House of Representatives
10 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 1817

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Education

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

The petition of certain citizens of NSW respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1980 and in particular to government schools.

Government schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-government schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to government schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Dr Edwards, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr James, Mr Kerin, Mr Lucock, Mr Lusher, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Morris, Mr Ruddock and Mr Sainsbury.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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

The humble petition of electors of the State of NSW respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights. Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Graham, Mr Lucock and Mr Les McMahon.

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 is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress. That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jarman, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Katter, Mr Les McMahon and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women ‘s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women ‘s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond, Mr Falconer and Mr Fisher.

Petitions received.

Commemorative Stamp

Petition to the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the Northern Territory, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales showeth: That we are distressed and concerned by the refusal by Australia Post to issue a commemorative stamp upon the 50th Anniversary of the association of Apex Clubs.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will do all in its power to have the Commonwealth Government take immediate action to guarantee the reconsideration of the application.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Mr Giles and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

Commemorative Stamp

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

The Association of Apex Clubs of Australia was founded in Geelong in 1931 and is the only service club founded in Australia. In March 1981 the Association will celebrate SO years service to the Australian community. Commemorative stamps have been issued by Australia Post to celebrate the activities of Rotary International and Lions International.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That Australia Post be asked to issue a commemorative stamp in 1981 in order to celebrate the50th anniversary of the only Australian service club.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray: by Mr Keith Johnson.

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the price of LPG in Victoria has risen by $80 per tonne since November 1978 as a result of Federal Government policy thereby causing hardship to country consumers using LPG for cooking, heating and hot water to decentralised industries using LPG for industrial purposes.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. that the Federal Government should abolish its so called export parity’ pricing policy for LPG consumed in Australia.
  2. that the price of Bass Strait LPG sold on the Australian market should be related to the true cost of production plus a fair margin of profit for the producers;
  3. that all LPG ex. Bass Strait consumed on the Australian market should be free of excise levy;
  4. that there should be no restriction on availability of LPG ex. Bass Strait to meet the requirements of the Australian market;
  5. that the price of LPG ex. oil refineries should be established by the PJT at parity with Bass Strait LPG consumed on the Australian market;

  6. that pending the establishment of a fair price in accordance with clause 2 above and to provide some immediate relief to country consumers:

    1. the existing excise on Bass Strait LPG consumed in Australia be abolished forthwith, thus providing a reduction in price of $27.60 per tonne for propane,
    2. that the windfall profit that Esso/BHP is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $1 10 to $147 per tonne be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price of $37.00 per tonne.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

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

That we strongly oppose the increase in Marine Radio Licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. ) Marine radio users save the government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. Increased licence fees will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety and assistance to other craft will be therefore reduced. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will not only reconsider the increased licence fee, but consider a reduction of same in the interest of safety.

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

Petitions received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a definite limit to the quantity of Australia’s mineral resources.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans-Australia Airlines, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as TransAustralia Airlines, would be contrary to the Nation’s interests.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and Trans-Australia Airlines.

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

Petition 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 Donald Cameron.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say we are concerned about the lack of public participation allowed in the decision making of the Broadcasting Tribunal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to dismiss the present members of the tribunal, replacing them with:

  1. Janet Strickland Chairperson

    1. One elected representative from Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations ( FACTS)
    2. One Elected Representative from all public lobby groups who are requesting improved television standards
    3. One elected representative from organisations whose members work in the television industry.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that in areas where homes are not connected to the Main Sewerage system and residents have to rely on a pump-out septic tanks, these home-owners are increasingly burdened with the costