothered to vote. But on this occasion, because a candidate was purposely standing against the candidate of the Communist Party, 23,000 members of that union voted, and they voted overwhelmingly against the Communist Party. Naturally, that put all sorts of fears into people such as Mr Halfpenny, Mr Carmichael and others within that and other communist-led unions. They know full well that under the policies that have been brought in by this Government to allow for free and open election of office bearers within unions, if there is an overwhelming participation by union members the communist-led organisers and officials in those unions will be tossed out of office. That is the reason. It is because of the fear within the communist-led unions that this political ploy has been used in the House today. It is part of a nationwide and long-term campaign by the unions to protect the communist influence within those unions. That should be exposed to the people of Australia, and as long as this Government remains in office it will be exposed to the people of Australia. This Government’s overriding concern is to protect the interests of a free society.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 2518

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. The amendments are to authorise payment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation of the proceeds of those components of bobby calves and calf levies which are designed to provide funds for the Corporation’s administration and promotion activities. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 2519

MEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Meat Research Act 1960 to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. The proposed amendments to paragraphs 5 ( 1 ) (a) and 5 ( 1 ) (aa) of the principal Act are to authorise payment into the Meat Research Trust Account of the proceeds of the research components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. The proposed amendment to sub-paragraph 8 (2) (a) (i) of the principal Act is to authorise the Australian Meat Research Committee to make recommendations on the amounts to be prescribed for the research components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 2519

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Before the debate resumes on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill 1979.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-When this debate was adjourned last Thursday night, I was discussing how late in November decisions are taken as to the level of the first advance. Arrangements are then made for the Australian Wheat Board to borrow sufficient funds from the Reserve Bank of Australia to meet both the first advance and Board expenses. When these decisions were made last November it was estimated that deliveries to the Board would be some 13 million tonnes. We all know, of course, that this delivery estimate mounted rapidly to a final figure of a little less than 18 million tonnes, almost 4 million tonnes in excess of the previous record. The record crop meant that the Australian Wheat Board’s financing needs for the season amounted to a very large sum of some $ 1,600m. Money was advanced by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank and directly contributed to the money supply in the Australian economy.

The growth in money supply has been beyond that which was consistent with the Government’s economic policy objectives. Accordingly, a number of measures were taken to stem prospective increases in interest rates. One of the measures decided on by the Government was that a change should be made this season to the traditional method of financing the wheat crop. The change that we are now discussing involved the Wheat Board raising part of its financing requirements from the 1978-79 season through the issue of commercial bills. The Board has already refinanced $155m of its Reserve Bank borrowings in this way and is presently proceeding with a further issue of bills to raise $300m commercially for refinancing part of its indebtedness to the Reserve Bank. In acceding to the request that it raise the further $300m commercially, the Australian Wheat Board has stated that the Board’s decision was taken in the interests of the Australian community as a whole. I believe that the role of Board members and the Chairman in this matter has been a proper one. Their decisions have expressed their perception of the interests of the wheat industry and the community.

When the Board was asked to undertake this means of funding, the Government gave a commitment that any additional cost of the commercial borrowings would be borne by the Government so that wheat growers would receive the same cash payment for their crops. This undertaking by the Government does not mean a subsidy to the Australian wheat growers. It means that a facility which enables the most effective handling of the crop can be continued and funded in the most effective way. That facility enables payments to growers on delivery, leaving the Australian Wheat Board free to negotiate sales at the highest commercial price over a reasonable time instead of immediately at a price the market would bear.

Clause 4 of the Bill specifies the basis for the determination by the Minister for Primary Industry of the amounts payable to the Board as reimbursement of borrowing costs. In respect of the interest costs associated with the commercial borrowings, the Board is to be reimbursed the difference between the amount of interest actually incurred by it and what would have been incurred if the borrowing had been made in the normal way from the Reserve Bank.

In regard to borrowing costs other than interest, the full amount of any such costs will be reimbursed where the borrowing is for the purpose of refinancing Reserve Bank drawings as these are costs which the Board would not have incurred normally. If the Board borrows commercially for direct financing purposes, as distinct from refinancing a Reserve Bank borrowing, only the costs additional to those that would be incurred in respect of Reserve Bank borrowing will be reimbursed. In general, the Bill ensures that the Wheat Board and, through it, the wheat industry, sustain no extra costs through undertaking alternative financing arrangements for the 1978-79 crop and so contributing to the economic welfare of the nation as a whole.

The second Bill simply specifies the existing powers of the Australian Wheat Board to raise money by the issue of approved securities and to empower the Minister for Primary Industry to provide a Commonwealth guarantee or repayment in connection with those securities. The Bill also makes provision for the exemption from stamp duty or similar taxes of securities issued by the Board and transactions in those securities as well as other documents or transactions of the Board relating to its borrowings or raising of money. The Bill is specifically designed so that the existing general powers of the Board may be used to borrow commercially and to take advantage of types of money market facilities presently available to a body such as the Australian Wheat Board for the raising of money.

Specifically the Bill provides for the Board, with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, to issue securities including bills of exchange, promissory notes, unsecured notes or other similar instruments. The power of the Board to borrow commercially- for example, by bank overdraft, with the approval of the Minister- is retained. The exemption from payment of stamp duty has particular relevance to the accompanying Bill which provides for the Wheat Board to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth for costs of certain borrowings. Without this provision for the exemption from stamp duty the Commonwealth could, in effect, be paying that tax in instances where the States themselves were not prepared to grant exemption. The Bill then facilitates the special financing arrangements entered into by the Board this season at the request of the Government. It also broadens the base for future operations of the Board.

I know that these changes caused deep concern to many wheat growers. However, I believe that there is now a real understanding within the industry of the reasons why these changes were necessary and the important benefits that will accrue to the wheat growers and the community alike. I stress that the change is for monetary policy reasons and that they will be made at no additional cost to growers. In other words, the interest payable on these commercial borrowings is to be guaranteed by the Government to be no more than the rate which would be paid on funds borrowed from the Rural Credits Department up to 31 March 1980.

As I have already mentioned briefly, two factors contributed to the Government’s decision. Firstly, the harvest was a record one and it coincided with the increase from $66 per tonne to the highest first advance payment ever of $75 per tonne. These two factors have meant that the Reserve Bank has injected very large amounts of money into the economy in a relatively short period. Of course these sums will be repaid when the wheat is sold. However, the Australian Wheat Board’s indebtedness to the Reserve Bank on 30 June 1979 will still be more than $800m. This compares with only $280m at 30 June last year.

The Government took these decisions only after very careful consideration of the impact of this cash flow on the whole community, including wheat growers. The advice has been that unless the money supply could be contained interest rates in the community would have to rise. It is important to recognise that these changes ensure that the wheat industry should not be called upon to finance decisions advantaging not just wheat growers but every Australian. Accordingly, the undertaking has been given that costs will remain as if the money were advanced from the Rural Credits Department. Whilst it is a departure from past practices, I am sure that the wheat growers of Australia have as great an interest in overall economic conditions as any other Australian.

Mr McVeigh:

– They are very responsible Australians.

Mr FISHER:

– As the honourable member for Darling Downs has quite rightly stated, the Australian wheat industry, through consultation has recognised that it is a responsible decision and is supporting it. I am quite sure it recognises also that the pressure it has applied to contain inflation has been at least as great as that from any other industry group. Had the Government not taken this decision, without doubt inflationary expectations this financial year would have been greater than is currently the case. The decision in this case reflects also the Government’s determination to maintain responsible monetary policies. It means restraint on the growth of the money supply. It does not mean moving away from the guarantees that the Government has given the industry under the stabilisation legislation. Nor does it in any way lessen the Government’s support for the industry. Wheat growers will receive the same cash advances and the Board will not bear higher interest costs.

Over the past few months consultations between the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, the Australian Wheat Board and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) have taken place on new stabilisation proposals to apply in the 1980s. These discussions will be continued in the weeks ahead. The discussions that have been held have been regular and have been conducted in an atmosphere of goodwill, understanding and with the objective of meeting the needs of the Australian wheat producer, particularly in retaining and improving satisfactory marketing arrangements on the domestic and export markets. These arrangements will also ensure that there will be more acceptable payment procedures in line with differing circumstances in which the industry finds itself.

One aspect of these arrangements is that the growers have an immediate and significant cash flow higher than that which has been traditionally the pattern. Another aspect is the need for a safeguard against sudden price reductions and a first advance payment sufficient to meet obligations of investment in plant and machinery and, of course, normal operating costs. I therefore give my support to these Bills because I believe that they are an important part of the new stabilisation proposals. However, they are an example also of successful negotiations between a responsible and competent growers’ organisation and the Government and suggest that the next stabilisation proposals will be a vast improvement on the last plan.

Over the last three years the Government has initiated some very significant policies which have placed all people involved in primary industry in a much more advantageous situation than they have been in the past. I believe these policies have had an enormous impact on the wheat industry and I wish to mention briefly three of them. Without doubt the most significant policy that has been initiated to assist rural people over many years has been the total abolition as from 1 July of all estate and gift duty. We are all aware of the tremendous significance of these policies and the disastrous effect that the payment of these death duties has had for so many years in rural areas. Personally, I believe that the most significant proposal that our party has ever been able to achieve in the Federal Parliament is the abolition of death duties.

The other two important initiatives have been the establishment of two financing schemes, one of which provides assistance in the taxation area and the other of which provides assistance in the refinancing area, to assist primary producers. I briefly mention the introduction of the income tax equalisation deposits scheme which, for the first time, is giving primary producers an opportunity, through the taxation system, to better manage their violently fluctuating incomes. The establishment of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is providing a new source of finance to people in primary industry in Australia.

These Bills and the policy initiatives that I have mentioned will leave the Australian wheat industry better equipped to meet volatile world trading situations and changing world economic conditions. I have no doubt they will greatly assist also in countering the impact of escalating fuel costs. I know that my party totally supports these two measures.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition does not deplore the fact that there is an enormous wheat crop. We laud the fact that prosperity has returned to the country areas. I would not want any remarks that I make here on the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill be to be interpreted as my carping against the success in the wheat industry. Of course, we support that industry. I support it particularly because the first wheat crop in Australia was planted in the Parramatta electorate by James Ruse. We in the Opposition are rather proud of our achievements in the wheat industry in the period when we were in government between 1972 and 1975. I remind the House that one of the first things that the Labor Government did in 1973 was to increase for the first time in 15 years- it is strange that the members of the National Country Party have fled the chamber; I thought that they might be interested in these matters- the first payment to wheat farmers. It might be remembered also that in the Labor Government’s years in office the five year wheat stabilisation plan was started and consolidated.

It might also be remembered as a matter of historical fact that the then Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Wriedt, insisted upon the Australian Wheat Board instituting a market with Egypt. That has been of enormous assistance to the wheat industry in the ensuing period. Of course, let it not be forgotten that Gough Whitlam ‘s sorties into China, with a subsequent real recognition of China as a trading partner, have also given us greater access to the Chinese wheat market. In 1972 we also brought forward the payment on which wheat farmers had been waiting for the 1969-70 crop. Therefore, our achievements with regard to the wheat industry are pretty good and we are proud of them.

Whilst we are discussing the wheat industry today, we are really discussing the saga of the hot potato. This Bill is a classic case of buck passing. The Encyclopedic World Dictionary defines to pass the buck’ as a colloquialism meaning, ‘to shift the responsibility and/or blame to another person’. Make no mistake that this is what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Treasurer (Mr Howard) have done in this case. They have made the Australian Wheat Board and the States the scapegoats for their bungling inefficiency. They have leant on the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to do the dirty work involved. I do not suppose that the Minister would be insulted if I said that, because he is a farmer he is fairly used to doing the dirty work and so that is not out of character. This Bill is a product of the Government’s decision to lean on the Wheat Board to issue commercial bills in order to rein in the money supply. Surely that should not be the job of the Wheat Board. The job of the Wheat Board is to pay wheat farmers and to trade in wheat. It is really not the job of the Wheat Board to implement government economic measures.

This year’s wheat harvest was underestimated in early November by approximately six million tonnes. Consequently, $400m more than was estimated was needed to fund the wheat growers’ first advance. In November last year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics pointed out that in fact the wheat crop was likely to be 18 million tonnes this year. So the Government really had three or four months to prepare for that impasse. In fact, it did nothing about it. Due to the Government’s prevailing interest rate mess it could not afford to let the Board have the extra finance from the Reserve Bank of Australia which it needed to cope with the bumper wheat crop. The economy of this country is in such a turmoil that the Government cannot handle a rural boom. Surely that is not a very reassuring exigency for those sectors that support it and particularly for those sectors that support the National Country Party. The Prime Minister is responsible for losing control of the economy, not the Australian Wheat Board. Therefore, why should the Australian Wheat Board be charged with the job of pulling the economy into line.

This season the wheat harvest has been called the harvest of a lifetime. I think that is a fairly good description. The harvest has totalled almost 18 million tonnes which is 88 per cent higher than last year. It is expected to contribute at least $2, 500m to the economy. The crop is so good in fact that it exceeds the previous record crop of a decade ago by 2.7 million tonnes. In New South Wales alone the crop, which was forecast to reach approximately three million tonnes has doubled this figure, with yields in some areas being more than seven tonnes a hectare. It is greatly to the credit of the farmers that they have developed this kind of expertise and that they can produce these sorts of results. The crop has greatly aided the rural recovery. In a very short period the wheat boom, coupled with higher prices for other farm commodities and the recent opening up of export markets for beef, has meant that average farm incomes have leapt by 80 per cent on last year’s figures. I would like to cite a couple of other figures that I think are fairly significant when people constantly talk about the devastating effect that the Labor Government had on the rural economy.

Let us have a look at some figures. In 1 973-74 the net farm income in Australia was $5, 400m. That was in a year of Labor Government. In 1978-79, which is a later boom year, net farm income was $4,000m. That is a decent drop from the high point that was reached under a Labor Administration. The Australian Wheat Board expects to receive some 18 million tonnes of wheat this year, of which 14.5 million tonnes will be available for export. Export wheat has now reached $136.5 a ton on export markets. That is an enormous increase on the prices we were getting before. I would like to point out a few other factors regarding the rural economy. For any real benefit to flow from the industry, prices will have to be maintained at current levels for some months. While at this point it is too early to say whether this will occur, the industry can be moderately optimistic that this in fact will be the case. Despite the record international wheat crop of 440 million tonnes last season, present indications are that winter wheat crops in the northern hemisphere have been subject to winter kill damage while spring wheat plantings have been delayed in some areas by the weather and in some other cases, by overly dry conditions. By comparison, Australia seems to be faced with the prospect of another boom crop as a result of widespread rains in the last two months, although the extent of the harvest will depend very much upon the rainfall pattern of the next two months.

In fact, a report in the Sydney Morning Herald this week indicated that in New South Wales this year 3.4 million hectares of wheat will be planted. That is a 10 per cent gain on last year’s record crop. The United States Department of Agriculture and the International Wheat Council have forecast a low world wheat crop in 1 979-80, with a possible drop of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent. At the moment much Australian wheat is being sold according to contracts signed months ago and, therefore, at lower than current rates. However, the vast amounts stored will mean that Australia will be able to take full advantage of any future price rises which may occur. But, these enormous crops have brought with them a number of problems, particularly the inability of receival points to handle the amount of grain harvested. Silos and railway sidings are choked and many growers have been forced to store their grain in paddocks, sometimes as much as 2,000 tonnes of it, thereby risking damage from rain. I believe that the field mice in the country areas are rather fat this year, so I suppose that from a humanitarian point of view, that is not altogether a loss.

There has also been the problem of finance. In February, the Prime Minister ordered the Reserve Bank to stop advancing loans to the Australian Wheat Board and told the Board that it would have to look to commercial sources for finance. Thus for a period of three weeks the Board was unable to make payments to growers. At the beginning of my speech I said that this Bill was brought about as a result of the buck passing of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. I would like an opportunity to explain that situation. It goes back to the irresponsible electioneering and grandstanding of the Prime Minister when he unequivocally proclaimed that his Government would bring down interest rates by 2 per cent within a year. He stated:

It is a target that can and will be achieved.

Obviously it will not be fulfilled. As such, it rates along with the other so numerous broken promises of this deceitful and inept administration. Mr Russell Schneider, whom I would like to quote, is not usually a critic of the Government. In an article appearing in the Australian on 22 January he devoted a column which I believe was a very thoughtful and commendable effort to bring to the public’s attention the litany of lies and broken promises which surround the Fraser Government.

Mr McVeigh:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With the very greatest respect, I point out that we are dealing with a wheat Bill. Whilst I have been following the honourable member with very great interest, I have had some difficulty in associating his present remarks with wheat legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that I think the honourable member is wandering a little to far from the contents of a wheat Bill.

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

-I think the position is that at the time the honourable member was drawing attention to the interest rate component in respect of recent advances. But I quite agree that the honourable member for Parramatta will need to address his remarks to the Bill before the House. Of course, in arguing on the contents of that Bill the honourable member may have to introduce some remarks that would normally be a little bit extraneous.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My Deputy Speaker, I accept your fatherly advice. To return to the interest rate and the money supply, it was made known to the Wheat Board that it would have to find alternative avenues for borrowing. It is almost axiomatic that those avenues would prove to be more expensive. For obvious reasons, the Board was not turning cartwheels over this prospect and it did not intend to go quietly. In fact, it did not. After the Board ran out of money and suspended payments to growers in January, Cabinet instructed the Reserve Bank to advance the Board sufficient funds. It put pressure on the Board to transfer the Reserve Bank debt to the trading banks. The Board decided not to oblige the Government but succumbed to the persuasive rhetoric of the Minister for Primary Industry when the inflation bogy was mentioned. At that stage the Board agreed to voluntarily borrow $ 1 55m. But the Board drew the line to its eternal credit when the much larger sum of $300m was ordered by Cabinet to be raised commercially. The Board’s directors were already under fire from their State affiliates for their earlier cave-in. Of course, wheat growers would have to pay approximately 2 per cent higher interest on that money. But the move would withdraw $300m from the money supply when the banks sold off the bills to the public. Of course, that was a fairly attractive proposition to the Government.

Pontius Pilate-like, the Wheat Board took recourse in formality and requested the Government to order it to do the foul deed. The Government, in its turn, also conveniently, had recourse to the formal procedures which would allow it to pass the buck further down the line. The Minister for Primary Industry is the person legally empowered to order the Board. He was understandably reluctant to do so. The electoral repercussion from such an unpopular decision must have weighed heavily on his mind. In fact, I believe we could almost hear the agonising groans coming from the honourable gentleman when he announced in this House on 10 May that this would be the case. Metaphorically, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were standing behind him, pushing his arm painfully up his back.

Mr Bryant:

– With knives?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-With knives. The Minister knows that bullying the Wheat Board will do him no good personally or his Party generally. However, the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister holds a threat over his National Country Party colleagues which they find hard to ignore. The figures speak for themselves. The National Country Party scores from 1 1 to 13 per cent of the overall vote in elections, yet in a Fraser-led Cabinet it gains a disproportionate 25 per cent representation in the Ministry and very favourable representation in the Cabinet. Bob Hawke is on record as saying: ‘Australia is being governed by six farmers, a few sheep and a goat ‘. I will not define which is which; honourable members can work it out for themselves. The Minister for Primary Industry had little choice in the matter.

Returning to the promise of lower interest rates, which is the gist of the matter before us today, the unequivocal assurances of the Prime Minister began to totter as his Government lurched from one mistake to another, failing to engender confidence in the business community, failing to stimulate the economy with thoughtful planning in the public sector, failing to halt inflation rates and, most tragically, failing to halt the terrible unemployment rate. The Prime Minister knows he is cornered. He is under attack daily in the media for his failure to manage the economy. His electoral stocks are at an all-time low personally, and the Liberals, as a party, are floundering in a quagmire of their own making.

This latest amendment to the Wheat Board’s charter is one way in which we see him kicking back. Let us not assign all the oppobrium to the Liberals. Let us look at the other party in this shady coalition. The Country Party, or the NCP, or the National Party- call it what you willexhibits the greatest degree of chutzpa in its espousal of a philosophy. It screams socialism whenever any government intervention in its profit-making concerns is threatening it. It screams socialism whenever governments try to help the less fortunate in our society. But it is strangely quiet about dreadful socialism when it is in its own interests. To a Very large degree, the ordinary taxpayers funds socialistic programs for the rural sector, as they are in this case when commercial banks have been involved in payment of wheat farmers first payments. We see this type of hypocritical double talk surfacing in respect to this latest business with the Wheat Board.

In 1973, when Senator Wriedt, who was then the Minister for Agriculture, issued instructions to the Board, the Country Party accused the Labor Government of using an ‘iron fist’ and called it ‘an abuse of power’. We now see a situation where it is in the interest of the Board, or more precisely the Wheat Board Chairman, Sir Leslie Price, to pass on the buck to the Government and have it give instructions to the Board. But where are the yells of ‘iron fist’ or ‘authoritarianism’? All is strangely quiet on the rural front. The circumstances of the Board’s cave-in are extraordinary if not reprehensible. The wheat growers to whom most of its members are nominally responsible should be seeking an explanation. In the week after the Board’s cave-in Mr Sinclair answered a question in Parliament which further damaged its credibility. He admitted on 8 May that the Board had, in fact, suspended first advance payments between 23 January and 2 February. This pulled out the rug from under the Board’s General Manager who had gone to great lengths to give the opposite impression. Indeed, he had explicitly denied to at least one prominent financial journalist that payments had been suspended. Part of the cover-up strategy was a story put out along the bush grapevine that the cause of an apparent delay was a computer breakdown. Lo, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive. One of the hardest bitting indictments of the Government appeared in the March issue of the heavyweight economic newsletter Syntec under the heading ‘Mistakes’ and ‘Poor Management’. I will not quote that article but it is worth reading. It is hardly a socialist tending publication, but it contains rather a strong indictment of what the Government has done.

The cave-in of the Wheat Board has done nothing to raise the stature of the Chairman, Sir Leslie Price. He meekly complied with Government requests and went along with its orders. A less trusting person than myself might suggest that there were more of those well-known, furtive, behind the scenes, Fraser phone calls hectoring the chairman. Beholden to the Prime Minister who had him knighted and the Government who appointed him, he backed off. This Bill ratifies the agreement between the Board’s Chairman and the Government. The wheat growers have been sold OU by their representatives, the Wheat Board, on the altar of the Government’s short term convenience in economic misplanning.

Of course, the Wheat Board is not only under fire from its wheat grower friends, it is also under fire in another area from the Section 92 Association. If I can read an article on that matter it may help honourable members to understand the position. The arch-priests of private enterprise among the wheat farmers are objecting to the Wheat Board having control of the sale of wheat. There was a meeting in Moree, I believe, a couple of weeks ago. The real free enterprise lunatics had a field day and cast tremendous aspersions on the Wheat Board for its efforts to stabilise the wheat industry, to organise it, to secure overseas sales and to guarantee payments to the Wheat Board. I am pleased to see that at least some of them with a memory going back beyond the last three or four years of enormous prosperity in the wheat industry can remember the good work the Wheat Board did in other areas. I would like to quote one farmerobviously he was a farmer with a sense of decency. He said: ‘A lot of the very efficient and capable men who are yelling out for the return of free trade are not old enough to remember what happened to their forefathers during the depression ‘.

I would like to think that the Wheat Board is able to stand up to these people and to see that the efforts which they are making at the moment to ensure that its powers are reduced fail. The Wheat Board, which has admirably served the wheat industry and a great bulk of the farmers who constitute it, has done a great deal towards helping the Australian wheat industry to the prosperity which it enjoys today, and which we on this side of the House applaud. We hope that the Board is able to continue to prosper and to serve Australia well.

When we were in government we supported the Wheat Board. As I mentioned earlier, we instituted the five-year wheat stabilisation plan which has brought a great deal of prosperity to the wheat farmers. They are now flushed with their own success and are trying to buck the Wheat Board. I hope that the Minister in charge of this Department, the Minister for Primary Industry, will see that the powers of the Wheat Board are not divested, that it continues to maintain strong control over the wheat industry, but that it is not used in a cynical way, as it has been in the past, to implement the misguided economic policies of the Government. The Prime Minister is responsible for the breakdown in the nation’s economy, not the Wheat Board. We on this side of the House want to see the Wheat Board used for the reasons for which it was instituted and to see that there is continuing prosperity in the rural industry. While there is continuing prosperity in the wheat industry and other areas of agriculture, there is continuing prosperity for the whole of the Australian community.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Millar

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The previous speaker, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), stated early in his speech that the National Country Party representatives had left the chamber. I can readily understand why he may have gained that impression. It was necessary for me to talk to an officer at the table. I would like the record corrected. I was here. I disagreed with part of his speech, but I enjoyed it.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-The first thing that I want to do in this debate is refer to the comments made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who spoke on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. His comments were more or less a repetition of statements made earlier in the debate by another representative of the Labor Party. I refer to the totally unjustified denigration of the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir Leslie Price. So far as I and the great majority of the Australian wheat growers are concerned, Sir Leslie Price has done a magnificent job. The fact that he was knighted for his services to the industry appears to be something that has got under the skin of members of the Labor Party. If he does something in the way of supporting the industry that is in line with Government policy, they say he is under the control of the Government. I would like to know what members of the Opposition think about the action of Mr Egerton in accepting a knighthood. It was reported recently that the Labor Party would like to have him back. It would improve the Labor Party considerably if it did have him back. The Labor Party has attacked the Wheat Board and Sir Leslie Price because they happened to take some action which coincided with what the Government thought was in the best interests of the Australian wheat growers. It should not attack honest, responsible, capable and dedicated men who have used their time in the interests of the Australian wheat growers and, through the Australian wheat growers, the interests of every resident of the Australian nation. I refer to what someone has said in that regard. He said:

It appeared to many outside observers that the Chairman -

That is, the Chairman of the Wheat Board- in isolation, had decided to oblige the Minister who had appointed him and the party which had knighted him and present the Board with a fait accompli.

Practically the same words were used by the honourable member for Parramatta. Apparently some kind of circular goes to Labor Party members to give them something to talk about. The speaker whom I have quoted went on to say:

As I understand it, no Board meeting was held but evidently Board members were canvassed and the majority agreed to reverse the decision made at a formal meeting held one week earlier. I think the circumstances of the Board’s action are a little extraordinary, but I do not think we should make too much of it.

Labor Party members cannot stop talking about it. The very fact that the Board might change a decision in the light of information given to it indicates only that it is capable of arriving at a decision which it feels is in the best interests of the Australian people even though it might change a decision made some time earlier. As was mentioned, the Board did not agree immediately to raise the funds it was asked to raise. It would have preferred- I suppose that most of the wheat growers and representatives of the wheat growers would have preferred- that those funds to come from the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That has been the method used over the years. However, it has been pointed out- the Labor Party will not accept it- that this was a very special occasion. It was a time when the largest wheat crop ever recorded in Australia had been harvested. A very high first payment had to be met. The Government recommended that the Wheat Board should, go outside normal procedures and borrow money from another source. This was to help the Australian economy. Apparently members of the Australian Labor Party will have no part in any action which is to the benefit of the nation as a whole, providing they can denigrate the Government. They have said that this action is a subsidy to the Australian wheat growers. I ask members of the Labor Party again whether they consider that action to guarantee interest rates on money borrowed by the Australian Wheat Board to bring them into line with the interest rates charged by the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank is a subsidy to the Australian wheat growers.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course it is.

Mr CORBETT:

-The honourable member says: ‘Of course it is’. This has been the method of financing the Australian wheat growers over the years. So over all those years members of the Australian Labor Party have apparently considered that that was subsidisation of the Australian wheat growers. Why do they not say that at the next election if that is what they believe? Let them say what interest rates the Australian wheat growers, through the Australian Wheat Board, ought to pay. I repeat that I believe that the denigration of the Australian Wheat Board in this debate by the Australian Labor Party was totally unjustified. It was a disgrace. I think that the Australian wheat growers will recall that denigration. They will remember that the people who have worked so hard in their interests are denigrated in the Parliament and have no opportunity to reply.

The Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill specifies existing powers for the Australian Wheat Board to raise funds. It provides a capacity for the Board to obtain funds from sources in a variety of ways which it was not previously empowered to do. I make the point that the Board was not previously empowered to do that. It has only now been given the right to move away. The rate of interest which it has been paying through the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank of Australia has been long established. The Government suggested special circumstances in which the Board should raise funds in other ways. The Board finally accepted and it is now empowered to do so. The second reading speech of” the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) details the avenues through which such funds can be raised. I will not repeat them. These borrowings should be able to be made under favourable conditions. The Act enables the Minister to provide a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment of both principal and interest. I suppose that members of the Australian Labor Party would regard that as a special concession to the Australian wheat growers. If they think that let them say so on the election platform when they are appealing to the people for support. The costs of borrowing will also be reduced to some extent as a result of the

Bill giving the Minister the power to determine that stamp duty or similar tax will not be payable on certain classes of securities that may be dealt with by the Board. That point was made effectively and eloquently by the well-known and highly successful honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher). The Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill enables reimbursement to be made to the Australian What Board for certain costs of borrowing above the costs that would be incurred if funds were provided by the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank. It simply puts other loans on the same footing. I very much doubt that the Australian Wheat Board would have agreed to borrow outside the Reserve Bank as freely as it did if that had not been the case. Funds have been raised for the benefit of the Australian economy without any cost to the Australian wheat grower.

The Australian Wheat Board and grower organisations would have preferred the finance to have been made available, as it has been previously, through the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank. There is no doubt about that. We do not question it. But the action taken was in the best interests of Australia and the wheat growers. The Board accepted that. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the Board entered into the new arrangements at the request of the Government. We are not denying that. The Government was looking, as always, at the soundness of the economy of this country. The Government felt and the Australian Wheat Board accepted that the new financial arrangements would be in the best interests of all Australians. That is the test to apply. The Australian Labor Party is not prepared to apply it. All it wants to do is to make cheap political capital out of the actions that have been taken.

The Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill ensures that the Board or the wheat industry does not have to meet any extra costs of borrowing above the costs that would be incurred if the money were borrowed from the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank. Australian Labor Party speakers want Australian wheat growers to meet those extra costs. They cannot deny that. That is the theme of their comments. If they think otherwise, why would they say that the wheat growers are being subsidised? They cannot have it both ways. It could be suggested that the reimbursement of costs of borrowing as defined under the Bill would be a subsidy, as the Labor Party has suggested, but that is not so as the normal method of financing has been through the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank. The only reason that finance is now to come from other sources is that that is in the interests of the Australian economy as a whole. It should not be done at the expense of the Australian wheat growers, despite the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in this debate.

Money provided in this way contributed directly to the money supply in the Australian economy. It is against that background that the Government suggested to the Wheat Board that it might undertake to raise funds in the way I have outlined, thereby contributing to maintaining the Government’s economic policy objectives. They are sound objectives which have enabled the inflation rate in this country to be cut in half. If the Labor Party had been in power the inflation rate would have reached unprecedented heights, given the present economic climate throughout the world. Concern has been expressed by wheat growers that this method of financing with the Government’s reimbursing extra costs could be continued without the Government’s reimbursing the extra costs involved. Listening to the Labor Party, the wheat growers have every reason to fear that this would happen if the Labor Party ever got back to office, which would be to the detriment of this country.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CORBETT:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I was criticising the denigration of the Australian Wheat Board and its Chairman by the members of the Australian Labor Party. I would like now to refer to the fact that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation represents the vast majority of Australian wheat growers and has a long and very creditable record of dedicated and highly efficient service to the benefit of all Australian wheat growers. That organisation does support the Australian Wheat Board in all of its activities. I think it is worthy of mention that the uncertainty of production in primary industry and particularly in the wheat industry is demonstrated by the fact that production of wheat in Australia in 1972-73 was 6.590 million tonnes while in 1978-79 it is expected to reach a record high level of approximately 18.5 million tonnes. The uncertainty of production does indicate the necessity for assistance to be given to this industry to enable it to overcome the vagaries of climate as well as price variations. World wheat production also fluctuates quite substantially, as evidenced by the fact that production in 1978 was estimated at 441 million tonnes compared with the 1977 figure of 385.5 million tonnes.

Producer returns are related largely to world priced prices. It is therefore necessary that the most satisfactory and economic wheat industry stabilisation policy should be provided. Australian wheat growers are among the most efficient in the world- perhaps the most efficient- and they compete on world markets without receiving the same percentage of government assistance that is provided for some of our competitors operating on world markets. When people are talking about the assistance that is given to this great industry, they should compare it with the assistance that is given to industry in other countries.

It is vitally important that the wheat industry should remain viable not only in the interests of the wheat farmer but also in the interests of the national economy. People tend to overlook and perhaps forget the great contribution made by the wheat industry to the decentralisation of Australia’s population and its contribution to employment in many ways. Too often we hear lip-service given to decentralisation projects. Too often we hear people talking about the value of decentralisation. But when it comes to representations being made by myself, by members of my Party and by members of the Government in an effort to get some assistance in this area we are howled down. It is all words and no action. We are not supported in that direction.

The narrow confines of the Bills under decision do not allow for a wide ranging debate on the industry, but I have taken the opportunity to reply to some of the statements that have been made. I want to stress the importance of the industry remaining a viable industry so that the matters about which I have just spoken- its employment value and its decentralisation valuecan continue and indeed improve. I therefore urge the Government to take cognisance of the requests made by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, which represents the growers, to ensure that as far as possible the viability of the industry is maintained. It is against that background that I have been urging that the Government should take no notice of those representations that have been predominant in Labor Party attitudes in relation to subsidy and the amount of interest that is paid on money which is raised outside the normal method of borrowing through the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

I am very pleased that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) is at present in the chair. We are apt to forget or to overlook the work done by the Government Members Rural Committee of which you, Sir, are the Chairman.

I know that a good deal of time is spent by that Committee in meeting representatives of all sections of the industry to try to arrive at sensible and balanced decisions for presentation to the Government. The Secretary of that Committee is none other than my friend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), and I pay tribute to that Committee for the work it has done and the amount of time it has spent in trying to resolve the problems faced by the industry. The members of the Committee meet representatives from all sections of the community, including growers and other people. I know that people who want to address that Committee are always made welcome, provided that they represent responsible bodies. It is as a result of that work that we do get sound advice from that Committee of which, as I said, you happen to be the very highly respected Chairman.

I was asked to try to limit my remarks in this debate. Although there are many things about which I would like to talk, I will just touch on one or two things that the Australian Wheat Board has done. It has introduced a discounting facility for wheat growers. A good deal of work has been done by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in many ways to try to make things a little easier for the wheat growers whom it serves. It has worked hard in connection with the wheat stabilisation fund. It has made a tremendous effort in presenting a case for sound home consumption prices. I would like to comment on trading on the domestic market, which has occupied quite some time in this debate. At the 106th Australian Agricultural Council meeting held in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 29 and 30 January this year the following resolution in respect of trading on the domestic market was passed:

The Australian Wheat Board will continue as sole seller for the domestic market. The Bulk Handling Authorities may need, however, to use their powers, with the Board’s approval, to license agents to receive, handle, store and transport wheat under specified conditions consistent with the overall marketing arrangement.

Discussions with representatives of the Wheatgrowers Federation and the Wheat Board have revealed that they are prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any problem that may arise whereby assistance may be required in special cases in which it could be desirable that agents other than the Wheat Board operate on the domestic market. The Board and the Federation do not have a closed door on that at all. They really want to retain control of the domestic marketing in the best interests of all wheat growers. At a meeting in Perth not so long ago Sir Leslie Price emphasised that if control were to be taken out of the hands of the Board, it would be greatly handicapped and left with the residue of the home consumption market. That would not be practicable and the Board might even have to bow right out. I am sure that no Australian wheat grower who has an understanding of the value of orderly marketing would want that to happen. I support the Bills.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (2.24)-Like the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), I hope that when I have finished my speech I too will be able to say that I am pleased that you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I hope that that is not a threat.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– No. I say it with good intent. I did not want you to think that the honourable member for Maranoa is more generous than I am. It appears to me that the honourable member spoke like a man who had something to hide. Not only did he try to distort some of the great measures introduced by the Labor Party for the benefit of the rural industry but also he made an attack on the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). The honourable member for Maranoa was very hostile towards these members because they had claimed that the introduction of these dangerous amendments to our wheat industry stabilisation legislation were indicative of the financial turmoil in which this nation finds itself at present. The honourable member for Maranoa, during the course of his speech, asked members of the Opposition to state clearly their party’s policy on some of the matters that he raised. If the honourable member gives me the same silent attention that I gave to him and to his colleagues, I will try to do so.

The Opposition does not oppose the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1979 or the Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill 1979. We are conscious of the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech that the Bills were introduced to specify the existing powers of the Australian Wheat Board to raise moneys by the issue of approved securities and to empower the Minister for Primary Industry to provide a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment in connection with those securities. At first glance, these Bills appear to be merely machinery measures to meet the changed circumstances, that is, the increase in the size of the harvest and the increase in the amount of the money supply at the time. However, I think a lot of people would be justified in claiming that this legislation is indicative of the economic turmoil in which the nation finds itself at present. Put another way, it could be said that the Bills authorise Commonwealth support for the high interest rates that the Australian Wheat Board will have to pay on that portion of its overdraft transferred from the Primary Industry Bank to the private note holders. The Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill amends the present Act to accommodate these changes.

Contrary to what the honourable member for Maranoa said, the Opposition does not claim that the Bills amount to a new subsidy for the wheat industry, because we are aware that the Australian Wheat Board was already being subsidised through Reserve Bank credit at interest rates lower than those charged by commercial organisations. The only thing the Bills do is make more obvious what applied already. A new element is being brought into these stabilisation Bills, and I will have something to say on that later.

However, so that the honourable member for Maranoa does not misunderstand me, I say that I have always been a sincere supporter of stabilisation schemes and I have always been conscious of the fact that from time to time such schemes need adjustment to meet changing circumstances. As a matter of fact, in 1976, 1 supported an amendment designed to include the labour component of the owner-operator on the wheat farm being introduced into the index used to vary the annual movement in the home consumption price of wheat. But these amendments have not been introduced to assist the wheat grower so much as to adjust a misjudgment or a laxity on the part of the Government which either underestimated the size of the wheat harvest or failed to provide properly for it. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has often said, blind Freddy could see that it was necessary to rein in the increase in the money supply that this underestimation of the wheat harvest had put on the money market. An amount of $400 m more than was estimated was needed to fund the first advance payment.

No one can blame the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for this because it sent out signals about the size of the wheat harvest long before the Government took any action to rectify the situation. As a matter of fact, in December, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication, Trends, forecast a harvest of 17.5 million bushels. Deliveries reached 18 million bushels. I am not trying to apportion blame but I do want to point out that the main purpose of a stabilisation Bill is to remove uncertainty so that the wheat grower can plan his production over a longer period.

I believe that what this nation is crying out for at present is honesty in government. Government members should have done something about the situation instead of attempting to blame the Labor Government for every economic ill that this country has to face. The honourable member for Parramatta and the honourable member for Werriwa have already pointed to the great legislation brought in by the Labor Government to the benefit of our rural industry. The Government’s attempts to blind the nation to the reality of our economic situation are not working and they will not work in this case either.

The Bills before the House are directly related to the Government’s inability to contain the growth in the money supply within the target set by the Government at the time of the last Budget. But, of course, there is worse to come. What the Government’s fiddling around with the mini-Budget will do to primary industry and to other sections of our economy is something that we have yet to face. It might not have been possible to avoid introducing the measures contained in the Bills, but they should have been acted on sooner and they should have been handled in a less messy manner.

As other Opposition members have said- and I want to emphasise this fact- the high level of wheat deliveries was welcomed by the Opposition. It was welcomed by the wheat industry and no doubt it was welcomed by the Government. But whether we like it or not, such deliveries did bring about an exceptionally large financial requirement on the part of the Australian Wheat Board to meet its first advance payment obligations to wheat growers. They also involved the Australian Wheat Board in the problem of marketing expenses for 1978-79. That situation could not be hidden from the wheat grower and it could not be hidden from the nation because there was a natural delay in the payment of the first advance. The first advance payment was suspended for a period. In the early part of this year, Senator Walsh alerted the nation to the fact that the Australian Wheat Board had suspended first advance payments to some growers. The Government failed to respond to this assertion and to questions asked on the matter. In the light of this fact, I think it was futile for the National Country Party to try to make out that the problem did not exist. Under the Fraser Government system of economic management, perhaps these measures were unavoidable. It is unfortunate that these amendments have to be introduced at this point in time because the current wheat plan expires in September 1979. I believe that we should discuss all aspects of a stabilisation scheme at the one time because the amendments introduce a new measure that should not be considered in isolation. Previously, regardless of the size of the wheat harvest, the Wheat Board has always been able to get the full amount of finance necessary to cover the first advance payment.

Many wheat growers feel that these amendments set up a dangerous precedent. I entirely agree with them because, in spite of what the Minister said in his second reading speech about the Government’s specifying only those powers that the Wheat Board already has, the difference is that the powers have never been used before. On the occasion in question the Wheat Board was forced to use those powers. It had no option but to do that, and I think this is the danger in these amendments. The Wheat Board was forced to borrow outside the Reserve Bank. To entice it to do that the Government agreed to meet the extra cost. If the Wheat Board did this without being forced to do it, it has let the wheat grower down. Once the principle of borrowing money outside the Reserve Bank at higher interest rates is clearly established it will then become a short step, an easy step, for the Government to say: We will no longer meet the extra cost involved ‘. Any member of the Wheat Board who cannot recognise this danger must be looking at the situation through coloured glasses because any further journey down this road can lead only to higher interest rates for the Wheat Board. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Maranoa must surely recognise this.

The wheat growers should never be charged higher interest rates because they often subsidise the Australian wheat consumer. In turn, the Australian wheat consumer has subsidised the wheat grower. Unlike the members of the National Country Party I do not try to make out that something does not exist when it is obvious to everyone that it does exist. I want to prove that the existence of these schemes is justified because, unfortunately, many people regard subsidisation schemes as indicating government support. What such a scheme means is a well-planned system of reciprocal co-operation between the Government, the consumer and the producer which guarantees a home consumption price for wheat consumed in Australia. In the long term this does not penalise the Australian consumer because it often brings about a lower domestic price than the overseas price. I do not have the relevant figures for this year, but I believe that at the present time the overseas price is higher than the domestic price. I remember in 1976 the overseas market price for wheat being $20 per tonne higher than the domestic price. On that occasion the wheat grower was subsidising the home consumer by many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The growing and marketing of wheat is no small operation. Since I have been in this Parliament I have represented many wheat growers. I know that they have to face up to bushfires and floods and that they have to make severe physical efforts. Even after they produce and harvest the wheat they have to face up to storage problems, such as weavils, sometimes storms blowing over the silos or whatever method they have of storing the wheat on the land. Their efforts could fail through a number of eventualities. Recently, the amount of work put into wheat growing was brought home to me in no uncertain manner. I attended a ball in a country area and was fortunate enough to stay on a wheat farm. Throughout the night the tractors were ploughing the field. Every son of a farmer seemed to be taller than the last, and they all looked as though they could do a hard day’s work. They certainly did that right through the night and into the next day.

In spite of what the honourable member for Maranoa has said I am very proud to think that the wheat stabilisation scheme was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1948. It has taken much of the financial risk out of the growing and marketing of wheat. The first advance payment, of course, is a major part of the stabilisation scheme. It is a government’s responsibility to see that there is not even a shadow of doubt about its distribution being on time. Any hold up in the distribution of the first advance payment will throw the whole rhythm of the farming operation out of balance. This would mean the difference between success and failure. When the wheat industry is able to produce a record crop there should be no hold up in the first advance payment and there should be no doubt about its availability. If we find that these things occur it amounts to the fact that the grower is being penalised for a great and efficient effort that has brought great benefits to the nation. I believe the Government has a responsibility to proclaim publicly the importance and the great efforts of the wheat industry to the nation. The efficient efforts of the wheat growers have brought about increased yields with improved wheat quality, which this year brought a return of $2,000m and export earnings of $ 1 ,800m. On my retirement from this Parliament I hope that no honourable member will let the Wheat Board travel any further along this road of borrowing money outside the Reserve Bank. If it does that it will lead only to higher interest rates for the wheat grower.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-As a member representing an electorate which produces about 40 per cent of the wheat grown in South Australia I wish to make a short contribution in the debate on the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill. This year, of course, the wheat harvest in my electorate, as in all the southern part of Australia, was a whopper one. In the various areas to which I was able to travel I got an idea of just what the yield was. Everywhere much greater quantities of grain were harvested than had been harvested for a number of years. Of course, it was very important that growers had a good season because the area in which I travelled has had three years of very severe drought. In some areas the situation has been worse than in others, but in the last three years on the Eyre Peninsula the wheat crop and the yields from other grain have been down considerably with the result that the farmers in that particular area were in real trouble. The crop this year will, at least, be able to get them out of some of the problems which have built up over the last three years. It will help them pay off some of the debts that have accrued in that period. We hope that with the good start to this season and with a good y ar this year people can really get back on their feet again.

I would like to refer to the two Bills we are discussing today, namely, the Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill and the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill. These two Bills, as has been said by every other speaker in the debate, allow the Government to cover the increased interest that will be paid by the Australian Wheat Board because the Government has forced it to go outside the Reserve Bank to the private banks to finance the first advance payments for this year. We can argue about whether the Bills in effect constitute a subsidy. I think the argument is probably a bit academic. The fact is that borrowings at any time by the Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank are made at concessional rates of interest. The Government this year, because of its problems concerning the money supply, dithered around and finally told the Wheat Board that it would have to go to the private banking sector to finance portion of the first advance payments. While it is academic whether the original Reserve Bank loans to the Wheat Board are a subsidy, the fact is that the private sector charges higher interest rates and then the Government picks up the tab. I feel that that is not academic. That is a subsidy.

I am not saying that members of the Labor Party who are supporting these Bills are opposed to such a subsidy being paid. It appears to me that members of the National Country Party think that we are condemning farmers as soon as we mention the word subsidy. We are not. I wish those members would open their eyes and see things as they actually are. I believe that these payments, in effect, are subsidies. This situation probably was brought about by two factors. One relates to the massive crops harvested this year and the other to the misjudgment of the Government in the handling of those crops. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics anticipated the extent of the wheat crop last year. Although the crop when harvested was even greater than the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimated, the Government still had time to make the necessary arrangements. In January of this year, because of the big crop and the large first advance payments, the first advance payments by the Wheat Board to the farmers were suspended. I do not think that that can be denied. It was mainly brought about by the dithering of the Government. I asked a question of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) earlier in the year about what the Government intended doing. The answer was very evasive and was not clear and to the point.

The Government obviously dithered about with this matter. Now the Reserve Bank and the Government have told the Wheat Board that it has to go to the private sector to obtain finance. Like my friend, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick) said earlier, I hope that this action does not create a precedent. I hope that in future years when the Government gets into a bit of financial difficulty it will not say to the Wheat Board: ‘Look, we cannot finance the first advance payments through the Reserve Bank. We want you to go to the private banking sector’.

The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) and the honourable member for Riverina traced the history of the wheat stabilisation scheme since it was introduced by the Labor Government. It is certainly one of the most progressive moves ever made in the rural industries. Every government since then, whether from this side of the fence or from the Liberal-National Country Party side of the fence, has realised the worth of the scheme and has extended it for the benefit of our wheat growers. It always amuses me that, when members of the Labor Party speak on rural matters, members of the National Country Party try to denigrate what the Labor Party is trying to do. At one time most of the wheat growing areas in Australia were represented by Labor Party members. I am sure that that day will come again. Members of the National Country Party who are always prepared to denigrate the attitude of the Labor Party to the rural industries do not seem to realise that their party is no longer a truly rural party. It gets a lot of its backing from the mining companies. It has moved from being a rural party to being a mining party. In the process the rural producers are being left behind. I could refer to a number of other matters to back up that statement. Since 1969 when I entered this Parliament quite a number of decisions have been made by Liberal-National Country Party members to the detriment of rural producers. For some reason or another those members seem to be able to con the farmers into believing that they are acting in their interests.

One member of the National Country Party came into my electorate and talked about how his party was trying to get cheaper fuel prices for rural producers. No one bears more responsibility for current fuel prices than the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony). He was the person who pushed so strongly for world parity prices. Members of the National Country Party are now going around the country areas trying to con people in the rural industries into believing that their Liberal colleagues, with the support of the Labor Party, are trying to deny cheaper fuel to rural producers. The leadership of the National Country Party has brought about the large increase in fuel prices, and farmers have to pay the same price as everybody else. It was hypocritical that members of the National Country Party voted for world parity prices when the Budget was debated last October.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is straying from the Bill. 1 ask him to come back to the Bill that is before the House.

Mr WALLIS:

-I have listened to all the speakers in the debate. I think the remarks of quite a few have been astray. The debate has been pretty wide ranging. Anyway, these people are conning the people in the rural industries into thinking that everything the Labor Party does is against their interests. I have had National Country Party candidates stand against me at two elections. On both occasions those candidates have saved their deposit by only a couple of hundred votes. Despite the fact that members on this side of the House are denigrated in the rural areas we are able to improve our votes in those areas. I said that I would not speak for very long. This side of the House supports the Bill and certainly rejects some of the criticism that has come from the National Country Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2533

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (REIMBURSEMENT OF BORROWING COSTS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third readintg to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2533

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Debate resumed from 22 May.

Consideration of Legislation Committee report.

Amendments made by Legislation Committee.

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

– I move Government amendment No. 1:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 4, page 2, lines 29 and 30, omit ‘the power conferred on him under sub-section 2 1 9b ( 5 ) or ( 6 ) of this Act or’.

Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 form part of a package of amendments that the Government now proposes to move as a result of the debate on the Customs Amendment Bill 1979 in the Legislation Committee. It was put strongly during debate in the legislation committee that a warrant for the use of a listening device in connection with a narcotics investigation should be issued by the judiciary and not by the Minister or the Comptroller-General of Customs. The amendments, ultimately agreed upon by the legislation committee, were, as I understand it, seeking to express this view without necessarily having the agreement of supporting members to the precise terms of the amendments. I indicated to the legislation committee that I proposed advising the Government about the substance of the debate and would make a further comment on the matter when the committee reported to the House. The Government has now considered the debate in the legislation committee. It has concluded that it is necessary to make changes to the Bill introduced into this House. In particular, the Government has decided that it is appropriate, in relation to a narcotics investigation, for a warrant, authorising the use of a listening device, to be issued by the judiciary. Amendments which I shall be moving in relation to the report of the legislation comittee reflect this decision.

These amendments are related and deal with a purely technical matter arising from the change to judicial warrants. Because the Minister and Comptroller-General are no longer empowered to authorise the issue of a warrant, a reference to the delegation of this power in sections 9 and 10 of the Act is superfluous.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-These amendments are, in our view, simply to remove the power of the Minister and the ComptrollerGeneral to delegate their powers to issue warrants under the Act. As the legislation committee amendments have had the effect of removing their powers to issue warrants in respect of listening devices, there is no power left to delegate. The amendments simply provide for the tightening up of this measure. We do not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move Government amendment No. 2:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 4, page 2, line 40, omit ‘the power conferred on him under section 2 1 9d of this Act or ‘.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition does not object to this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move Government amendment No. 3:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 4, page 3, line 6, after proposed section 10 insert the following proposed section:

( 1 ) The Governor-General may make arrangements with the Governor of a State-

for the performance by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Judges of the Supreme Court of that State of the functions of a Judge under Division1 a of Part XII; and

for the performance by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Magistrates in that State of the functions of a Magistrate under sections 196 and196aa.

The Governor-General may make arrangements with the Administrator of the Northern Territory-

for the performance by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Judges of the Supreme Court of that Territory and are not also Judges of the Federal Court of Australia or of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of the functions of a Judge under Division I a of Part XII; and ‘

for the performance by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Magistrates in that Territory of the functions of a Magistrate under section 196 and 196AA.’.

This amendment, together with Government amendment No. 5, deals with the question of which judges may issue a warrant for the use of a listening device in narcotics investigations. The amendments to the Bill made by the legislation committee provide for judges of the Federal Court of Australia or of a supreme court of a State or Territory to issue such a warrant. The Government agrees with this proposal but considers it necessary to make formal arrangements with State governments concerning the use of State judges. Accordingly, amendment No. 3 proposes a new section 1 1 to give formal power for the Governor-General to enter into appropriate arrangements with the government of a State or the Administrator of the Northern Territory. In addition, Government amendment No. 3 authorises parallel constitutional arrangements to be made for State or Territory magistrates to be used for the purpose of an order requiring an internal body search under proposed section 196 of the Act as amended by this Bill.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The amendment is to provide, as stated by the Minister, for arrangements to be made with State governments and the Government of the Northern Territory for judges of the supreme courts of the States and the Northern Territory to perform functions embodied in the legislation committee amendment. Magistrates will be used for the purpose of an order requiring body searches. The provisions are simply enabling provisions. We certainly do not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

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

– I move Government amendment No. 4:

That amendment No. (4) made by the legislation committee be amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (3D) Where a medical practitioner furnishes to an officer of Customs or of police a certificate, signed by him, setting out the results of an examination carried out by him of the body cavities of a person, the officer of Customs or of police shall cause a copy of the certificate to be furnished to the person as soon as practicable after the certificate is furnished to him. ‘.

It was agreed by the legislation committee that clause 6 of the Bill be amended to provide that a medical practitioner may provide a certificate setting out the results of an internal examination carried out by him and for that certificate to be used as evidence before the courts. The purpose of that amendment was to obviate the necessity to summon the medical practitioner as a witness to testify in each case. During the debate in the legislation committee the question was raised as to whether use of this certificate would deny any right of the defendant to cross-examine the medical practitioner who had provided the certificate. I stated during the legislation committee, and I repeat it now, that the Government has no wish to deny a defendant the right of crossexamination. Accordingly, Government amendment No. 4 provides for the defendant to be given prior notice of the certificate so that he and his legal advisers are in a position to approach the Crown to have the medical practitioner called as a witness for the prosecution or to move for the court to so order.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-Honourable members will recall that this matter was raised during the legislation committee by the honourable member for Prospect, Dr Klugman. The particular query related to the issue of certificates by medical practitioners which were to be considered prima facie evidence as to the matters contained in them. The difficulty arose from the fact that injustice could arise. An accused could face in court the certificate of a doctor whom he could not call to give evidence. We debated this at some length in the legislation committee. This amendment ensures that persons who have been the subject of body searches by medical practitioners are given copies of the doctor’s certificate at the earliest available opportunity. The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as further amended, agreed to.

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

– I move Government amendment No. 5:

That amendment No. (S) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted:

Clause 8, page 4, line 13, before the definition of ‘listening device ‘ insert the following definition: “ ‘Judge’ means-

a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia or of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory;

b ) a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State in respect of whom an appropriate arrangement in force under section 1 1 is applicable; or

a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory who is not a Judge referred to in paragraph (a) and in respect of whom an appropriate arrangement in force under section 1 1 is applicable;”.’.

The comments which I made in relation to Government amendment No. 3 dealt with this amendment.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-This amendment redrafts the definition of ‘judge’ as proposed by the Opposition. I am pleased to say that it was accepted by the legislation committee. The definition has been re-drafted to take account of the arrangements in respect of State Governments under Government amendment No. 3, as indicated earlier by the Minister. The range of judges to be involved in the issue of warrants remains the same as that proposed by the Opposition. Therefore we do not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move Government amendment No. (6):

That amendment No. (6) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: “(6) Clause 8, pages 3 and 6, proposed section 219b, omit sub-sections (S) and (6), substitute the following sub-sections:

Where, upon application being made to a Judge by an officer of Customs for the issue of a warrant under this section authorizing the use of a listening device in relation to a particular person, the Judge is satisfied, by information on oath, that-

the person has committed, or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed, or of being likely to commit, a narcotics offence; and

the use by officers of Customs of a listening device to listen to or record words spoken by or to that person will, or is likely to, assist officers of Customs in or in connection with-

inquiries that are being made in relation to a narcotics offence that the person has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed; or

if there are circumstances reasonably giving rise to the suspicion that the person is likely to commit a narcotics offence- inquiries that are being made in relation to the likely commission, by that person, of that offence, the Judge may, by warrant under his hand in accordance with the prescribed form, authorize officers of Customs, subject to any conditions or restrictions that he sees fit to specify in the warrant to use a listening device for the purpose of listening to or recording words spoken by, to or in the presence of that person, and such a warrant may authorize officers of Customs to enter any premises in which the person is, or is likely to be, for the purpose of installing, maintaining, using or recovering a listening device or a part of a listening device. (5a) A Judge may grant a warrant under sub-section

authorizing the use of a listening device for the purpose of listening to or recording words spoken by, to or in a presence of a person anywhere in Australia.

Where, upon application being made to a Judge by an officer of Customs for the issue of a warrant under this section authorizing the use of a listening device in relation to particular premises, the Judge is satisfied, by information on oath, that-

there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the premises have been, or are likely to be, used in connection with the commission of a narcotics offence; and

the use by officers of Customs of a listening device to listen to or record words spoken by or to persons in those premises will, or is likely to assist officers of Customs in, or in connection with, inquiries that are being made in relation to the use or likely use, of the premises in connection with the commission of a narcotics offence. the Judge may, by warrant under his hand in accordance with the prescribed form, authorize officers of Customs, subject to any conditions or restrictions that he sees fit to specify in the warrant, to use a listening device for the purpose of listening to or recording words spoken by or to any person while the person is in those premises, and such a warrant may authorize officers of Customs to enter those premises for the purpose of installing, maintaining, using or recovering a listening device or a part of a listening device. (6a) A Judge may grant a warrant under sub-section

authorizing the use of a listening device in respect of premises situated anywhere in Australia. ‘ “.

These amended clauses deal with the issue of a warrant by a judge to authorise the use of a listening device in respect of either a person or premises. The provisions largely follow the provisions in the Bill introduced by the Government with necessary changes reflecting the use of judicial warrants. One question raised in the legislation committee was the possible use of a listening device to overhear conversations between lawyer and client and whether these conversations were privileged or would be privileged but for this Bill. Firstly, I comment that the ability to obtain a warrant to overhear a lawyerclient conversation depends entirely upon the judge issuing the warrant. Clearly a judge will not authorise a listening device to be used in relation to a lawyer or his premises unless either his relationship with a particular person or the use of his premises is an integral part of the illegal behaviour itself.

It would be inconceivable that the Crown would seek, or that a judge would issue, a warrant to overhear conversations relevant to a lawyer acting solely in his professional capacity for a person suspected of a narcotics offence. As to the question of” whether a privilege exists to protect a conversation between lawyer and client, I am advised that that privilege merely extends to enable the lawyer to refuse to give evidence about the conversation. The privilege does not attach to any third person giving evidence of those matters and accordingly the question does not arise in relation to the Bill before the House. An officer of Customs giving evidence of a communication between a lawyer and client is not under any restraint now with respect to that evidence, nor does this Bill change the law in that respect.

During the debate in the legislation committee, the question was also raised as to the extent to which information relevant to some offence derived by the use of a listening device may be given to the police and used in a prosecution. The Government intends to stand by these provisions in the Bill as being appropriate in the circumstances. If in the course of the use of a listening device a fact relevant to the commission of a serious offence- say, murder, or an act of terrorism- is overheard it would be ludicrous and clearly untenable for the Government not to act upon that information and, if relevant, use it in a prosecution.

Finally, this amendment inserts in proposed new section 219b sub-sections (5a) and (6a), which provide for a judge to grant a warrant authorising the use of a listening device anywhere in Australia. The intention of these subsections is to make clear to the judiciary the intention of Parliament that a judge can, and indeed is expected to, exercise this authority outside his normal area of jurisdiction. Thus, for example, it may be that a relevant Commonwealth officer may approach a New South Wales judge in respect of the use of a listening device in Western Australia, or indeed the use of listening devices in a particular investigation on-going in a number of States. It is not desirable that the New South Wales judge should, in these circumstances, take the view that he should issue warrants only in respect of New South Wales.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I seek leave to move Opposition amendments Nos (1) to (7) standing in the name of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen).

Leave granted.

I move Opposition amendments Nos (1) to (7):

  1. 1 ) That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by omitting from proposed sub-section (5 ) ‘ by information on oath ‘ and substituting ‘ by affidavit ‘.
  2. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by inserting ‘of the Federal Court’ after Judge ‘ in proposed sub-section ( 5a).
  3. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by adding at the end of proposed subsection (5a) ‘but a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory or of the

Australian Capital Territory shall not grant a warrant authorizing the use of a listening device unless the listening device is to be used in the State or Territory of which the Judge is a Judge of the Supreme Court’.

  1. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by inserting after proposed sub-section ( 5 a ) the following sub-section: “(5B) A Judge shall not issue a warrant under subsection (5) in relation to an affidavit of an officer of Customs unless-

    1. the affidavit of the officer of Customs under subsection (5) specifies the facts and other grounds on which the issue of the warrant is sought;
    2. the officer of Customs has given to the Judge, either orally, or by further affidavit, such further information as the Judge requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of a warrant is being sought;
    3. the Judge is satisfied as to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (5);
    4. the Judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success, or would be unlikely to be successful, or would be impracticable; and
    5. the Judge is satisfied that, given the seriousness of the suspected offence, or suspected likely offence, the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest. “ ‘.
  2. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by inserting ‘of the Federal Court’ after Judge’in proposed sub-section (6a).
  3. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by adding at the end of proposed subsection (6a) ‘but a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory or of the Australian Capital Territory shall not grant a warrant authorizing the use of a listening device unless the use of a listening device is in respect of premises situated in the State or Territory of which the Judge is a Judge of the Supreme Court’.
  4. That amendment No. (6) proposed by the Government be amended by adding after proposed sub-section (6a) the following sub-section: “(6b) A Judge shall not issue a warrant under subsection (6) in relation to an affidavit of an officer of Customs unless-

    1. the affidavit of the officer of Customs under subsection (6) specifies the facts and other grounds on which the issue of the warrant is sought;
    2. the officer of Customs has given to the Judge, either orally, or by further affidavit, such further information as the Judge requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of a warrant is being sought;
    3. the Judge is satisfied as to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (6);
    4. the Judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success, or would be unlikely to be successful, or would be impracticable; and
    5. the Judge is satisfied that, given the seriousness of the suspected offence, or suspected likely offence, the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest. ‘ ‘ ‘.

Initially, I intended to suggest that we should consider these amendments in conjunction with Government amendment No. (9) but I think it may upset the nature of the proceedings to do so.

The issue of warrants in respect of listening devices occupied by far the most time of the legislation committee. It was regarded by the Opposition as being of fundamental importance. In that respect we were joined by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) and the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). I am grateful that the Government has acceded to the decision of the legislation committee that warrants should be issued by a judge rather than by a Minister or by the Comptroller in the case of an emergency. It is a welcome move. However, simply inserting the word ‘judge’ instead of the word ‘Minister’, as this amendment tends to do, is in breach of the spirit of the amendment proposed by the legislation committee. With due deference, regrettably that is what has been done by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife).

During the considerations of the legislation committee much mention was made not only by the Opposition but also by the honourable member for Fadden and the right honourable member for Lowe of the comments of the Law Reform Commission at page 107 of the report on criminal investigation in 1975. In that section of its report the Law Reform Commission drew attention to several tests which should be satisfied before a warrant for the issue of a listening device is issued. The committee discussed this matter at length. In particular, I drew attention to the recommendation that listening devices should be used virtually only as a last resort and only in respect of serious offences. In its amendments the Government has simply ignored these aspects of the Opposition amendments and made the only test of whether a warrant should be issued the question of whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that a person has committed or is likely to commit an offence. We discussed that at length. The right honourable member for Lowe agrees with me. This places the use of listening devices in the same category as any other tool of investigation.

The fact that judicial rather than ministerial warrants are to be used is, of course, a safeguard against the improper use of listening devices. One can concede that. However, it was the intention of the Opposition, and I believe the intention of the legislation committee, to ensure that listening devices should be used only rarely and only in cases of necessity. The Government amendments at least provide that listening devices should be used only in the investigation of offences against the Customs Act but they allow such devices to be used in almost every case. We ought to think about the ramifications of that.

The potential invasion of privacy involved in the use of these devices is far too great to allow them to be used on any basis approaching regularity. For that reason we press the amendments moved in and accepted by the legislation committee and proposed here as new sub-sections (5B) and (6B) of proposed section 2 1 9B.

Proposed sub-sections (5A) and (6A) cause considerable difficulty. Whilst it may not have been explicitly spelt out by the Opposition amendments, it was never the intention that State and Territory Supreme Court judges should issue warrants in respect of listening devices to be used anywhere but in the State of the judge. That was clearly the position as I understood it. Under this provision a judge of the Queensland Supreme Court, for example, can authorise the use of a listening device in Tasmania. The only possible reason for the insertion of such an amendment would seem to be that the Government believes that somewhere in Australia it can find a ‘tame cat’ Supreme Court judge to issue warrants. It is quite amazing for a Government that is based on federalist principles to allow the issue of what amount to extraterritorial warrants. The amendment proposed by the insertion of new section 219C allows for the information furnished to a judge to be oral. We have very grave objections to that provision. Perhaps the most startling thing about it is that its consequences have not been followed through logically. No doubt the provision is to take account of admittedly complex Opposition proposals concerning telephone warrants. It appears that the Government believes that through this mechanism of providing for information on oath to be given orally, the problems of emergency warrants can be overcome. However, it is simply absurd that a person on one end of the telephone can be sworn by the person on the other end to make a statement. The great advantage of the Opposition’s proposal was that it removed the need in emergency situations for face to face contact between the judge and the person seeking the warrant while still providing for the necessary documentation to ensure with certainty that justice is done. Under this legislation the only documentation required is the warrant itself. The Opposition proposed that both the person seeking the warrant and the judge should provide documentation as to the reason for the issue of the warrant. Quite frankly, I thought that that would be obligatory. The Government’s proposal is simply absurd and, if I might says so, it is unworkable.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

- Mr Acting Speaker, you are not looking in this direction. You are looking to the left hand side of the chamber and I usually sit to the right.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The right honourable member for Lowe can be assured of getting the call. If the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is of a mind to speak at any stage during the debate, he is free to do so.

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

– The Government does not accept Opposition amendment No. 1 moved by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), nor does it intend to accept Opposition amendments Nos 2 to 7, which the honourable member has also moved and which relate to the procedures by which a judge issues a warrant for the use of a listening device. As I propose to inform the House when moving Government amendments Nos 8 and 9, standing in my name, the Government would prefer that procedures for issuing these warrants should be under the control of the judge issuing the warrant rather than imposing time-consuming and cumbersome statutory procedures to be followed in all cases. Accordingly, in relation to this amendment the Government does not accept that there ought to be a requirement in all cases that a formal affidavit be furnished to the judge. This is not to say that the judge may not require such an affidavit. Proposed new section 219c, contained in amendment No. 9 standing in my name, provides that the information on oath to be given to the judge may be given orally or otherwise. It is thereby anticipated that in cases where the judge considers it necessary, he can require information to be given on oath in the form of an affidavit.

Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 propose to restrict the ability of a State or Territory supreme court judge to issue a warrant. The Opposition proposes that under this federal legislation, which applies Australia-wide, judges be required to have concern about the otherwise totally irrelevant consideration of a State boundary. The Government does not accept the amendment. This apparent change of mind on the part of the Opposition- the amendments moved by the Opposition in the legislation committee would have achieved the totally opposite result- can only impede appropriate investigations in particular cases by tying them up in technical jurisdictional concerns. Persons involved in drug trafficking are not concerned about the niceties of the inter se jurisdiction of supreme court judges. Experience has demonstrated that drug traffickers are commonly nimble footed, with bases in many States. It would be unrealistic to expect that in all instances narcotics investigation officers, when using a listening device on a particular person, would be able to predict exactly where that person is with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the jurisdictional test of a supreme court judge.

As I have indicated, the Government does not accept Opposition amendment No. 4 moved by the honourable member for Hawker or, indeed, Opposition amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7. These amendments relate to the procedural rules under which a judge may issue a warrant for the use of a listening device. As I said in relation to Opposition amendment No. 1 moved by the honourable member and as I expect to say it several more times in the course of this Committee stage debate, the Government does not wish to tie the judiciary to tight and undoubtedly cumbersome and unnecessary rules of procedure. The Government considers that the rules of procedure should be flexible and adjustable to each case. I emphasise that the Government has taken the view that the judiciary has sufficient experience and appropriate training to be entrusted with the administration of the issue of these warrants without the necessity for the Parliament to tie its hands. In particular, the Government considers that no member of the judiciary would authorise the issue of such a warrant if it was clearly contrary to the public interest to do so.

One final matter should be noted. The Government believes that by maintaining flexible procedural rules we should be able to dispose of the necessity for a special rule to deal with emergency situations. The amendments I have moved are so framed. The Opposition’s amendments would impose heavy procedural requirements, clearly inappropriate to emergency situations, without making any provision for emergency situations.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I confess that when I first read the amendments circulated in the name of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and now moved by my friend on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) I thought that some of them were plausible. However, after the very deepest consideration, I had to come to the conclusion that they go too far. I believe that they are so complicated in design that, far from being of use in ascertaining whether an offence was committed under the Act, vital time could in fact be lost. The Minister was able to give us an illustration of one case where a matter of minutes was absolutely vital. He referred to a case where people were hiding drugs of an illegal kind in a body cavity. If there had been a delay of 5 or 10 minutes those drugs might not have been found. I also have to compliment the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), and particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the proposals that were put to the Committee relating to who in fact should issue a warrant. I could never believe, for half a dozen reasons, that it ought to be a Minister who would do that.

My friend the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) gave one part of an analysis about the Cabinet and its responsibility and accountability to the House. If a warrant was issued by a Minister, he would be called upon all too frequently on the grounds of accountability. I believe we would have been worried constantly with the difficulties that that would have created for the proper administration and success of the Bill. According to my version of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, there is no doubt that the Opposition agreed with the trend of the Bill, and so do I. However, I was very interested in taking the right to issue a warrant away from the Minister, who is too busy to be able to look at all the information given to him to decide whether the warrant in a judicial matter should in fact be issued. I believe there is a talented body of men within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, and therefore in these matters one has to act with hesitation. I believe also that on this occasion they were right. We are looking at the proper administration of the law. I believe that this amendment does ensure that, faithful to Liberal principles, we are able to propose an amendment. The Minister agreed. I understand the Cabinet agreed.

I wanted to state that fact. I believe the amendment makes it a better Act. I believe it protects the Minister in a way which he otherwise would not have been protected. I was attracted by Opposition amendment No. (3) which provides that only a judge of a particular State or Territory can issue a warrant relating to that State or Territory. I believe that over a time one would find that the judges or the justiceswhatever they happen to be- in a certain State would be the ones with whom the officials would regularly communicate. If that occurred then those judges would in a short time become experts in the administration of the law and would gain the knowledge of the difficulities that were faced with regard to the detection of the kind of offence mentioned by the Bill. They would very quickly and usually be guarded by principles and precedents of a kind that are essential.

Having said that, I cannot say that my judgment is sufficiently great to vote along the lines recommended by the Opposition. I do not think that its case is strong enough. It is plausible. I think the law should be left as it is, at least for the time being. I hope that the Minister will carefully watch the operation of the Act in regard to a justice of a particular area, say the Northern Territory, issuing a warrant relating to the whole of Australia. If the Minister looks at that aspect I will be satisfied, providing that, if he ever is dissatisfied, he will bring the amendment immediately to the House.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-First of all, I congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) for having accepted the basic structure of the amendment which we have provided. It was based on our argument that his original Customs Amendment Bill 1979 gave too much to the necessities of law enforcement and lacked consideration for the rights of individuals. He has moved some way in this amendment to meeting the need to balance those matters in a measure of this nature. However I do think that, in the critical case of the criteria by which judges will issue or provide a warrant, his failure to incorporate the criteria set down in the amendment of my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), is to ignore the spirit of the amendment that was moved in the Legislation committee. I can accept what I think are minor points about the jurisdiction of judges and the question of affidavits and oaths. I think that the critical part of my colleague’s amendment is the set of criteria provided forjudges in relation to issuing a warrant.

It seems to me to be critical that this legislature give guidance to the judges in a matter as critical to the issue of privacy as this. Our amendments No. (4) and No. (7) were an effort to lay down in greater detail than provided in the Minister’s amendment set of criteria. I do not believe that judges would be upset by this. In fact, in the kind of difficult operation we are giving them to do, I think that they would appreciate the kind of specific criteria which we have set down in contrast with the very vague provisions that lie in the amendment provided by the Minister. Therefore, I urge very strongly that we consider particularly amendments No. (4) and No. (7) which set down these criteria for that which we all recognise is a major invasion of privacy but which is justified in certain circumstances of law enforcement. We want to ensure that the criteria set down for that invasion of privacy are as strong as possible and of course, that they are clear to the judges themselves.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I would like to refer to proposed new section 2 19B which is set out in clause 8 of the Customs Amendment Bill 1979. The question that worries me is one which I came across while I was sitting on the legislation committee. I do not think we have moved amendments in relation to it. Sub-section ( 5 ) of proposed new section 2 1 9b reads:

Where, upon receipt by the Minister of a request by the Comptroller for the issue of a warrant -

We are talking about a judge- under this section authorizing the use of a listening device in relation to a particular person . . .

We can put in a listening device to record words and to ensure that: . . words spoken by or to that person will … assist officers of Customs in, or in connection with-

  1. inquiries that are being made in relation to a narcotics offence . . .

The point that worries me is a most obvious one. I think I raised it while the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was a visitor at the legislation committee meeting. Let us assume that Mr A is a person suspected of a narcotics ooffence. We also know that Mr A usually uses a particular barrister or solicitor to give him legal advice. It would then be reasonable for the narcotics agents to argue that if they put a listening device onto the telephone or into the consulting room- whatever it is called in the case of a lawyer- they would get some information of benefit to them for the purposes of obtaining a conviction. As I understand it, that would then overrule any suggestion of a special relationship between a lawyer and his client. Possibly we might be prepared to justify this on the basis of narcotics inquiries, but I am not sure that we should.

Let us assume for the purpose of this argument that we are justifying it on the basis of narcotics inquiries. We have a listening device installed in a lawyer’s office and we can use any information obtained on that listening device. Clause 219G states that we can use that information provided it is information which relates or appears to relate to the commission or intended commission of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, being an offence ‘punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period or maximum period of not less than 3 years’. Again, for the purpose of preventing that offence I am prepared to argue that maybe it ought to be possible for lawyers’ telephone lines, et cetera, to be bugged. I am not even sure whether I sustain that argument. But if we do this for the purposes of actually obtaining a conviction, I think we are getting into very difficult territory.

Let us assume that a particular person is accused of commiting murder or manslaughter. That is a difficult question legally. Let us suppose that the honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) is that person’s solicitor and the honourable member for Lowe is also the legal adviser of somebody suspected of having committed a narcotics offence. A bug has been placed in his office or on his telephone line and he discusses the question of whether that particular person ought to plead guilty to manslaughter, guilty to murder, not guilty to either of them or whatever. I am sure that lawyers can think of many better examples than those of which I am thinking.

I have a reservation about the Crown being entitled to produce that evidence as evidence against a person who has nothing to do with a narcotics offence. Let us emphasise this aspect. The only connection between him and the narcotics offence is that he shares the same solicitor as the suspected narcotics trafficker. It is a question that I think this House ought to think about in much more detail before we are prepared to agree to it. I am obviously not a lawyer but I understand that in the United States of America, the Supreme Court has ruled very strictly on this question. If a warrant is issued for a particular purpose, information which is obtained as a result of that warrant cannot be used for any other purpose. I hope that before this Bill goes to the Senate it may be possible for the Government or the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to think of some amendment which would at least prevent the breach of the client-lawyer relationship which seems to be possible under the legislation we are discussing at the present time.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I have listened with great attention to what has been said. I would like to have it made beyond doubt by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) that it would be unusual or extraordinary for a justice to permit a listening device in the office of a solicitor who was acting for a client providing that in all cases he was not a participant in the commercial narcotic operations taking place. That can happen and I have no doubt that it does happen, knowing the extent to which this sort of disease has permeated this country. Although I listened to what the Minister said I was not convinced by it. However, the Minister is not a lawyer. He can only quickly repeat what is said by his officials. I would like his assurance that this matter will be kept under observation by the officials and if there is the slightest evidence that the use of listening devices is permitted in these cases, it would be reported to him so that action could be taken to prevent it in the future.

We all claim that we believe in privacy as one of the dominant values of a free and independent society. The one reason that compelled me to participate in the debate on this Bill- as I would have hoped to participate in the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill- was to see that there were no further intrusions into personal liberty and freedom. I believe that this Bill goes a little too far but I am not one who is able to draw the exact dividing Une and, in a prescribed way, draft legislation which would be suitable. It would satisfy me in relation to proposed section 5a if the Minister could say that a judge or a justice is there who is a judicial man belonging to a supreme or federal court. Surely in those cases we have to rely upon him as in other cases we have had to rely upon him, for example, in the Sankey case relating to Crown privilege, to ensure that we protect the interests of the individual and do not support the causes of the Crown. Until proved to the contrary, I would rely upon these gentlemen. Therefore, I regret that I cannot agree with the proposals or rationale being put forward by the Opposition, much as I appreciate its efforts.

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

– I would like to repeat one clause from the statement I made earlier. It is relevant to what the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) has just said. Honourable members will recall that I said:

Clearly, a judge will not authorise a listening device to be used in relation to a lawyer or his premises unless either bis relationship with a particular person or the use of his premises are an integral part of the illegal behaviour itself.

I think that this is very relevant to the discussion which is taking place in the House at present. I also take the opportunity of giving the right honourable member for Lowe and the House an assurance that as Minister I will keep this matter under close scrutiny. I give a further assurance that in effect this matter has been under close scrutiny by me since I was appointed to this portfolio. Honourable members will be aware that at present, without the amendments to the Customs Act, the Minister and, in some circumstances, the Comptroller-General, has the power under certain State legislation to authorise the use of listening devices. I have, in my capacity as Minister during the period in which I have held this portfolio, given approval for the use of listening devices. I am certain that the judiciary involved will be just as careful and perhaps, in the view of some members of Parliament, they will be more careful that I have been in the discharge of this delicate responsiblity

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-The high regard in which I hold the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) does not, with respect, restrain me from making the point that whilst it is now recorded in Hansard that the Minister has indicated clearly his attitude as to the manner in which judges will issue warrants the short point, as my colleague the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has made, is that this is not provided in the Act. There is substance in what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said. We are entering a very new area of the law when we, as a Federal Parliament, countenance the tapping of a telephone being used by a citizen of this country in privileged communication with a member of the legal profession. There are two areas of concern to me. As the Minister is well aware, I will be supporting the amendment to be moved by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) in respect to proposed new section 2 19G. That section- I will not go into it but I cannot discuss this matter without making a passing reference to it- actually provides for evidence to be given in relation to non-narcotics offences which has been heard over a telephone which has been intercepted. The. honourable member for Prospect asked what would happen when a telephone was tapped in an attempt to trap a person involved in narcotic offences when he was talking to his solicitor and, instead of hearing that person make an admission another person was heard talking about the commission of a crime such as the robbery of the local Totalisator Agency Board premises, a murder or whatever. Under proposed new section 2 19G (3) that evidence would be admissible. The second area of concern is what would happen if Joe Smith is suspected of being involved in narcotics operations and a judge in good faith issues a warrant permitting the tapping of a telephone conversation between Mr Smith and his solicitor. Instead of talking about the narcotics offences they talk about a car stealing racket -

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Or a race horse racket.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Or a race horse racket or any racket unconnected with narcotics. Under proposed new section 219G(3) that evidence could be admitted provided it came within the provisions as they stand at the moment- I am aware that amendments have been prepared in relation to this matter- not only in relation to an indictable offence but also any offence in a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or a maximum period of not less than three years. A person can get three years’ gaol for a traffic offence in this country. It need not necessarily be an indictable offence at that. It makes it all the more difficult for me to say this because I accept the utter good faith and responsibility of the Minister. The expressions of good intent which he has given have been recorded in Hansard. I agree with him that judges will not issue warrants lightly.

The point really raised by the honourable member for Prospect is whether we in this country today are prepared to legislate to permit extraneous matters- not only matters dealing with narcotics- to be used against citizens. The honourable member made the point quite validly that in the United States the giving of evidence and the passing on of information gained from a telephone tapping is restricted to the information specifically set out in the terms of the warrant issued. If something else is heard it cannot be passed on. The honourable member for Sturt will be moving an amendment to make it an offence for a person to pass on such information. These are matters of considerable substance. I do not relish having to disagree with the Minister, particularly in view of his highly responsible approach to the drug problem in this country but we are breaking very new ground today. I am surprised, frankly, that this legislation comes from a government of our calibre. Traditionally, on questions of the rights of the individual and the due process of law, we have been absolutely emphatic that we would not permit encroachment. I make it quite clear that I feel that one way of getting around the matter raised by the honourable member for Prospect would be to support the amendment to be moved by the right honourable member for Lowe so that the matter would not get into the court. Many on our side of the political fence would go the whole way and support the honourable member for Sturt in making it an offence for any person who has heard an intercepted or bugged telephone conservation to convey that information to anybody other than his superiors within the Department.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I rushed into the House, having been involved in another matter. I only just realised that the Bill is again before the House. As you are in the Chair, Mr Acting Speaker, I understand that we have returned to a second reading debate situation and therefore I have a certain amount of freedom as to what I may say. I would like to say initially -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I should acquaint the honourable member for Fadden with the fact that there are specific questions before the House. He does not have licence to speak as he would in a second reading debate. If he is not familiar with the question before the House perhaps he should have acquainted himself before rising.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Are you reading it again for me, sir?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the amendments moved by the honourable member for Hawker to the proposed amendment be agreed to.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you. I can speak well and truly within those confines. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who is sitting at the table, for his acceptance of amendments which were proposed earlier in this chamber, proposed at the government members committee, proposed at the Party Room discussions and more lately proposed at the legislative committee hearing. The Government has agreed to place authorisation of the use of a listening device in the hands of the judiciary. That is a great breakthrough for honourable members, particularly those on this side of the chamber who have almost stood alone at times in their battle to get recognition of this very important principle. I was very thrilled to see the change in attitude by my friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who originally I would not have claimed as an ally on this subject but as time passed he realised -

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– You would want to if you knew him.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-He is getting better every day, Sir William. He is improving all the time. What I am trying to say is that there has been an acceptance of the proposed change. I congratulate the Minister, and indeed the Cabinet and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), for recognising that, Sir William McMahon and myself did not enjoy crossing the floor in the Committee stage. We felt so strongly about the issue that we thought it was the only weapon left to us. This point has been recognised. In other areas about which I believe that Sir William McMahon and Mr Hodgman have already spoken -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will address the honourable members by their electorate.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), have made contributions this afternoon, and are advocating certain alterations in other parts of the Bill. A number of vital principles are involved. In a parliament such as this members only have time to be interested in so many subjects. When a matter of great principle is being discussed and considered, if it is not in their areas of interests they cannot always be expected to direct their attention to it. Unfortunately, issues can pass through this place unnoticed although they are really of great importance to the very fabric of our society, to the fabric of the legal system and what we recognise as the law of this country. In view of the fact that this legislation will go into the Committee stage soon I would hope that the Minister might at this late stage agree to certain amendments which have been proposed by the right honourable member for Lowe and, indeed, the honourable member for Sturt ( Mr Wilson) -

Mr Hodgman:

– And Denison.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-And the honourable member for Denison. I hope that some of these proposals will be recognised for what they are- expressions of concern for the preservation of the rights of the individual. I am not one who goes overboard in that particular area but when we start to transgress on the rights of individuals to their privacy our steps must be considered most carefully and most properly. In this Bill we are opening up the doors because of our real and deep concern about drug trafficking. By acceding to those steps it does not mean that all members of this Parliament are prepared to support the use of listening devices attached to telephones and all the other types of bugging devices. We are not prepared to make the world an oyster as far as crime detection is concerned. There is no way in the world that I would ever vote to authorise the use of a device, for instance, to apprehend somebody who ran a small starting price operation. I do not expect that many members of this chamber would do so. But, on the other hand, by passing some clauses of this Bill there is the very real possibility that we will be authorising eavesdropping and bugging in areas that previously we would not even have dared to contemplate.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I feel that I must rise at this stage of the debate to make my position clear in the light of the comments made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr

Hodgman). We are being asked to vote in support of the use of phone tapping and bugging devices in the detection of people involved in the trafficking of narcotics. Trafficking of narcotics is such a serious offence that I believe that Parliament rightly is going to give officers of the Public Service, on the authorisation of a judge, the right to invade privacy to this extent in the interests of the community as a whole. I do have certain amendments which I will be moving later in this debate. We need to distinguish between three elements so far as the gathering of information by government departments is concerned. Those three elements were described as principles in a recent publication put out by the Law Reform Commission dealing with privacy and the census. They are described in this way: ‘These principles fall into three broad categories- collection, access and disclosure’.

Today, in dealing with this legislation, we are talking about collection. My concern is not only in relation to collection but also about the other two principles- access and disclosure. Sometimes, through an oversensitivity about collection, we in this Parliament fail to recognise the grave significance of the rules which govern access and disclosure. Later in this debate I want to talk at greater length about how this Parliament should take a firmer grip on the law relating to access and disclosure. It is to access and disclosure that my amendment is directed.

But turning now to the question of collection, as we must in debating the proposed amendments, yes, I have said I agree that trafficking in narcotics is so serious that the body set up to administer this Parliament’s laws- the Comptroller-General of Customs and his officers- must have available to it the ability to tap phones and use bugging devices. One could say that in general but then we come to the very sensitive issue that the honourable member for Denison described- the role of a private citizen ‘s legal adviser. The legal adviser has the function and the responsibility of giving advice and of being a mouthpiece for his client. We are saying that under this law, that legal adviser’s telephone could be tapped under any circumstances. The Minister, by statement, then qualifies that by saying that he feels sure that those who have to give authority will give it only in those circumstances. The Minister said that a judge would not authorise a listening device to be used in relation to a lawyer or his premises unless either his relationship with a particular person or the use of his premises is an integral part of the illegal behaviour itself. Why do we not say so in the legislation, recognising the unique and special position of the legal adviser acting on behalf of a particular client who may be suspected or acting on behalf of other clients.

I do not find any problem if, in relation to phone tapping in respect of someone suspected of drug trafficking, it is discovered that he is involved in horse trafficking or in gambling or in some other offence for which the penalty is three years or more and the authority finding out that information passes that information on to some other appropriate law enforcing authority. I do not object to that in the generality, but I am very concerned when it comes to the discovery of that information in the course of the tapping of the phone of a member of the legal profession. We members of parliament can have a constituent in our office and the telephone can ring three or four times. The caller could be telephoning about a range of matters. A solicitor practising in criminal jurisdiction could have a client in his office and at the same time the Comptroller-General of Customs and his officers, having had appropriate surveillance of the suspect, might believe that he is going to see his legal adviser and might decide that that is the appropriate time at which to tap the solicitor’s phone. The solicitor’s phone could ring half a dozen times because his other clients could be ringing to discuss matters which were confidential and privileged as between the solicitor and his clients. But as this legislation is drafted at present, information in relation to people unrelated to say, a suspected drug trafficker- people who simply phoned their legal adviser- could be used and passed on to a law enforcement agency.

I would not have the same objection in regard to the tapping of the phone of someone who was believed to be a drug trafficker. If three or four people rang up the same house and said ‘Let’s make plans about some horse trafficking operation’ or ‘let’s make some plans about a car stealing operation’, of course in that case, if the information were discovered, it should be passed on to the authorities because there is no relationship of privilege between one of the users of that telephone and another. But where it is a solicitor’s telephone there should be a relationship of privilege to protect the clients going to the solicitor. People should not be made fearful of seeking advice when they need advice as to how they can protect their own interests in accordance with the law. That solicitor might have amongst his clients someone who is seeking advice in relation to a suspected drug trafficking offence.

So my concern, though similar to that of the honourable member for Denison, is in a much narrower area. Therefore, I will not in the broad be supporting the proposed amendment of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) because it is not narrow enough. It is not directed only to information discovered in the case of the tapping of a solicitor’s telephone. In other circumstances, where information becomes available to law enforcing authorities, I believe that it should be passed on, but where it is derived from the tapping of a telephone of a member of the legal profession, I do not think that the information should be used against third parties. Furthermore, I think that the restriction on the use of phone tapping in respect of solicitors’ phones and lawyers’ phones should be spelt out in this legislation in the words of the Minister’s statement. Those words are clear enough. Let us put them into legislation.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I do not want to detain the House, but I certainly agree basically with what the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has just said. I realise that for political reasons and probably for practical reasons, if this legislation is to be amended the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has to reply mainly to the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) and to other people on his side of the House because we do not have the numbers to do much about the matter. However, I do hope that now that the right honourable member for Lowe has again spoken on this matter and now that the honourable member for Sturt has raised the same question that I have raised, the Minister will go into some detail as to why the Government considers it important to have that proposed new section in the legislation. That is what I want to know. Why is it considered important by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to make available to State criminal investigation branches evidence, for example, collected by a listening device in a lawyer’s office. I suppose that as an ordinary concerned citizen, the Minister might argue that that ought to be the case, but I cannot for the life of me see why there should not be put into the Act, as suggested by the honourable member for Sturt, the fact that some question of privilege remains. I hope that the Minister, when he replies in this debate, will come to that point.

In so doing, I think that the Minister will probably mention the fact that we are talking about telephone tapping and this Bill does not deal with telephone tapping. But I do not think that that is terribly relevant because we are talking about listening devices. I know that next week we will be debating the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill, but I am not completely convinced that proposed new section 219a(1), which covers listening devices, really covers telephones. It states: listening device’ means any instrument, device or equipment capable of being used, whether alone or in conjunction with any other instrument, device or equipment, to record or listen to spoken words;

I would have thought that putting a tap on a telephone would be covered by this legislation, unless there were some specific reason under some other legislation which excludes telephones from this Bill.

The important thing I should like to hear from the Minister to satisfy myself and, I would hope, to satisfy many other people in this House, is his rationale, his justification for not saying that notwithstanding anything contained in this legislation, information which would normally be privileged will remain privileged when it does not apply to matters such as narcotic offences, if indeed the question of privilege is to be disregarded in relation to narcotic offences. I understand from a private conversation that I had with the Minister- this particular aspect is not confidential- that the Minister argues that the lawyer will not be called to give evidence. I do not know whether that is a legal opinion that the Minister has obtained. But let us assume that the lawyer has been heard to give certain advice to a client. That lawyer cannot be called, cannot be forced to give information to a court as a Crown witness. But the transcript or the recording of the information that has been gained from the tap will in fact be available for the purpose of prosecution. That is really cutting it very fine, is it not? Once we say that we are going to plant a listening device in a lawyer’s office, then use as evidence against the accused whatever he said to his lawyer or whatever the lawyer said to him, while at the same time we say that the lawyer cannot be called to give evidence, we are cutting it very fine. As I said earlier, I do not want to prolong the discussion on this matter, but I do hope that the Minister will give us some explanation as to why he considers it to be important, firstly, to have proposed new section 219g in that form and why he cannot put in some provision which, in effect, re-establishes privilege for conversations which normally would be privileged in a court of law.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I find it rather odd that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald

Cameron) have addressed themselves to proposed new section 219G. For example, subsection (3) (a) of that section deals with narcotics. The part to which they were addressing themselves is far in advance of” the matter before the House at the moment. With due deference, the matter before the House at the moment is the issuing of warrants by judges. I concede that honourable members on both sides of the House are concerned about privacy but the issue before the House at the moment is the criteria under which the warrants are to be issued.

I am just summing up on behalf of the Opposition. I think the principal difference between the Australian Labor Party and the Government is the use to which listening devices should be put. I wish honourable members opposite had addressed themselves to that matter. The Government believes that listening devices can be used as a normal investigatory tool. The Labor Party believes that they ought to be utilised only as a matter of last resort. The question I address to honourable members opposite, and they ought to think about it between now and when we deal with this proposed new section 219G, is: Are they seriously putting to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) that if, through a listening device, information is divulged on other than narcotics it should not be passed on? Are they seriously putting the proposition that if it is about, say, an intention to murder it might not be passed on? If they are seriously saying that, I think they ought to address themselves to it when we come to it. But if they really want to build into the legislation some provisions that give some sense of security to the privacy of the individual they ought to address themselves to the question of just how they want to issue the warrants. All I am suggesting is that the amendments put forward by the Opposition are constructed to that end and will achieve that end.

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

– I have been asked to respond to certain matters. Indeed, I have been responding all through this debate and I cannot do more than repeat some of the things that I have already said. I do not wish to reflect on honourable members, but one or two who have spoken were not here when I made my substantive remarks in relation to the amendments before the House and therefore can be excused, for not having heard what I said. I realise that there is concern in the minds of some honourable members about the relationship between a lawyer and his client. I can do no more in this regard than to repeat that the advice available to me is that that privilege extends merely to enable the lawyer to refuse to give evidence about the conversation. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) asked me to confirm in this House that that was the advice available to me. Indeed, I said that earlier in this debate.

The privilege does not attach to any third person giving evidence on those matters and, accordingly, the question does not arise in relation to the Bill before the House. An officer of Customs giving evidence of a communication between a lawyer and a client is not under any restraint now with respect to that evidence, nor does this Bill change the law in that respect. As I pointed out earlier, the matter of whether a listening device would be permitted to be used in a lawyer’s office is a matter for the judiciary, for the judge at the time to determine. I have said previously- this is the third occasion that I have said this-that clearly a judge is not going to give permission for a listening device to be placed in a lawyer’s office unless he is satisfied that a particular person, or the use of his premises, is an integral part of the illegal behaviour itself. He will have to be convinced by the Customs officials in this respect. I agree with the proposition advanced by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), leading for the Opposition, that if in the course of the use of a listening device a Customs official comes into possession of information, in relation to, say, a murder that has been committed or one that is to be committed, or some other serious offence, he has a responsibility to pass on that information to the appropriate authorities.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-Let us return to the critical issue in debate in relation to the present provision, that is, the proposals made by the Opposition to strengthen the criteria under which warrants will be issued. I simply want to ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) why he is not prepared to add to his measure the two additional substantive proposals that the Opposition has made, which are, in essence, paragraphs (d) and (e) of sub-section (5B) and paragraphs (d) and (e) of sub-section (6B) of proposed section 2 19B. That is the substantive criteria that we suggest should be added. Let me read them. Paragraph (d) of proposed sub-section (5B) and proposed subsection (6B) reads: the judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success, or would be unlikely to be successful, or would be impracticable . . .

Paragraph (e) of those proposed sub-sections reads: the judge is satisfied that, given the seriousness of the suspected offence, or suspected likely offence, the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest.

The Opposition wishes to add those two criteria because, as my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has said, we regard the use of these listening devices as extraordinary means or methods of last resort or abnormal in a sense and we want to know why we could not strengthen the criteria whereby a judge would decide whether they should be used.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I wish to respond very briefly. I find myself having to respond to both the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). There has been a misunderstanding and it ought to be clarified here and now. Sub-section (3) of proposed new section 219G talks about giving evidence in a court of law. I want to make that quite clear. At no time have I ever stood anywhere and said that information obtained by virtue of tapping should not be passed on. The argument is whether it should be given in evidence in a court of law.

Mr Jacobi:

– Sub-section (3) (a) is about narcotics; sub-section ( 3 ) ( b ) is not.

Mr HODGMAN:

-With due respect, the words used are ‘in evidence in a proceeding’ and sub-section (3) (a) talks about a narcotics offence ‘or for any other offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period or maximum period of not less than three years’. I have pointed out that that could apply to traffic offences in certain States. I want to put the record clear. I am not for one moment suggesting that the information should not be passed on but what I am suggesting very strongly is that the question of whether it should be admitted in evidence in proceedings which are extraneous to narcotic trafficking is a very important question. Secondly, what the Minister has said in relation to privilege is probably technically correct on the advice of his officers but it is not correct in practice. I suggest that if, in the courts, counsel for the prosecution asked an accused person: ‘Did you tell your solicitor that you were guilty?”, the judge would just about have a fit. Even though the privilege is technically that of the solicitor to refuse to divulge the communication, it is not the only sort of privilege, of which we know, as the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) has reminded me. There is the privilege of the confession and privilege as between husband and wife. These privileges have been part of the law -

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– And doctors.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Of course, medical privilege. These privileges have been part of the law not just for a few years but for centuries. In case it is thought that I am straying from the point, I turn to the matter that the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) has just raised. I respectfully suggest that a person cannot form a view on the issuing of a warrant unless he knows to what use the information will be put. Having seen only today the amendments put forward by the Opposition, it may be that the addition of the words sought in the two specific amendments is not strictly necessary. As the Minister has said and obviously accepts, the judge will be taking the factors mentioned into account even though they are not spelt out in the Act. The Opposition has expressed the view that those factors ought to be spelt out, but we cannot talk about the way in which a warrant is to be issued and form a proper basis of opinion on that matter without then finding out the end result.

Having put myself in the position of disagreeing with both the Minister and the honourable member for Hawker let me point out that I agree basically with the proposition of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and with the proposition that is accepted in the United States of America that information obtained as the result of the issuing of a warrant can be given in evidence in a court of law only if it relates to the specific matter. If one budges from that by one inch as the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) has said, the foot is in the door. How easy it would be to thwart the law by this very simple process. Let me give an example. Sergeant Smith of the New South Wales police force has reason to believe that a car stealing racket is going on. He cannot get permission to intercept a telephone call or to lodge a bugging device. Sergeant Smith, being corrupt, says to his friend Mr Brown, a narcotics officer: ‘ I think that these people are engaged in narcotics’. Mr Brown thereupon gets a warrant in good faith because a police officer has said to him that the men are engaged in narcotics. Telephones, including those in solicitors officers are then bugged. A few days later Mr Brown comes back to Sergeant Smith and says: ‘What do you know? These fellows were not engaged in narcotics at all; they were engaged in a car stealing racket. Here is the transcript of the conversation. ‘ That is a classic example of what could happen. It may be that the narcotics officer and the judge issuing the warrant act in good faith, but one man at the start of the chain sets everything in motion. I give that as an example of how easy it would be to thwart the law. Instead of bugging and telecommunications interception being restricted to narcotics it could be applied to any offence in this country for which a man could get three years imprisonment and that includes a third conviction on the breathalyzer.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I want to make my position quite clear. I regard the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and the Customs Amendment Bill as being very much akin. Principles which are contained in this Bill will be repeated in the amendment to the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. It is a reality that that amending Bill has yet to come to the chamber. It is also a reality that in the past the Commonwealth Government has imposed great restrictions on authorising the interception of a telephone conversation. That has been a long-standing principle. In the name of updating the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and our Customs laws under which drug traffickers are apprehended, we are breaking previously sacred ground.

I sat on the legislation committee which inquired into this Bill and heard members from both sides of the chamber state a reasoned nonacceptance of drug trafficking. Let nobody accuse any member of this parliament of being a friend of the drug traffickers. But some honourable members should be allowed to stand up as friends of the protectists of the rights of the individual in relation to privacy, and I place myself in that category. Because we are changing the laws in relation to drugs we are allowing information on petty crimes which is picked up through listening devices or overheard on telephone calls to be passed on to State police officers to allow them to apprehend individuals. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) might well say: ‘Is the honourable member for Fadden saying that if my Customs men overhear a conversation in which a murder is being planned, that information should not be divulged?’. I am not advocating that course.

It is very easy for anyone to stand up and say that we should have limits. It is very hard to draw the line. For instance, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is quite happy for reports of intended crimes coming to the attention of Customs officers to be passed on. I am one who believes the line has to be drawn somewhere. Frankly, in view of the fact that legislation throughout the States varies so much, I am not at all happy about the two references in proposed new section 21 9G to imprisonment for a period of not less than three years.

I do not want to enter into an argument on laws concerning street marches in Queensland, but what would be the situation if the Premier of Queensland were to legislate to provide that a person would face imprisonment of not less than 3 years for a third street marching offence? Then if a Customs officer happened to overhear two New South Welshmen plotting to go to Queensland to march once more, the Comptroller-General is then confronted with the reality that a crime is about to take place and he is obliged to hand over information to the chief of police in Queensland? For the life of me, I would not support a Bill which specifically stated that to be so. Indeed, I do not believe that many members of the House would. Yet, through a back door method, we are giving State and Commonwealth police- I am not trying for one moment to hinder them in their work- access to information which prior to our setting out to protect the nation from drug traffickers was not available to the police. Is this Bill now becoming the means by which State and Commonwealth police will gather evidence on a wide range of crimes? This is my concern, and therefore my thinking on this subject is somewhat different from that of the honourable member for Denison. I apologise to the Minister for having come into the chamber after he had made his introductory comments. I like others was unaware that the Bill was to be debated this afternoon. I have certainly caught up now, and I will be listening to every word as the debate goes on during the afternoon and perhaps this evening.

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

– I want to make one or two brief comments. I am surprised that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) drew an analogy between Customs officers and police officers and suggested that a corrupt police officer might go to a Customs officer and make an accusation about a certain person being a drug trafficker when that person perhaps was not a drug trafficker but the police wanted to apprehend him on some other charge. Let me say to the honourable member for Dennison that no police officer would go to a Customs officer in those circumstances because in most States of the Commonwealth the police have greater access to the use of listening devices than Customs officers will have under this legislation. Indeed in New South Wales the Commissioner of Police grants the warrants. It is not even the Minister or the Premier but the Commissioner for Police who has authority to grant a warrant for New South Wales police to use a listening device in accordance with the conditions laid down in New South Wales legislation. I think it is appropriate again to advise this House and to remind the House that for the past six or seven years customs officers in the Commonwealth have been using listening devices pursuant to approvals granted under State legislation. So there is nothing new in the legislation in relation to this matter. Indeed, the legislation now being considered by this Parliament will place greater restraints on the use of listening devices in the Commonwealth field in relation to narcotic offences than was previously the case. I think it is well for us to keep that fact in mind as we are giving proper consideration to this matter.

I think it was the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) who asked me why it is that the Government will not accept even tighter regulations and provisions in relation to the use of eavesdropping devices. Let me say briefly, in conclusion, that the Government believed that, in accepting the spirit of the amendments which we moved in the legislation committee and which sought to shift the authority from the Minister to the judiciary, we were giving effect to the wishes of this Parliament and probably to a large section of the community that feel that every possible precaution should be taken. But, having taken that step to shift it out of the political arena, if you like- out of the arena of administration to the judiciary- we believe that we should leave the position as flexible as possible in the hands of the judiciary. So, having had the opportunity of questioning the customs officials in relation to the particular matter, the judge will be able to make his own decision and his own determination upon the facts that are placed before him.

Amendments to proposed amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move amendment No. 7 standing in my name:

That amendment No. (8) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: “(8) Clause 8, page 6, lines 34-36, omit ‘, but may be revoked by the Minister at any time before the expiration of the period so specified ‘. “.

The purpose of this amendment is to retain the provision in the Bill that a warrant may be issued for a period of up to 6 months and to delete the now redundant reference to the revocation of warrants by the Minister. As I informed the legislation committee, the provisions of clause 219B (8) of the Bill provide for a maximum period only. It is envisaged that the maximum period would be requested on few occasions. However, there will be some circumstances in which the issue of a warrant for an extended period is justified. Examples of such circumstances are where a courier is moving around Australia to make a contact or a series of contacts or where there is knowledge of a series of connected events which are dispensed over a long period. I give as an example a conspiracy by a group to import a series of small shipments over a number of months. In such circumstances, the Government is satisfied that, assuming a judge is satisfied as to the appropriateness of the warrant, it is reasonable not to impose bureaucratic procedures requiring repeated applications to a judge during that period.

In a later amendment- amendment No. 13 standing in my name- there is a further provision limiting the ongoing use of a listening device where the grounds for the issue of a warrant for the use of the device have ceased to exist. In such a case the Comptroller-General of Customs is to be required by law to revoke in writing the warrant in question.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition opposes the amendment. I just preface my speech by saying that if we concede, as both sides do, that we have to resort to the use of listening devices, I would have thought that it was critically important that we fix the criteria upon which the judge, if you like, is to certify the authorisation. I regret to say we did not really look at that matter. The Government ought to have done so during consideration of the preceding set of amendments because that was the real issue involved. The amendment will allow warrants to be of 90 days duration. The Opposition feelsand we put this up quite sincerely- that they ought to be issued on the basis of a 30 day duration. As honourable members know, the Law Reform Commission’s proposal is that warrants should be issued for a period of only 7 days. I think, in these circumstances, the Opposition has been more than generous. Frankly, we are not prepared to display any further generosity in relation to this matter.

The longer the period a warrant remains in force, of course, the greater is the potential for invasion of privacy. One has to concede, I suppose, that if we are to protect society by law, by regulations or by statutes in these sorts of areas, obviously there will be some loss somewhere of liberty or an invasion of privacy. To date, I think the Opposition has been reasonably constructive on all these matters.

I come back to what I said earlier. A warrant cannot be issued at all unless reasonable grounds can be shown that a person has committed or is likely to commit an offence. We pleaded with members of the Government, when considering the last set of amendments, to fix that criteria in that section of the Bill. The Government has failed to endorse that proposal. It has left the situation wide open. It has left it with the Minister or the judiciary, if you like. I suggest that if the customs officers cannot carry out their functions in 30 days or at the end of the period, it ought to be obligatory on them to seek another warrant. One is left to wonder why these officers sought the warrant in the first place. Listening devices should not be used as a tool for fishing expeditions. I suggest to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and to honourable members opposite that they all seriously look at this matter. At least the proposals set out in the amendment are quite reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move amendment No. 8 standing in my name.

That amendment No. (9) made by the legislation committee be disagreed to.

In moving this amendment I would like to address my remarks to amendments Nos (8) and (9). The legislation committee adopted certain amendments proposed by the Opposition to clause 2 19B of the Bill for the giving of detailed affidavits by the Comptroller-General of Customs and also for the judge to make certain endorsements on those affidavits. The Government does not accept these amendments. Rather than the cumbersome and time consuming procedures envisaged by the amendments, the Government has decided to retain the flexible procedures in the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Government standing as amendments Nos (8) and (9) in my name provide for a much less restrictive approach to be taken. This approach relies upon the judge controlling the proceedings in the manner in which he considers appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

Proposed new section 2 19C set out in amendment No. (9) standing in my name provides that information which is given under oath may be given orally or in any other manner that the judge considers appropriate. This procedure for the issue of warrants is based upon the longstanding provisions of section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 dealing with the issue of search warrants in relation to criminal offences.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-We oppose the amendment. The proposal embodied in amendment No. (8) was based again on the report of the Law Reform Commission on the draft criminal investigation Bill in respect of search warrants. Whilst normally the issue of a warrant by a judge would not be subject to review by another court, the accused can always move in a criminal trial that a judge should exercise his discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence. The amendment of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is an attempt to ensure that a further judicial review of the issue of a warrant, difficult as it is under the laws of evidence, simply cannot occur. I think we discussed this at quite some length. The amendment of the legislation committee represents a small safeguard but I suggest a very important one. Certainly it was not an onerous requirement on a judge. There is no good reason why the amendment should be omitted. The Minister said nothing that in any way satisfied the Opposition on this particular matter. To that extent we would oppose amendments Nos (8) and (9).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move amendment No. (9) standing in my name:

That amendment No. (10) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted:

10) Clause 8, page 7, lines 1-6, omit proposed section 2 1 9C, substitute the following proposed section: “219c. Information furnished to a Judge for the purposes of sub-section (5) or (6) of section 2 19b-

a ) may be given orally or otherwise; and

shall include the facts and other grounds on which the applicant considers it necessary that the warrants should be issued.” ‘.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition formally opposes this amendment for the same reasons I advanced a few moments ago.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move amendment No. 10 standing in my name:

That amendment No. ( 1 1 ) made by the legislation committee be amended by omitting all words after ‘section 219d

Because of amendments moved by me which provide for the issue of warrants by judges of the Federal Court or of a State or Territory Supreme Court, it is considered no longer necessary to have special emergency provisions in the law. Accordingly, amendment No. 10 deletes the emergency provisions in the Bill. The ability to obtain an emergency warrant is enhanced by the amendments made by amendment No. 9 which enables information to be furnished to a judge orally. This, for example, allows an application to be made to a judge by telephone as envisaged in the amendments made by the legislation committee.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-Amendment No. 10 omits proposed new section 21 9D which allows the use of warrants to be granted over the telephone in an emergency situation. Amendment No. 12 simply omits a reference in the Bill to section 219D. For the reasons already made clear, the Opposition believes that warrants in this area should not be granted unless the necessary documentation is provided to ensure that everything has been above board. We have repeated this belief during debate on the last three amendments. The Government’s amendments to date have not provided this safeguard nor do they satisfy the Opposition. We press the legislation committee amendment in relation to 2 19D accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move amendment No. 1 1 standing in my name:

That amendment No. ( 12) made by the legislation committee be disagreed to.

Amendment No. 1 1 relates to amendment No. (12) made by the legislation committee. It deals with the furnishing of certain documents to the Minister following the issue of a warrant. Provision is made in this amendment for the furnishing of these documents in accordance with proposed section 219L detailed in amendment No. 15 standing in my name. Accordingly, amendment No. (12) made by the legislation committee is superfluous. Since the procedures already proposed by the Government do not adopt the scheme of affidavits proposed by the legislation committee, it is of course inappropriate for the law to require copies of affidavits to be furnished to the Minister.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition is not opposed to amendment No. 1 1 which simply removes the question of the obligation of the Comptroller to furnish documents to the Minister from proposed new section 219D(a) to proposed new section 219L. However proposed new section 2 1 9L as moved by the Minister does not allow the furnishing of documents- this is what he said- which we believe should be issued in connection with warrants, that is affidavits, by customs officers and endorsement by judges.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move amendment No. 12 standing in my name:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 8, page 7, line 37, omit’or 2 1 9D ‘.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move amendment No. 1 3 standing in my name:

  1. 1 ) That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 8, page 8, lines 4-9, omit proposed section 219f, substitute the following proposed section: 219F. Where, before a warrant under this Division ceases to be in force, the Comptroller is satisfied that the grounds on which the warrant was issued have ceased to exist, he shall-

  1. forthwith take such steps as are necessary to ensure that action in pursuance of the warrant (other than the recovery of a listening device or a part of a listening device) is discontinued; and
  2. b ) by instrument under his hand, revoke the warrant. ‘.

The rationale for amendment No. 13 standing in my name has already been evidenced in the context of amendment No. 7. It is proposed that proposed new section 219F be amended to ensure that as soon as the grounds for the issue of a warrant have ceased to exist the Comptroller General of Customs is to ensure that action, pursuant to the warrant, is discontinued. As a formal step the ComptrollerGeneral is also required to formally revoke the warrant in writing. In relation to this provision, consideration was given to taking the matter back to the judge for the issue of the instrument of revocation. However, the conclusion was reached that such a procedure would serve no useful purpose and that such action could prove an inconvenience both to the judge and the administration. It was decided that the preferred course was to provide a legal obligation for the ComptrollerGeneral to ensure that the matter was terminated at the appropriate stage.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The amendment allows for the ComptrollerGeneral to revoke warrants for the reason that the grounds on which the warrant was issued ceased to exist. The Opposition supports the amendment, subject to our proviso mentioned earlier that we believe that warrants should be of only 30 days duration.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-In support of the amendment I comment on the last matter raised by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) in respect of the time of the warrant. The honourable member invited members on this side of the House to support the Opposition’s amendment to reduce the maximum period of a warrant from 90 days to 30 days. I could not support that amendment but I do very strongly support the amendment moved by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I emphasise that the duty on the Comptroller is a very heavy one indeed. I applaud the fact that the Government has legislated in this way. There is no need to go back to the judge, but there is every need for the Comptroller of Customs to ensure that as soon as the grounds upon which the warrant was originally issued have ceased to exist, that warrant must be thereupon withdrawn. If it continues after those grounds have ceased to exist, that would be recognised, on all sides of this House, as a very gross invasion of privacy.

I feel that other honourable members on this side of the House, who were not unsympathetic to what the honourable member for Hawker said, would accept the basic proposition that the Comptroller should be in no doubt indeed, I am sure that under this Minister he will be in no doubt as to his obligations on that matter. If warrants are permitted to drag on after the original grounds for their making have ceased to exist, not only would the Comptroller be seriously breaching the law, but also there would be a continuing invasion of privacy. It might well be that if such a case was discovered the Parliament might think again as to the duration of the warrants. As it is, I have confidence in the Minister and in the Comptroller. That is why I could not support the Opposition’s amendment, which was amendment No. (7) if my recollection is correct, moved by the honourable member for Hawker.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I seek leave to add to the amendment circulated in my name some words which, in my haste in preparing the amendment, I omitted.

Leave granted.

Mr WILSON:

– I move my amendment No. 1 which now reads:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 8, page 8, proposed section 219g, omit sub-section ( 1 ), substitute the following sub-section:

A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record, any information obtained for the purposes of narcotics enquiries that are being, or have been, made by officers of Customs by using a listening device or otherwise, being information that has come to his knowledge or into his possession by reason of his being, or having been, an officer of Customs or by reason of his having entered into an arrangement with an officer of Customs to use a listening device or in other ways obtain information for the purpose of those enquiries other than a communication made-

To an officer of Customs-

by an officer of Customs in the course of his duties; or

by a person who has entered into any such contract, agreement or arrangement;

b) by an officer of Customs within the limits of authority conferred on him by the Comptroller-General; or

with the approval of the Comptroller-General or of officers of Customs having authority of the Comptroller-General to give such approval.

Penalty: $ 1 ,000 or imprisonment for 2 years. ‘.

In supporting this amendment I would like to again refer to three of the points I made earlier when taking part in this debate. I draw attention to the fact that in this kind of area we should be concerned about three principles. Firstly, we should be concerned about the collection of information. Secondly, we should be concerned about the access to that information. Thirdly, we should be concerned about its disclosure. Earlier in this debate we were talking about the collection of information and the means whereby information should be collected. I want to address my remarks towards the disclosure of information. It is my view that this Parliament needs to be more concerned about the use, or perhaps rather the potential abuse, of information gathered by instrumentalities and departments which this Parliament authorises governments of the day to establish. In the past concern about the abuse of information in the hands of government departments was at a low level. Government departments became known as bodies in which there was an immense amount of red tape. That phrase ‘red tape’ tended to imply that it was terribly difficult to retrieve information that had been gathered. Now, with the availability of mechanical and technological methods we have the capacity not only to store information in an efficient and ordered fashion but also the capacity to use those machines to retrieve information. Not only do these methods allow us to retrieve the information gathered by one department of State; they enable us to aggregate the information gathered by a number of departments and instrumentalities, to bring it all together and to use it, in some circumstances for intended purposes and in other circumstances for purposes that were not intended. I think that the rights of individuals are subject to the danger that the information gathered by departments could be abused.

As I indicated earlier in this debate, I have no serious concern about the gathering of information under the Bill now before the House other than in the circumstances about which I expressed concern, the tapping of solicitors’ telephones except in the very narrow circumstances referred to by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). My concern is about the disclosure of that information. It has been put to me that the Crimes Act prevents officers of Government departments from disclosing information. I think that the Crimes Act is a most inadequate and inappropriate vehicle for controlling the disclosure of information that becomes available to departments of State. In fact, my inquiries have led me to discover that the Crimes Act has been ignored in scores of circumstances. Many Bills contain specific provisions dealing with the circumstances in which information can be made available and which impose an obligation of non-disclosure upon members of the Public Service who have been authorised by the legislation to gather that information. Going one step further, some legislation makes it a criminal offence for public servants to disclose that information.

This new section proposed by the Government is drafted very narrowly. It makes it a criminal offence to disclose information that is obtained in a phone tapping operation. I believe that there should be a specific clause in this Customs Amendment Bill that will make it an offence for a Customs officer to disclose any information that becomes available to him unless Parliament indicates in the legislation that authorises him to collect the information that he may disclose it. Of course, he has to have an opportunity to disclose it. As my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), pointed out, one Customs officer might have to give information to another officer to enable him to complete the investigations and bring drug traffickers before the courts. But he should not be permitted to disclose what some people would describe as irrelevant information.

Some people think that Customs officers, police officers and security officers should not be able to gather irrelevant information. I believe that they must gather information which appears to be irrelevant at first sight. It is only when a series of items of information is gathered that a jigsaw comes together. Officers charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law, whether it be the customs law, ordinary law or security law, are then able to identify people who are in breach of the law. Customs officers will obtain a lot of irrelevant information, whether by means of a phone tap or by means of surveillance of cars parked in a particular street. I do not believe that they should be able to disclose any information they discover unless it is for the purpose of the enforcement of the law which they are charged to administer. Otherwise the private citizen can be scandalised by the wrong use of that information.

For example, if Customs officers were able to disclose information as they are under the present law, they could, Mr Acting Speaker, go to your street, or a street in the suburb in which you live, and find your car along with 24 other cars. Consider what could happen if in that street there was a house where people were suspected of trafficking in narcotics. They could record your name on a list of 24 or 25 people whose cars were in that street at a time when narcotics trafficking was occurring. If their information is wrongly disclosed you, Mr Acting Speaker, could be very gravely disadvantaged. If a member of Parliament, a Minister or an official of a government department says that you had your car parked in the street in which there is a house involved in drug trafficking, people could jump hastily to the wrong conclusion. You could deny it for all you are worth. You could prove that in that street is the home of your aunt, who, for the last six weeks, has been seriously ill and you have been visiting her. Therefore, I believe that it should be an offence for Customs officers to disclose information gathered by them except where Parliament gives them authority to disclose it and it should be made a criminal offence for which they can be charged in order that the rights of individual citizens cannot be abused by the wrong use of the information that is properly collected for the purposes of the administration of the Customs and narcotics laws.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Sturt to supply to the House a copy of his amended amendment.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition is in a difficult position. It received a copy of the amendment only 20 minutes or so before the debate resumed. The amendment relates to an important matter. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) has raised three important issues- access, disclosure and privacy. Honourable members on this side of the House have not had the opportunity to discuss his amendment either in the legislation committee or in Caucus. We would like to do so. In fairness to the honourable member we should do so. I give an undertaking to the honourable member that my party’s position on his amendment will be considered when the matter is dealt with in the Senate.

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

– I am personally aware and the Government is well aware of the concern of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr

Wilson) that information in the hands of law enforcement agencies may relate to innocent persons who have somehow become involved with a criminal investigation. Of course, the Government shares that concern and always seeks, in the administration of the criminal law, to protect innocent persons against the misuse of information in the hands of the Government or its agencies. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member.

The essence of successful criminal investigations generally and, in the context of this Bill, of investigations relating to narcotics offences is the ability to obtain, analyse and take appropriate action on intelligence. One aspect of the strategy of the Government in upgrading the fight against illegal drug trafficking is to facilitate and rely upon sophisticated techniques of intelligence gathering and analysis. This approach has already, in recent times, permitted narcotics officers and officers of various police forces to intercept illegal importations into Australia, totalling some hundreds of millions of dollars, of narcotic goods.

The Government considers that it is essential in the light against illegal narcotics trafficking for the use of intelligence to be facilitated. At the same time it is recognised that involved are important questions of privacy concerning innocent persons. Whilst I would not wish that there be a ban on law enforcement officers following up any leads that at the time look relevant to the investigation of an offence, it is the desire of the Government that systems can be in-built which reinforce existing protections of privacy. It is for this purpose that the Government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to report to it generally on the question of privacy. Therefore, the matter raised by the honourable member for Sturt and the matter generally can be further considered and, if necessary, debated in this House upon the receipt of this report.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I feel I must rise again to emphasise that in no way do I believe that this amendment would in any way restrict the adequate fulfilment of the enforcement of the law with regard to narcotics. I do not want to inhibit the ability of Customs officers or police forces to gather information so that they can bring to justice those people who are in breach of the law. I am pleased to hear from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) that the matter has been referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I would hope that as a result of that Commission’s inquiries we will have presented to this Parliament a Bill that is comprehensive in relation to the circumstances in which the employees of government departments and instrumentalities can disclose information that they have gathered either to other officers in other departments or to the public at large.

I must say that I find the Minister’s remarks a little difficult to follow when he is prepared to have a limit and make it an offence for an officer of his Department to disclose information about narcotics inquiries if it is discovered as a result of a telephone tap, but if it is discovered in some other way the Government apparently is far more relaxed about how that information could be misused. It is my concern with that misuse that has brought me to my feet to propose this amendment. I realise that perhaps I was committed in some other areas and with other Bills with a related problem. I was late in bringing this amendment to the attention of the Government and the Opposition. Nevertheless, late or not, I have brought it to the attention of this House because I believe that this Parliament has an increasing responsibility to the Australian people to ensure that its agencies in gathering information, as they must gather it, do not misuse the information to the disadvantage of innocent citizens in the community.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I shall be very brief. Certain indications have been given in relation to this provision. I would like to commend the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) for his contribution. He could not be described in the wildest stretch of the imagination as a long haired radical, but he is a thinker. The fact that an increasing number of people in this chamber are turning their attention in this changing age to the rights of individuals is at least rewarding for some of those who have been long time champions of the cause. I reiterate that I appreciate the wise contribution of the honourable member for Sturt.

Amendment negatived.

Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned.

page 2556

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ON EXPENDITURE AND TAXATION

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 28 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Howard:

Government expenditure, personal taxation and revenue 1 979-80-Ministerial Statement, 24 May 1 979- and on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the House take note of the paper.

Upon which Mr Willis had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House-

condemns the Government for its gross deception of the Australian electorate and its complete disregard for the well-being of Australian taxpayers and the depressed state of the Australian economy, as evidenced by the economic measures announced last Thursday by the Treasurer in the House which will have the effect of:

reducing the living standards of all taxpayers;

drastically increasing the cost of health care for all people and especially for the low income groups;

increasing costs for the rural sector;

seriously retarding upgrading of the nation’s transport network;

increasing inflation;

increasing unemployment, and

destroying any chance of economic recovery, and

calls upon the Government to provide a stimulus to the recessed Australian economy through increased spending on capital works projects and cuts in indirect taxes and income taxes for the lower income groups, as recommended by the Labor Party in its Alternative Budget’.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– It has been obvious for some months that the Government’s budgetary deficit would be much greater than the $2, 800m announced in the last Budget. Last Thursday night the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said that he expected it to increase by some $2 15m. I note that there are suggestions abroad that this figure might be somewhat understated and that, in fact, the true Budget deficit for 1978-79 might increase by at least 25 per cent and might blow out to something like $3.3 billion. We will have to wait to see whether that is true. Similarly, the Government has been having great problems with its balance of payments situation. In 1977-78 we saw a deficit in net invisibles of $3,32 lm wipe out a trade surplus of $895m to leave the current account in deficit some $2,425m. This year the situation is even worse. By the end of the March quarter the current account was $2, 443m in deficit, and $590m of that was accounted for in the March quarter alone. It is perfectly obvious that this financial year we face a deficit in the current account of $3,000m.

It is no wonder that since the Government took office in 1975 it has borrowed $4,000m from overseas. The chickens will not come home to roost until 1983-84. That is when the repayments will peak. Australia will face repayments of its overseas loans of $600m a year. Therefore, we are looking at an extremely adverse situation with regard to the continuing deficit in the balance of payments and the current account. So far in the first three quarters of this year alone the freight cost on imports has totalled $932m. That is the most significant component of the invisibles which have such a devastating effect on the current account. It is very pertinent to note that less than 3 per cent of these imports are carried in Australian ships. Yet in the statement of the Treasurer of the whole Government policy no attempt whatsoever is made to expand Australian shipping tonnage or the operations of the Australian National Line in our overseas trade.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– That would be all right if the trade unions had not been so foolish.

Mr WEST:

– If the Government did something about that, perhaps it would be able to do something about the haemorrhage in the balance of payments and the current account. Never mind talking about whether Australian unionists should be on the ships. Of course they should be. That is where some of the jobs should come from to give to the people who are unemployed today. It is obvious that the Government has been in very deep economic trouble for some time. The deficit has been increasing. The balance of payments has been blowing out. Inflation is moving into double figures one again and the money supply has increased by about 5 per cent more than the rate of increase predicted in the last Budget. The Government was faced with the question of what to do about it. Was it able to remove the tax surcharge of 1 .5c in the dollar by 30 June? What about its promise to retain the 40 per cent health subsidy and implement full tax indexation? So it was that last Thursday we got our answer to these questions in the horror package. The tax surcharge of 1.5c in the dollar became 2.6c in the dollar. The 40 per cent health subsidy was removed altogether. The Government finally reneged on its promise to implement full tax indexation. What will it do in the Budget? The Treasurer said:

I must emphasise that there is no prospect of the Government’s being able to announce in the Budget both the removal in full of the surcharge and implementation of full indexation for the 1 979-80 income year.

What will he do? Will he retain the tax surcharge of 2.6c in the dollar? That must be a very attractive proposition to him because it would raise $ 1,320m. Perhaps he might do that. Perhaps he might also implement the promise of full tax indexation as a sweetener. That would cost only $500m. If he took both those measures he would finish $820m ahead. If he did that, the retention of the surcharge would represent just one more broken promise. It could be added to the long list of broken promises- the promise to provide jobs for all who want to work, the promise to maintain Medibank, the promise to implement full tax indexation, the promise to end the tax rip-off, the promise to reduce interest rates, and the promise to give the pensioners half-yearly indexation. AH those promises have been dishonoured.

Let me turn briefly to the health situation, and I shall discuss this at greater length when the two relevant Bills are debated in the House. The abolition of the 40 per cent general health subsidy to those people who do not contribute to a health insurance fund will save the Government $2 10m. However, it will also be responsible for an increase in the contribution rate for medical benefit payments of $2.50 per week. The daily charge for intermediate hospital beds has gone up by $10 from $40 to $50 and the charge for private beds has gone up from $50 to $75 a day. This will result in an increase of $1.30 per week in hospital insurance, or an increase of $4 a week in health insurance contributions. Health insurance will cost $600m to $700m a year- a remarkable $11.50 to $13.50 a week. The result will be that some contributors and their families will opt out. Those who do so will have no universal system of health insurance. The poorer families will be faced with a cost of $9 for a visit to a general practitioner. They will defer seeking attention when it is required with disastrous results.

All this shocking intervention in the field of health insurance came after the Treasurer announced in the last Budget the abolition of federal grants on a dollar for dollar basis with the States for capital costs for new hospitals. The Treasurer also foreshadowed last Thursday night further cuts of $200m in the Commonwealth-States cost sharing agreement for recurrent expenditure. Where will all these cuts in the health system end? When will there be an end to the rising cost of health insurance that has been foisted on the people of Australia by this Government? The cuts will leave a gap in the public health system and the Government will seek to rely on private hospital corporations to fill the gap. I refer to the Hospital Corporation of America, which is being encouraged by the present Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). The Corporation was making 16 per cent profit from private hospitalisation in the United States of America and is seeking to diversify internationally because the Government of the United States is thinking of placing a 10 per cent limit on profits from private hospitalisation. Of course the Corporation wants to diversify into countries such as Australia and this Government is helping it to do so. It wants to jack up its profits again to 16 per cent and 20 per cent. My reaction is that if the Hospital Corporation of America wants to build private health structures in Australia it should do so in the areas of need. The areas of need are not private hospitals. They are geriatric hospitals and nursing homes. However, the Corporation will not go into that area when it can get more than $500 a week from the medical benefits and hospital funds and an average of only $140 a week from the Commonwealth Government and the patients’ pensions in the nursing homes.

That is what we have seen. What is to come? What will happen at the next Premiers’ Conference? Will there be further cuts in the general purpose and specific purpose grants to the States? Perhaps we will see further attacks on the unemployed. When will we get the result of the famous work test review announced by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner)? Will he wait until the Parliament goes into recess before he brings down the result? Will the result of that review be that young unemployed people between 16 and 18 years of age will be sent out from Sydney and Melbourne by the Minister to pick fruit at Shepparton or around Mildura? What will be the reaction of the parents of those 16-year-olds and 18-year-olds? Maybe we will find out at the next election.

There are in this horror mini-package two measures which we of the Opposition do not oppose but which I find hard to applaud. The first one is the retention of the coal export levy of $3.50 a tonne. There certainly is a very strong case for the retention of the coal export levy but a levy on a flat tonnage basis works against the marginal underground mines and in favour of the more cheaply operated open cut mines. A far more equitable proposition is the implementation of Labor’s policy of a resources tax on profits earned from the export of non-renewable resources. Another point- I ask the Treasurer to listen to this point very carefully- is that at least $2 a tonne of that $3.50 a tonne coal export levy ought to be returned to the States, particularly New South Wales, to cover the capital costs of the provision of a proper transport infrastructure. The coal mines of New South Wales suffer inbuilt deficiencies compared with those in Queensland. The mines of the Utah Corporation in Queensland have very good rail transport facilities to the port at Hay Point, but in New South Wales the mines have to depend on road haulage because no adequate rail transport facilities are provided.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already asked honourable members on my right to be silent. The honourable member for Cunningham has a right to be heard in silence. If honourable members persist with their unduly loud conversation I will be required to deal with them.

Mr WEST:

-The other point that I want to cover concerns the horrendous situation engendered by the present import parity policy in relation to crude oil. This policy has resulted in windfall profits of $300m this year to Esso-BHP, and these profits are expected to rise to $540m by 1981. This policy is returning $ 1,240m to Federal revenue this year. I note that the $3 per tonne levy has been increased. We support the increase but it is still nonsense to keep passing on blindly each crude oil price rise levied overseas by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It is a most inflationary situation.

The present Government’s path, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said last week, is paved with broken promises. After three and a half years it is still blaming the Whitlam Labor Government for its own mistakes- its own amateur bunglings. It has an unprecedented record of broken promises. When will the Government face its responsibilities? When will it start to operate on an honest level? When are we going to see the people of Australia- not American multinationals and Australian big business- get a fair share of the Budget cake, an equitable tax system, an adequate health insurance scheme, and an acceptable wage and salary policy?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister speaking without limitation of time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– The package introduced last week by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) was one of economic responsibility. It puts the economic health of Australia first. It puts the well-being of all Australians, wherever they may be, whatever their occupations may be, foremost in the Government’s mind. The Government’s commitment to responsibility is critical to economic recovery. Because of our policies inflation has been substantially reduced. The competitiveness of Australian industry is greatly improved. New private fixed capital expenditure is up 26 per cent in the year to March 1979. In mining, capital investment is particularly strong- up 46 per cent in the year to March- and the rnining industry expects a further 32 per cent throughout 1979. Oil exploration and development are taking off. The rural economy is having the best period for a very long while, making up for some of the very lean and difficult times it has had over recent years. Business profits are rising. Private civilian employees seasonally adjusted, have risen for seven months, and that is the best result since 1974. Retail sales for the March quarter were up significantly.

The Treasurer’s package continues the thrust of economic responsibility. It consolidates the gains that we have made over three and a half years. It will strengthen confidence in the Australian economy, strengthen control over our own expenditure. There will be substantial savings in health, in education, in payments to primary industry, in transport and in other areas. These expenditure reductions show the determination of government to control its own expenditure and they also foreshadow stringent control at the Premiers Conference in June and at the Budget in August. The full year’s savings on the forward estimates and the new policies for the programs already announced include $290m or a little more in health and over $60m in primary industry. Further savings in other portfolios can clearly be expected. The Government’s record of expenditure control is clearly shown by the fact that today’s deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is significantly less than it was under the Labor Government.

The Government has also acted to raise further revenue. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries induced price increases will be reserved for the community and not for companies. New oil to be discovered will be unaffected and therefore exploration incentives will be maintained. The coal export levy at the reduced rate will be continued. The trading stock valuation adjustment, applied by firms to increase after tax profits rather than to adjust their internal stocktaking accounts, and therefore being used in a way not foreshadowed by Mathews, is being removed. Of course, the liquidity position of companies is infinitely better than it was when the adjustment was first allowed. So in many senses it has achieved a very real purpose. The carrying forward of paper losses under tax avoidance schemes which Labor did nothing to prevent is not going to be allowed. Of course, we are extending the existing payasyouearn schedules to 30 November 1979 or to some earlier date to be proclaimed, and that plainly means that there is no change in current PA YE tax rates, no change in current weekly deductions.

One of the great deceits of the Australian Labor Party is that it has sought to have people believe that there is going to be a tax increase from 1 July. A tax increase, of course, was never in mind. It is a question of whether tax reductions foreshadowed at the time of the earlier Budget could in fact be consummated. Personal tax rates for the whole of 1979-80, together with a decision on indexation, are to be announced at the time of the Budget. But I would like to emphasise what the Treasurer said. He said that there is no prospect of removal in full of the surcharge together with implementation of full tax indexation when that announcement is made. The final decision will not be possible until we have the complete information available to us at the time of the Budget.

The package introduced by the Treasurer is balanced and is equitable both on the expenditure side of the account and on the revenue side. It protects those in need. The health changes will continue to protect pensioners and the socially disadvantaged and will establish the circumstance where people can pay the small bills for themselves but be protected against the major accounts that can completely break any individual or any family.

I indicated earlier that if there was a virtue in the original Medibank scheme as opposed to the program that was maintained earlier, it plain, that the original Treasurer scheme, together with the changes that have been introduced since, established universal health cover for all Australians- although I suggest that the price paid by the Australian community as a whole was a high one. But it is worth noting that we have preserved that universal health cover for all Australians. The changes now introduced continue -

Opposition members- You have to be joking!

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Look at what the Press thinks of you.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Newcastle to order. Honourable members on my left seem determined to engage in an exercise that defames this Parliament. I caution them against this extravagant behaviour. Any persistence in this practice of exhibiting material that has no proper place in this House or of echoing the terms expressed in that material will result in very prompt action. I warn honourable members on my left. The honourable member for Newcastle will remove the material as will the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James).

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, under what Standing Order do I have to remove this front page of this newspaper?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not required to educate honourable members in the Standing Orders that apply.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Begging your pardon, Sir, but you are directing me to do something. I am asking you under what authority you are so directing me. This is the front page of the Illawarra Mercury newspaper.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat. If honourable members had any feeling for the national Parliament, they would ensure that any Prime Minister was able to address this place in a proper form.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, under our Standing Orders there is a restraint against language which is offensive to members of this place being used, either visibly or in a spoken form in this House. In front of the honourable member for Hunter there is a newspaper to which you have just referred. I believe, Mr Acting Speaker, that that completely contravenes our Standing Orders. I think it is essential that people on the Opposition side of the House should realise that there is also a practice that honourable members do not read newspapers in this chamber. I believe that that Standing Order has been enforced in the past and I suggest that it needs to be enforced again. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the total abuse by members of the Opposition of standards of common decency, let alone Standing Orders.

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, to the point of order -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will have an opportunity to speak to the point of order later. When the honourable member for Newcastle was on his feet speaking to me, I requested the honourable member for Hunter to remove the material that he had before him on the desk. I did not realise that the honourable member for Hunter had not removed the material because my vision was obscured. I again ask the honourable member for Hunter to remove the material. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide to speak to the point of order.

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, there is no Standing Order that entitles you to request the honourable member for Hunter to do so. This Government has broken every convention of this Parliament and now, when the pressure is on, Government members scream like children.

Mr Sinclair:

– What are you talking about?

Mr Young:

– Well let us incorporate it in Hansard. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Give the Prime Minister a look at it and then we will incorporate it in Hansard. It shows what people think of your Government.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The forms of the House require that newspapers and associated material should not be exhibited in the House where it is not essential to the duty and performance of a member. In this situation, I think that the forms of the House should be upheld.

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I just say this in relation to the point of order -

Mr Sinclair:

– The total abuse of Standing Orders by members of the Opposition in this place needs to be laid in the sight of every Australian.

Mr Young:

– … the problem with politics in this country is that the Labor Party has played by the rules.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland will resume his seat temporarily. Regardless of the outcome of this encounter I am sure that honourable members realise that neither the Parliament nor the country will profit. The Chair appeals to the sense of responsibility of all honourable members to apply themselves more properly to the forms of the House and the business before it. I am sure that all arguments could be advanced with vigour and in a robust fashion while still observing the requirements of decency.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, it has perhaps escaped your notice that the manager of Opposition business in this House has thrown onto the table of the House a copy of a newspaper article, which I intend to remove in a minute. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 303. For the benefit of the honourable member for Port Adelaide perhaps I should read it. It is as follows:

If any Member has-

persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House; or

been guilty of disorderly conduct; or

used objectionable words, which he has refused to withdraw; or

persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any standing order; or

persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair- he may be named by the Speaker, or, if any of the abovenamed offences has been committed by a Member in committee, by the Chairman.

Mr Acting Speaker, I suggest that compliance with that Standing Order is essential if the proper forms of this House are to be preserved and if the standard of decorum that one would expect from the national Parliament is to be exhibited by members of the Labor Party.

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rose to speak to the point of order that had already been raised by the Leader of the House. I did not rise to take a point of order on the Prime Minister. You raised the question about the newspaper which had been exhibited by some members on our side of the House. The newspaper article is headed: ‘Lies, lies, lies!’ The Prime Minister is making statements similar to those that he made over the last3½ years. The fact is that no one believes him. I say that we could put an end to all this simply by incorporating the document in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide presses the matter too far. He rose to take a point of order, certainly, but he did not have the call of the Chair. Therefore the material that he sought to have incorporated was not relevant because he was not entitled to address the House. The Leader of the House, in his remarks, expressed the position quite clearly. The Chair is very much aware of the position. To implement the Standing Order described would have a decimating effect on the members presently in this House. That, in itself would be a lamentable result. I again appeal to honourable members to permit the proceedings of the House to continue in an orderly fashion. This is my last appeal to honourable members. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Acting Speaker, the longer the Labor Party behaves as it has over the last 10 minutes -

Mr Young:

– He is starting again.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– … the better the people of Australia will understand what the Labor Party is about.

Mr Young:

– Well you make your speech.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Acting Speaker, once again the honourable member who has just interjected totally defies Standing Orders. The Australian Labor Party, in doing what it has done over the last 10 minutes, has given a wonderful example of what it tried to do to Australia when it was in government. That was the way in which it behaved when in government and that is the way in which it behaves when in Opposition. Opposition members are a disgrace to their Party and a disgrace to this Parliament.

What the Government has done in these particular matters is introduce an equitable package which protects those in need. The health changes will continue to protect pensioners and the socially disadvantaged. The package makes it quite plain that people will be able to pay the small bills for themselves but that they will be protected from large bills by the Commonwealth’s universal guarantee. The package brought forward by the Treasurer is a response to the improved business and rural conditions. We provided help to rural industry when it greatly needed it, and should the same circumstances arise again, we will certainly do so again. For example, in 1 977-78 we provided special assistance to the beef industry. Quite plainly that special assistance is not required in the current circumstances. In addition, the stock valuation adjustment scheme followed the liquidity difficulties that many industries and companies were experiencing at earlier times. Today, business liquidity has improved greatly.

We make no bones about the fact that the last Budget committed the Government to taking off the tax surcharge. As I have made plain, and as the Treasurer has made plain, that commitment was made in good faith. After tightening expenditure and raising more revenue -

Mr Hurford:

– You bought your way into government.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– There they go again, Mr Acting Speaker. They cannot listen for one moment. They are like a rabble in a barnyard. The way they behave they better befit a barnyard than this Parliament. After tightening expenditure and raising more revenue it was clear that the only responsible course was to keep open options on tax indexation and on the surcharge until the Budget in August. I stress that this does not involve any increase in weekly PA YE instalment deductions after 1 July. It was never a question of an increase over and above current rates. It was a question of the possibility of a decrease. There will be no change in take home pay as a result of the decisions that the Treasurer announced. Many figures in the Budget are projections. They are based on the best advice and knowledge at the time. Forecasts in the 1978-79 Budget were in the context of two years of falling inflation and of falling monetary growth. Certain Budget forecasts are critical but if they do not eventuate the Government has no responsible option but to compensate by other government action. Since the Budget a number of things have happened which put some of the Budget projections out. The economy is not static, it is not fixed by words in a Budget. It is a living thing affected by the actions and changes within and without Australia.

Much has changed since the Budget. I mentioned before the deteriorating strategic situation in Iran and Indo-China. That was not foreseen by anyone, Accordingly, this government has properly made decisions to spend more in real terms on defence. Oil prices have increased because of Iran, more than anticipated at the time of the Budget. There is, therefore, a greater push to inflationary expectations. Beef price increases are 35 per cent higher than the Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecast at the time of the Budget. The wheat harvest is more than 50 per cent above last August’s forecasts. There has been a dramatic improvement in some commodity prices in this financial year, such as aluminium over 20 per cent, copper over 30 per cent, lead over 100 per cent and zinc over 40 per cent. Moreover, for the second successive year, estimates of revenue in the Budget appear likely to exceed the revenue outcome.

The 4 per cent wage decision was more than was hoped for by the Government. At the same time, inflation in a number of countries is running much higher. In the six months to March 1979 inflation is running at an annual rate of 10.1 per cent in the United States, 10.7 per cent in the United Kingdom, 10.5 per cent in Canada, 15.4 per cent in Italy, 10.1 per cent in New Zealand and even in Germany, which has a very good anti-inflationary record, the inflation rate has about doubled during this year. All of these figures show that inflation prospects in many countries are much less favourable than in Australia. Many of these factors, especially prospects for the rural community and miners, have healthy effects on the economy, but they also have an impact on inflationary pressures and they have an impact on the money supply.

As a result of these changes inflationary pressures increase and there is a clear need for government action to maintain control over the economy, particularly so since the 5 per cent inflation forecast in Budget Statement No. 2 will not be obtained.

Before last week’s package the Government had already acted to adjust interest rates to changed circumstances, to introduce changed methods of financing the wheat crop and to make calls on statutory reserve deposits. These actions alone were not enough. They had to be strengthened by further action if undue strain were not to be placed on monetary policy. In the total picture of economic recovery with its consequent inflationary threats, a lower deficit is all the more important. A Budget must give total confidence so that there will be a downward pressure on prices on inflation. A tax cut of over $ 1 ,000m on 1 July this year would, in all these circumstances, have been irresponsible and would have destroyed that confidence. The Government plainly is disappointed that it has not been possible to remove the surcharge immediately, as forecast at the time of the last Budget. I must say unequivocally that our anticipations proved to be wrong by later events. If that is so, that is a cross the Government must bear. We regret the fact that we are unable to remove immediately the surcharge and proceed with tax indexation. We certainly make no apology for it because we have taken the right course for the economy and for the people of Australia.

The steps we have taken will build confidence in the Australian economy and there should now be no pre-Budget doubts about the Government’s resolve. There will be no pre-Budget doubts about investment decisions, about the value of the Australian dollar and about the growing confidence throughout all sections of the Australian community. The Government is determined to take the right course to respond to changes. Even the Leader of the Opposition no longer says that the value of the dollar is weak because he knows our policies have been successful. He knows very well that the value of the dollar now is better placed in international markets in the view of the overwhelming community at home and overseas than it has been for many years. That is a mark of confidence in this Government’s policies which the measures that have been announced over the last few days will reinforce and strengthen. The Government is determined to take the right course, to respond to changes and to influences as they arise and will change policy as necessary.

The package that was introduced by the Treasurer is a mark of strength and determination to act in the interests of all Australians. It is the mark of a determination to respond to new conditions that arise either here or overseas. The judgment of Australian people will go far beyond the petty actions of the Opposition in this Parliament because the package will be respected. It takes the right course for Australia. It is a document of economic responsibility. The Government will not sacrifice economic management for political expediency. We will keep fighting inflation. We will keep fostering economic activity that will provide lasting jobs. We will keep taxes at the lowest possible levels. It has been a long fight to strengthen the Australian economy and to achieve our goals. We did not disguise this and we never have. But now there is an upturn in the Australian economy and recovery is under way. That is not doubted except by the blind men of the Austraiian Labor Party. The vision that brought this Government to office has not been dulled.

Opposition members interjecting.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The barnyard keeps on going. Members of the Labor Party will stay on the Opposition benches for all time.

Mr Neil:

– They are like Animal Farm- a. rabble.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Well, Animal Farm, rabble, they deserve it all.

Dr Klugman:

– He is reading last year’s speech.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-That vision keeps us on our path and gives us the courage to respond to reality effectively and in the interests of Australia. Under Labor the Government deliberately and constantly raised false expectations. It bred a dependence by people on the Government. Labor destroyed the capacity of Austraiian industries to employ. It destroyed the independence of people by breeding the view that the Government only had to be asked and it would provide. The Labor Party established the philosophy that governments have unlimited resources because they could go to the printing press and that governments have to provide the answers to all problems. The Labor Party established the false view that people should be paid according to their own estimates of themselves. The Labor Party set about destroying Australia by creating a web of deception, by deluding Australians that living from tax dollars without contributing to Australia does not hurt fellow Australians.

Labor tried to put Australia on the path that throughout history has taken once strong and vibrant nations to their very destruction. But Labor failed. Its philosophy was overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian public in two elections. The task of this Government has been to rebuild the strength and independence of this nation, to reassert the fundamental principle that governments can establish the circumstances, the opportunities for people to achieve and create and that ultimately it is only an independent, self-reliant society that can develop Australia. We have been working to establish the circumstances in which Commonwealth and State governments live within their means and the circumstances in which Australian industries will once again be independent, excel in the Australian market, move out into export markets and employ more people. We have been working to establish the circumstances in which people can be self-reliant, the circumstances in which the weak and the poor can be protected and where families are protected when illness strikes with which they cannot be expected to cope from their own resources. We have been working to strenghten the life, the vitality and the vigour of the Australian people. That is what we have been working to do and that is what we have been achieving.

We have a vision of a liberal society of free, independent people with a pride in being able to do things for themselves- an Australia of growing strength, unequalled as a place to bring up a family, unequalled in freedom and unequalled in opportunity; a nation creating our own distinctive culture, our own identity out of the culture and history that so many people have brought to us from so many different lands. This can be achieved only by a government that establishes the circumstances which enable individuals and businesses to work out their own future in their own way, a government which recognises that it should not seek to do for people what they ought properly to do for themselves.

The Australian Labor Party sought to destroy the initiative of Australia. The inflation created by Labor undermined industry and degraded individuals. It weakened the old and harmed the weak more than anyone else in this community. Repairing the damage of Labor was a great task, but we are well along that road. We are doing this by facing up to economic realities and by not allowing expediency to determine our actions.

That is what the package brought down by the Treasurer is all about.

Debate (on motion by Mr John Brown) adjourned.

page 2564

AUSTRALIA-EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY BILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- I am pleased to announce to the House that today a settlement has been reached on bilateral trade negotiations between Australia and the European Economic Community held under the umbrella of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round of multilateral trade negotiations. Honourable members will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) recently concluded trade agreements with the United States of America and Japan and that these were signed last month. The negotiations with the European Economic Community now complete the MTN operations in relation to our three major trading partners. This agreement follows several months of intensive negotiations in Europe and meetings in Canberra over the past two days between the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) and the Vice President of the European Economic Community Commission, Mr F. O. Gundelach.

These discussions have resolved all of the outstanding issues related to a bilateral settlement between Australia and the European Economic Community in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations. The final agreement however will be subject to confirmation by the Australian Government and the EEC Council of Ministers. This agreement will provide Australian exporters of agricultural commodities, especially beef and cheese, and industrial products with improved marketing opportunities in the Community; opportunities of a more favourable nature than we have enjoyed to date. In return, Australia has offered a number of concessions on agricultural and industrial items of interest to the Community. The Minister for Special Trade Representations will shortly be making a statement on the broad outlines of this agreement, and full details will be announced once the package has been endorsed by the Government and the EEC Council of Ministers.

I recall with some satisfaction that it was during my visit to Europe in mid- 1977 that agreement was reached with the President of the EEC Commission, Mr Roy Jenkins, to open high level trade discussions between Australia and the Community. This had followed personal representations I made to Mr Jenkins and the heads of key Community member governments regarding the serious and growing imbalance in the Community’s favour of trading opportunities with Australia, and the effects which Community export subsidies on agricultural products were having on Australia’s trade in markets outside the Community.

Australia’s trading opportunities in the Community, particularly for agricultural products, had diminished dramatically since the formation of the Community. It was the objective of this Government firstly to arrest that decline and secondly to gain assured, increased access for our primary products. Australian ministers, particularly the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Special Trade Representations, in addition to the Deputy Prime Minister and myself, pointed repeatedly to the justice of the Australian case. I believe that as a result of the informed debate which this occasioned there has been increasing acceptance in Europe of the basic correctness of the Australian position.

We did not seek to overthrow the Common Agricultural Policy. It is a corner-stone of the European Economic Community. But we did argue quite successfully that the Common Agricultural Policy could and should be amended to take account of the legitimate trading interests of countries such as Australia. I note as a matter of record that it was this Government that first presented the Australian case in these terms. This is in stark contrast to the ineffective attitude of the Opposition when it was in government. That attitude unfortunately has persisted in equally ineffective Opposition denigration of the now successful efforts of this Government on behalf of Australian producers and the Australian people.

I said earlier that we did not seek to overthrow the basis of the Common Agricultural Policy. As a result our requests were moderate and in quantitative terms the gains may fairly be described as modest in relation to the total world trade in the commodities concerned. But this is the first step forward that we have taken in this area for many, many years. I look forward to further such steps. A significant part of the discussions with Mr Gundelach has been about the on-going discourse, building on what already has been achieved and establishing proper procedures for continuing dialogue on a regular basis with the European Economic Community. I therefore regard what has happened as a beginning and certainly not an end of a process of continuing change to the advantage of Australian producers and, indeed, all Australians. The first stage of our efforts with the European Economic Community has been brought to a successful conclusion and I have agreed with Mr Gundelach this afternoon that the dialogue between Australia and the Community will remain open at the highest level and that problems will continue to be dealt with as and when they arise.

It is significant that Vice President Gundelach, who is also the Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and has been so closely involved in the negotiations with Australia, has come to Australia to see to their finalisation. Mr Gundelach is the most senior Commission representative to have visited Australia. The achievement of a satisfactory outcome to the long and difficult negotiations has been aided by the close working relationship which has developed between the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations and Mr Gundelach. I would also like to pay tribute to the active role played by the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations in working to secure the final result. These are all signs that Australia and the European Economic Community are on the threshold of a new and better trading relationship which I hope will lead also to wider converse on other political and broader international questions. Both sides can, I hope, look forward to a relationship which is marked less by difficulty and confrontation and which builds further upon the undeniable scope for significantly increased trade and economic and political co-operation between the Community and Australia.

Mr Sinclair:

– I suggest that this would be an appropriate time for the House to -

Mr Hayden:

– I wish to respond. I will take as much time as is available between now and 6 p.m., and no more.

Mr Sinclair:

– Please do.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- Any advance is welcome. What the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has outlined represents some advance, it is therefore welcome. But it must be clear that it is an extremely moderate advance, as I will point out later in my comments.

Government members interjecting-

Mr HAYDEN:

– It takes a long time for the truth to travel around the world, but eventually it will reach even members of the Government. It is quite extraordinary that the Prime Minister should make a statement like this to the House and expect it be treated as a matter of substance.

He has told us nothing of the negotiations and nothing of the outcome except in the vaguest terms. It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should have the effrontery to criticise the performance of the previous Government in trade negotiations with the European Economic Community when his own performance has been described by Commission officials as ‘wild buffalo diplomacy*.

The official statistics on trade movements show that after 1968, when Britain joined the European Common Market, the proportion of our total exports going to the Common Market countries slumped markedly. In 1968-69 the proportion of our total exports going to the Common Market was 25.3 per cent. It fell to 23 per cent the next year and had collapsed to 18.8 per cent by 1971-72. All this occurred while a conservative coalition government was in power. Moreover, by 1977-78 when the present Government was in power- these are the latest, official statistics available- the proportion of our exports going to the Common Market countries was less than 14 per cent. The genesis of failure rests with the present coalition parties. The failure was most marked under their administration.

The fact is that the coalition partners have a lot to be responsible for, a lot to answer for. It was their delaying actions which discouraged the United Kingdom from entering the European Common Market at an earlier date. That had two unfortunate consequences for Australia. Firstly, what would have been the very constructive influence of Great Britain and its obvious opposition to the sorts of protectionist barriers eventually erected by the Common Market, was absent. Accordingly, Australia missed out on freer access to those markets. The conservatives in the coalition parties here are responsible for that.

Secondly, wallowing in false security as a result of Britain’s delayed entry into the Common Market, the Australian economy was not encouraged to move towards adjustment as quickly and as early as it should have been to respond to the changed trading circumstances which would eventually arise when Britain went into the Common Market. Therein lies the genesis of so many of the problems which eventually arose. We had plenty of warnings. We were still unprepared because conservative coalition governments refused to face reality.

The present Government has sought to threaten, bully, plead and finally bargain, with results that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is not prepared now even to attempt to quantify. He says that the requests were moderate and the gains modest. That is quite true. Their net value to Australia is $30m; but more of that later. It is a very minor amount of trade. He did not quantify it. He ought to have because, really, the claims fall far short of the actual achievement.

It is equally extraordinary that the Prime Minister should seek to idenitfy his Government so closely with the outlook and attitudes of the European Commission. The Prime Minister has been posing for a year and a half as the champion of the Third World, of the under-developed nations of the world. Today, addressing the National Rural Press Club in Canberra, Commissioner Gundelach offered the view that it was the ‘destiny’ of Australia and Europe to stand together against the demands of the Third World and the oil producers for a greater share of the world’s wealth.

Commissioner Gundelach frankly opposed the Common Market. He also made it clear that the greatest concern of the European Economic Community for the future is in the question of non-tariff barriers to trade. He singled out Australia’s use of selective, restrictive provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as examples of the sort of practices he was criticising. So it is rather difficult to see where the coincidence of outlook between the Australian Government and the European Commission really exists. It was quite obvious that the European Economic Community was bound to enter bilateral negotiations at the conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations. That was what the exercise was about.

To come back to the point I was making earlier, I am reliably informed that what the Prime Minister describes as ‘modest’ gains in trade will probably be about $30m- about onesixth of one per cent of our current international trade. Modest indeed! It is extremely modest. It is almost insignificant. It is very largely the prod.uct of the quite significant restructuring of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community that is now underway. The advantage that Australia has gained is nothing more than the spin-off that flows as a consequence of internal adjustment procedures.

It also seems certain that the Government has made a choice. Some industries will benefit from these negotiations but others will pay the bill. That is what negotiations of this sort are about. It is quite proper to make choices. But we have been given the impression that the gains are all on Australia’s side and nothing has been conceded. When the accounts are in, I believe we will find that this Government has sold out the Australian cheese producers to achieve whatever gains have been made. The Government has negotiated access provisions which the relevant sections of Australian industry are not likely to be in any position to capitalise upon. This is especially so in the present state of the Australian economy and the dismal prospects for it under the latest measures announced by the Government.

Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that the Australian cheese producers will be compensated for facing the full blast of competition from Europe by selling in Europe? Does anyone believe that Australian cheese producers, with the high cost involved in Australian production, sales and distribution, will be in any position at all to compete effectively in the European Common Market countries against the highly subsidised cheese produced there or, indeed, to compete against it successfully in Australia with the reduction of protection against imports of much cheaper highly subsidised European Common Market cheese? Are we supposed to think that negotiators of Mr Gundelach ‘s stature are that stupid? This is window-dressing to cover the year and a half of bluff and bluster that this Prime Minister has engaged in for what, in the end, will be seen as negligible results and the sell out of an important part of Australian primary industry.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 2566

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Ministerial Statement

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Special Trade Representations · Curtin · LP

– by leave- I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that Australia has reached a settlement in its Multilateral Trade Negotiation Bilateral Negotiations with the European Economic Community. Before outlining the main features of the settlement, which is ad referendum and subject to confirmation by the EEC Council of Ministers and the Australian Government, it is appropriate to recall something of the background against which these bilaterals have been held.

During his visit to Europe in mid- 1977, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made it clear to representatives at the highest levels of the EEC in Brussels and the governments of member states, that Australia found intolerable the increasing imbalance of opportunities in favour of the European Community in our bilateral trade, and the impact which EEC export policies were having on international markets for agricultural commodities of prime export interest to Australia. He reached agreement with the President of the Commission of the European communities, Mr Roy Jenkins, to begin highlevel discussions between Australia and the EEC on matters affecting our bilateral trade.

For Australia’s part, these negotiations were opened by my colleague Mr Howard, the then Minister for Special Trade Negotiations, and subsequently were continued by me as Minister for Special Trade Representations. In June 1978, we agreed with the Community to pursue these negotiations, not on a bilateral basis but in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In pursuance of this, I undertook a number of visits to Europe, to put Australia’s case for improved access to Community markets. This required representations in key European Community capitals and involved negotiations with senior Commission officials. Among these, the most notable was Vice President Gundelach, who is also Commissioner for Agriculture. The background to these negotiations bears reporting.

During the mid-1970s, Australia witnessed a severe and continuing reduction in agricultural export opportunities to the EEC following the adoption of increasingly restrictive import measures by the Community. Also in this period, when world agricultural markets were severely depressed, we saw our sales to third countries disrupted by the operation by the EEC of mechanisms aimed at disposing of its surplus agricultural production. The Australian sugar, butter, beef, cheese, wheat and canned fruit industries suffered as a result of either increased EEC protection and/or subsidised export competition. It was against this background that, in mid- 1977, the Government launched an intensive highlevel campaign aimed at securing a better balance of trading opportunities with the EEC. In particular, we sought improved and secure access to EEC markets for a number of our agricultural products and limitations by the Community on the use of massive and open-ended export subsidies.

In agreeing to transfer our negotiations to the MTN however, we made it abundantly clear to the Community that in the event of our representations not being satisfactorily resolved, either bilaterally or in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Australia would be forced to reappraise the totality of its trading and commerical relationships with the EEC. In the negotiations which have progressed over the past ten months Australia has continued to pressure the EEC Commission and individual member states of the EEC for improved market access for our agricultural products.

I have taken this opportunity to recall the background of the Government’s campaign with the EEC, mindful of the fact that at no stage has it had the support of the Opposition. Indeed, the Opposition has persistently knocked our efforts and described the Government’s approach to the EEC in terms which suggested that they saw it as harmful, ill-directed and fruitless.

For confirmation of this, one has to refer only to the address by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) at the launching of the National Export Campaign on 1 9 February this year.

The Opposition ‘s view is clearly not supported by Australian producers or, indeed, by the nature of recent developments. We heard this evening, just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, the Leader of the Opposition again criticising. I ask myself why the Opposition tries, as it does so repeatedly, to make these negotiations harder, including occasions when I am about to have negotiations in Europe. Does the Opposition not want to help Australian farmers?

Mr Hurford:

– Come off it. Try and tell us about something of substance.

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member for Adelaide may say that, but the fact is that many speeches have been made in this House on that subject when I have had no opportunity to reply. I am taking that opportunity now. The fact is that it is antagonism to the country producers gone mad. Whenever an opportunity comes along the Opposition criticises the Government, inviting it to give up the negotiations, it tries to pretend that these EEC markets in commodities can be replaced in the short term by other countries. The Government is negotiating permanent access, particularly in the beef and dairy industries, so that security will exist upon which farmers can plan for the first time. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech said in respect of cheese, that under the scheme Australia would not be able to compete. The deal provides that we can compete. The situation is that in the most recent and crucial stage of the negotiations the Community has produced an offer which the Government regards as providing an acceptable basis for a settlement between Australia and the EEC in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

Although full details must await the confirmation of the agreement by the Australian Cabinet and the Council of Ministers, I will list briefly the main elements covering the beef and dairy sectors. We have been offered a number of concessions which should be of benefit to our trade in beef.

At present, there is a 50,000 tonnes annual General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) commitment for levy-free imports of beef for direct consumption. This quota is to be increased, and although it is allocated on a global basis, Australia should benefit from this increase in proportion to its current share of EEC imports under the quota.

In addition, however, the Community has offered a new and much smaller quota for high quality beef which will be reserved exclusively for Australian exporters.

Agreement has also been reached on an understanding relating to EEC imports of manufacturing grade beef. The Community has agreed to increase imports of beef in this category in proportion to future increases in Community consumption.

In addition, the Community has offered to establish a sixty-day prefixation period for setting levies on imports of manufacturing beef.

This should help to minimise certain of the disadvantages which Community levy practices have placed on distant suppliers such as Australia.

Australian exports of buffalo meat will also benefit under the agreement.

The Community is to implement arrangements which will permit a resumption of this trade in the near future on a levy-free basis at around the previous level of 2,000 tonnes per annum.

Concerning cheese, in return for certain concessions on cheese imports into Australia the EEC has offered to guarantee access for worthwhile tonnage of cheese under favourable conditions.

This is an important concession as it will provide Australian cheese exporters with access opportunities to the Community market which they have not enjoyed since 1972-73. Australian primary industries will also benefit from European Economic Community concessions on some other agricultural items, including offals, meat extracts, dried fruits and certain canned fruits.

In return for the foregoing concessions, Australia had agreed to bind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade duties on a range of products of interest to the Community. As with the bilateral settlements with the United States of America and Japan, the interests of Australian industry have been carefully considered and the Government is convinced that the concessions which have been offered will have no detrimental effect. The Prime Minister said earlier this evening that he regards the settlement which has emerged from the negotiations with the Community as a modest but important outcome. I endorse this view. The EEC has offered guarantees on enlarged market access for Australian agricultural exports which effectively complemented the guarantees which had earlier been obtained by Australia in agreements with the United States and Japan. In total, this can add to the renewed confidence for planning and investment in Australia’s rural industries.

The agreement just concluded does not sweep away all of the problems which affect trading relationships between Australia and the EEC. There is recognition on both sides that some important difficulties remain. One such difficulty relates to the massive and open-ended subsidy support given to agricultural exporters in the EEC. They are able to seriously undermine the activities of efficient Australian producers in placing their products in third markets. In particular I have expressed deep concern at the effect which the lack of export discipline by the EEC is currently having on the world free market for sugar. The EEC has not acceded to the international sugar agreement and its exports are playing a large part in preventing International Sugar Agreement members from realising their market stabilization objectives.

During Mr Gundelach ‘s visit the opportunity has been taken to have a wide ranging exchange of views with Australian Government Ministers on aspects of trade and agricultural policy. These discussions also covered a range of issues of importance to bilateral trade, including the mutual benefits which can accrue from the further development of Australia’s capabilities as a source of vital raw materials for Europe. Other Ministers have also taken advantage of the visit by Vice President Gundelach to provide him with a firsthand impression of how representatives of a middle-ranking trading nation such as Australia view the outlook for international trade in the post-multilateral trade negotiations environment. It has been suggested to Mr Gundelach that, while the MTN has produced some gains in the further reduction of industrial tariffs, the establishment of new or strengthened non-tariff disciplines, further liberalisation of trade in some agricultural products, reform of the GATT rules and the greater recognition to developing countries within the trading framework, the extent of these achievements was seen as modest in relation to the broad objectives of the Tokyo Declaration in 1973.

I emphasise that, whilst the MTN had helped to push back the creeping forces of protectionism, considerable effort would be required by the international community in the years ahead to ensure that these modest gains were held and enlarged upon. The visit by Vice President Gundelach, the most senior representative of the EEC to have visited Australia, has been a most important and beneficial one. It has not only led to the satisfactory conclusion of bilateral MTN negotiations but also it has provided the opportunity for a wide ranging exchange of views on key international economic issues which affected the position of both countries in the world at large. When the agreement I have reached with Vice President Gundelach has been confirmed by the Council of Ministers of the EEC and the Australian Government I shall make a statement in Parliament on the details of the bilateral settlement. In conclusion, I emphasise that close and co-operative trading ties with Europe are essential to Australia’s well-being. This agreement and the current round of discussions represent a significant and welcome strengthening of those ties.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-by leave-Never have so many miles been travelled, so many hours of negotiations been entered into and so many words been used to seek to justify the efforts made for so little purpose than has happened in these negotiations with the European Economic Community. There has been so much huffing and puffing, let us hope that the matter has come to rest in these two extraordinary statements. Not just one but two statements have been made on the subject. Firstly, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement before dinner. Now the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) has made a statement after dinner. These two statements have so little substance to them.

The visit of Mr Gundelach may have justified one statement being made, but there is no reason that I, my colleagues or, I believe, any independent observers of the situation, can see to justify the making of two statements. We understand why the Prime Minister wanted to get into the act: He has had such a bad time this week and, indeed, since Question Time last Thursday. However, he would have been better advised to have spoken on a subject which would have given the country some reason for believing that he was trying to rehabilitate himself rather than to make the sort of speech that he made before dinner. Now we have had to listen to another speech of the same sort made after dinner by the Minister for Special Trade Representations.

Incidently, I take this opportunity of stating that it will be a long time before the Opposition again is so accommodating in relation to statements such as these. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that not only did we give leave for the interruption of debates which were taking place in order that the Prime Minister could make a contribution in the debate on the statement made last Thursday by the Treasurer (Mr Howard), but also we agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders so that in making the statement the Prime Minister would not have a time limit imposed on him. Normal procedures were broken when an opportunity was not presented for a member of the Opposition to answer the provocative speech made by the Prime Minister. Instead, we accommodated the Government once again by allowing the Prime Minister to make at that time a speech on these negotiations. If I had known at the time that we would hear yet another speech on the same subject after dinner, I would not have counselled that the Opposition be so accommodating.

Mr Gundelach ‘s visit is worth recording in the debates of this chamber, as I have indicated earlier. However, one speech would have been enough. But before I move away from the subject of Mr Gundelach ‘s visit, I wish to quote from a transcription of the remarks he made at the National Press Club today. He stated:

It’s even further back than ever that a commissioner for the EEC has put his head in the lion ‘s den.

They were his words. Later he stated:

Too much has gone amiss in particular over the last few years.

He also stated:

In order to put at once what has gone wrong over the last few years and that because we do belong to the same type of a culture . . .

In other words, there is no resiling whatsoever on the part of Mr Gundelach from the recognition that the relationships between Australia and the EEC have reached a very low level. All that has happened in the last few years since the Fraser Government came to power. It is, therefore, very little wonder that the Government should be doing a lot of huffing and puffing at this time in seeking to try to justify these thousands of miles of travel and these thousands of hours spent by Ministers in order to justify that effort. I need to turn back to the Minister’s statement to try to find some substance in it to justify all that effort. In the early stages of this statement it is nothing more than a repeat of details of the travelogue. I repeat that if success were built on miles of travel then we ought to find something in it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Incidentally, the statement contains- before we even get into anything that could be called substance- misinformation about the Opposition’s attitude.

We on this side of the House did not at any time state that some efforts should not be made. We agree that the common agricultural policy has had very dire effects on the trading relationships of this country with the European Economic Community, and we support the fact that something should be done. But the way it has been done has been the cause of criticism on our part. We hoped that Australian ockerism might have been dead, that it should have been shed a long time ago. If ever ockerism was epitomised in national negotiations, we find the evidence of it in the relationships between the Fraser Government and the EEC. No amount of huffing and puffing, whether it is by Prime Ministers before dinner or by Ministers for Special Trade Representations after dinner, will repair the damage that has already been done to this country’s reputation in the way that these negotiations have been carried on.

Let me now try to find some substance in this statement. Let us look at what purports to be the specifics of the Minister’s statement. Firstly, he says that the present levy-free quota of 50,000 tonnes of beef imports into the European Economic Community is to be increased. We are given no clue as to the extent of the increase. Why is the Government so shy about such details? We are told, however, that the increase will be allocated on a global basis and that Australia should benefit. There is no certainty whatsoever in this statement. There is no substance in this section of it and indeed, as I think I will show, there is no substance in any section of it which is worthy of a statement of this sort in the House. There is merely the chance that we might get a share of an unspecified increase in competition with the rest of the world. The Minister will have to pardon us for not becoming too excited about this game. Let me remind him that Australian beef exports to the EEC represent only 1.5 per cent of our total beef exports. We were selling significantly more to Iran before the revolution there than we were selling to the EEC. We sell well over six times as much to the socialist countries of eastern Europe as we sell to the EEC. For the Minister’s benefit- I am glad to see that he is still in the House- I mention that those figures were published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

The second point in the Minister ‘s speech- as I try to get some substance from his statement- is that the Community has offered a new and much smaller quota for high quality beef, a quota to be reserved exclusively for Australian exporters. I certainly hope that Australian exporters will benefit from this offer but, as we all know, the production of high quality beef is not the specialty of the Australian industry. Moreover, the granting of a quota is not the same as the achievement of sales under that quota. If we have beef suitable for this category, it will still have to compete on price with the subsidised local product within the EEC itself. The Minister next informed us that there is an understanding on EEC imports of manufacturing grade beef and that, of course, is the category that really matters to this country. The understanding is that the Community’s imports of beef in this category will increase in proportion to future increases in Community consumption. The Minister does not say so, but one presumes that this is again on a global basis. Whether that point matters, only time will tell. The fact is that the recent trend in the European Economic Community’s consumption of manufacturing grade beef has been downward. There are reasons for this. We all know that the increase in price has meant a cut in consumption. But let us not huff and puff and pretend that there is a lot of benefit in this particular section of the Minister’s statement. According to the latest information from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Community’s consumption of beef and veal actually declined marginally between 1976 and 1977. From the latest information, that reduction has continued.

The next point in the Minister’s statement is an early warning system for EEC action to keep out manufacturing beef. This is useful but it is hardly a mark of expanding trade. The resumption in the near future of levy-free buffalo meat sales at the modest level of about 2,000 tonnes a year is good luck to the Northern Territory buffalo hunters. One almost suspects the EEC of sending up our Prime Minister. We all remember that last year he was accused of wild buffalo diplomacy. This year the European Economic Community offered to let us export wild buffalo meat without imposing a protective levy. All we need now is a buyer for that particular meat. Next comes the Minister’s most distinguished piece of obfuscation in the whole statement that he has given to the House tonight. It deals with cheese. I am sure that all honourable members will recall the lengths to which this Fraser coalition Government has gone in recent times to cut back Australian cheese imports. All these actions were designed to encourage local cheese production, a matter close to the hearts of a good many Ministers with dairy factories in their electorates.

Among them is the Prime Minister himself, the Minister for Industrial Relations. Mr Street, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony and also the Minister for Transport, (Mr Nixon). In fact, it is interesting to go through other seats where cheese factories are located. I notice that the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has five in his electorate; the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) has two; and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) has two. We also might mention the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, (Mr Fife) who has one at Albury. I could go on through the list mentioning the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) as well as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom). In my State the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has two, one at Murray Bridge and one at Mount Gambier. I would like them to stand up in this House and give us their opinions on the so-called achievements that have been reached and the benefits that might result for them out of the negotiations which have taken place. The action which probably caused most resentment- indeed we could call it hostility- among European cheese producers and Australian consumers was the artifice of requiring a lengthy quarantine period. But now, apparently our attitude has changed, or so we learn in this statement. The Minister stated: in return for certain concessions on cheese imports into Australia, the EEC has offered to guarantee access for worthwhile tonnage of cheese under favourable conditions.

So far as this is capable of interpretation at all, that statement means that we will open our market to the European cheese producers who are in great demand and highly competitive on price in Australia. In return, what do we get? The Australian cheese producers will be allowed some limited access to the European market. The expression ‘under favourable conditions’ must be taken to mean that this access will not be levyfree. One must assume from that choice of words that any sales made in Europe by our cheese producers will be subject to levy, but probably at a lower rate than normal. Whether our cheeses have appeal and are price competitively under these circumstances remains exceedingly problematical. We have noted just how competitive the European cheeses are in this country and how much they are in demand.

The Minister went on to mention some unspecified benefits for offal exports, meat extracts, dried fruits and certain canned fruits. In return for all this he said that Australia had agreed to bind duties on a range of industrial products that Europe wants to export to us. He said that the Government is convinced that the concessions offered will have no detrimental result. On the record of this Government there is not much comfort in that statement. Until we know what the concessions actually are, no judgment is possible. I fail to see any practical reason why these details should remain secret. Presumably the offer has been firmly made and the Australian interests likely to be affected surely should have the longest lead time available to prepare for their new situation. Why have we not been given more substance even in this regard in the statement tonight?

The larger consideration from the Government’s point of view is that it does not want considered judgments of what it has been doing. It wants to give a hard sell to the two statements it has made tonight and to bury the other side of the equation- the costs of these so-called benefits which we are receiving. The Government is acting as though all the advantage in these negotiations has come to rest with Australia. This obviously is complete nonsense. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said earlier this evening, the European Economic Community faces a vast annual bill for the support schemes embodied in its Common Agricultural Policy. The bill is 8,000 million currency units, according to Commissioner Gundelach in his public speech today at the National Press Club. The currency unit, as we know, is equivalent to the United States dollar before it went off the gold standard. Forty per cent of that bill is accounted for in dairy products. A modest few hundred million is allocated each year to the inevitable long term restructuring process. We have only to turn to the most recent speech of the Minister for Special Trade Representations. He addressed the Australian Dairy Industry Conference on 1 November 1978. He said:

Between 197S and 1977 the Community doubled its share of world butter exports and increased by about one third its share of cheese and skimmed milk powder. Appropriations for export refunds on milk and milk products in 1977 were a massive 809 million units of account.

The Minister knows what a massive market the EEC has given rise to in that area. To the extent that the restructuring process is making any headway, the Community is allowing a little more flexibility in its negotiations under the umbrella of the multilateral trade negotiations. What the Government is trumpeting tonight amounts to no more than that. We cannot even tell on the information available to us whether it has been able to hold its own on that basis. One suspects very strongly that if the Government had been able to tell us these details it would not have been loath to do so. As I said at the opening of my remarks, the sum total is that there has been a great deal of huffing and puffing but very little of substance. I have drawn attention to anything of substance and said that it requires a lot more detail before we can be satisfied.

page 2572

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ON EXPENDITURE AND TAXATION

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-At last we flushed him out. The real author of last Thursday’s perfidious statement came into the House, not to defend the statement but to do what he normally does, to sermonise and preach to the Australian people. This statement is an indictment of the Australian Government. It is a government of shame and perfidy; a government destined to be judged by historians as a government of gross dishonesty and total deceit, led by a man unfit to follow in the footsteps of most of his illustrious predecessors. He is certainly unfit to follow in the footsteps of recent Labor Prime Ministers such as Curtin, Chifley and Whitlam. Whatever their critics may say about them they are recognised universally as men of impeccable honesty. That is something we cannot say about the present incumbent.

The Fraser Government seized power in 1975 in circumstances which can be charitably described only as being very sinister. It has been in power now for almost four years. All it has managed to do is to achieve a reputation for being grossly dishonest. Thursday’s statement is living proof of this dishonesty. How long is it since the newspapers have harangued a government as strongly as they harangued this Government over last Thursday night’s performance? How long is it since a newspaper of the Fairfax stable produced headlines such as this: ‘Lies, Lies, Lies! Tax levy stays, health aid goes’. That is a fair indictment of the sort of government which is presently occupying the Treasury benches. The election promises of 1975 are promises that we should remember. There should be something sacrosanct about election promises. Every government in the course of its stay in power will make statements which it sometimes has to repudiate but I am sure that the Australian people think that election promises require reverence. Implicit in them is some degree of mandate for the Government’s program for the next three years. The Australian public normally requires that those promises be honoured. I refer to some of those promises in detail. The first concerns employment. The Government stated:

Only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work.

Unemployment will fall from February and keep falling.

Mr Wallis:

– What a joke.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-What a joke. The people of Australia have deeply etched in their hearts and minds the record of this Government when it comes to employment or rather unemployment. One quarter of a million people have fallen into the unemployment category since this Government seized power. How can the Government justify that stated promise? With regard to inflation the Government said:

Inflation at an annual rate of S per cent is within our reach by mid- 1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this Government.

There is another joke. Inflation is now 8 per cent and heading towards 10 per cent. With regard to health insurance the Government said:

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

There is a sick joke, if I may use the pun. The Government totally decimated and ultimately buried Medibank. With regard to wage indexation the coalition Government said that:

It will support wage indexation . . . Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

That statement was made on 27 November 1975. The following January the Fraser Government opposed the full flow-on of the consumer price index rise for the previous six months, seeking to limit wage increases to half indexation. Now we know what it will do with wage indexation That was fully spelt out last Thursday night. With regard to deficits the Government said:

We have brought government spending under control .. . We have halved Labor’s $4,500m deficit.

The total deficits of the Whitlam Government in its three years of operation have been exceeded by this Government quite easily in two years. Where is the veracity in this statement? In relation to interest rates the Government said:

Interest rates have begun to fall- and they will keep on falling.

The only things falling in Australia are living standards and the expectations of the Australian people. Fancy the Government having the gall to make the promises it made to the Australian pensioners. It said:

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

I should not be surprised that there are very few government supporters in the chamber. They were coerced into the House to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) speak. They are not here now. They hang their heads in shame. The more responsible, compassionate and sensitive of them are most embarrassed, as was indicated by the back bench revolt with regard to the promise to index pensions. Of course the Government has indexed pensions. It has indexed them right out of operation. In relation to the means test the Government said:

We stand by our commitment to abolish the means test on pensions.

In last year’s Budget the Government announced that Australia’s pensioners over 70 years of age would be subject to an income test in order to qualify for pension increases. No doubt members opposite as well as those on this side of the House have had their offices besieged by pensioners over 70 years of age since this perfidious move was taken. Under the Labor Government the means test for people over 70 years of age was removed. The present Government said that it would bring it down to apply to those aged 65 but what it has done has been to restore it to apply to people over 70 years of age. So all those people who have battled through life to maintain some sort of dignity and who have any sort of income at all from superannuation, investment or whatever now find themselves deprived of pensioner medical benefit entitlements, postal benefits, transport benefits and local government rate benefits. That is the record of this Government in regard to pensions and the pensioners of Australia know it. It is etched so deeply into the hearts and minds of pensioners and they will not forget it. The Combined Pensioners Association of New South Wales has certainly made its views clear. When honourable members opposite go to an election, as they will do shortly in the division of Grayndler, they will find the pensioners of that area letting them know quite clearly what they think of the Government’s record.

Turning to legal aid- it is interesting to see the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) sitting at the table because he is a legal man- the statement reads:

We shall ensure that no person is denied legal aid because of a lack of means.

Despite small changes in eligibility requirements last October, it is still possible for pensioners and others living below the poverty Une not to meet the stringent requirements for legal aid.

In other words, the bulk of the Australian people who need help with legal aid are being denied that help. I have before me a couple of the Prime Minister’s more magnificent statements. At the time of the impasse in the Senate in 1 975 he said:

At this stage, it’s our intention to allow the Budget to pass through the Senate.

That was on 21 August 1975. Thirty-six days later the Liberal and National Country parties used their majority in the Senate to block that Budget. Here is another nice one:

I think Bill Snedden is the leader. I support him completely.

We all know what happened to Bill Snedden when he turned his back. He still has the scars. He has three shoulder blades.

Mr Graham:

– He is not doing too badly. He has a knighthood and a nice suite.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He has a knighthood! I do not know whether that is any great recommendation. I recall to mind the election of 1977 and the way in which the Government appealed to the basest of all human failingsgreed. It appealed to the greed of the Australian people and, unfortunately, a certain percentage of them- too high in fact- fell for this appeal. We can all remember the advertisements in the newspapers and on television depicting a hand clutching a handful of dollars. It was an appeal to base greed. I do not suppose that is unusual when the favourite author of the Prime Minister is Ayn Rand, who symbolises the cult of selfishness. The Government appealed to the selfishness of Australians and people fell for it. We all remember the telephone numbers that the Government told the people they could ring to find out what their tax cuts were. It was a matter of making a call and saying: ‘I am a married man with four children. How much extra will I get in my pocket? Oh, X dollars. How lovely! It is a wonderful government. I will vote for it’. It did not take long for the people to find out the hollowness of that promise.

The Labor Party’s alternative policy in that election was an alternative that asked the people to forgo their tax cuts in order to provide employment opportunities for others in the community who were not as well off. Unfortunately, the Australian people were seduced by the promises that were made by the Government and failed to respond to the Labor Party’s appeals. But when the next election comes along I am sure that that will not be the case. Unfortunately, these glib promises, these lies of convenience, these promises to confuse and seduce the Australian public have worked. But the sad thing was that the Prime Minister knew when he made them that they were incapable of implementation. He is a mendacious man who is cynically pursuing a dishonest course. It is the old Goebbels propaganda policy of ‘tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it’. It is the big lie. The Fraser Government, in opposition, brainwashed the Australian people into believing that inflation and unemployment, which were too high in the Labor Party’s years in office, were not in fact a world-wide phenomenon but were peculiar to Australia. The Fraser Opposition of that time kept making the point that they were only an Australian disease and that they did not affect the rest of the world. It is quite significant to note that in the last few days, in an attempt to explain away the increases in inflation and unemployment at the moment, we have been told that they affect the world. Of course they affect Australia because it is a trading partner with other world powers in world affairs. I am pleased that the Government has come clean about that. I have spoken about the Prime Minister’s favourite author. One of my favourite authors is Mark Twain. I would like to quote what he said about the national lie. I think it is very appropriate. He said:

The silent colossal national lie that is the support and confederate of all the tyrannies, shams, inequalities and unfairness that afflict the people. That is the one to throw bricks and sermons at.

We throw bricks at this Government because we think it is a dishonest one. Meanwhile the Prime Minister sermonises. Our tourist Prime Minister calls for austerity from the Australian people while we, the taxpayers, are supplying him with incredible luxury. He promised twice-yearly indexation for age pensions. The cost of that would have been $30m. The Government abolished twice-yearly indexation. It is interesting to see what is being done with the $30m. The Government has provided the Prime Minister with two flying hotels- two luxury aircraft. If there were any honesty or fairness about the situation the Government would name those two aeroplanes ‘Pensioner I’ and ‘Pensioner II’ because they have been supplied out of the pockets of the Australian pensioners.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is a lie.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is not a lie at all, it is the absolute truth. Consider the trappings of splendour that are going into those aircraft. Chefs are being specially trained to provide the Prime Minister with the luxury meals to which he is accustomed. The pensioners whom he has deprived of any sort of decency could waste away in their lonely garrets for all he cares. How can the Government hope to call on the Australian people for austerity when it behaves in that way? It is all very well for the Prime Minister to sermonise about austerity. As he wants to sermonise, let me quote a little from the Bible. I refer to Paul, chapter 3, verse 6 and verse 7, which reads:

If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound who shall prepare for the battle?

Of course who would prepare for the battle with a trumpet call that comes from this Prime Minister? It would be shaky and tremulous, not full of vibrato. It would engender in the Australian people anything except confidence. We now have the sorry situation in which the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has come clean at last and admits that unemployment will rise and inflation will rise. I would like to know what has been happening between November 1977 and May 1979 to bring about this position. Is any explanation forthcoming as to why the Government’s policies have not worked? Honourable members opposite knew quite well that when the election was on in 1 977 the future for Australia was that inflation would continue to grow and unemployment would continue to expand. That is exactly why the Government got a compromising GovernorGeneral to grant it an early election. As Senator James McClelland once said in the Senate: ‘We can at least leave him to the barmen of Paris’. That Governor-General will not worry us any more. Let us hope that his successor is a much more honest and decent man, as I am sure he is. I would like to have gone into the subject of the Government’s overseas borrowings but time is against me. I would like to put something to the Australian public so that they will know what sort of government they have. This Government was going to restore economic viability and decency to Australia. When the Labour Government left office in November 1975 our national debt stood at $88 per head. That was the level of the national debt and that had been the level for about 20 years. I would like the public to know that now, for the first time in many years, our overseas borrowings exceed our national reserves. In fact, we are bankrupt. Every man, woman and child in Australia is now in hoek to overseas bankers to the extent of $325 per head. Those men listening at home to this speech who have a wife and four kids are up for six times $325, which is $1,950. 1 say to them. ‘If an overseas banker comes knocking on your door tomorrow and says, ‘One thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars please ‘, you may have to hand over your kids because you will not have the money’. That is the sort of situation in which this Government has the Australian people. When the Prime Minister came into this place this afternoon he was unable in any way to defend the policies or the lack of policies that his Government has pursued. He had the gall to stand in this place and sermonise to us about his vision for an Australian people, leading the people into the future. The only place he is leading us is into unix:. ‘certainty and despair. The Australian public will show him that when he goes to the polls in the Grayndler by-election in a couple of weeks.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) set out the Government’s case as to why the Government should support the corporate sector. In my contribution, I intend to set out the reasons why we should not support the corporate sector- the wealthy few- at the cost of the many. Last night the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced the latest set of cuts in public sector expenditure and the latest set of increased taxation burdens on the majority of the working people. He said.

The corporate sector is having a welcome return to confidence in Australia ‘s long term economic potential.

Let us be very clear what that means and let us understand why the Treasurer has announced the imposition of further burdens on the majority of the Australian people. In 1975-76, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd declared a profit of $63.8m. By 1977-78 that profit had increased to $84.6m. Comalco Ltd increased its profit of $26.3m in 1975-76 to $45. lm in 1977-78. ICI Australia Ltd increased its profit of $2 1.5m in 1975-76 to $48.5m in 1977-78. So now we know where the real profits are going.

This list could be extended, but there can be no doubt that under this Government there has been an enormous transfer of wealth to the corporate sector. The fact is that the corporate sector is doing well, and I base my assertion on the profits that the various companies have chosen to declare. My assertion is not based on the real profits that they made internationally. It is the big corporations that are making excessive profits in this country. About 200,000 companies operating in Australia make out a taxation return each year yet fewer than 400 companies- less than one-fifth of one per cent of all companiesshare more than 50 per cent of all company profits. Those who benefit from these profits are not the majority of the Australian people whose resources are exploited or the workers who produce the goods and services. In 1960, 5 per cent of all shareholders in Australia’s largest public companies held 55 per cent of all shares. By 1974, only 3.5 per cent of shareholders controlled 54 per cent of ordinary shares. Within the last few years, we have seen an even further contraction of that percentage. This has given rise to the situation whereby the wealthiest 10 per cent of the population owns almost 60 per cent of the total wealth of Australia. It is a very small but a very wealthy elite which is profiting from this situation while the majority are the ones paying the real costs. Ninety-two per cent of dividend income from company profits goes to only 10 per cent of the Australian population.

The Department of the Treasury has estimated that the current amount of tax avoidance amongst this group totals almost $3,000m a year. In 1977-78, $1.1 billion of company profits was sent by firms operating in Australia to their overseas parent companies. I repeat: In one year alone $l,100m in company profits went out of this country to parent companies overseas. This has contributed to the increasing balance of payments difficulties and the crisis that has arisen with regard to the deficit in the balance of the current account. The situation is worsening every year. That is the crisis that this Government has to face. It is the real question with which we have to deal, but with which this Government is not dealing. This Government, through its present policies is exacerbating the situation. Within Australia in 1969-70 companies paid 37 per cent of their gross profits in tax. But last year they paid only 30 per cent. Company taxes have in fact declined as a proportion of total tax paid from 16.6 per cent in 1970-71 to 1 1.7 per cent in 1976-77.

If we look back even further, we see that in 1968-69 company tax made up 29.5 per cent of total income tax receipts. But by 1978-79, company tax made up only 1 9.8 per cent of total income tax receipts. In 1 977-78 those companies were handed back, through various concessions given by this Government, a full one-third of their tax pay-out. Direct assistance to companies by way of tax concessions rose from $2 80m in 1974 to over $900m in 1978. Over the same period, company tax paid increased by only 45 per cent while personal income tax increased by more than 72 per cent. Workers contributing to the pay-as-you-earn taxation system contributed 41 per cent of the tax revenue collected in 1 975-76. They now contribute 45 per cent.

At the same time as this Government has given massive handouts to companies in the form of industry assistance totalling around $5,000m, it has reduced savagely social welfare spending in the last three Budgets. At the same time as these transfers of public funds to private companies have been made, the big international corporations overseas have been making bigger profits but paying less tax. The 20 largest industrial companies in Great Britain made $6,9 17m in 1977 but paid only $232m or 3.3 per cent in tax. Twelve of them paid no tax at all. The biggest profit maker, British Petroleum, paid no tax and neither did Rio Tinto Zinc which owns 76 per cent of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia.

What does this mean? What does the Treasurer’s callous mini-Budget mean? It means that this Government is so willing to boost the profits of the corporate sector that it is prepared to impose huge burdens on the Australian people. It is prepared to let these big profit makers reduce their tax payments and send large sums of money out of the country. It is prepared to cut back ruthlessly on social welfare spending such as health, education, housing and protection of the environment, to make room for greater handouts to the corporate sector. It is prepared to ruin the national economy for the sake of foreign corporations, because the Fraser Government in its own mind is really committed to this minority group. The Government believes that the corporate sector will be the salvation of this country. That is this Government’s belief because it believes in sectional leaders and it represents the corporate sector. That is this Government’s mentality. The Fraser Government now faces a situation whereby its deficit forecasts have blown out, not because it has tried to provide services to the Australian people- in fact it has not; it has cut back on them- but because it has been redistributing public funds, and funds that do not exist, to serve private profit.

I warn the Government that it has moved too quickly to transfer funds to the corporate sector. As a result it has lost control of the economy. It has also lost control of its Budget deficit. The Government has now been forced to pull back some of those incentives to private industry such as the stock valuation adjustment allowance because it cannot afford to keep up its massive handouts to the private sector. Therefore it has decided to squeeze the Australian people even more by imposing higher tax burdens on them. Of course, in this mini-Budget we again saw an increase in taxation. We again saw an increase in taxes on health. We saw a further burden being imposed with regard to housing. We saw real wages being reduced. We saw the cutting back even further of social welfare spending. I have mentioned just a few of these cut-backs, but they do have extremely wide implications. To give further support to my arguments, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a set of tables prepared by the Industries Assistance Commission showing the kinds of concessions and subsidies given to these private companies.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. Source: Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government, Report of the Task Force appointed by the Prime Minister, the Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P. June 1 973.
  2. Source: Australian Post Office, Financial Statistical Bulletin, 1971-72.
  3. The Government decided to discontinue the Petroleum Products Prices Stabilisation Scheme from 1 August 1974. The amount shown for 1974-75 represents final payments on outstanding claims. An amendment to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 has re-established this subsidy.
  4. The Petroleum Search Subsidy Scheme expired on 30 June 1974. The amounts shown for 1974-75 and 1975-76 represent payments made for approved exploration programs completed before the expiry date.
  5. Total of ‘Developmental’ and ‘Essential’ rural services. Subsidies for ‘Essential’ rural services ceased on 30 June 1974 and ‘Developmental’ service subsidies were phased out by 30 June 1977.
    1. Expenditure on the provision of coastal navigation services less revenue obtained from light dues.
  6. Commission estimate of interest forgone based on rates for government long term bonds.
  7. Following proposals of the 1973-74 Budget, these assistance measures were withdrawn or reduced.
  8. The Australia Council’s programs of support for the arts are included in this item. The Council operates with the co-operation of boards responsible for theatre, music, literature, aboriginal arts, crafts and visual arts. Assistance is mainly in the form of direct grants to offset costs.
  9. Special concessions for primary producers included in these figures were withdrawn during 1 973-74. Special concessions for mining companies were reduced in the 1 974-75 Budget. Double depreciation applied to certain plant and equipment installed in the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1976. Normal depreciation applies in respect of plant first used or installed after 30 June 1976. The large increase in 1977-78 expenditure results primarily from the introduction of the trading stock valuation adjustments provisions.
  10. The investment allowance, a special deduction equal to 20 per cent of the cost of certain plant, was withdrawn in respect of expenditure on or after 22 August 1973 unless incurred under a contract entered into before that date. The new investment allowance which applies to plant purchased on or after 1 January 1 976 is a deduction generally equal to 40 per cent of the cost of the new plant and applies to a wider range of plant, including leased plant. In the period 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1985, a 20 per cent investment allowance applies.
  11. Moneys paid on shares in mining companies after 7 May 1973 are not deductible.
  12. Concessional rates apply to some overdrafts, term loans, farm development and Commonwealth Development Bank loans.
  13. Training of workers includes trade union and apprenticeship training, NEAT and the Education Program for Unemployed Youth.
  14. Includes concessional advances to the States for War Service Land Settlement (less repayments) and grants to the States for soil conservation.
  15. Source: Report of the Auditor-General upon the Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure and upon other Accounts, 1972-73 to 1976-77.
  16. Source: Department of the Treasury, Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2, 1973-74 to 1977-78.
  17. Includes contributions to research in the meat, poultry, chicken meat, dried fruits, dairy, wheat, tobacco, pig, barley, wine, fishing and wool industries. 24 The charge of 0.6 cents per lb on all beef exports introduced in 1973-74 to recoup the Commonwealth’s expenditure incurred in this campaign was suspended from 1

March 1976. From 1 July 1976 recoupment is by way of a livestock slaughter levy.

  1. Source: Reserve Bank of Australia, Annual Report, various years.
  2. Incorporated in the Export Development Grants Scheme from 30 June 1 974.
  3. Commission estimate of interest forgone, based on the difference between government long term bond rates and Reserve Bank rates. Source: Reserve Bank of Australia, Statistical Bulletin, various years.
  4. Australia Post estimate of losses incurred within the Registered Publications service, which reflect the extent of the subsidy to publishers of registered newspapers and periodicals.
  5. This item is advances net of repayments and is a form of interest-free loan- the true cost is the interest forgone.
  6. Covers the activities of the Australian Film Commission in encouraging the making, promotion, distribution and exhibition of Australian films (including television programs).
  7. 1 . For technical reasons, the net subsidy equivalent of the assistance afforded the manufacturing sector is not the sum of the net subsidy equivalents of the assistance provided to individual industries in the sector. However, an indication of the significance of tariff assistance for manufacturing industries, is that in 1975-76 the basic metal products industries received a net subsidy equivalent of $258m and chemical, petroleum and coal products $24 1 m.
  8. In general, the necessary data for the calculation of assistance due to quantitative restrictions are not available. However data on quantitative restrictions in the manufacturing sector is provided in Table 2.1.11 and Appendix 2.2.
  9. The policy of giving preference in Government purchases to Australian manufacturers has resulted in an estimated additional cost to the Government in excess of $3.3m over the period October 1 976 to June 1 978.
  10. Following proposals of the 1975-76 Budget, these assistance measures were reduced.
  11. Department of the Treasury, Export Incentive Grants and Payroll Tax Export Incentive Rebates, press releases.
  12. The sales tax exemptions are estimated as 15 per cent of value of sales. Source: ABS, Manufacturing Commodities: Principal Articles Produced, various years.
  13. This item includes expenditure on the Trade Commissioner Service, matching grants to primary product marketing boards and trade publicity fairs, displays and trade promotion visits.
  14. Discontinued from the end of 1973.
  15. Includes the scheme of capital grants for the development of tourist attractions, which has now been terminated.
  16. The extent of assistance is the differences between domestic sales revenue valued at home consumption prices and export parity.
  17. Source: Department of the Treasury, Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities, 1 973-74 to 1977-78.
  18. Assistance is made available partly as grants and partly as loans; figure represents grants only. The Dairy Adjustment Program replaced and broadened the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme. The program was due to expire on 30 June 1 976, but was extended to 3 1 December 1 976. The Rural Adjustment Scheme now replaces the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, Dairy Adjustment Program and the program of Assistance to the Beef Industry all of which were terminated on 3 1 December 1976.
  19. A Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme was introduced in 1973-74. Assistance was available in the form of closure compensation payments and consultancy grants, and special assistance was also available for firms in nonmetropolitan areas. Structural adjustment assistance to industries and individuals is outlined in Table 2.1.9.
  20. In 1976-77, gold mining profits were exempted from taxation. In previous years, the following items were also exempted from taxation: 20 per cent of profits from certain prescribed minerals; dividends paid out of profits from sales of petroleum; and income from sale of mining rights.
  21. Estimates obtained from the Commissioner of Taxation.
Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The assistance set out in these tables is not the whole story. We have to add the incentives at the State level, which are described in a table prepared by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. That is not the whole story. We should add to it the benefits given to private companies by the provision of infrastructure costs, by transport services, by electricity subsidies, by subsidies on the sewerage schemes, by research and development carried out by the CSIRO and in our universities, and the training of workers in the education system. These are all, in part, subsidies made directly by Government to the corporate sector. The total cost of subsidies of private profit at public expense are massive. The public is paying not only through the transfer of public funds taken from workers and redistributed by the Government and the finance institutions, it is also paying through cutbacks in the provision of social services and the availability of jobs. Since 1975-76 the social wage has been cut by over $5,000m. This has been the cost of transfer from the workers, the great mass of people of Australia, across to the corporate sector, which represents a very small minority of our companies and a very small minority of our population.

There are now 437,000 people officially classified as unemployed. According to the Bureau of Statistics, there are another 373,000 discouraged workers, unemployed but not registered. That is a total of something like 800,000 people in this country who are unemployed. The sad thing about it is that that is not the end of it. The unemployment situation in this country will continue to worsen. The whole sad situation is that more and more lives are going to be threatened, more and more young lives are going to be destroyed completely by the actions of this Government. That is the huge social cost in terms of hardship caused to those people. It is a massive economic cost in terms of taxation revenue forgone, unemployment benefit outlays and reduced spending powers. Imagine the spending power and the stimulus that would be given to the economy if we had those 800,000 people in employment. What a healthy economy we would have. But the social costs are even higher in the long term. The kind of economy that the corporations want to see in Australia, an economy based on the export of processed resources and a closer real and financial integration into the world capitalist economy, will demand even higher public subsidies and cause even greater problems in society in terms of inequitable distribution of wealth, the destruction of the physical environment, air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, the degradation of a person’s work, and the further loss of jobs in this country.

The economic problems that we are now experiencing are only the first signs of the kinds of problems we will see as a result of the structural adjustment policy pursued by this Government in favour of the corporate sector. This miniBudget and the whole of the Government’s process has been to transfer wealth away from the many to this selfish sector. I believe that it is about time that more and more small farmers and small businesses really understood that this is a Government that respresents big businessthe corporate sector. It really does not represent Australia ‘s interests at all.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The story of Labor’s three-year rule makes a sobering case study of what can happen to such an economically advantaged country as Australia when high spending proponents of big government are voted into power. Between 1972 and 1975 the Australian people were treated to economic mismanagement the like of which has never been seen before in this country. The results of this mismanagement are on record. All the huffing and puffing of recent days by the Opposition has been so much meaningless political posturing. The simple fact is that, in government, too many Labor Ministers proved to be poor managers and administrators. Perhaps because of inexperience and a measure of naivete, they failed to work together as an efficient management team, either with one another or with the full time professionals who make up the Australian Public Service. The pursuit by Labor Ministers of individual goals and the failure to think through the economic consequences of their actions imposed intolerable strains on resource allocation in this country.

Labor’s approach to management of the country’s affairs provides an object lesson in how not to do it. Much of Labor’s problems and troubles in government were caused by the inability of Ministers to grasp economic realities. For the last 24 hours, the Australian people have listened to an Opposition which still promotes policies which contributed to the serious economic downturn in this nation. The Labor Party, as expressed through their spokesmen during this debate, are once again asking the Australian people ‘to endure the unendurable’. The Australian people showed decisively in 1975 and once again in 1 977 that they were not prepared in any circumstances to endure the economic hardships forced progressively upon them during 1973, 1974 and 1975. For three years this Government has fought hard to rectify the economic sabotage wreaked upon the nation by a party totally lacking in any form of economic responsibility. The task has not been an easy one. The energies of this Government have been totally directed towards reducing inflation and facilitating a revival in private sector activity. Having just listened to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), it is quite obvious that he does not like private enterprise, that he does not like profits, that he is completely immersed in socialist philosophies.

Inherent in the Government’s economic policies has been our unremitting objective to control Government expenditure. This critical component of our economic policies falls directly within my portfolio responsibilities, and let no one here underestimate the Government’s determination to continue exercising a tight control over this area of economic management. This commitment, this promise, if you like, to the Australian people, enunciated first in 1975 and reaffirmed in 1977, is being honoured. The first point to be emphasised is that the statement made on Thursday night by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) did not pretend to be a full catalogue of our expenditure decisions for 1979-80. Those decisions will be set out in the Budget. Rather, the Treasurer’s statement illustrated, for a number of important programs, the kinds of decisions the Government has had to take in its continuing battle to check the growth in its own spending, and hence in taxation and in the deficit.

Decisions were announced to provide time for the necessary adjustments in the spending plans of individuals and of States and departments; To maximise savings from the measures in 1979-80; and, importantly, to counter wild and uninformed speculation about the Government’s intentions- speculation which is often encouraged by unscrupulous people bent upon undermining confidence in the economy and causing needless worry and anxiety to those least able to cope with it. There is no denying the vital contribution which our policies of sustained restraint on expenditures have made to the restoration, after 3 years of economic hooliganism under our predecessors, of responsible and commonsense economic policies. It is clear that the Government, unlike its predecessors, is not a government of big spenders. The record demonstrates this conclusively.

In the first Labor Budget- 1973-74-outlays grew by 20 per cent. At that time this was the largest increase in the post-war period. But in the following year the Labor Government trumped that figure and outlays increased by 46 per cent. Even the big spending Labor Government realised that increases of this magnitude were too much for the economy to digest and in its last Budget it tried, miserably and dismally to cut back. In the event, outlays grew in 1975-76 by 23 per cent- half the rate of the year before. This occurred only after a coalition government which came into office at the end of 1975 had undertaken a major expenditure review.

During Labor’s three years Budget outlays overall more than doubled as did taxation. Personal income tax increased by about 90 per cent. It was a dismal record of profligate spending. The huge and unprecedented spending binge of the Labor Government created economic headaches of an equally massive magnitude. There is no question that the excessive increases in Budget outlays under Labor, with its accompanying large deficits and burgeoning money supply, were a major contributing factor in the serious inflationary problems with which this country and this Government has had to grapple over the past three and a half years. It is just as clear that a key element in any concerted attempt to overcome these problems must be firm restraint upon the Government’s own spending. As for our record, the figures speak for themselves.

Mr Cohen:

– My word they do- a God Almighty mess.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member should listen to the figures. They provide a good comparison with the figures I mentioned a few moments ago. Budget outlays increased by only 10 per cent in 1976-77 and 11 per cent in 1977-78. The increase in the current year is expected to be only %Vi per cent, which will be the smallest increase in a decade.

It is too early to be specific about what the increase in Budget outlays should be for next year. In broad terms, however, our objective will be to achieve an overall rate of increase next year no greater than that in prospect for 1978-79. The achievement of this objective represents a task of substantial magnitude, particularly given the momentum for increased expenditures which is built into modern Budgets. No government can ever begin to meet all the requests for assistance that are laid at its feet and still expect to bring down a fiscally responsible Budget.

The forward estimates of expenditure for 1979-80, which were collected a few months ago, point to a prospective total increase in Budget outlays next year of about 13 per cent. This increase was almost entirely in respect of continuing or ongoing programs and activities. Taken together with existing policy estimates of receipts, it implied, as the Treasurer indicated, a deficit of about $4,600m. Clearly, early and decisive action to cut back projected expenditure was called for if we were not to slip back into the morass of burgeoning deficits and money supply and the rampant inflation of the Labor years. Arriving at the right prescription, however, is the easy part of the process. To identify the cutbacks is much more difficult. To this end, we embarked upon a careful and painstaking examination of our major expenditure proposals. The decisions announced by the Treasurer are the first products of that continuing process.

These decisions will not always be popular. Programs with intrinsic merit are having to be scrutinised carefully and commitments to some individual programs are having to be modified to satisfy commitments to responsible economic management and the restoration of sustainable economic growth. At the same time we are concerned to see that the most needy and vulnerable groups in our community are protected. The decisions announced by the Treasurer last Thursday testify to our concern for these various considerations.

Let me give some examples. Good seasons and large increases in rural incomes have provided an opportunity to scale down support for primary producers in 1979-80 but we have not gone and will not go so far as to threaten the longer term viability of the industry. Declining school enrolments and stabilising enrolments in universities and colleges of advanced education also provide an opportunity to moderate the flow of resources into those areas. Evidence of inefficiency in hospital operation and administration clearly calls for urgent action to eliminate such inefficiency. Hospital charges could not continue to be held constant while hospital operating costs go on rising sharply. The Government cannot afford to continue to offer, out of taxpayers’ funds, home savings grants for the purchase of expensive homes by those who can finance home ownership from their own resources.

So far as action to protect the needy is concerned, let me remind the House that standard ward hospital accommodation will remain free for uninsured patients. Existing generous medical benefits covering arrangements for pensioners and the socially disadvantaged will be maintained. There is an assurance that social security pensions and benefits and repatriation payments will be maintained. The point to be emphasised again is that whilst the decisions on outlays announced by the Treasurer on Thursday reduced prospective outlays for 1979-80 by some $400m, and thereby contributed to the framing of a responsible Budget in August, there can be no let-up in our resolve to contain government spending.

The present Government has achieved a reputation for responsibility. The Labor Opposition knows only too well that when it was in government the deficit as a percentage of the gross national product reached as high as 5 per cent. Today it is about 3Vi per cent, and we are committed to a further reduction. In relation to taxation, the rapacious taxation laws that were operative under the Hayden tax scale meant a marginal rate of about 45c in the dollar for people in the $10,000 to $11,000 income bracket. Today, even with the surcharge operating, the marginal rate paid on incomes up to $16,000 is more than 10c in the dollar less than that paid under Labor. There has been a substantial reduction in personal income tax.

Good signs are emerging in the economy. Increased investment and production, rising commodity prices and improving farm incomes will all benefit the Australian community. The Government is not prepared to allow any reemergence of inflationary trends to put at risk in any way the gains that have been made. The Government’s prime objective is to continue the downward thrust on the rate of inflation, and a critical element in that fight is the reduction in the growth of government expenditure. The Treasurer’s statement of last Thursday night indicated our commitment to that objective. It will be reflected again in the 1979-80 Budget.

Recovery is on the way. There is growing confidence and optimism in the community. I ask honourable members to compare this with the despair of just Vh years ago. The gains have been hard won; they will not be put at risk. Th z Government parties are united behind the Government’s policies. The Labor Party had its chance and mucked it up. It wants to continue those same policies now. It has learned nothing from its period in government. The criticism of honourable members opposite is entirely destructive; they offer nothing constructive. Condemned in government, they remain condemned in Opposition. This Government has proved to be responsible and successful, and will prove to be even more so in the years ahead.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

– Already many honourable members of the Opposition have attacked this Government’s broad economic drift. I say drift because I could hardly call it economic direction as the Government, judging from the mini-Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) last Thursday night, not only has no direction but also no comprehension of the problem, no credibility in the electorate, no consistency in its policies, no charity and last but by no means least, no sincerity. Certainly, with so many gaping holes in its economic strategy my colleagues on this side will have no problem in totally undermining whatever misguided loyalty there is left in the sinking ship opposite. In the time available to me tonight I wish to address myself to the lack of credibility and sensitivity demonstrated by the Treasurer in the areas of health, transport, education and housing.

Certainly those of us who have considered the verdict of the media over the weekend must reach the firm conclusions that, despite the verbal dexterity of the Treasurer and his Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), they have failed miserably in pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate and the people of Australia. What stands out from the millions of words that seem to have been written about last Thursday night’s feeble attempt is that the community is most alarmed at the way this present Liberal-National Country Party Government is eroding health benefits. A clear consequence of the decision not to contribute towards the cost of the first $20 of medical service is that more and more people will ignore early symptoms of potentially fatal illnesses when treatment may be comparatively cheap. The medical standards of the nation must suffer. The reduction of over $200m in the contribution to hospitals will threaten the jobs of approximately 20,000 employees. The threats to hospital services were clear enough from the speech made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who said, in an unguarded moment, that if it meant that some hospitals had to be shut down, then so be it. In reply, I say to the honourable member for Petrie that if, as a result of that sort of thinking, three-quarters of the Government back benchers are tossed out at the next election, the honourable member for Petrie included, then so be it. Let the Government members fall where they may.

The Treasurer’s health decisions will increase medical insurance costs for those still covered and will generally increase the already tenuous consumer price index. The amount of that increase is generally put at 1.5 per cent. That cannot be disputed. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has already said, if the Government had not decided to subsidise medical costs, the consumer price index would have ballooned to 3.8 per cent for the December quarter, achieving an annual rate of 15.2 per cent. The fact that the Government has now withdrawn this subsidy, along with the increases in charges for people wishing to have doctors of their choice and private hospital beds, will increase costs for most people. Which people will be hurt the most? The Minister for Health in 1976 said:

The only fair and equitable method is that the user pays in accordance with his ability to pay.

Uninsured low income earners who are not classified by this Government in that category of socially disadvantaged, to which the Treasurer referred last Thursday, will pay the full fee for general practitioner consultations. The Government has no regard for whether such a group has the means to pay. It is estimated that one-quarter of families near or below the poverty line are now paying for medical and hospital cover. As a result of the infamous Autumn Budget they will be required to pay approximately $10 a week. That amounts to $520 a year for basic cover. The Government has no regard for the poor’s ability to pay. It is no good to say that people should try to be bulk billed. Everyone, most of all the low income earners or those on social security other than age pensioners, know the situation is a farce. Apart from the degradation of asking a doctor for direct or bulk billing, it is no simple matter to find general practitioners who will bulk bill. To that end, the Government should initiate talks with the Australian Medical Association to supply either to the public or to social workers a list of doctors willing to bulk bill. The Government ‘s intentions are plain. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of a table prepared by the National Times which, I think, shows beyond doubt that there is an enormous chasm between the health care costs paid by the uninsured and those paid by the insured.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I thank the House. The message is crystal clear: ‘Get out of insurance; take your chances’. In effect, by insuring, one is paying a retainer of approximately $500 a year for the luxury of choosing ones own doctor in the event that one should be hospitalised. With those odds there is no way one would not want to gamble. That is, of course, so long as one is not a chronic sufferer, or aged, or generally one of the community’s weaker citizens. The philosophical imprint of the Prime Minister is all over this socalled Treasurer’s statement. The lesson he preaches is that only the strong survive. Judging by his performance in the Parliament at Question Time in the last few days he may come to regret his belief in the law of the jungle. The chorus for Andrew grows larger and louder every passing day. The cries from the back bench will become deafening when Cabinet shows its full hand within the next three months. The Government has only hinted at some of the severe measures it entertains for the next Budget.

The Treasurer’s reference to cutting specific purpose payments to the States will be received with undisguised horror by every Premier and State Treasurer without exception. The reference may be oblique but we can bet that the cuts will not be. The Government has moved to a position which will compel most States to cut savagely in areas of public works and work-incentive programs. Specific purpose grants cover a wide multiplicity of State programs and have just as grave consequences for local government. Furthermore, reductions in that area will place States in a position of levying their own income tax surcharge. Mark my words, the thrust of this Government in the area of federalism has been designed to condition States in the inevitability of imposing State levied income tax surcharges. In 1977 the Prime Minister sold the Premiers a pig in a poke. Once this pig matures- that should be within the next year- it will assume the proportions and behaviour of a wild boar. When this Government refers to its federalism policy as tax sharing, it means in fact, blame sharing. Most States will come to appreciate the full meaning and significance of that fact.

The Government has made similar vague threats in the area of education. Education institutions around Australia are in suspense. Colleges of advanced education know that they are for the chop. Students at tertiary institutions are fully aware of the talk about dropping tertiary education allowances- or at least substantially squeezing them- and returning to tuition fees. What the community does not know is the breadth of educational resources which will be affected by the coming cuts. All we have to go on are hints. But that is enough to gauge what is in store.

Apart from the cuts foreshadowed by the Treasurer, the Government has campaigned strongly against student unions, undermining their effectiveness in lobbying Parliament for a civilised share of the nation’s resources to be channelled into education. Campuses must be divided before they can be conquered. The Australian Education Council, at its meeting in Melbourne last year, established a committee to review in very broad terms, the work of the Schools Commission. The tension and uneasiness which that decision caused throughout the community is still evident among parents and citizens’ associations. Obviously the Government’s guns are aimed at the Schools Commission which has done so much for equality of education resources and facilities, not to mention equality of opportunity, in Australian schools since its establishment by the Labor Government. The Government should be made aware of the findings of an Australia-wide survey conducted by the University of New South Wales on the possible reintroduction of tuition fees. Again, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a summary of that report provided by the Australian Union of Students newsletter for April this year.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Background information circulated by the Australian Union of Students, 95 Drummond St Carlton 3053. 2/April 21 1979.

page 2586

RETURN OF TUITION FEES WOULD MAKE HIGHER EDUCATION MORE ELITIST

An Australia-wide survey of the effects on students of the possible reintroduction of tuition fees, conducted by the University of New South Wales and published last year, found that: 21.3 per cent of university students would have deferred or not enrolled in 1976 if fees had been charged. 20.2 per cent of metropolitan CAE students would have deferred or not enrolled if fees had been charged.

A significant proportion of full-time students would have gone part-time or external- universities 8.9 per cent, metropolitan CAE’s 9.8 per cent, country CAE’s 7.6 per cent.

Women students would have been significantly more likely than men to defer or not enrol if fees had been charged- 24. 1 per cent in universities (men 19.2 per cent) and 24.3 per cent in metropolitan CAE’s (men 17.0 per cent).

Older students would have been significantly more likely than others to defer or not enrol. More than a quarter of university students over 20 would not have been studying; almost half the country CAE students aged 25 to 40 would have deferred or not enrolled.

Arts and Education students would have been the most affected. For Arts the figures were 26.2 per cent (universities), 26.1 per cent (metropolitan CAE’s) and 44.4 per cent (country CAE’s). For Education students, the figures were 24.5 per cent (universities), 26.0 percent (metropolitan CAE’s), and 34.0 per cent (country CAE’s). Engineering and Medicine students would have been the least affected , except in country CAE ‘s.

Students living away from their parents in houses, flats or boarding would have been more affected than others. About one third of these students would have deferred or not enrolled.

Students from State schools and Catholic schools would have been worse off than those from non-Catholic independent schools.

Students whose fathers earned $6,000 or less in 1976 would have been significantly more affected.

Students whose fathers worked in the ‘upper’ professions were the least likely to defer or not enroluniversities 12.3 per cent, metropolitan CAE’s 13.4 per cent, country CAE’s 20.4 percent.

But students whose fathers worked as semi-skilled manual workers would have been more likely to defer or not enrol- universities 34. 1 per cent, metropolitan CAE’s 26.0 per cent, country CAE’s 38.2 per cent. The effects of the reintroduction of fees would be similar for other students whose fathers worked in the low-status and low-income occupational areas.

The UNSW study on the abolition of fees reached the conclusion that:

In all cases it is the category of students presently under-represented in higher education who would have been most affected by the reintroduction of fees- parttime students, women, older students, country residents and students of lower socio-economic status ‘.

While students from poorer backgrounds were particularly assisted by the abolition of tuition fees, they are underrepresented in higher education institutions and the abolition of fees ‘has had at best a marginal effect on the accessibility of higher education to socially and economically disadvantaged groups’ (NSW survey report, page 259). It will take more than the abolition of fees to significantly open up universities and colleges to those who most need higher education- students from working class backgrounds. The UNSW survey report suggests a greater level of mature age entry to compensate those who missed out at the schoolleaving ages; other possible measures include compensatory funding for disadvantaged schools and a more generous student allowance scheme.

Because the effects of fee abolition on the socio-economic composition of higher education institutions was ‘marginal ‘, and because the social elite is over-represented in these institutions, it has been glibly argued by the proponents of the return of fees that fee abolition was merely a subsidy to the wealthy.

In a curiously twisted conclusion, the UNSW survey report stated that ‘ at worst the a abolition of fees can be seen as a further benefit to the economically disadvantaged’. This finding is highly misleading and at variance with the facts uncovered by the survey.

Clearly the return of tuition fees would close off higher education to many students, and the poorest students would be the most affected. To argue for the return of fees on the grounds of egalitarianism is dishonest: clearly the return of fees would make higher education more privileged.

For further information, contact:

Mark Burford, Education Vice-President, Australian Union of Students. Ph. (03) 347 7433, (03) 347 5569,

Simon Marginson, Education Research Officer, Australian Union of Students. Ph. (03) 347 7433, (03)347 8307

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I turn to another aspect of the speech of the Treasurer. It should be pointed out that the housing industry is no happier about the mini-Budget than are the States. The Government’s reduction of the limit of the value of a house and land to $35,000 for a full home savings grant indicates either its ignorance or its contempt for the building industry and for the needs of home buyers. The average price of an established home in Sydney in June 1978 was $47,700. In Melbourne it was $41,800, and in Brisbane it was certainly over $35,000. More importantly, very few houses can be built in most State capitals on land which has cost under $10,000, and the building materials price index has risen over the last year by 8 per cent. The consequences of the home savings grant reduction includes more unemployment in the building industry and greater distress for home seekers.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Do you know what you are doing?

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-The honourable member for Lilley did not want Housing Commission homes in his electorate. Another area of expenditure which has received little attention by anyone other than the Cabinet and the shadow Minister is transport. No wonder the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) is out of the country. If I had been rolled so completely in Cabinet as he was I would be off sulking with my tail between my legs too. During the urban public transport debate last year we were told that grants under section 8 of the Urban Public Transport Act, which provided for $ 100m to be spent over five years at the rate of $20m a year, would be cut by $25m and spending would not commence for another year. Now, before that suspended year is up, we are told that the specific payment of $20m will be delayed once again. In fact, there is the strong prospect that the $20m from the next Budget which would have been spent on urban public transport, and which was carried over from the previous year, will not only be delayed but will disappear altogether from the total commitment for the five-year period.

This Government will have to live with its record of half truths, broken promises and shattered dreams. It will live with that record until it dies. The carcasses of dead promises lie everywhere for all to see. The Prime Minister said in March 1977:

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

On 27 November 1975 there was the unequivocal promise to abolish the means test on pensions. Now of course there is a means test on pension increases for those over 70. There was the commitment, made in the same speech, to be generous to the unemployed. The Prime Minister felt at that time that the more unemployment increased the more benefits the unemployed should receive as compensation for finding work more difficult to get. They are noble but hollow sentiments. There was the promise to retain the Australian Assistance Plan- probably one of the most far sighted social programs adopted by any government since the war. The plan now exists only in the history books. Medibank went the same way. I do not want to have to elaborate on that matter.

Full indexation of income tax followed the Australian Assistance Plan and universal health insurance down the same well trodden path. There were promises about unemployment falling, growth rates rising, maintenance of full wage indexation, reduction in inflation, falling deficits, interest rates and, of course, the end to the big tax rip-off. All this came from the man who promised integrity in government and who publicly stated his belief that how things are done is just as important as what is done.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) asserted in his contribution to this debate that the changes made by the Government to the home savings grant scheme by putting a ceiling of $35,000 to $40,000 on the value of a house and land which can attract the grant will create havoc within the industry. I am informed by my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) that these proposed changes have been well received by the Housing Industry Association, the real estate associations and the bankers.

In contrast, let me remind the honourable member for Griffith, who is a new member in this House, that it was the former Labor Government which abolished the home savings grants scheme then in operation.

In making my contribution to this debate, let me say at the outset that this Government was elected at the end of 1975 on the promise of bringing back responsibility to economic management, of bringing a sick Australia tired of Labor excesses back to economic sanity. We have not faltered. Our over-riding promise to Australians was, and is, to restore economic growth. Last Thursday’s statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is a mark of our responsible economic management. I believe that Australians generally see our new measures in this context. Competent administration carries with it the responsibility to take tough options, and to make tough decisions- and to take them and to make those decisions when they are necessary. As the Treasurer told the House last Thursday:

No Australian Government in the post-war period has pursued expenditure restraint with such zeal and success as has this Government. We have maintained this course as a fundamental article of faith and will continue to do so.

No Australian will forget that when we came to office at the end of 1975 we were faced with a set of economic problems far more severe than any experienced previously in the post-war period. We faced the problems of coping with the aftermath of a government whose expenditure was completely out of control- a government which had slashed tariffs, squeezed profits and caused a wages explosion.

The inevitable outcome was spiralling inflation. This was then the fundamental problem and it is the fundamental problem now. This led to a sharp rise in unemployment, because of the following factors.

Firms were less willing to invest because of the uncertainties created by higher inflation. Households also curtailed spending in the face of higher inflation. The higher rate of inflation in Australia vis-a-vis our trading partners weakened the competitive position of private enterprise, with the result that imports achieved substantial gains on most domestic markets. Exporters also suffered from this reduced competitiveness- manufactured exports, particularly, declined sharply after 1973-74. The combined effect of sharply rising wage costs, indiscriminate tariff cuts and weakening demand led to a sharp decline in business profitability. Private enterprise was left with no alternative but to reduce employment.

There is a mistaken belief in many places that the fight against inflation is separate from the fight against unemployment. The reverse is the case. There can be no real and lasting security for jobs as long as inflation is out of control. The fight against inflation is an essential part of the fight against unemployment. To show this is a bipartisan view of the link between inflation and unemployment, let me quote something said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in his Budget Speech when he was Labor Treasurer in August 1975: He stated:

Our present level of unemployment is too high. If we fail to control inflation unemployment will get worse.

I quote again from that Budget Speech. He stated:

In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit of the order initially projected -

That is, of the order of $5,000m- would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians- all at a time when the first signs of improvement in most of those respects are beginning to appear.

I quote yet again from it. He said.

Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment.

That speech is recorded in Hansard of 19 August 1975 at page 53. I note that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) is listening attentively to what I have said in quoting the words of his leader. This Government has consistently adopted the position that sustained economic growth and a return to more satisfactory levels of employment are not possible unless the problem of inflation is overcome. That is why we have continuously sought to do the following: To reduce the rate of growth of Commonwealth outlays and reduce taxation, which has eased the pressures on the private sector through increased taxation and public sector borrowings; to achieve more moderate and stable growth in the money supply; and to argue consistently for wage restraint in an effort to ease the burden of wage costs on employers. The Commonwealth Government has consistently argued at national wage case hearings and elsewhere for wage restraint. We have maintained this resolve to restrain expenditure, to lower inflation and to lower taxation more than any other government in recent history.

The measures taken last Thursday were necessary to ensure that renewed inflation would not result in consequence of an increasing deficit. The decisions to maintain taxation at its present level and to restrain expenditure were not easy ones. However, they were necessary to reestablish, to re-affirm and to reinforce the

Government’s policy to resist inflationary pressures which are re-emerging in the economy and to bring down a Budget which is responsible and which allows Australians to live within their means. There was a responsibility to get it right now and not to wait. However, our approach to budgetary restraint has been fair and equitable. We have ensured that those in need- the aged, the disadvantaged and the handicappedmaintain their benefits. At the same time, we have taken strong measures and will continue to do so to ensure that Commonwealth spending becomes more effective and more efficient.

We have maintained these principles in the operations of the employment area. For example, we have introduced measures for the Special Youth Employment Training Program to ensure that those young people who are most disadvantaged, who have been unemployed for four months and who could not have obtained a job otherwise are those we are helping through that program. In times when the Government must contain its expenditure it has a duty to ensure that the money it spends is being spent wisely and well. In the weeks ahead we will tighten up our procedures to ensure that unemployment benefit is paid to those who are genuinely seeking work. It is our aim to ensure that those suffering hardship because of the lack of employment opportunities are protected, but at the same time- for the benefit of Australians as a whole, we need to ensure that those who are not genuinely seeking work should not be supported by the community.

Apart from its policies designed to ensure a lasting recovery in the demand for labour, the Government has also acted to ensure that the labour supply is as well placed as possible to accommodate the processes of recovery and to help the unemployed. The Government has introduced a range of manpower and training programs to ensure that demand for particular labour skills can be satisfied now and during the recovery phase and maintain and improve the chances of the unemployed, especially our young unemployed, to obtain work. Together these programs will cost some $180m this financial year and will help over 200,000 people, many of them young people. Since coming to office more than 400,000 Australians have been assisted at a cost of more than $400m. That is an investment by this Government in people not matched by former governments.

Let me remind honourable members of what happened to employment during the period of the Labor Government. Let me cite a few figures. In June 1974 registered unemployment stood at fewer than 80,000. Twelve months later registered unemployment had reached a quarter of a million people. Let me repeat some of the monthly details during this period. In August 1974 unemployment had reached 107,000; in September it was 121,000; in October, 150,000; November, 181,000; December, 267,000; and in January 1975 it reached 312,000 people. In five months 205,000 people were put out of work by the former Labor Government.

I note that some of the more imaginative of the honourable members opposite have attempted to draw a contrast between the Treasurer and me on the employment situation. There is none. I have made no specific forecasts of the levels of unemployment in future months. There are too many variables and uncertainties associated with making such a forecast. It depends, for example, on the participation rates in employment, which have varied in recent years. Further the Government has often pointed to the relationship between higher wages, loss of employment opportunities and higher unemployment. The decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the current national wage case will have an important bearing on the employment prospects in the next few months.

I have been cautious in pointing to the favourable trends which have emerged in employment figures in recent months. At the same time, we have seen hopeful signs of economic recovery and signs of an increase in business confidence. I have consistently pointed out that the only answer to concern about unemployment is a sustained growth in employment. Only economic growth can produce the necessary jobs. It is for this reason that I have continued to stress that 1979 is a critical year. At a time when inflationary pressures were re-emerging it was essential that the Government take action to restrain expenditure and contain the deficit. We are determined to preserve business confidence and to maintain the gains that had already been made in employment. That meant taking action now. The nexus between inflation and employment demanded that this be done.

I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the profligate, scatter-gun, differing employment schemes of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and his employment spokesman, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), put forward job creation schemes at a conference in Adelaide only 10 days ago. The Leader of the Opposition brought forward a scheme to establish a community service corps on a voluntary basis at a cost of the order of $300m to $350m. At the same time the honourable member for Port Adelaide suggested an additional scheme based on the Canadian local initiatives program, again for 50,000 people. This was an even more expensive program costing about $500m. The Opposition has not learnt from its experience in government; its members continue to suggest overlapping, confused and extravagent schemes. I am told that the Leader of the Opposition outlined his scheme to the conference without the knowledge of his employment spokesman. This is another case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Still not satisfied, the Leader of the Opposition has also proposed a scheme to increase capital spending by $450m in order to create 40,000 jobs. An increase in the deficit of $ 1,400m at this time would simply put us back to those high inflation days, with ballooning deficits which destroyed business confidence and took away far more jobs than they created. There is no substance to the Opposition’s amendments before this House. The amendments deserve to be defeated.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr Millar)

AYES: 75

NOES: 27

Majority……. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put.

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr Willis’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 75

NOES: 27

Majority……. 48

In division-

AYES

NOES

This afternoon the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) said that it was contrary to the Standing Orders to read newspapers in the House. I draw your attention, Mr Acting Speaker, to the Leader of the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2591

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Debate resumed.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move amendment No. (1) standing in my name:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 8, page 8, proposed section 219G, omit paragraph (a) of sub-section (3).

The substance of the Bill itself- I hope that it becomes law- states:

A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record, any information obtained by using a listening device for the purposes of narcotics inquiries . . .

That is the law as it is expressed. I believe that it is a good law. But a throw away line in the part that I seek to be deleted states:

Without limiting the purposes for which a person may, in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ), divulge information, a person may divulge or communicate information obtained by using a listening device for the purpose of narcotics inquiries that are being, or have been, made by officers of Customs in evidence in a proceeding -

Totally contrary to the substance of proposed new section 219G is the provision that evidence can be given by way of prosecution for a narcotic offence or any other offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or a maximum period of not less than three years. There is a distinct contrast in the two propositions. We say that we believe in the freedom of the individual. We hold that he is not guilty until he is proved guilty by proper administrative processes, proper evidence and in the eyes of the law. But even though we say these things and we preach that gospel, what do we do in practice when we find an easy way out of a difficult problem? In that case we are prepared to permit evidence collected for a particular purpose to be used for a totally different purpose. That is unnecessary to the enforcement of the law because we have all the means available to search people involved, to collect evidence and to establish proof in narcotics inquiries. That is the problem we face.

I stress that as members of this House we ought to regard it as a fundamental duty to protect the individual against the might of the State. I do not think it is proper that in a throw away line some action should be taken in order to permit an easy prosecution in another case. That is the gravamen of what I want to say today. I do not want people to say to me that it cannot happen here. Those who have had a long association with, say, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill and those who have been associated with the administration of the law for a long time know that it can happen here. The report of the Hope Commission into the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation uses condemnatory words about an excess of power and bureaucratic designs by ASIO to show that its officers were capable of detecting crimes that had never been committed and having people wrongly blamed. It is worth mentioning what the Hope report said in relation to ASIO, particularly that part of it that was quoted by an honourable senator in another place. That is exactly what I want to put tonight.

I believe that when we have exceptional lawthe House agrees that this is exceptional law- we have to take exceptional trouble to see we do not open up the opportunity for the possible persecution of somebody else. That is why I believe that we should omit the paragraph to which I have referred. I think that that is critically important to a parliament that believes that one of its fundamental missions is to look after the cause and the rights of the individual and to treat them as the supreme ideal of parliamentary government.

Mr Young:

– If you could shut the country Party up, we would all listen to you.

Country Sir WILLIAM McMAHON- I wishthatthe honourable member would do so. I cannot and I do not want to try. Members of the National Country Party can do what they like. I refer to the arguments that have been put by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I am sure that he did so unintentionally but he said that the power to use listening devices can be delegated to us by the State authorities and that we can exercise that power. It is peculiar that we can make a concession of that kind when section 219 indicates that the Commonwealth Parliament ought to exercise that particular power. When the Government realised it did not have the right to exercise the power it went to a State parliament which is subordinate to the Commonwealth Parliament and said: ‘Delegate this power to us and we will do something that is not possible to do under the Commonwealth law’.

Mr Chapman:

– What about federalism?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member will have to worry more about it for longer than I will because he will be here for much longer. I know a lot about it. I do not know how much the honourable member knows so I can not argue with him. I do not know whether it is worth while giving him an answer. If we want to go to other precedents let us look at the United States law from which we can draw some experience. By and large the commission of narcotic offences and similar types of crimes is certainly of greater magnitude than it is in this country although internationally I believe- from lately reading the Press- that regrettably Australians seem to be part and parcel not only of addiction and user but also of commercial transactions throughout the rest of the world.

Let me deal with the problem that it cannot happen here. Let us look at what can happen. Look at the allegations that have been made today in New South Wales that some police are being used to issue licences if the bribes are high enough. Look at the problems that the New South Wales Government has in regard to allegations that the police are involved in starting price betting. Of course these things can happen. Long experience in Parliament has shown that governments should not give any sort of opportunity for these things to happen if they can possibly refrain from doing so. I believe that we have to be particularly careful in this legislation not to create opportunities which will enable a pimp, who has collected evidence for a particular purpose, to give the information to somebody and to have it used for a different purpose altogther from narcotics offences. In the United States in- formation obtained by similar means cannot be used in other cases.

In regard to the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) he said he did not like a similar type of clause, which is the second last clause we have to deal with, and he would like to ensure that under no circumstances could approval be given for a solicitor or an adviser to an individual to have a listening device installed so that conversations between solicitor and client could be heard. How far can we take this principle? I think that is a pretty naive suggestion. What about communications between husband and wife? If a solicitor wanted this sort of thing, I would want my wife to have the same protection in relation to what I say to her. What about communications in religious orders. Is a listening device to be used when a Roman Catholic makes a disclosure in the confessional box? What about communications between a doctor and patient? If this principle is adopted in one case, it will be treated as a precedent and it can go on interminably. We would never know where we were going. This is the sort of thing that can happen under this legislation.

I will do all that I can to make certain that this clause does not remain part of the Bill. Therefore, I would have to say that I am sorry that this is in the Bill. It is a throwaway line. It has nothing at all to do with the substance of the Bill and therefore it is a peculiarity. It contradicts everything that the members of the Liberal Party believe in and everything that I certainly believe in. I was a fairly good lawyer once. I would be a pretty awful sort of lawyer now but nonetheless -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I would like to say just this: I certainly will cross the floor if it is necessary and if this amendment is not accepted by the Government.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-Proposed new section 219G(2)(a) applies to investigations in relation to narcotic offences and proposed new section 219G(3)(a) applies to evidence used in a court of law. The amendment of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), as we of the Opposition understand it, would have the effect of excluding evidence gained from the use of a listening device to be used in any proceedings even in respect of a narcotics offence. If a Customs officer discovers by the use of a listening device that a murder may be committed it is absurd that he should be required to keep the information secret. I go back to what we of the Opposition said in relation to earlier amendments. The Government had the opportunity- but it refused to endorse our amendments- to take a stand on this in respect of the provisions relating to the issuing of warrants by a judge.

The amendment, if I might say so to the right honourable member for Lowe, seems to us, with the greatest of respect, to be somewhat odd. Proposed new section 219G(3)(a), which the right honourable member for Lowe proposes to leave out of the Bill, provides for information gained from the use of listening devices to be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, in relation to both narcotic offences and certain other serious offences. The amendment, if it were accepted, would throw out the baby with the bath water. If it were accepted it would mean that the information gained from the use of listening devices could not be used in criminal proceedings for narcotic offences. That is what his amendment means. That would be a negation of the whole purpose of the use of listening devices. The amendment must be rejected. We would have to do that. The Opposition carefully considered the matter of whether information gained from the use of listening devices could be used in the prosecution of other serious offences. We considered that at length. Our conclusion was that it would be absurd not to use that information. I come back to the earlier amendments. The Government cannot dodge the issue. It chose to do so.

It is just not real to prevent information, for example as I said earlier, about a murder, being used in a criminal proceeding. Again I ask honourable members on the Government side to consider whether that is in fact what they want. It has been our view that warrants ought to be subject to very strict tests in order to ensure that the privacy of individuals is safeguarded. Honourable members would do better to support the Opposition’s proposal than to move amendments which any member of the public would consider to be absurd. I conclude on this note. As I said earlier, the real issue on this matter and the preceding amendments is simply what criteria is it suggested ought to be fixed for the issuing of warrants because it is the judge who initially grants the right by warrant to install a listening device. If the Government had at least considered our amendments and our propositions it would not be in the position it is in now.

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

– The Government does not accept this amendment. As I informed the House in connection with amendment No. 6 standing in my name, the Government intends to stand by the provisions contained in proposed new section 219G(3)(a) as appropriate provisions in the circumstances. As I then said, if in the course of the use of a listening device a fact relevant to the commission of a serious offencesay a murder as suggested by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) or an act of terrorism- is overheard it would be ludicrous and clearly untenable for the Government not to act upon that information and if relevant use it in a prosecution. In addition, the amendment moved by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) may place a serious obstacle in the path of the well known common law rule that the prosecutor has an obligation to bring evidence before the court, being evidence which may assist the defence in any regard. Such evidence may arise and be recorded as a consequence of the use of these listening devices.

However, during the break in proceedings this evening the Government has given consideration to the problems raised by the right honourable member for Lowe and by other honourable members on both sides of this House concerning the use of information obtained through a listening device as evidence in a prosecution referred to in proposed new section 2 19G (3) (a) particularly a prosecution relating to a non-narcotics offence. Following this consideration, the Government has decided to seek leave of the House to introduce a further amendment to proposed new section 2 1 9G to make it absolutely clear to the court that it may refuse to permit information gained through a listening device to be given in evidence when to do so would be unfair to the accused. I think that the amendment I have foreshadowed will alleviate most of the concern expressed during the debate this afternoon about the use of information derived by listening to a conversation that some regard as closely related to the status of privilege.

Motion ( by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 66

NOES: 30

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I move my amendment No. 2:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 8, page 9, at the end of proposed section 2I9G add the following sub-sections: “(4)Any person to whom information is communicated under sub-section (3), and any person or employee under his control, shall in respect of that information be subject to the same rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities as are imposed on persons under sub-section ( 1 ). “(5) For the purposes of sub-sections ( 1 ) and (4), a person shall be deemed to have communicated such information to another person in contravention of those subsections if he communicates that information to any Minister.” ‘.

In doing so I draw the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) to sub-section (3) of proposed new section 219G which states in part:

Without limiting the purposes for which a person may, in accordance with sub-section (1) divulge information . . .

It appears to me that under sub-section ( 1 ) there is no power to divulge any information and I suggest to the Minister -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The level of conversation on my right is far too high. I ask honourable members to accord the honourable member for Sturt his entitlement to be heard in silence.

Debate interrupted.

page 2594

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Fife:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2594

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Debate resumed.

Mr WILSON:

-Before I come to the detailed reasons for proposing the amendment I want to bring to the attention of the Minister the wording in proposed new section 2 19G (3). It states:

Without limiting the purposes for which a person may, in accordance with sub-section ( I ), divulge information, a person may divulge or communicate information under certain specified conditions.

Sub-clause (1) is a total prohibition on the divulging of information and therefore it would seem there is some error in the drafting of the Bill. I invite the Minister to explain how it is that there is this reference back to sub-clause ( 1 ). I suspect it should be a reference back to subclause (2). I hope the Minister’s advisers will be able to draw that point to his attention when he is summing up on this clause.

This afternoon when discussing this sort of legislation I expressed concern about the danger for a free democratic society arising from the accumulation of vast amounts of information in the hands of institutions and departments set up with the authority of this Parliament. The circumstances are such that that information can threaten individual freedom and the privacy of individuals. The authorities and people are now becoming increasingly worried about the possible abuse of data banks used by law enforcement agencies to store criminal records as well as unsupported allegations, tips and other potentially derogatory information about people. The information that can be gathered by the use of phone taps and other devices can be misused. The clause that we are now debating authorises the Customs authority to pass information on in certain circumstances. The first sub-clause of my amendment is designed to impose the same restraints on the persons to whom that information is passed as is imposed upon officers of the Customs Department.

The second sub-clause to which I want to direct the House’s attention is, I believe, of far greater significance. How often have we heard in this House the Treasurer (Mr Howard) asked at Question Time, more often than not by members of the Opposition than members of the Government, to comment upon tax information relating to an individual or a business? The Treasurer has drawn to the attention of the House the fact that it is not his practice to disclose such information nor is he permitted to do so, because clause 1 6 (5A ) of the Income Tax Assessment Act reads as follows:

For the purposes of sub-sections (2) and (S), an officer or person shall be deemed to have communicated such information to another person in contravention of those subsections if he communicates that information to any Minister.

We often hear government officers and Ministers talking about the need-to-know principle. I hold the view quite strongly that the Parliament should adopt the view that Ministers have no need to know any information that is gathered in a phone tap operation even when the Parliament justifies the collection of that information because of its deep concern about trafficking in narcotics. I say that because the information not only relates to the narcotics offender; there is other information which could be used to defame, to assassinate the character of some person whose character is not capable of being challenged in the courts of the land. A skerrick of information gathered at the same time as information is being gathered about narcotics trafficking can be used to blacken by association. In a modern democratic state it is important that Ministers be protected from circumstances in which they can be called upon to supply such information. Equally, people of a democratic state need to be protected from the misuse of that information by its supply in circumstances where the evidence that appears on its surface to call in question the character of a person cannot be substantiated.

I have in mind a specific case. I have discussed this with the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I believe that some time ago he was placed in a very difficult situation. There was a report in a magazine that a car belonging to a member of Parliament had been identified as being in a location or a street where there was some suggestion by the Customs authorities that drug trafficking was going on. The Minister saw fit in that case to indicate the view that there was no basis upon which there should be any concern about that member of Parliament. This Parliament should protect the Minister, every member of Parliament and every public citizen from the threat of character assassination as a consequence of information being gathered in any way. Particularly is this so in respect of this legislation which authorises the gathering of information through phone tapping. That information should not be referred to other than in a court where that person is being prosecuted for a breach of the law because, by innuendo, seemingly irrelevant information can cause great damage to a private citizen, particularly one involved in public affairs.

My amendment is designed to leave the Comptroller of Customs with the responsibility of discharging certain powers and authorities conferred upon him by this Parliament and to enforce the law, particularly in regard to drug and narcotic trafficking, but it precludes that information from Ministers on the same basis that this Parliament precludes from Ministers information about the taxation affairs of any individual and, in a similar way but not quite so strictly, precludes from Ministers information about health and social security matters.

I think Parliament should take stock and ask: In what circumstances does a Minister need to know personal information about any citizen in the land? I recognise that Parliament needs to set up, under the general authority of Ministers, departments to administer the law of the land. The law we are talking about tonight is the law relating to drug and narcotic trafficking. No one wants to limit the capacity to see that the law is enforced. What one wants to do is limit the capacity to abuse the information gathered. I am not suggesting that this Minister or any previous Ministers would have misused that information. I am concerned that at some time in the future the fact that that information can be supplied to Parliament places a Minister in a position where he may be able to abuse it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Firstly, I would like to support the proposition put by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). Secondly, I would like to record in Hansard, hopefully for the benefit of senators who will be considering this Bill at some later stage, the opinion that they ought to carefully look at the previous amendment which was defeated and the way it was defeated. It was defeated without appropriate discussion. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron), the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and I were unable to speak to it. I hope that honourable senators, who possibly will deal with this legislation at a different time of the day, will realise that this is not a party matter and that it is an important issue. I would again like to raise a relevant point.

I first raised the point with the legislation committee. Under this Bill a listening device could be placed anywhere as long as there was some vague connection with a person suspected of being involved in a narcotics offence. It is obvious that the listening device could be located in such a place where normal conversation would be privileged. It can involve a lawyer, a doctor, a wife or a confessional- it does not matter. Not only can the listening device be placed in such a location but also what is recorded can then be used as evidence in prosecutions which have nothing to do with the narcotics offence. Let me emphasise that point. Let us assume that we all agree that privilege ought to be waived for narcotic offences because they involve heinous crimes interfering with that privilege. Are we really saying that the privilege which has been accepted in our law ought to be waived for all other offences which are incidental? It could be that a judge is satisfied that Mr A is likely to commit or has committed a narcotics offence. Mr A may have a solicitor- it could be the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock)- who is a perfectly honest solicitor and who has many other clients. A listening device could be placed in his office and a recording made of certain advice given by him or obtained by him in a privileged situation- I emphasise this aspect- on some other crime or alleged crime. Such information could be used in evidence and no privilege would be attached to it.

It may be suspected that a drug addict will give certain information to a medical practitioner. It may be that the person concerned is not only a trafficker but also an addict. Therefore he has a certain relationship with a particular medical practitioner. A listening device could be placed in the surgery or telephone of that doctor. The doctor may also get information dealing with, let us say, a termination of pregnancy which may not be considered to be legal in his State but certainly would be considered to be legal in certain States of Australia’. A person other than the person in relation to whom the listening device has been placed may give certain evidence to a doctor. The evidence which has been obtained because the narcotics agents were looking for evidence dealing with a narcotics offence can be used to prosecute the woman and the doctor for a completely different offence. I ask members of this House and especially members of the Senate to look at this matter. It is depressing to think that it is proposed to allow privilege to be used in this way.

It may be that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and his Department will be very careful about these matters, but I point out that the Minister said in his second reading speech that commercial quantities were one thousand times the traffickable quantity. Whilst I was doodling away in the legislation committee I realised that in the case of two substances, one of which was lysergic acid, the factor was one hundred thousand and not one thousand. I pointed this out to the Minister. The Minister consulted his departmental advisers and then said that that was not the view of his Department. It is not a question of views; it is a question of saying whether two milligrams becomes 0.2 of a kilogram, which is 200 grams, by a factor of 1,000 or a factor of 100,000. It is quite obvious that I was right and the Minister, even after an hour’s consultation with the Department, consulting apparently with the analysts and everybody else, was still not prepared to say that I was right. It seems so terribly obvious and anybody who works with decimals ought to be able to see it. I would not be surprised if the Metric Conversion Board is under the control of the Minister. The mistake was that the decimal point was placed two places further to the left than it should have been. What kind of a Minister and what kind of department do we have? We are relying on those sorts of people. We are talking about 0.2 of a kilogram. They do not have even a clue about how to multiply by a thousand, a hundred thousand or any other figure, yet we rely to them to give us undertakings on how evidence will be used in cases where people can go to gaol for many years.

I appeal to the Minister and more importantly, because the Minister obviously has made up his mind or he has his riding instructions for tonight, I appeal to senators who might read the Hansard record of this debate before this legislation is debated in the Senate to have a good look as this completely new concept, as I understand it, which is being introduced in this legislation. The honourable member for Denison by nodding his head has indicated his support for my claim that this is a completely new concept. With this legislation we are wiping out privilege. All I am asking the Minister to say is that privilege ought to be maintained. I can see an argument that if someone finds out facts which might help to prevent the commission of a crime, he ought to pass on that information. If someone obtains facts incidentally which might even lead to the solution of a crime, maybe he ought to pass that on. But actually to use those facts which have been obtained in such a way, which normally would make the information privileged information, for the purpose of prosecution I think is completely wrong. I am not a lawyer, but to me to do that is completely contrary to the whole concept of privilege. I therefore ask the House to look at these issues in some detail before honourable members just vote according to whether they are on the Government side of the House.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– I was used for the purposes of an explanation on one aspect of this matter by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). He might well understand where one should place decimal points. I am not in a position to check him on that matter without looking more closely at the figures he has mentioned. No doubt the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will do so. But in relation to the question of privilege, the honourable member for Prospect is under a fundamental misunderstanding as to what is involved. As I understand it, if a conversation takes place between a person and his legal practitioner that legal practitioner cannot be called upon to give evidence against his client in relation to that matter. No doubt the person involved would not want to give evidence of it either. But if some other evidence is available- it might be that somebody was writing down some notes on a pad and left an imprint or something which later somebody ascertained on some other basis -

Mr Young:

– That is not true. It has been recorded.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I will come to that in a moment. In the circumstances I just mentioned, that evidence can be adduced. If another person was in the room- it might have been a secretarywhen a conversation took place between a solicitor and his client, that secretary might well be able to be called to give evidence of that conversation and the admission made. What honourable members opposite are trying to say is that if there is some other evidence and it happens to be evidence obtained by a listening device that evidence should not be able to be brought in those proceedings. In fact, the question of privilege would still apply in such cases. In a case such as the one I mentioned, the solicitor cannot be called to give evidence. The privilege in the hands of the solicitor remains. He can claim his right of privilege. If the other evidence which is available- it might be in any of those situations which I suggested- is given in the court and accepted by the court there might well be a conviction in relation to that offence. The question of privilege is not being waived at all. The privilege in the solicitor to be able to refuse to give evidence still remains, and I think that is an important point. It is not one that ought to be ignored.

If honourable members want to argue against the use of listening devices then they should argue that as a question of principle, if they see it in that way. But they should not confuse it by suggesting that the question of privilege in the hands of a solicitor is in some way being done away with as a result of this legislation. That is just not the case. The solicitor still is able to claim privilege if that is his desire, and that is not being altered by this legislation one iota. I think that matter ought to be explained so that, at least the position will not be misrepresented as a result of the discussions we have heard or as a result of the phony argument, I suggest, that the privilege of the solicitor is being taken away. It may not be as effective as he or the client might otherwise have liked it to be, but any one of those situations that I have recounted might well have led to a conviction in certain circumstances.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I join in this debate to express some concern and disappointment at the views expressed by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I support the arguments put by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). It seems to me that when we look at the question of privilege and at the question of listening devices, it is important to ask the question: Why was this privilege created in the first place? It was created essentially because in a democratic community and under our system of law, over a period of time certain relationships attached to individuals in this community have been regarded as sacrosanct and as the subject of privilege. Those are important relationships, and one of them is the relationship between a solicitor and his client. When a client goes to his solicitor to seek advice, he has to be able to say: ‘I got the best advice that I could get, the most honest advice’. In order to get that advice the client has to be able to say with confidence that he can tell his solicitor frankly and truthfully what has occurred. The relationship between a medical practitioner and his patient has also been regarded as an important relationship and one for which this Government has argued time and time again. It has argued for the sanctity of the relationship of the medical practitioner and his client, not merely for the doctor’s right to have the confidence of his client but for the patient’s right to know that what he tells his doctor is a matter between him and his doctor.

Let us take the other relationship which up until now has been regarded as a very important right and I refer to the right of the confessional. A man has a right, no matter what sort of sinner he is, to go into the confessional to seek whatever advice or absolution is available. That is part of his religious faith, no matter how vile the offence he has committed. I find it unbelievable that a government that talks about these religious freedoms can introduce legislation to allow listening devices to be placed in the confessional, in the office of a solicitor, in the office of the medical practitioner, and in the office of an accountant. All those relationships are very important, not just to the people who are involved professionally but to the proper functioning of this community . They are even more important in terms of the rights of the individual.

I think all honourable members who have spoken in this debate are as concerned as I am about the problems of how we deal with drug traffickers. I do not think any member has any great priorities on that.

Mr Young:

– How many are there?

Mr HOLDING:

– We are dealing with a very small group in the community. But in order to get at that very small group we are now being told that it is OK to adopt techniques involving electronic listening devices. It is just not a question of planting a bug. One can sit in a car outside a building and, with sophisticated equipment, pick up a conversation that is going on inside. I do not know how this legislation even got through the party room. Perhaps it was never explained. We are now being told that there is no more privacy in the confessional, that there is no more privacy for a man seeking the advise of his solicitor and saying: ‘In order for you to advise me, I admit that I did this. I committed that offence and as part of that I did a number of other things’. We are being told that if evidence of other breaches of the law is collected in the privacy of these relationships while these supersnoops sit outside listening to devices in an attempt initially to apprehend a drug offender, that is all okay too and that evidence can be used. That involves a very serious and very important departure from traditional concepts and traditional relationships which have long been recognised in our law.

The honourable member for Dundas is playing with words if he says: ‘Oh well, the solicitor can claim privilege’. It is the privacy of the relationship that is important. It is because of the need to maintain the privacy of those sorts of relationships that the rule of law has operated traditionally in our system to protect the rights of the individual. I do not believe there is any situation in Australian society which justifies this Parliament abrogating people’s rights because we are concerned about a handfull of drug traffickers. Of course we should use all the weapons that are available to us to deal with those people. But what we are doing is adopting legislation that strikes at the basic rights of every Australian citizen. Whatever our problems are in dealing with drug offenders and drug traffickers I do not believe we advance the cause of our community one iota if we say: ‘Well, in order to pursue that laudible objective we are going to adopt the techniques of the police state. We are going to adopt the procedures that are more relevant to 1984 than they are to a democratic plural society in Australia in 1979. That is the issue. It is as simple as that. I think that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), having heard these arguments should not use numbers to railroad this legislation through the Parliament. There is obvious unhappiness amongst distinguished members on the Minister’s side of the House. I am surprised that an honourable gentleman of his capacity who takes a stand on civil liberties issues should allow himself to be used as just another number.

Mr Carlton:

– You are missing the whole point.

Mr HOLDING:

– The point is simple. I believe it does not matter how vile an individual citizen is. He has his rights to protection under our legal system. I do not believe it matters how gross a sin a man may have committed. If a man believes he has to make his peace with his god he is entitled to go into the confessional and not be harassed. I do not believe this Parliament is doing a good thing when it abandons those traditional relationships. That is what they are. The law has long recognised the privacy of relationships. There has to be a compelling reason to abandon those long-standing and traditional concepts within our law. To date all we have had from the Minister at the table has been silence. I suggest that the Minister ought to adjourn this debate, take the legislation away, have a good look at it and bring it back tomorrow. If he did this, perhaps he would see the compelling sense of some of the arguments that have come from both sides of the House. This particular clause of the legislation is thoroughly unacceptable, having regard to the traditions and practices which have long operated in this community, and, as far as I am concerned, which should continue to operate.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I am at least grateful that this clause is being debated and not gagged by somebody outside the chamber because the points that have come from both sides of the House indicate the validity of the principle involved. I want to place firmly on record my view that there is considerable merit in the submission put forward in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) which I note has been taken up on a bipartisan basis by certain honourable members opposite. I put forward the proposition that we cannot all be wrong. Basically, what we are talking about is something which goes to the basic rights of every Australian. It involves a question of whether this Parliament should legislate to permit a judge to authorise the planting of a bugging device in a solicitor’s office, in a priest’s confessional or under the bed of a married couple and, furthermore, whether the information then obtained shall be given in a court of law in relation to a charge against a person for something totally unrelated to narcotics. Those are the issues involved.

I believe that people in the community listening to this debate would be horrified if they thought that a telephone bugging device, which was used ostensibly in relation to narcotics, caused a situation where a tape was played back in a case which had nothing to do with narcotics. I repeat that in certain States of Australia one can get 3 years gaol if one receives one ‘s third conviction for failing a breathalyzer test. I shall not go over the arguments I raised this afternoon in relation to the way in which the system can be abused. Whilst the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is correct in saying that in some States the police can easily obtain permission to bug, particularly in South Australia, that is not so in other States. I suggest that the system is wide open to abuse.

I return to the fundamental point raised by the honourable member for Sturt. Why is it that there is a reluctance to recognise the right of an individual not to have his private and confidential conversations not only overheard but also taped and repeated in a court of law? I am sorry to have to disagree very strongly with the view put by my colleague, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I do not know when he last appeared in a criminal trial but if he thinks that privilege between solicitor and client is as frail as he demonstrated it to be, then he has another think coming. It is not a question of who can take a technical point as to which people will not be called to give evidence but what is done to every man and woman in this country when the fear of God is put into them by the prospect of their conversations being taped when they go into a solicitor’s office and are engaged in a conversation which they believe is confidential.

Mr Young:

– Or a member of Parliament.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Indeed. There is no such thing as parliamentary privilege in the strict legal sense. The point made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) again is correct. It is wrong that people should believe that when they are going into an area of confidentiality and privilege, unbeknownst to them, somebody might be listening into the conversation, taping it and then using the recording.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) made the very interesting point that we are inclined to think about bugs as being little microphones that one sees in James Bond movies. Those days have gone. Today one can be bugged from a quarter of a mile away, or even from half a mile away. It is not even a case of looking in the ceiling to see whether there is a little microphone. I wonder whether it is really the wish of the Government that we should put this sort of legislation on the statute book.

I do not for one moment doubt the good faith of the Minister. I have made that abundantly clear. I do not doubt the good faith of the judge who will issue the warrant, but what I do say is that an examination of section 219G (3) reveals how wide its provisions can go. It can cover any trial of any person in this country for any offence for which that person could receive a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. I suggest that that provision will cut away the rights of thousands of citizens in States in Australia which are not prepared to use bugging devices as a means of investigation. In Tasmania on a completely bipartisan basis there has been a refusal to permit unlimited and unrestricted telephone bugging for the purpose of apprehending those who commit crimes or offences in our State. I am sad to say that in South Australia this can be done fairly easily. In New South Wales it can be done with the authority of the Commissioner of Police.

I put forward a plea for those people in the States who at the moment are not restricted and who are not placed in the position of having their privacy invaded. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, Commonwealth Acts take precedence over State Acts. That is the point that should not be ignored by people who believe in the federal system. Once this legislation goes on to the statute book, by virtue of the Constitution, it will take precedence over any other State Act. To the extent that that State Act would be inconsistent with this legislation, it would be invalid. I wonder whether people realise the implications of this. If a State Government could not get this sort of legislation through its own State parliament or for political reasons did not want to -

Mr Holding:

– The Listening Devices Act in Victoria.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Exactly; in cahoots with the Commonwealth, if it was of the same political colour, or by using the agency operation, that State would be able to get the benefit of this legislation. I believe that there are three elements which ought to be considered in relation to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt. First of all, there is the question of the right to listen in. In relation to the disgraceful trafficking in drugs, most honourable members have taken the view that there should be a right to listen in. So, we stop at that point. What is the next point? It is that there should be a right to record. As the honourable member for Sturt pointed out so eloquently, all sorts of innocent and irrelevant things might be recorded. Innocent people might become involved. Then we come to the third proposition, which is the nub of this clause, that evidence about the matter will be given in a court of law.

I say here and now that anybody who says that this will not damage seriously and, I believe, irretrievably the traditional privileged relationship between citizen and solicitor in this country has not looked carefully at the implications. On this point I find myself in total agreement with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. Quite frankly, what he has said on this point is irrefutable. It goes to the whole question of the right of the citizen in this country in absolute privacy to obtain advice on matters which might affect his or her liberty for many years or for the rest of his or her natural life.

Much as I hate, loathe and detest those involved in drug trafficking, I cannot believe that by passing this legislation in its present form we will be acting in a manner which is commensurate with our united views on an individual’s right to privacy. The amendment moved by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs reasserts to some extent the provisions already contained in the clause; that is, the overriding discretion of the trial judge to exclude evidence which in his view has been obtained unfairly. But there may be judges who take the view: ‘Well, the evidence has been obtained; let it go in ‘. I do not believe that it is the wish of ordinary men and women that special power given in relation to narcotics should be broadened to deal with matters involving SP bookmaking, drunken driving -

Mr Ruddock:

– Murder.

Mr Young:

– Or homosexuality.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member keeps on saying ‘murder’. Earlier in the debate I conceded the point that if someone hears that somebody is going to commit a murder, that information should be communicated to the State authorities. There is no question at all on that. The honourable member for Port Adelaide raised an interesting point about homosexual relationships, because in those States which have a criminal code the maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. So we might be looking at telephone bugging not only in regard to relationships between husband and wife but also in regard to other actions totally unconnected with narcotics. I believe that there are ample grounds for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt to be considered very carefully before the legislation goes further and for the Government to consider a limitation on a power which, in essence, should be restricted totally to narcotics and drug traffickers. They are the people we want to catch, not the other people.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-My interest in this debate has been aroused to some extent. I regret that I cannot agree with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) or my respected colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). I am a practical man. I have had considerable experience in serious crime investigation. It is all right to say that we should not intrude on the liberty of the subject and that we should uphold the privacy between lawyer and client. This is the latter part of the twentieth century when democracy and the liberty of the subject are under one of the greatest challenges that has ever been made in the history of people’s democracy. I am afraid that democracy is about to wither and decay because of the protection of the so-called freedom and liberty of the subject.

Recently a senior Sydney Criminal Investigation Branch officer told me- it is akin to the matter the Parliament is now debating- that in the United States of America- this was either exclusive to one State or general- law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search a motor vehicle were authorised under the warrant to take possession only of such goods as were specified in the warrant. This may sound irrelevant to the issue but I do not think it is. The police opened the boot of a motor car. The warrant had specified that they could take possession of certain drugs. No drugs were found in the car but there was the body of a woman who had just been murdered. They took the body and charged the person with murder. The judge disallowed the evidence because that matter was not specified in the warrant. How bloody stupid are we getting? Emphasis is placed on the fact that the confessional or a solicitor’s office cannot be bugged. Why should those people be so privileged? The privacy of a home can be bugged. A son can come home and tell his mother that he has just committed the Truro murders in South Australia. Seven decent young Australian kiddies were murdered. They never knew that the moment of their death was coming. Their bodies are still being dug up. It is permissible to bug a bedroom. But it is not permissible to bug a priest or a lawyer.

At some time in this latter part of the twentieth century in Australia I would like to see that privilege between solicitor and client changed. I saw an example of this situation in a British court only the other day. It waived a principle of that law in the trial of Jeremy Thorpe. The witness in the box in the Jeremy Thorpe case was warned by the judge that he should not discuss his crossexamination with his lawyer. After the morning tea adjournment the witness came back into the witness box. The proceedings of that trial have attracted the attention of the world. The presiding judge asked: ‘Did you observe my ruling and not discuss your cross-examination?’ The witness answered: ‘ I discussed it with my lawyer ‘.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– He did not say that.

Mr JAMES:

– Well, he said something to that effect.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– He said: ‘I had a discussion with him but not relating to the evidence’.

Mr JAMES:

– I think the honourable member might be dotting the i’s and crossing the t ‘s. But I am giving the general theme of how I read the article. I do not have a copy of the newspaper article. However, it related to an attack on the privilege that exists between a lawyer and his client. The judge reprimanded the witness for even discussing the matter. I think the witness confessed that he had discussed the matter with his lawyer. The judge asked: ‘What discussion took place?’ The witness answered: ‘I asked him how I was going and how was I answering the questions’. That is the very reason lawyers do not want that privilege, which has stood for centuries, destroyed. To use the Australian vernacular, lawyers drum their witnesses on what to say in the witness box to mislead the court and to earn the substantial fee which they charge their clients. I have seen too much of that.

If a police officer gave a Crown witness advice or attempted to give advice, no matter how sad and how sadistic the crime was, he could be pulled up for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. But, because of the privilege which exists between lawyer and client, the lawyer can do it every day without fear. It is with regret that I differ from my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. He sees it through the eyes of a lawyer. I see it through the eyes of a layman, as a practical investigator of some of the most serious crimes to have hit the State of New South Wales. I am a practical man and I say that those honourable members whose views have been the opposite of my own are not acting as though we were in the latter part of the twentieth century, at a time when perhaps four mysterious murders have been carried out by an international drug ring that is supposed to be based in New Zealand. I believe that I know something about it and tomorrow I will impart my knowledge to the law enforcement authorities. They can have a go at trying to destroy my life if they like, but God help them if they miss. I will not be referring to them in the criminal courts as ‘the defendants’ but in the coroner’s court as ‘the deceased ‘.

We must take a second look at our attitude. It is all right for privilege to exist between lawyer and client, but this is the latter part of the twentieth century, a time when, in our free people’s democracy, violent crime has reached unprecedented heights. We politicians have to act accordingly and put down these evil doers. I believe that, to some extent, a vile, recidivist criminal, no matter how caught, is well caught.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Every honourable member will join me in expressing the hope that nothing harmful will ever happen to the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), but the very point of this Bill is that it is intended to assist in apprehending the very people who have caused the blood pressure of the honourable member to rise to such heights. The question that we are debating tonight is the degree and extent to which one may go in pursuit of those aims. No honourable member, whether he be on the Opposition or the Government side, is a friend of the drug or narcotics trafficker.

I wish to cite an example that has come to my mind in the last few minutes of an error which occurred on the part of Customs officers. I am not denigrating such officers. They too are human, but in giving them these special powers we are endeavouring to ensure that, even in error, they will not be abused or wrongly used. In the late 1960s, in my old electorate of Griffith, there was a raid by I believe, Customs men- on the home of an elderly lady who was a highly-respected poet or author. Suddenly, at about 11.30 one night she was awakened by a voice over a megaphone which said: ‘Come outside; your house is surrounded’. A million candlepower light was pointing towards her home and, as she struggled out onto her doorstep in her nightdress, she was told not to move. She was confronted by Customs men who had been fed incorrect information that she was a dealer in imported pornographic material. In their search they found 24 editions of the Australian Women’s Weekly, 15 editions of Woman’s Day and 10 editions of House and Garden. I use that example simply to highlight the need that every care be used when we grant special powers. At the time, an apology was given and the incident is now history; but we do not want to witness a repetition of that performance. I willingly concur that we must be unrelenting in our search and pursuit of those horrible traffickers in drugs and narcotics.

The comments of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Melbourne Ports ( Mr Holding) and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) are all comments of men who do not come in here with political motivation but men who are deeply concerned as to powers we are thrusting in the hands of a few. Not only did the right honourable member for Lowe and the honourable member for Denison cross the floor during the efforts to gag the debate earlier, but a number of members on this side disappeared from the chamber because they did not want to be any part of bringing an end to thoughtful discussion on this Bill.

Throughout the various stages of discussion on this Bill I have been consistent on the question of the usage of evidence gathered on an eavesdropping or telephone listening device because the evidence could be passed to other authorities when it relates to minor crimes. When it comes to murder and serious crime, I have no truck with people who commit those crimes. As I said this afternoon, nobody would have the audacity to introduce into this chamber a Bill authorising eavesdropping and interception by telephone if the evidence gathered could be related to some minor crimes. By sheer accident or otherwise this Bill now encompasses just that. I do not say for a moment that those Customs men who learn a murder is planned or a severe bashing, et cetera, should just close their ears and eyes.

Mr Hodgman:

– We have never said that.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Denison says: ‘We have never said that’. That is quite right. He has been standing by my side for some weeks now. The point is that the legislation which we have introduced spreads a very wide net. Many members would never agree to such a wide net in isolation.

I congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who is sitting at the table, for his intended amendment. I make the observation in relation to it that, even though a court may at its discretion refuse to permit the admission of certain information as evidence, surely the ruling of a judge would, if the case were before a jury, have the effect of acting prejudicially in the minds of the jury. It has been said that a lawyer can claim the right not to give evidence in respect of a taped conversation. I wonder what a jury, which comprised men like the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), all practical men, to use his words, would think if a lawyer were brought in and he suddenly said: I claim the privilege not to give evidence in relation to that taped conversation’. It too could well have a prejudicial effect on the minds of that jury. It is concern such as that which has been presented in this discussion tonight. In conclusion, because the night races on, I compliment the Minister because he is one of the better Ministers of this Government. At least he considers contributions which are being made from both sides. I hope the lateness of the hour means that he is hoping that the debate is talked out, which will give him an opportunity to ask Cabinet in the morning to consider further amendments.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I advise the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) that the gag which was applied tonight was applied by the Government. I find it utterly deplorable. Important matters which have been before the House and which continue to be before the House must be disposed of before we complete discussion on the Bills. This debate has clearly shown that. This sort of debate, under no consideration should warrant the gag being applied. There are sincere beliefs on both sides of the House as is instanced in this amendment by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). The regrettable fact was- I do not know about the Government side- that we received a copy of the honourable member’s amendment only 20 minutes before it was debated. I think that honourable members on the Opposition side of the House certainly sympathise. Regrettably, this aspect of the matter was not discussed in the legislation committee to the degree that it has been discussed tonight. The Opposition certainly sympathises with the sentiments put forward by the honourable member for Sturt. I would say that I speak for both sides of the House. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out in the legislation committee, we are concerned, and have been consistently concerned, about the improper disclosure of information obtained by bugging devices.

I strongly suggest to the House that Opposition members are not sure at this stage that the amendment is the best way of achieving this result, nor are they certain that it is consistent with the overall objectives of the Bill or the mechanics that it employs. The Opposition seeks more time- I certainly do and I think my party committee does- to consider it and then perhaps we can discuss the matter between now and when it goes to the Senate to see that appropriate provisions are finally put into the Bill which will cover the concern of most honourable members on both sides of the House.

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

– A great deal that has been said in the course of the debate on this amendment has had no direct relevance to the clause under consideration. I understand that some honourable members who were not in the

House this afternoon felt a desire to make a contribution. I deplored the personal remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) about my lack of contribution to this debate. It is obvious from that comment that the honourable member has not been in the House in the course of the debate, because I have been making contributions as the debate has proceeded on each amendment. I have given reasons why the Government has accepted or refused to accept amendments.

The amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), which is his second amendment, is consequential upon the first amendment. When the House was dealing with the first amendment, I indicated that the Government would not accept either amendment. I indicated clearly- I repeat it for the benefit of honourable members in the House at this time- that it is the desire of the Government that systems can be built in which reinforce existing protections of privacy. It is for this purpose that the Government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to report to it generally on the question of privacy. I suggest that the matter can be further considered and, if necessary, debated in this House upon receipt of this report.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the amendment be agreed to’. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no; I think the noes have it.

Mr Wilson:

– The ayes have it.

Dr Klugman:

– The ayes have it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is a division required? I call the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

Mr Fife:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave of the House to introduce a further amendment to clause 8 of the Bill. This amendment was foreshadowed in my comments on the previous amendment, moved by -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I take it that the Minister is seeking leave to introduce the amendment. Is leave granted?

Mr Wilson:

– How many people called for a division on the last amendment?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Hurford:

– I take a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I think you missed a comment relating to the last call for a division. There was certainly a call for a division on this side of the House and I thought I heard one on the other. Perhaps because the voices were from either side you missed the call for a division on the last amendment.

Mr Baillieu:

– Nonsense. That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for La Trobe will remain silent. He will be more help if he does so. The Chair concedes that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, under the unusual circumstances, that a gentle voice from the distant right may have gone unheard. Rather than that justice in the matter be denied, the Chair is of a mind to ask again whether a division is required.

Opposition members- Yes.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The House will divide. Ring the bells.

Question put.

That the amendment (Mr Wilson’s) be agreed to.

Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. C. Millar)

Ayes……… 28

Noes……… 65

Majority…… 37

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

– I seek the leave of the House to move a further amendment to clause 8 of the Bill.

Leave granted.

Mr FIFE:

-I move:

This amendment was foreshadowed in my comments on the previous amendment moved by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). I said at that time that the amendment which I now propose, which adds a new sub-section (4) to the proposed section 219G, seeks to alleviate many of the problems mentioned in the House this afternoon, and again this evening, concerning the use of information, obtained through a listening device, which is relevant to criminal activity other than narcotics offences. My amendment also covers the admission in evidence of information relevant to a narcotics offence which the court may regard as unfair to the accused.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition supports the amendment moved by the Government which, as I understand it, will give a court the discretion in criminal proceedings to exclude evidence obtained from listening devices if that evidence would operate unfairly for the defendant. Courts retain a residual discretion to exclude evidence which unfairly prejudices the interests of a defendant. One ought to weigh up what the courts refer to as the probative value of the evidence and its prejudicial qualities. In that sense this amendment takes the position perhaps a little further than the common law position. However, evidence is hard to exclude on the laws of evidence and this amendment will give a defendant a much better chance to have excluded unfairly prejudicial evidence. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will be aware, the Opposition got this amendment only about two hours ago. Whilst we thought we would support the amendment we will certainly consider the matter further in deciding what attitude we will take when the legislation comes before the Senate. We support the measure at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– The Government’s proposed amendment No. 14 and amendment No. 8 standing in the name of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) deal with the same matter. I am prepared to refrain from moving Government amendment No. 14 standing in my name in favour of amendment No. 8 standing in the name of the honourable member if he is prepared to amend his amendment slightly so that it reads as follows:

That amendment No. (13) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: “( 13) Clause 8, page 9, lines 20-36, omit proposed section 3 1 9j, substitute the following proposed section: 2I9J. The Comptroller-General shall cause to be retained in the records of his Department all warrants issued under section 2 1 9b, all documents furnished to a Judge in connection with the issue of those warrants and all instruments issued under section 2 1 9f revoking warrants issued. ‘. “.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The course suggested by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is satisfactory to the Opposition. I seek leave to amend my amendment No. 8 accordingly, as suggested by the Minister.

Leave granted.

Mr JACOBI:

– I briefly comment that as it is admitted that the matter of warrants issued on affidavits by Customs officers has already been discussed by the House and defeated, I therefore move:

That amendment No. (13) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted: “( 13) Clause 8, page 9, lines 20-36, omit proposed section 2 1 9j, substitute the following proposed section: 2 19 J. The Comptroller shall cause to be retained in the records of his Department all warrants issued under section 219b, all documents furnished to a Judge in connection with the issue of those warrants and all instruments issued under section 2 1 9f revoking warrants so issued. ‘. “.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– As with the last amendment standing in my name, I am prepared to refrain from moving amendment No. 15 standing in my name in favour of amendment No. 9 standing in the name of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) if the honourable member is prepared to amend that amendment to read:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill: “Clause 8, page 10, lines 1-4, omit proposed section 2 I9l, substitute the following proposed section: 2 1 9l. ( 1 ) The Comptroller shall furnish to the Minister a copy of each warrant issued under section 2 1 9B, a copy of all documents furnished to a Judge in connection with the issue of the warrant and of each instrument issued under section 2 1 9F revoking such a warrant as soon as practicable after the issue or revocation of the warrant.

The Comptroller shall furnish to the Minister, in respect of each warrant issued under section 219B. a report in writing on the extent to which action taken under the warrant has assisted officers of Customs in narcotics inquiries that have been made by them.’.”.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The course suggested by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is satisfactory to the Opposition. I seek leave to amend my amendment No. 9, as suggested by the Minister.

Leave granted.

Mr JACOBI:

– We canvassed this matter extensively in the legislation committee. The Opposition is grateful that the Government has accepted its approach on this matter. I move:

That the following amendment be made to the Bill:

Clause 8, page 10, lines 1-4, omit proposed section 2 1 9l, substitute the following section: 219L. ( I ) The Comptroller-General shall furnish to the Minister a copy of each warrant issued under section 2 1 9B, a copy of all documents furnished to a Judge in connection with the issue of the warrant and each instrument issued under section 2 1 9F revoking the warrant as soon as practicable after the issue or revocation of warrant.

The Comptroller-General shall furnish to the Minister, in respect of each warrant issued under section 2 1 9b, a report in writing on the extent to which action taken under the warrant has assisted officers of Customs in narcotics inquiries that have been made by them.’.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-Amendment No. 10 standing in my name relates to the Government’s amendment No. 1 5. 1 move:

That amendment No. (15) proposed by the Government be amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections: “‘(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report which shall compile in full the reports made to the Minister by the Comptroller under subsection ( 1 ) during the preceding year. “(4) Notwithstanding sub-section (3), the Minister shall not be required to disclose in a report under subsection (3) any information which would or would be reasonably likely to-

  1. prejudice the investigation of a breach or possible breach of the law or the enforcement of proper administration of the law in a particular instance;
  2. prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case;
  3. disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law;
  4. disclose methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law, the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures; or
  5. endanger the lives or physical safety of persons engaged in orin connection with law enforcement. “(5) Where any information is withheld from a report to Parliament under sub-section (4), the report shall detail the number of cases to which sub-section (4) applies and the reason, being a reason specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d ) or (e) of sub-section (4), for non-disclosure of information in each case. “(6) Any information withheld under sub-section (4) shall be detailed in an annual report to Parliament under sub-section (3) at the first available opportunity after the reason for non-disclosure, being a reason specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (4), is no longer applicable.”.’.

Apart from the matters raised under amendment No. 1 1, there is the further question of reports to Parliament. This aspect was discussed in depth in the legislation committee and I will not go into any detail now unless other honourable members raise it. The Opposition’s position on this has been quite clear. We believe that on the subject of safeguarding people’s rights to a fair trial or to the administration of the law, there should be freedom of information in a matter as important as the use of listening devices. For that reason, this is the only Opposition amendment that was defeated in the legislation committee which in fact we are moving tonight. We urge the Government to reconsider the purpose of the amendment.

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

– As I indicated to the legislation committee at the time a similar amendment was proposed by the Opposition, the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment but would be prepared to accept an amendment that the responsible Minister shall arrange for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives to be briefed from time to time on matters relating to narcotic offences. The Opposition has decided to come before the House with both amendments, since the amendment that I foreshadowed the Government would accept is not contained in amendment No. 12, standing in the name of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). I should say that the practical reason why the Government is not prepared to accept that there be a public reporting to the Parliament of the use of listening devices, in contrast to private reporting to the Leader of the Opposition, is that the making public of these details would undoubtedly assist the planning and execution of criminal activities relating to narcotics, to the detriment of the investigation of those activities.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-For the sake of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) I would like to put this proposal, which is the only one rejected by the legislation committee that we brought back before the House. It is central to our whole approach to the Bill. I think the most useful thing I can do is put it in the context of what we have tried to do with this Bill. It was our belief that the balance between law enforcement on one side and the right to privacy on the other had not been sufficiently ensured in this Bill. We had two major approaches to that. One was the system of judicial warrants. We are glad that the Minister has accepted in form that first major protection of judicial warrants. As we said this afternoon, we are dissatisfied with some of the detail of that, particularly in relation to the criteria for the issue of warrants and also in relation to some of the documentation relating to warrants. We will continue to attempt to strengthen those provisions in the Senate.

The second side of our approach to the Bill is that this House, this Parliament, should have some effective supervision of this major advance in the type of legislation passed through this Parliament. The use of these devices is something about which all of us in this House are genuinely concerned. In this amendment we have proposed a role for the Parliament in the supervision of Executive actions or Customs actions in this field. We do not accept the Minister’s argument that somehow a discussion or a debate in this House about the use of these devices will somehow give criminals details whereby they can avoid successfully the operations being conducted. Indeed, we have tried to provide a whole series of qualifications. We have taken great care to try to prevent both the dangers suggested by the Minister and the threats to the rights of fair trial, without in any way endangering Customs agents.

It seems to us terribly important that in legislation of this kind- if, in the late twentieth century this Parliament is to have any useful function at all- one of the functions should be to check on the Executive in regard to these kinds of intrusions and invasions which are likely to become greater because of technological development. We see this as the second part of our proposal. On one side we seek to provide for judicial warrants while on the other we seek to give this Parliament a role in checking on the use of these devices. We have suggested therefore, the presentation of an annual report based on the Comptroller-General’s reports, but with a whole series of safeguards. In this regard I refer honourable members to paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of proposed new sub-section (4) which attempt to overcome any of the dangers which we recognise could derive from this kind of supervision.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I do not want to delay the House, but I do want to put on the record an issue that I raised in the legislation committee. I raised in that committee the point that we are going to have, as I understood the situation, two sets of contrary statutory laws in this country. The proposed new section 219L now before the House reads:

The Comptroller-General shall furnish to the Minister, in respect of each warrant issued under this Division, a report in writing on the extent to which the action taken under the warrant has assisted officers of Customs in narcotics inquiries that have been made by them.

The point I raised in the legislation committee was simply this: Under the forthcoming national securities and companies legislation any investigatory procedures undertaken cannot be directed either by a Minister or by ministerial council. Such direction is the exclusive prerogative of the law officer of the Crown, and that is as it should be. I am saying this simply to put it on the record. People’s rights and privileges ought to be protected. A Minister has privileges. I think that the provisions of the national securities and companies legislation are extremely important. Under those provisions, any investigations in the corporate sector are to be undertaken by the Corporate Affairs Commission and any information that results from that investigation prior to prosecution is a matter that must lie with the law officer of the Crown. It is not to be the privilege of politicians on both sides of the House to use information affecting a person outside the House who has no redress whatsoever. I indicated that and got no support in the legislation committee. I put the matter on record only in the hope that ultimately the Senate will consider the fact that we are going to have two sets of statutory law in this country, one of which I certainly support. I refer to the set of laws that are to be encompassed within the national securities legislation and subsequent legislation. I suggest to the Minister the amendment we have put forward in this regard which reads in part:

Notwithstanding sub-section (3), the Minister shall not be required to disclose in a report under sub-section (3) any information which would or would be reasonably likely to . . .

I suggest that that is my party’s amendment. I view the matter with considerable concern. Quite frankly my view is that the Minister should not be entitled to make reports to this Parliament on matters that are going through the stage of investigatory procedures. I would prefer that sort of matter to lie with the Attorney-General, the law office of the Crown- the Solicitor-General- or the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. At this stage I ask the House to reflect upon this matter.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I express some reservations about the compromise amendment which is being moved in the light of the information given to the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). Whilst we have to accept the amendment because the Government has the numbers, I would have thought that honourable members on the other side of the House would not be completely happy about it. The Government is saying that a person who has a fair number of duties shall be satisfied- without having had discussions with other people because of the information having been given on a confidential basis- with the implementation of this aspect of the legislation. All sorts of points arise. Instead of having a coalition government with one party in opposition, the situation could arise where we have a second opposition party which may have very strong feelings on this matter and which would not get any information.

I question the principle of the matter. All that will happen is that that information will be given to the Leader of the Opposition on a confidential basis. Let us assume that he is not satisfied with the information and he decides that the narcotics division is exceeding its powers. What does the Leader of the Opposition do with the confidential information? I think that in a way he can be stopped from doing anything by it being said to him: ‘We are giving you this information on a confidential basis; therefore you cannot raise it in this House or anywhere else.’ In theory the House would be satisfied because somebody on the Opposition side has been given the information. To me this is an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with the situation. In theory the Leader of the Opposition may have an attitude different from that of a significant number of honourable members in this House regarding civil liberties. Obviously I am not suggesting that this is the case at the present time but it is an issue that could easily arise.

The main point that worries me is this: On what basis is information on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation given to the Leader of the Opposition? As I understand the position the Leader of the Opposition cannot use such information. So, regardless of whether he is satisfied or dissatisfied with it, there is nothing he can do about it. In some ways everybody else is stopped from arguing about it because the reply by the Executive will be: ‘The information has been given to the Leader of the Opposition but he has done nothing about it. ‘ But what can he do about it? I realise that nothing is going to be done about this matter tonight. I hope that when the Government senators review this legislation they will see whether giving this information to the Leader of the Opposition- and only the Leader of the Opposition- on a confidential basis is a satisfactory way in which to deal with this aspect.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I am grateful that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has raised the aspect of the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition accepts the position put forward, but we do so with some reservations. Nonetheless we accept it.

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

– I am glad to have the assurance of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). It will be of interest to the House to know that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) have agreed that because of the immense importance of this matter it be dealt with on a bipartisan basis. That decision was reached by the two leaders prior to this legislation being introduced into the House. To my knowledge the Leader of the Opposition has had at least one briefing from officers of my Department. Under the arrangement, of course, he can be briefed at any time he wishes. What we are seeking to do now is to write into the legislation an arrangement which I understand is acceptable to both sides of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8, as further amended, agreed to.

Wednesday, 30 May 1979

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I seek leave of the House to move two amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I move:

  1. . That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 1 3, page 1 7, line 7, omit ‘shall ‘, substitute ‘may ‘.
  2. That the following amendment be made to the Bill: Clause 13, page 17, lines 10-12, omit ‘unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the narcotic goods were not imported into Australia or were not imported into Australia in contravention of this Act ‘.

The purpose of the amendments is to effect the evidentiary provisions as laid down in what will be section 243B of the Act. I think that on this matter there ought to be bipartisan support in respect to my amendments. I certainly hope that there is. To understand the import of the amendment we have to go back to the provisions in relation to pecuniary penalty. If honourable members look at what will become section 243 B, they will see that it states:

The Minister or the Comptroller may institute a proceeding in the court, on behalf of the Commonwealth for an order that a person pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth in respect of

a particular prescribed narcotics dealing engaged in by him; or

prescribed narcotics dealings engaged in by him during a particular period.

The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) will be very interested to know that this is not a procedure for confiscation of property after conviction; it is in lieu of conviction. It is a proceeding to be instituted by the Minister or the Comptroller to claim money from somebody who is alleged to have done something when he has not been prosecuted. It is unique. I repeat, it is unique to the law of the Commonwealth and it is certainly quasi-criminal in its nature. Proposed section 243D gives powers to the prosecutor which are stronger than anything I have ever seen in an Australian Act of parliament or a State Act of parliament. They are, frankly, too strong for our system of justice because they contain two provisions. The first part of proposed section 243D contains a deeming provision and a mandatory one at that. Who would ever have thought we would have seen in a Commonwealth Act these words:

  1. . the Court shall, for the purposes of the proceedings, treat the narcotic goods as narcotic goods which have been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act.

It is a deeming provision and a mandatory one. Then it goes on to say: . . unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the narcotic goods were not imported into Australia or were not imported into Australia in contravention of this Act.

When the unfortunate man who has these proceedings brought against him goes into court, he is not charged with a criminal offence where his guilt would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He is proceeded against by way of a proceeding instituted by the Minister or the Comptroller. When he walks into the court the judge is told under this proposed Act of parliament, ‘You are to treat those goods as narcotics goods which have been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act, unless the poor citizen can prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities’. The golden thread of the English law is that a man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If this is the rule in relation to locking up people, it ought to be the rule in relation to taking away their property. It ought to be the same rule. What is the difference between locking up a man for six months and taking $50,000 worth of property from him? The onus of proof is put here on a man who is trying to protect his property. I would have said- again the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) will know the provisions to which I refer because they appear in practically every State criminal code or crimes Act- that there is usually a power now for a judge, following conviction, to make an order either for payment of damages or for confiscation of property. But this is something quite alien to our law. It is certainly contrary to basic liberal philosophy and I challenge any honourable member of the House to point out to me a provision of this nature in any Commonwealth or State Act. Provisions of this kind may be found in the Acts of certain countries behind the Iron Curtain, or in certain European jurisdictions-

Mr James:

– Singapore.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Yes, they may very well be found there too. They will be found in certain jurisdictions where people have to prove their innocence. I appeal as strongly as I can to the House and to the Minister to accept my amendment. What is the effect of my amendment? Firstly, it takes out ‘shall’ and inserts the word may’, which allows the judge to decide. If the judge considers it good enough to treat the goods as imported, contrary to the provisions of the Act, that is good enough for me.

Mr James:

– It gives him a lot of power, doesn’t it?

Mr HODGMAN:

-Exactly, but it gives the judge the discretion to decide whether he will draw that inference. Secondly, the burden of proof is taken away from the man whose property will undoubtedly be seized if this application is upheld. My amendment is to insert the word may’ in lieu of the word ‘shall’, and to remove the iniquitious words: . . unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the narcotic goods were not imported into Australia or were not imported into Australia in contravention of this Act.

Nobody in this debate, thank heavens, has accused anybody who has raised these points of being a supporter of drug traffickers, and so on. I appeal to the House to accept this amendment and to leave the matter to the discretion of the judge. Give the judge that discretion. If the judge says: ‘Yes, I am prepared to use section 343D’, I think that is fair enough because it is the judge making the decision. But if this provision is left in, I believe a provision is being placed in the statute books which is alien to our law, alien to the rights of every Australian, and places at risk the property of people who might very well be innocent but who cannot prove it.

I repeat, the golden thread of the English law is presumption of innocence. I know my colleague from Hunter will agree with me on this. I have in the past, and I will in the future, fight any man who wants the law of this country changed so that people have to prove their innocence. That is not the law, thank heavens. The police have never asked for the law to be changed. The principle of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt is crystal clear and here we are proposing to take away a man’s property, which may very well bankrupt him and disgrace him, because the onus of proof is put on to him. I do hope that on reflection the Government will be prepared to accept the amendments. If not, I hope that members of goodwill on both sides of the House will accept that this provision as it is drawn is too strong, is alien to our customs, is contrary to the rights of Australia, and ought to be rejected.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The Opposition will support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). As the honourable member is aware, I think, the Opposition proposed the total deletion of proposed new section 243D because it objected to the effect on the defendant which is the same issue as he has raised. The proposed new section is also of doubtful constitutional validity, because this Parliament only has power in relation to imported goods. I think the honourable member raised that point. This provision assumes that all narcotics are imported, unless the defendant can establish to the contrary. For these reasons, which were discussed at the legislative committee, the Opposition supports the proposed amendment.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

- Mr Acting Speaker, I strongly support the amendment that has been proposed by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The more I look at the proposed new section the more bewildered I become that anything like this could ever have been put into a Bill by a Parliament of this kind. I am dumbfounded to think that this could have happened. Why has it occurred?

First of all we must remember that the Bill proposes two new Divisions. The first relates to narcotics and to the user, the pusher and to the men who can mastermind this filthy and undesirable practice which has to be stamped out to the maximum of our capacity. The second, proposed new Division 3, relates only to the recovery of pecuniary penalties for dealings in narcotic goods. It does not require that there should be a prosecution and a conviction. All it says is that under certain circumstances there will be recovery of pecuniary penalties, not that there will be a gaol penalty. Proposed new Division 3 is different. Divisions 1 and 2 generally cover criminal matters, which to a large extent are a State responsibility. Proposed new Division 3 relates solely to Commonwealth Government responsibilities. I regard these points as important.

Proposed new section 243D is incredible. As I tried to say when I spoke earlier, I believe there has to be a presumption that a man is not guilty until he is conclusively or beyond reasonable doubt proved to be guilty. If we give up that principle, the decencies and the fundamental rules of life as provided for by the law will be abused. The very words of this proposed new section are frightening. The word ‘shall’ is used. The honourable member for Denison has already quoted proposed new section 243D but I repeat it. It reads:

Where, in a proceeding under section 243b against a person, the Court is satisfied that the narcotic goods in relation to which the person is alleged to have engaged in a prescribed narcotics dealing or in prescribed narcotic dealings are goods reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia … the Court shall, for the purposes of the proceeding, treat the narcotic goods as narcotic goods . . .

That is an incredible statement. It does not matter about the facts or the evidence. The court is under an obligation to make a presumption of illegality. It is not given the opportunity to test the evidence to see whether there is justification for proceeding. I believe that the whole of the proposed new section ought to be struck out. The honourable member for Denison convinced me that it ought to be struck out. Nonetheless if he likes to take an easier way and give the court an opportunity to express an opinion, I certainly agree that the word ‘shall’ should be taken out and the word ‘may’ put in its place. Equally I therefore think that the concluding words of proposed new section 2430D would be unnecessary. I regard them as unnecessary anyhow. When the word ‘may’ is inserted instead of the word shall’ it is right and proper that we should delete these words: . . unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the narcotic goods were not imported in to Australia or were not imported into Australia in contravention of this Act.

I do not like this proposed new section. I would like it to be cut out completely. I think that the question of evidence in a court of law is being disregarded. So many of the principles that we have held to be sacred at law are offended by this proposed new section. I therefore support very strongly what has been said by my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Denison.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It appears to me that the aim of proposed new section 243D is really to give the legislation constitutional validity. The Government wants to be able to argue that narcotic substances have been imported but does not want to be required to prove it. The onus of proof is to be reversed. The Government will have a say on the whole issue only if narcotic substances have been imported. If the drugs have not been imported the Government does not have any power. There are some lawyers in this House. Obviously I am not one of them. I would like somebody to point out to the House where the onus of proof would lie if somebody were convicted on such a charge and he then took his case to the High Court on the basis that the narcotics concerned were not imported. Would it lie on the Government to prove to the High Court that it was entitled to do whatever it did- confiscate money, et cetera- because the narcotics were imported? Is the onus of proof on the appellant to the High Court to show that the goods were not imported?

Mr Hodgman:

– The second; the onus is on the appellant.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Is that so only because of this legislation, or is it so in any case? Apparently the legal adviser to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) disagrees. I think my point is relevant. I hope somebody will clear it up. Maybe the Minister will consult with his legal advisers to find out what the actual position will be. Provided the onus of proof will still be on the Government- in other words, the Government or the Crown will still have to prove to the High Court that the goods were imported and therefore the Government was acting within its constitutional powers- I do not suppose it matters much. But if the onus of proof” is shifted to the appellant, it seems to me that we ought to oppose this clause.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think it best that I should try to clear up the point raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). I have been advised that a criminal case such as the one mentioned by the honourable member cannot be taken to the High Court on a matter of criminal appeal. There can be no appeal in a case such as that. The honourable member is not listening, so it does not matter anyway.

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

– The Government cannot accept either amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The comments I make now refer to both amendments. It is central to the thinking of the Government in relation to these pecuniary penalty provisions that the proof of importation of narcotic goods should be no more difficult than the proof of importation for criminal purposes. The Government has no desire to tie together for a pecuniary penalty criminal proceedings and civil proceedings. The pecuniary penalty provisions are designed to operate irrespective of whether the Crown brings a criminal action against a particular person.

The Government recognises that these provisions contain harsh elements. No apology is made for that fact. It is part of an upgrading of the war against drug trafficking. The alternative, for all practical purposes, is to let the financiers and the back-room boys go free and enjoy the fruits of their illicit investment. The whole process relating to receiverships and the order of a pecuniary penalty is under the control of the Federal Court of Australia with the provision of ample opportunity for persons to address the Court on any relevant matter. The provisions of proposed new section 243G will enable the Court to intervene at anytime on the motion of any involved person.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

With the greatest of respect, I take the strongest exception to whoever wrote the words which the Minister for business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has just read out. Nobody in this Parliament wants to see the back-room boys go free, but there are people in this Parliament who react very strongly to a reversal of the onus of proof. I do not attack the Minister personally, but who ever wrote those words ought to be hung, drawn and quartered because that was the first time in this debate that anybody has imputed to a member that he was motivated by an amendment which would have the practical effect of letting the back-room boys go free. I am sorry, but I take a very strong attitude in relation to that.

Secondly, I suggest that the advice given to the Minister is wrong. I am sorry if that puts me in conflict with a learned counsel representing the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and advising the Minister. But, with the greatest of respect to advisers, heaven forbid that because a contrary opinion is expressed we in this House should accept that opinion without question.

I take a contrary view to the advice given to the Minister. Again I ask: Why is the Government frightened to leave it to a judge to make the decision. That is the effect of this amendment. The Minister said that it is central to the thinking of the Government that this clause go through. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said- although I did not mention it specifically, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) also picked it up- a very important constitutional question is involved in this section of the Bill because if this provision goes out the window, if the High Court of Australia were to hold it to be unconstitutional, the whole of the legislation goes out, lock, stock and barrel.

People might ask afterwards why this debate carried on and why lawyers pedantically dragged this debate on. We are talking about the confiscation of property of Australian citizens. It is confiscation, not following conviction, but confiscation of property in lieu of conviction. As the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) said on an earlier occasion when we discussed this and would say if he were here tonight, if a conviction cannot be gained proceedings for a pecuniary penalty will be brought. It is completely wrong. It is an insult to the courts to say that:

  1. . the Court shall, for the purposes of the proceeding, treat the narcotic goods as narcotic goods which have been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act . . .

It is like saying to a judge of the Federal Court of Australia: ‘We are not going to leave it up to you to make up your mind on the individual facts’. As the honourable member for Prospect has said, the question cannot even be raised. The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) has also made the point.

Look, this provision will go through here on the numbers. I certainly would not detain the House with a division when the result is a foregone conclusion. But it is a matter of profound regret to me that a government of Liberal persuasion and Liberal philosophy brings in a provision which puts the judges of the courts of Australia into a straightjacket by saying: ‘You shall do it’- not that they may, but they shalland puts the onus of proof onto the man whose property is to be assessed. Without any offence to Opposition members I could believe this type of provision coming from a socialist government. I frankly cannot believe it coming from a government of our political persuasion. If the matter cannot be put right in this place, let me say here and now that I only wish that former Senator Sir Reginald White was still in the Senate. If he was, members would hear one of the greatest debates they could ever hear.

I repeat that I am opposed to this provision. It is confiscatory of property. It is probably unconstitutional. It puts the judges of the courts into straightjackets by telling them what they shall do, not what they may do. Last but not least, it puts the onus of proof on the poor individual to save his property and to escape pecuniary penalty. It makes that individual prove his innocence. I think it is alien to this country, unAustralian and certainly anti-Liberal.

Amendments negatived.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the right honourable member for Lowe.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I do not want a division. I am merely expressing my view, Sir, as the then occupant of the chair gave me the opportunity to do on the last occasion -

Honourable members interjecting ;

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-As far as the Chair is concerned, no division was called for.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– No one called for a division.

Dr Klugman:

– Did you rule for the ayes or the noes?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I ruled for the noes.

Dr Klugman:

– No, the ayes have it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members are invited to say either ‘ aye ‘ or ‘ no ‘ to indicate their opinion. The Chair determines the result. If the result is to be challenged by way of a division, a division must be called for. The Chair does not initiate a division. The Chair declared the result in the negative and has moved to the next item. For that reason, the right honourable member for Lowe was called.

Mr Jacobi:

– Perhaps it was my responsibility. I am unacquainted with these procedures. I assumed that the amendment was in the hands of the honourable member for Denison. I anticipated that he would call for a division, if one was required.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, he didn ‘t.

Mr Jacobi:

– All right. That may well be. But we certainly would have. That is the point I am trying to make. The honourable member is the great civil libertarian. He wants to move it. He could have called for a division. I would certainly have pressed for a division on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member for Hawker has had adequate indulgence from the Chair.

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– I rise to order. I did say quite clearly in my speech -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat.

Mr HODGMAN (Denison)- I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation he may proceed.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I did make it quite clear that no matter how strongly I held a certain view it was quite obvious that the Government would not accept the amendment and that I would not press for a division.

Mr Jacobi:

– Then I apologise.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I did make that quite clear.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move amendment No. 2 standing in my name:

That amendment No. ( 14) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted:

14) Clause 13, page 17, omit proposed section 243e, substitute the following section: “243E. In a proceeding under this matter, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied concerning any matter beyond reasonable doubt. ‘.

What I have tried to do is to go only a little further than I have previously gone during the debate on this matter. I believe that in a case like this where one is dealing with pecuniary penalties the proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. That is the normal rule in any proceedings of a criminal or semi-criminal type. I see no reason why we should turn around and say that proof should be determined on the balance of probabilities. We have had a lot of discussion and very good debate today about the protection of the rights of the individual. I believe that for the proper prosecution of a narcotics offence in which the property of an individual is likely to be confiscated or a individual is likely to be subjected to a heavy fine the individual should be in the same position as any other person. When proof is necessary the evidence should be of such a weight that guilt is beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. I make those points against the background of the other comments I have made on this Bill.

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

– It would appear that the intention of the amendment moved by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), which is similar to amendment No. 14 made by the legislation committee, is to ensure that in cases for the recovery of pecuniary penalties all matters relating to a prescribed narcotics dealing, including the fact that narcotic goods have been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act, be proven to the satisfaction of the court beyond reasonable doubt.

I indicated to the legislation committee that the Government could not accept an amendment having the purpose of requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt in respect of these matters. For practical purposes such a provision would, in the view of the Government, make the provisions for the order of a pecuniary penalty virtually useless. The purpose of the pecuniary penalties provisions is that they are an additional method of attacking illicit trafficking of narcotics by providing a framework within the civil law for an order, in the nature of public damages, for the Crown to be awarded the benefits derived from these dealings. Such a law is to be placed, if it is to have any impact in the narcotics trade, on the same footing as commercial law generally. To treat it as criminal law is to deny the basic purpose for its introduction.

These amendments provide for a much stricter burden of proof in this civil action than the burden of proof presently provided for in other closely related provisions of the Customs Actfor example, proposed section 229A dealing with the seizure and forfeiture of money and goods. Further, it would be stricter than the standard of proof required in many of the provisions of proposed section 233B of the Customs Act, the criminal provisions relating to narcotics. However, the Government feels that the appropriate standard of proof in these actions for a pecuniary penalty could be allowed greater flexibility. Accordingly, amendment No. 16 standing in my name and listed on the order of business as item 33, deletes in its entirety proposed new section 243E of the Bill. This Government amendment will enable the relevant court to determine the standard of proof appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case. I seek the support of the House for amendment No. 16 standing in my name and for the rejection of the proposed amendments listed as items 3 1 and 32.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I advise the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in advance that he is not likely to get that. This amendment requires proof beyond reasonable doubt on every question relating to the action. It will be remembered that this was discussed at length by the legislation committee. Opposition amendment No. 1 1, to which we will shortly come, simply requires this standard of proof on the threshold question of whether, in effect, a person is guilty. On the question of penalties, once guilt has been established, we believe that proof on the balance of probabilities is sufficient. This has been discussed at length by the legislation committee.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-It is somewhat unfortunate that the chronological order of amendments was such that the statement by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in opposition to the amendment of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) was not made at the time my amendment was being defeated because nobody has yet disputed that proposed new section 243E- indeed all the proceedings commenced under proposed new section 243B- are quasi criminal. They are quasi criminal. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has been misadvised on one point because he is assuming that this applies to proceedings following conviction. The point I have made very clearly is that these proceedings are in lieu of conviction. There is a world of difference.

It is quite obvious that the Minister has recognised at least part of the validity of the submission by the right honourable member for Lowe because he says that the effect of the amendment to be moved is to leave it to the court to determine the standard of proof to be advised. That is exactly what I was asking him to do in relation to the previous amendment- to leave it to the court. My request was not accepted. I find some difficulty in understanding the logical nexus as to why in proposed new section 243E the Minister was not prepared to leave it to the judge but in proposed new section 243D he said that the Government wants to leave it to the judge. Having made that point, I invite the Minister’s advisers to get him out of that one. Whilst the Minister’s amendment is an improvement, it still does not fit the Bill. The right honourable member for Lowe’s amendment is the only one which could be supported by anybody who believes that the burden of proof in quasi criminal matters should be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find not only that the Government has been quite inconsistent in relation to two provisions, one after the other, but also that it is cutting across the basic principle of the law, the basic right of the individual and a fundamental pillar of Liberal philosophy.

Amendment negatived.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I move Opposition amendment No. (11):

That amendment No. ( 14) made by the legislation committee be omitted and the following amendment substituted:

(14) Clause 13, page 17, omit proposed section 243e, substitute the following section: "243e. In a proceeding under this matter, the degree to which the Court must be satisfied in respect of a matter shall be- (a) if the matter involves a question of fact as to whether a person has engaged in a particular prescribed narcotics dealing or has engaged in prescribed narcotics dealings during a particular period- satisfaction of the Court on the matter beyond reasonable doubt; or (b) any matter other than a matter involving a question specified in paragraph (a)satisfaction of the Court on the matter on the balance of probabilities." '.

This amendment touches on the one just dealt with. The position as the Opposition understands it is that a giant con job is involved in this respect. The position of the legislation committee was absolutely clear. The majority view was that the threshold questions about whether a person had engaded in the drug trade were to be determined on the normal criminal standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) might listen, because we are back to where we were before. The Government is moving simply to delete all references to the question of proof, no doubt in the belief that Division 3 of Part XIII provides for civil proceedings. The Government clearly hopes that a court would take the view that the standard of proof to apply was simply a standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. Amendment No. 16 is a dishonest amendment and we oppose it strongly.

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

– I have already indicated to the House the Government’s proposals with regard to proposed section 243E in the Bill. Consistent with my comments on the amendment moved by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the Government does not accept amendment No. 1 1 moved by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi).

Amendment negatived.

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

– I move amendment No. 16 standing in my name:

That amendment No. (14) made by the legislation committee be amended by omitting all words after “ section 243e”.

It would appear that the intention of amendment No. 14 made by the legislation committee was to ensure that in cases for the recovery of pecuniary penalties, all matters relating to a prescribed narcotics dealing, including the fact that narcotic goods had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act, be proved to the satisfaction of the court beyond reasonable doubt. I indicated to the legislation committee that the Government could not accept an amendment having the purpose of requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt in respect of these matters. For practical purposes such a provision, in the view of the Government, would make the provisions for the order of a pecuniary penalty virtually useless.

The purpose of the provisions which provide for pecuniary penalties is an additional method of attacking illicit trafficking of narcotics- by providing a framework within the civil law for an order in the nature of public damages for the Crown to be awarded the benefits derived from these dealings. Such a law is to be placed, if it is to have any impact in the narcotics trade, on the same footing as commercial law generally. To treat it as criminal law is to deny the basic purpose for its introduction.

The legislation committee amendments provide for a much stricter burden of proof in this civil action than the burden of proof presently provided for in other closely related provisions of the Customs Act, for example, section 22 9A dealing with the seizure and forfeiture of money and goods. Further, it would be stricter than the standard of proof required in many of the provisions of section 233B of the Customs Act- the criminal provisions relating to narcotics.

However, the Government feels that the appropriate standard of proof in these actions for a pecuniary penalty could be allowed greater flexibility. Accordingly, amendment No. 16 deletes, in its entirety, proposed section 243E of the Bill, thus enabling the relevant court to determine the standard of proof appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-For reasons that we indicated earlier we strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

With some reluctance I support the amendment, but I do so far from happily. I want to place on record my respectful submission that this amendment may very well be unconstitutional. In fact, basically is changes what has been the common law and the law of this Commonwealth for centuries. Last but not least, I believe it to be completely contrary to Liberal philosophy. Nevertheless, I support it as the lesser of two evils. I hope that before the Bill goes to the Senate this provision will be looked at again lest we as a Parliament find ourselves in the situation of not only having broken faith but also having put on the statute book something which involves a clear breach of the Commonwealth Constitution in relation to the confiscation of property without payment of compensation.

Clause 1 3, as further amended, agreed to.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-I move:

I believe that the amendment is self-explanatory. It arises out of an undertaking given by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) at the legislation committee to the effect that he would accept an amendment in these terms. Whilst we certainly do not believe that it provides the accountability and scrutiny to which we believe this whole question should be subject, at least it is, in our view, an additional safeguard.

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

– As I have already indicated, the Government is prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move:

Firstly, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) earlier this evening referred to this amendment and suggested that I had made a statement on the advice of my Department that a decimal point had been incorrectly placed and should be moved two places to the right. I can assure the honourable member that I made no such statement, nor do I accept that such a statement was made by my Department. In fact, I believe that the honourable member was reading from a document prepared for him by his own office, which he quite wrongly attributed to my Department.

During the debate in the legislation committee it was suggested that the commercial quantities of lysergic acid and lysergicide, as specified in Schedule 8 to the Bill, appeared to be inconsistent when measured against the commercial quantities specified for other drugs. At that time, I indicated to the committee that the commercial quantities specified in proposed Schedule 8 were calculated on the basis of approximately 1,000 times the traffickable quantity which is specified in schedule 6 to the Customs Act 1901. I also indicated to the committee that I would have the matter of the commercial quantities of these two drugs re-examined. As a result of this reexamination, it has been determined that the quantities so specified for these two drugs are excessive when compared with the commercial quantities specified for the other drugs set out in Schedule 8 to the Bill. Accordingly, the purpose of amendment No. 17 standing in my name is to amend Schedule 8 of the Bill to correct this anomaly.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The amendment corrects a mistake in the mathematics of what constitute commercial quantities in respect of lysergic acid and lysergicide. The mistake was pointed out, as I vividly recall, by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in the legislation committee. We are delighted that it now has been rectified.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause15, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as reported from Legislation Committee, and as further amended, agreed to.

Third Reading

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

House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 2617

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Unemployment: Work Test (Question No. 3357)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his answer to a question without notice on 28 February 1979 (Hansard, page 433) is it a fact that (a) the work test has not been applied to single persons over the age of 1 8 years outside the local district, for the fruit picking vacancies because the work is short-term, (b) during the dairy industry depression in the winter months of 1976 and 1977 single dairy farmers over the age of 18 years in the Goulburn Valley were work tested for job vacancies in Melbourne with companies such as Patons Brake Replacements Pty Ltd and (c) although it was known the work for those single dairy farmers would be short-term, benefit was denied for failure to proceed with job interviews in that city.
  2. 2 ) Is the Commonwealth Employment Service applying a double standard between country and city on the work test.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Single persons over the age of 18 years who have an employment history of short-term seasonal work are work tested for fruit-picking vacancies outside the area in which they live. I am advised that it has not been the general practice in the CES to report to the Department of Social Security those without such a history who decline fruit-picking outside their local area. I am informed that during the recent grape harvest at Mildura when labour became scarce, the work test was applied in respect of these vacancies to a number of single males over the age of 1 8 years and residing in the Melbourne metropolitan area.

    1. Yes.
    2. I am advised the jobs offered permanent employment in Melbourne.
  2. The administration of the work test is currently under review to achieve uniformity of administration.

Unemployment, Shepparton: Work Testing (Question No. 3393)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Shepparton Commonwealth Employment Service district were work tested for fruit picking in the area in February 1 979.
  2. What percentage of the total number registered for employment in the district does this represent and how many remained unemployed in the district at the end of the month.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The CES does not keep statistics of persons offered employment. It keeps account of (a) those referred and (b) those placed in jobs but the statistics do not distinguish between unemployed persons receiving unemployment Benefit and unemployed persons not receiving Benefit. The percentage you requested is not, therefore, available. However, it is known that as part of its normal fruit harvest operations the office sent approximately 2000 letters to its clients, most of them in receipt of Unemployment Benefit, offering assistance in securing jobs in fruit and vegetable picking. The outcome of these operations up to 2 March 1979 was that 4027 fruit and vegetable picking vacancies were filled and 1 79 persons were reported to the Department of Social Security as having failed the work test by declining to accept this work.

Unemployment, Shepparton: Work Testing (Question No. 3394)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1979.

  1. 1 ) Have persons registered for employment in non-fruit growing areas of the Shepparton Commonwealth Employment Service district or in nearby areas such as Yarrawonga, Benalla, Nagambie or Elmore been work tested for fruit picking in the Shepparton-Cobram-Kyabram fruit area during the 1979 season.
  2. In particular, is it a fact that persons registered at Echuca or Rochester have not yet been required to be work tested for fruit picking at Kyabram, less than 30 miles away.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, but Work Test statistics are not kept for towns in or sections of a CES area.
  2. Yes, I am informed that there was no need for persons who were registered with the CES at Echuca or Rochester and who were suitable for harvest work to be work tested against fruit picking vacancies at Kyabram. I am advised there were sufficient local vacancies for tomato pickers against which such people were work tested.

Unemployment, Shepparton (Question No. 3395)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment arid Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons registered for work in Melbourne volunteered to go to the Shepparton Commonwealth Employment Service district in February 1979 to pick fruit or tomatoes.
  2. Of these persons, how many (a) were (i) under the age of 1 8 years or (ii) married, (b) were (i) male and (ii) female, and (c) required (i) accommodation on the orchard, (ii) return rail tickets or (iii) other transport assistance.
  3. How many vacancies for fruit or tomato pickers in the area remained unfilled at the end of February 1 979.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no way of knowing the total number of persons who were registered with the CES in Melbourne and who voluntarily travelled to the Shepparton district in February 1979 to pick fruit or tomatoes. Many travelled to Shepparton on their own initiative and with the assistance of the CES at Shepparton and Kyabram obtained jobs, but a count was not kept. It is known, however, that during the four weeks ended 2 March 1979 252 persons were referred and placed in the Shepparton CES area directly by Melbourne suburban offices of the CES.
  2. Of the 232 persons placed by Melbourne suburban CES Offices 213 were males and 39 were females and all required accommodation at the place of employment. Statistics are not available concerning the number who were under 18 years, who were married and who required return rail fares or other transport assistance.
  3. On 2 March 1979, the last day of the CES February statistics period, there were 66 unfilled vacancies for fruit or tomato pickers held by the Shepparton CES office.

Milk Prices in Canberra (Question No. 3396)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the recommended retail price for (a) 600 ml, ( b ) 1 litre and (c) 2 litre cartons and/or bottles of milk for (i) home delivery and (ii) store purchase in the Australian Capital Territory and what are the separate components of this final price.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the criticism of the various margins which are allowed for the processing, distribution and administration of ACT milk which allegedly compares unfavourably with other capital cities, and which appears to discriminate against the farmer and contracting dairy company when compared with the other sectors of the chain; if so, is there justification for this criticism.
  3. If the criticism is not justified can he provide evidence to support his answer.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Two litre cartons of milk are not marketed in the ACT. The retail prices of milk home delivered and through shops are identical. There is no ‘delivery fee’. The industry margins making up the current retail price of a 600 ml bottle, a 600 ml canon and a 1 litre carton of milk are as follows:
  1. ) I am not aware of any unfavourable comparison of the above margins with similar margins in other capital cities. Milk prices and margins in the ACT are fixed by the ACT Controller of Prices pursuant to the Prices Regulation Ordinance 1949 and on a cost justified basis.
  2. 3 ) See answer to ( 2 ) above.

Milk Prices in Canberra (Question No. 3397)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. Is it a fact that the price paid to farmers and/or processing depots for milk purchased by the ACT Milk Authority is the cheapest of any of the capital cities but the average wage of persons living in the Australian Capital Territory is the highest in Australia.
  2. If so, is this an equitable or sustainable arrangement?
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The prices paid to farmers is not a matter in which I am involved. It is a matter between farmers and supply companies. The current price paid for milk landed in Canberra is lower than supplying companies would receive for milk landed in other capital cities at the rates presently prevailing in those cities. It is true that the average weekly earnings of persons in the ACT is higher than the comparable average in any State. However, the term ‘comparable average’ is somewhat misleading as it does not identify those persons in the ACT whose weekly earnings are much less than the Territory average. Such persons include the unemployed, (who now represent 6.8 per cent of the workforce) plus juniors, pensioners, and other low income earners.
  2. ) Yes. Milk supplied to the ACT is cheaper because supplying companies are prepared to offer and receive lower prices for such supply. The decision whether or not to participate in milk supply to the ACT is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual companies.

Milk Consumption in Canberra (Question No. 3398)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

Has milk consumption in the Australian Capital Territory since the commencement of the present contract period been above the contracted amount; if so, how has this additional quantity been allocated.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

There is no specific contracted amount of milk for the current milk supply contract period. Milk contracts have been let for a percentage of the market and not for a fixed volume.

Milk Promotion in Canberra (Question No. 3399)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is there any form of milk promotion in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. If so, (a) who is responsible, (b) what sums have been spent and (c) how is it financed.
  3. Has the ACT been included in any of the milk promotion campaigns of the State Dairy Industry Authorities or the Austraiian Dairy Corporation such as Milk It Instead, Big M, Moove or Easy Summer Living; if not, why not.
Mr Staley:
LP

– In the absence of Mr Ellicott, the answer to the honourable member’s questions is a follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The ACT Milk Authority.

    1. An amount approaching $30,000 is expected to be outlayed on promotion in the current financial year.
    2. With funds accumulated by the Authority from its various trading activities.
  3. Yes, in the Milk It Instead and Moose promotions.

Tomato Crop, Echuca (Question No. 3423)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1979.

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that there is a shortage of tomato pickers in the Echuca area.
  2. If so, will part of the crop rot before it can be harvested.
  3. Is he able to state whether growers supplying one of the processing factories claim to be 64 pickers short and are threatening to hold a meeting at the factory to protest against the Government’s policy on unemployment benefits.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has found no evidence of a shortage of tomato pickers in the Echuca area during the 1979 harvest period. Up to 28 March growers from the Echuca, Rochester and Tongala districts had lodged 131 vacancies with the CES Office at Echuca. All vacancies had been filled promptly and the Office could have supplied more pickers.
  2. My Department is not aware of any tomato crop losses in the area due to labour shortages.
  3. I am informed that a meeting of tomato growers was held at the cannery of Plumrose (Australia) Ltd in Echuca on 9 March 1979. This meeting was attended by the Manager of the CES office at Echuca for the purpose of explaining how the CES could assist in recruiting tomato pickers.

I understand that some growers at the meeting expressed views on the payment of Unemployment Benefits. The CES Manager explained to them that better communication of their labour requirements and of instances where persons referred to them had not commenced work, or had commenced but left, would assist the application of the work test. I am advised that since the meeting an improvement in communication has been apparent.

Department of Transport: Financial Arrangements (Question No. 3465)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, 2 1 March 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article entitled * Transport Department defies Cabinet decision’* published in the Australian Financial Review of 15 March 1979.
  2. Is there any substance in the claims made that his Department (a) has been refusing to provide the Department of Finance with additional information and (b) has sought additional funds for administrative purposes.
  3. If so, what are the specific administrative purposes for which additional funds were sought.
  4. Did his Department maintain that expenses classified as administrative also included operational expenditure items affecting airlines; if so, what were the specific operational items involved and the amounts sought.
  5. 5 ) Has the disagreement with the Department of Finance over the 3 per cent cut in funds for administrative expenditure been resolved; if so, what were the terms of resolution.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

The honourable member should be aware that it is not possible for me to disclose the nature or substance of discussions leading up to the presentation of legislation to the Parliament.

Appropriation Bills 3 and 4, which were recently introduced, show that additional amounts are proposed to be provided for the Department of Transport, under a number of heads of expenditure.

Transport: State Funding (Question No. 3471)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

For what precise reasons have the funds available to the States for transport planning and research under Division 958, Item 03, of his Department’s estimates of expenditure for 1978-79 (Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1978-79, page 25) been reduced by $1 580 000 and from a $2 Commonwealth to $ 1 States to a dollar for dollar funding basis.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 provides for Commonwealth participation with the States in a transport planning and research program funded on a dollar for dollar arrangement from 1978-79 onwards. The second reading speech for that legislation stated that in 1978-79 and 1979-80 the Government was prepared to contribute its share on a dollar for dollar basis of a total program maintained at the 1977-78 level in real terms.

Aborigines: Mining Royalties (Question No. 3528)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will mining royalties paid to Aboriginal land owners in the Northern Territory be taxed at the rate of 32c in each $5.
  2. Are mining royalties paid to States, the Northern Territory and some private, non-Aboriginal owners of land in Australia, exempt from such Federal taxes.
  3. Will Aboriginal Land Councils’ mining royalties be used for non-profit community advancement projects.
  4. If so, why are Aborigines singled out for such taxes contrary to international conventions, British custom and Australian precedents.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As from 1 July 1979 revenues received by Aboriginal groups from exploration or mining operations on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory or elsewhere will be taxed on the basis of a 32 per cent rate of tax applied to 20 per cent of gross revenues. This gives an effective rate of 6.4 per cent.
  2. Incomes derived by States are not generally subject to Commonwealth income tax and, in keeping with that principle, mining royalties levied by States including the Northern Territory are not subject to Commonwealth income tax. There are some circumstances in which private land owners are entitled to mineral royalties. In those cases private citizens in receipt of income by way of mining royalties are generally subject to income tax on that income.
  3. Aboriginal Land Councils can be expected to devote part of the expected revenues they will receive from the mining of Aboriginal land to community advancement projects.
  4. There is nothing unusual in the taxing of income derived by non-government land holders by way of payments for the use of land for mining or exploration purposes. However, the tax rate referred to in ( 1 ) above was determined after taking into account that some of the revenues concerned would be expended for Aboriginal community purposes. Other taxpayers in effect meet part of the costs of community projects from which they benefit out of their after-tax income, to the extent that they are paid for by local government authorities out of rates which they collect.

Discharging of Ships’ Ballast Water (Question No. 3537)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

What specific precautions are taken to prevent any imbalance or contamination of marine ecology in Australia by the discharge of ship ‘s ballast water taken on at foreign ports.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Following investigation of this matter in 1975 by a Committee convened by my Department, the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account made funds available to NSW State Fisheries to investigate the effect of exotic organisms in ship’s ballast water on the Australian marine environment. This investigation has been completed and a report is to be made to the Fishing Industry Research Committee. Further action will depend on the findings of that report.

Conzinc Riotinto (Question No. 3570)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has he (a) received any undertaking from Conzinc Riotinto as to the date on which it will reach 5 1 per cent Australian equity, thus qualifying it for naturalising status and (b) been informed by Conzinc Riotinto of the procedure it intends to follow to arrive at that equity.
  2. Is it a fact that after the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation floated Conzinc Riotinto it held 90. 1 per cent equity in 1 962 and that in the last 17 years this percentage has fallen to 72.6; if so, at that rate of decrease when will Conzinc Riotinto reach 5 1 per cent equity.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As I said in my statement to the House of Representatives on 8 June 1978 on the review of foreign investment policy, a foreign company which wishes to become a naturalising company must, among other things, make a public commitment to increase Australian equity to 5 1 per cent and hold regular discussions with the Foreign Investment Review Board on progress towards achieving this objective, but the Government does not believe that it would be realistic to impose a strict time-table because of commercial considerations outside the company ‘s control.

I also stated that a company wishing to naturalise would be required to reach an understanding with the Government on the practical arrangements for achieving the required level of Australian ownership and that companies would be expected to move towards this objective primarily by way of new share issues to Australians to fund new projects and expansions, rather than by the takeover of existing businesses.

CRA has made such a public commitment and will hold regular discussions with the Foreign Investment Review Board.

  1. I am informed that the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Limited held a 90. 1 per cent interest in CRA in 1 962 and that this had been reduced to 72.6 per cent at the beginning of 1979. A recently announced share issue by CRA is expected to reduce RTZ’s interest to 68.2 per cent.

Family Support Services Program (Question No. 3613)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 3392 (Hansard, 27 March 1979, page 1 194) how much of the $2.1m allocated by the Commonwealth to Victoria over the 3 year period through the Family Support Services Program already has been granted.
  2. To which organisations in which Federal electoral divisions in Victoria have these grants been made.
  3. Have the grants been publicised as being provided by the Commonwealth or have they been hidden in the Victorian Family and Community Services Program.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the $2. 1 million allocated to Victoria over the 3 year period for the Family Support Services Scheme, a total of $1,416,389 has been approved, covering the funding of service projects in the first and second years of the Scheme and specific amounts for evaluation in each of the three years.
  2. The organisations approved for funding and the Federal electoral divisions are set out in the attached schedule.
  3. The grants have been publicised as being provided by the Commonwealth. The approvals have been the subject of joint press releases by the Minister for Social Security and the former Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, the Hon. B. J. Dixon, M.L.A. In addition, the Minister for Social Security wrote to all Federal Senators and to appropriate honourable Members on 28 December 1978, advising them of those projects approved for support under the Scheme ‘s second year of operation.

Air Services to South Africa (Question No. 3617)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What South African representations were made to the Australian Government to withdraw Qantas flights from the Sydney- Johannesburg route.
  2. Was South African Airway granted (a) extra flights and (b) rights to concession fares on this route; if so, why.
  3. What was the net revenue to Qantas from this route in each of the 2 financial years prior to the withdrawal of Qantas ‘ rights to operate these services.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. (a) As the sole operator on the AustraliaMauritius/South Africa route, South African Airways has been granted additional capacity as required to cater for the needs of those members of the community desiring to travel to or from Mauritius and other points in Africa.
  3. (b) No. However, on 30 March 1978 I announced the introduction of excursion fares to facilitate lower cost air travel to Mauritius and countries in Africa. It was one of the few routes where excursion fares had not been available.
  4. In period 1975-76 loss of $ 1.8m; in period 1976-77 loss of $ 1.4m.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 3645)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the seasonal adjustment factors for registered unemployment published for the first time in the March issue of the Australian Labour Bulletin.
  2. On the basis of these factors, has the estimated seasonally adjusted registered unemployment risen from 408,000 at the end of December 1978 to 422,000 at the end of January 1 979 and 432,000 at the end of February 1 979.
  3. What does the Government conclude about the state of the labour market from these figures.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) On the basis of these factors, yes.
  3. Very little. In 1976 the Australian Statistician advised that because of the apparent change in the seasonal pattern of registered unemployment associated with the very large increase in the level of unemployment during 1974 and 1975, the seasonally adjusted series could no longer be regarded as a reliable guide to the underlying trend in the level of unemployment.

Age Pensions (Question No. 3653)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated additional cost to the Commonwealth Government of lowering the age of eligibility for pen- .sions for men to (a) 64, (b) 63, (c) 62, (d) 61 and (e) 60 years.
  2. How many additional men would be expected to claim a pension in each age category.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is not possible to estimate with accuracy the additional cost of paying an income tested age pension to men aged 60 to 64 years because of the lack of data on their income distribution. In addition, it is not known what effect the lowering of the pensionable age would have on workforce participation rates of men aged 60 to 64 years. The possible impact on the employment of younger people currently in receipt of unemployment benefit consequent upon any reduction in the workforce participation of men aged 60 to 64 years is also not known.

It is expected, however, that substantial additional costs would be involved. The estimated cost of paying an income test free pension to all men from age 60 gives some indication of the order of magnitude of the maximum gross costs which could be involved in lowering the pensionable age for men from 65 to 60.

The additional cost of paying an income test free pension to all of the 275,000 residentially qualified men aged 60 to 64 years would be about $450m in a full year. This cost is additional to the estimated $220m annual cost of existing payments to some 95,000 male invalid and repatriation service pensioners and unemployment and sickness beneficiaries aged 60 to 64 years. These costs are based on the estimated number of persons, pensioners and beneficiaries as at December 1978 and pension rates applicable from November 1978. The costs are gross costs in that they make no allowance for the additional revenue that would result from the inclusion of the payments in income for the purpose of income tax.

The actual gross costs that would be involved in lowering the pensionable age for men from 65 to 60 could be expected to be somewhat lower than the maximum cost set out above, particularly in the short-term since many older people would have already planned their retirement on the basis of age pension eligibility at age 65. It is noted that the following estimated proportions of men aged 65 to 69 are currently in receipt of an age or repatriation service pensions.

Preference to Australian-made Goods (Question No. 3654)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. With reference to the Government’s 10 point policy package for Tasmania announced in November 1977, what measures has the Government introduced to ensure that its Australian made goods preference is applied to the fullest extent to goods made in Tasmania.
  2. What limitations are there to the Commonwealth Government giving preference to Tasmanian made goods.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government’s preference policy has changed from that in operation when the Callaghan Report was prepared. At that time one of the criteria for preference to local industry over imports was the ‘depressed industry’ criterion. The present policy, however, is to give preference to Australian-made goods unless there are substantial reasons why imports should be preferred. In such cases Ministers determine whether imports are to be preferred. Within the existing preference procedures there is scope to highlight cases where Australian-made goods of Tasmanian origin are in competition with imports and indeed this has been done in a case for the supply of paper involving a tender from Associated Pulp and Paper Mills.

In the past the Commonwealth has received requests from State Governments proposing preferences to areas (e.g. country towns) but these have been rejected. There is the practical problem of how discrimination as between regions could be justified and also the question of whether such discrimination might be unconstitutional.

Unemployment: Myers Inquiry (Question No. 3661)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

Which recommendations of the Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration of July 1 977 have been implemented by the Government.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The following recommendations of the Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration of July 1977 which have direct relevance to the Department of Social Security have been implemented in full orin part: 5,9, II, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19,21,22,23,25,27,29,31, 32,33,35,36 and 37.

Many recommendations have no direct relevance to the Department of Social Security and in some cases the general procedures have been improved to the extent that the specific recommendations are no longer appropriate.

Overseas Air Travel (Question No. 3670)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

What is the anticipated increase in persons travelling overseas now that new cheap air fares are available.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Preliminary estimates for all overseas arrivals and departures figures on all routes for February 1 979 indicate a 1 3 per cent growth over the February 1978 figure. Similarly there was a 22.5 per cent growth for March. However, lower air fares were only available on some routes in February and March 1979. It will be necessary for there to be further experience with the lower fares to enable a more accurate estimate of likely future growth in overseas travel to and from Australia.

International Airlines: Airport Rental Charges (Question No. 3734)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Government is planning to reimburse international airlines more than $ 1 m arising from airport rental charges levelled 4 years ago; if so why.
  2. Which international airlines will be reimbursed and what sum will each of the airlines involved receive.
  3. When will they be reimbursed.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Following consideration of proposals by some international airlines through IATA, consideration is being given to refund certain payments made in respect of space occupied at Sydney and Melbourne International Terminal Buildings.

The Government’s decision will be announced as soon as practicable.

Airport Fire Tenders (Question No. 3735)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has an expert from the manufacturers of the Walter ultra large fire trucks commissioned at Australian airports visited Australia to examine defects in the vehicles.
  2. If so, when did he arrive and who is responsible for his costs.
  3. What was the specific nature of the faults found in the vehicles.
  4. What measures are being taken to correct these faults.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Two senior executives of the Walter Motor Truck Co., Mr Wenzel and Mr McRae, visited Australia in late 1978 and Mr McDougal, President of the Company was here in early March 1979. In addition the Walter Co. has technical field representatives who have visited Australia, the last occasion being in late April 1979.
  2. All expenses related to the visits have been borne by the Walter Motor Truck Co.
  3. Faults have occurred in two main areas, the power divider and the brakes. The Walter Co. used certain commercially available components for these assemblies and it is these items which are not meeting requirements.
  4. The Walter Co. is providing full parts and back-up service and has also redesigned, manufactured and supplied certain of the components which have caused problems, at no cost to the Department and in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Department of Home Affairs: Polls and Surveys (Question No. 3772)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 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 Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 979-4, three of which have not been completed.
  2. Project 1- (a) Women’s Research Group, Knox Community Relations Centre, Melbourne.

    1. Examination of the economic, social and physical situation of women in the home and their perception of their role.
    2. $22,635.

Project 2- (a) Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd. Completed.

  1. ‘Life. Be In It’. Awareness and purposes study.
  2. $2,720.

Project 3- (a) Consensus Research Pty Ltd.

  1. ‘Life. Be In It’ television commercial- pre and post testing.
  2. $4,000.

Project 4- (a) Survey Centre.

  1. b) Evaluation of effects of national ‘Life. Be In It’ study.
  2. $40,000.

Coastal Surveillance (Question No. 3804)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What types of aircraft are to be hired under contract number C2/78/71 for the purposes of coastal surveillance referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 from (a) Transwest Air Charter ( WA ) Pty Ltd and ( b ) Executive Airlines Pty Ltd, Vic.
  2. In what areas will these aircraft regularly operate.
  3. Will any specialised surveillance equipment be fitted or carried by these craft; if so, what will be its function.
  4. What is the duration of contract C2/78/7 1.
  5. By what means were the tasks to be performed by these aircraft previously accomplished.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The primary aircraft type to be operated by both companies is the Rockwell Aero Commander AC500S Shrike.
  2. ) (a) Transwest Air Charter ( WA) Pty Ltd from Geraldton to Bigge Island in Western Australia.

    1. Executive Airlines Pty Ltd from Millingimbi Mission, Northern Territory, to Cape Grenville, Queensland, including the Torres Strait Islands.
  3. No.
  4. Contracts with each company are for 2 years expiring in February 1981.
  5. Since the upgrading of coastal surveillance was announced in July 1978, light twin-engined aircraft have been chartered on an ad hoc interim basis. Prior to July 1978, coastal patrols were primarily carried out by Department of Defence aircraft supported by civil aircraft chartered as required by individual Departments.

Search and Rescue Equipment (Question No. 3805)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose was the search and rescue equipment supplied under contract number LP 3436 by R.F.D. Co. (Aust.) P/L as referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979.
  2. Where will the equipment be located.
  3. By whom will the equipment be used.
  4. Is this equipment a replacement of equipment previously in use; if so, in what respects does the equipment covered by contract LP 3436 differ from that previously used and for what reason was it felt necessary to obtain new equipment.
  5. Is the equipment covered by contract LP 3436 to be introduced in an area and to a task not previously provided with search and rescue equipment; if so, for what reason was it felt necesary to provide these facilities.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The search and rescue equipment under this contract was purchased to replenish stocks of droppable kit components depleted through use in Search and Rescue exercises.
  2. The equipment will be located in the New South Wales, Victoria-Tasmania, South Australia-Northern Territory and Western Australia Regions of the Department.
  3. Specialist Search and Rescue personnel in the event of aircraft accidents at sea and at remote localities, and for Search and Rescue training exercises.
  4. The equipment purchased under this contract is identical with equipment purchased on previous occasions for Search and Rescue purposes.
  5. The equipment will be used in areas and for tasks already covered under the Department’s Search and Rescue plan.

Underwater Breathing Apparatus (Question No. 3807)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the underwater breathing apparatus been supplied under contract LP 3467 by James North Aust. P/L as referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979.
  2. Where will the equipment be located.
  3. ) By whom will it be used.
  4. Is this apparatus intended to replace equipment previously in use; if so, how does it differ from the old apparatus and why was new equipment purchased.
  5. If not, why was it felt necessary to purchase new apparatus.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The breathing apparatus is for use by fire service staff. While it is marketed as an underwater breathing device it is equally suitable for protection against smoke inhalation, and will be used specifically for fire rescue purposes.
  2. This particular piece of equipment is to be used at Port Hedland airport, W.A.
  3. 3 ) Airport fire services.
  4. and (5) The new apparatus is an updated version of existing equipment with modified fittings; it is being progressively purchased to replace superseded breathing apparatus at Commonwealth airports. While existing equipment is quite serviceable, difficulty is being experienced in obtaining spare parts.

Circuit Modules (Question No. 3853)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Where and for what purposes are the circuit modules being purchased under contract C1/78/21, referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979(G16),tobeused.
  2. How many modules are being purchased.
  3. 3 ) Are they of Australian manufacture; if not, where were they manufactured.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The modules are to be used in Air Traffic Control and Flight Service Unit installations throughout Australia.
  2. Approximately 14 700 units over 3 years.
  3. Yes.
  4. The four unsuccessful competitors for the contract were:

    1. Consolidated Electronic Products Pty Ltd, Thornbury, Vic.
    2. b ) Universal Electronics Pty Ltd, Brookvale, NSW.
    3. Australian Transistor Co. Pty Ltd Kew, Victoria.
    4. Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Ltd, Leichhardt, NSW.

Waveform Monitor and Rack Adaptor (Question No. 3854)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the description and purpose of the waveform monitor and rack adaptor being purchased under contract C1/78/81, referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16).
  2. Is it of Australian manufacture; if not, where was it manufactured.
  3. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The items purchased under this contract are test equipments required to monitor the operation of video-recording, editing and tape transferring facilities which are being installed in the Department of Transport Film Unit.
  2. No; USA.
  3. 3 ) Only one offer was received.

Flight Service Consoles (Question No. 3855)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) At what locations and for what purposes are flight service consoles, tables and consolette referred to in contract C1/78/84 on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1 979 (G 1 6) to be used.
  2. Was the equipment manufactured in Australia; if not, where was it manufactured.
  3. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The flight service consoles, tables and consolettes are to be used in equipment upgrading programs at the Adelaide Flight Service Centre and the Cairns and Carnarvon Flight Service Units.
  2. Yes.
  3. ) The unsuccessful competitor for the contract was:

Email Limited- Relays Division, Huntingdale, Victoria.

Foam Pump Casing (Question No. 3857)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. Where is the foam pump casing being purchased under contract C2/78/125 referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1 979 (G 1 6) to be used.
  2. What circumstances have led to the purchase of the casing.
  3. What is the country of origin of manufacture of the casing.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The six foam pump casings purchased under contract C2/78/125 will be held in the Department of Transport’s Victoria-Tasmania regional warehouse and issued to the Regional Workshops for reconditioning, as required, of foam pumps fitted to large fire tenders in service at airports throughout Australia.
  2. To replenish stock in the Regional Warehouse and ensure availability of spares for foam pump reconditioning.
  3. Australia.
  4. The four unsuccessful competitors for the contract were:

    1. Wearwell Bronze Co. Pty Ltd, Thornbury, Victoria
    2. b ) N. T. Tranter, South Melbourne, Victoria.
    3. Vickers Ruwolt-Adams Foundry, Moorabbin, Victoria.
    4. d ) Stephen Firman & Son Pty Ltd, Brunswick, Victoria.

Electron Tubes (Question No. 3858)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the electron tubes being purchased under contracts LP 3216 and LP 3256 and referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16).
  2. How many of each type are being purchased, and where are they to be used.
  3. ) In which country were they manufactured.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contracts.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) LP 32 16-Receiving tube, power output pentode, typeEL85.

    1. LP 3256-Reflex klystron, type 5837.
  2. (a) Forty-Perth.

    1. Five- Sydney and Melbourne.
  3. (a) Britain. (b)USA.
  4. (a) No other offers were received.

    1. The only other offer received was for an alternative type of USA manufacture. This equipment is being purchased for evaluation.

Video Production Equipment (Question No. 3859)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) At what location and for what purpose is the video production equipment, contracted for at a cost of $ 1 5,54 1.53 referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1 979 (G 1 6 ) to be used.
  2. ) What is the expected usage per week of the equipment.
  3. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The video production equipment is for installation in the Department of Transport’s Film Unit at Essendon, Victoria. It will be used for the production, editing and tape transfer of films and video tapes for use in personnel training.
  2. ) Daily, subject to operator availability.
  3. ) No other offers were received.

Acetylene Cylinders (Question No. 3860)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) For what specific purposes will the acetylene cylinders referred to in contract C2/78/48 referred to on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G 16) be utilised.
  2. What was the comparable cost in the previous period for acetylene cylinders.
  3. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The acetylene cylinders to be purchased under this contract will be used to fuel unmanned marine navigational lights at some 1 50 locations throughout Australia.
  2. ) These are the first acetylene cylinders of this type to be purchased, and consequently cost comparisons are difficult. However, the cylinders have distinct operational advantages, they are of Australian manufacture and are expected to be more economical than the imported product previously purchased.
  3. 3 ) No other offers were received.

Video Cassettes (Question No. 3861)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) For what specific purposes and at what locations will the video cassettes referred to in contract LP3458 on page 96 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16) be utilised.
  2. ) How many video cassettes are to be supplied.
  3. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The video cassettes will be used by the Department of Transport’s Film Unit at Essendon, Victoria in the production and duplication of films for personnel training purposes.
  2. A total of 70, comprising thirty of 60-minute duration and forty of 30-minute duration.
  3. 3 ) No other offers were received .

Ore Carriers: Hull Fouling (Question No. 3889)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that an ore carrier, after lying adjacent to foreign ore carriers for more than a month at Port Hedfand, WA, picked up a heavy growth of fouling organisms not found in Australian waters which reduced its speed by 30 per cent.
  2. What is the cost of fouling Australian National Line ships’ hulls plying Australian waters in terms of (a) increased fuel consumption and (b) cleaning and maintenance of hulls.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 have had my Department investigate the first of the honourable member’s questions. Its inquiries have not elicited any knowledge of an ore carrier picking up a heavy growth of foreign marine organisms whilst lying off Fort Hedland.
  2. The Australian National Line utilizes high quality underwater coatings as a means of combating marine growth fouling, resulting in the Line’s vessels being able to operate in Australian waters regularly for periods of up to eighteen months or two years without any abnormal increase in fuel costs due to fouling.

At the end of the eighteen months or two year cycle the ships are withdrawn for routine drydocking, inspection and refurbishing of underwater coatings and anti-fouling paint. The cost of anti-fouling paint and its application is about $35,000 per vessel when refurbishing is carried out.

Air Safety: Incident at Mascot Airport (Question No. 3894)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979;

Did an incident involving two Boeing 727/200 aircraft occur on the Mascot Airport recently; if so, what were the circumstances .of the incident and what action has he taken in respect of it.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department has searched its records and there is no evidence of an incident involving two Boeing 727/200 series aircraft having occurred on Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport in recent months.

Air Safety: Incident near Melbourne (Question No. 3895)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

Did an air safety incident occur recently just east of Melbourne involving a Fokker Friendship aircraft and a light aircraft; if so, (a) what were the circumstances of the incident, (b) what were the weather conditions at the time and (c) what action has he taken in respect of the incident.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department has searched its records and can find no evidence of such an incident having been reported this year.

Air Safety: Incident near Perth (Question No. 3896)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

Did an air safety incident occur recently near Perth involving a Boeing 727/200 aircraft registered No. VH-RMM and another Boeing 727/200 aircraft; if so, (a) what were the circumstances of the incident and ( b) what action has he taken in respect of it.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. On 22 April 1979 Boeing 727/277 aircraft VH-RMM and another Boeing 727/200 departed Perth for Melbourne approximately one minute apart, from different runways. The Captain of VH-RMM subsequently submitted an Air Safety Incident Report in which he contended that he should have been given the choice between stepped climb procedures and the radar vectoring system which was employed to effect separation. Safety was not affected.
  2. The investigation has shown that no action is necessary on the grounds of safety.

Railway Bogies (Question No. 3898)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

To what use will the 20 standard passenger car bogies, tenders for which were called on behalf of Australian National Railways and referred to on page 41 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 1 May 1979, be put.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The 20 standard gauge passenger car bogies are required for conversion of brakevans which are at present in use on the Marree to Alice Springs narrow gauge line. Following conversion, these brakevans are to be used on the standard gauge Tarcoola to Alice Springs line.

Commonwealth Police Force (Question No. 3899)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

  1. What was the establishment number of Commonwealth Police in service at each Australian airport as at (a) 31 March 1979, and (b) 30 April 1979.
  2. Is the number of Commonwealth Police provided at each airport adequate; if not, why not.
  3. What sections, titles and number of Commonwealth Police are at each airport.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

It is not in the national interest to reveal such detailed information as the honourable member seeks. On 4 April 1 979 I provided, through Senator the Honourable F. M. Chaney, an answer to Senate Question No. 1427 (Hansard, page 1349). On that occasion I revealed the number of Commonwealth Police in the Sydney airport unit without indicating specific locations. The honourable member would appreciate that making public the precise details of police at all major airports throughout Australia could compromise airport security.

Imports of Crude Oil (Question No. 3919)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many Taxation Office officials are currently investigating the transfer price charged by multi-national oil companies for imported crude oil and products.
  2. Has this number varied in the last 2 years; if so, by how many and why.
  3. Have any adjustments under section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 been made relating to multinational oil companies, specifically in reference to using misleading transfer prices, in the last 5 years.
  4. What sums of additional taxation revenue were gained by the Taxation Office correcting the misleading information on transfer prices used by these multi-national companies in the last 5 years.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Eight officers are fully engaged in examining all aspects of the returns of multi-national oil companies, including the purchase prices of imported crude oil and petroleum products.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that, because of the secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act, he is unable to provide this information. The Commissioner has pointed out, however, that companies engaged in importing and marketing oil products are not required by law to do more than furnish in their income tax returns details of the actual prices paid for trading stock. When the Commissioner, in the exercise of discretionary powers under section 136, substitutes for these his estimate of what would have had to be paid in an arm ‘s length trading situation, his action does not carty an implication that the returns lodged by the taxpayers were designed to mislead or to provide less than a full and true disclosure of all the facts required by law to be disclosed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790529_reps_31_hor114/>.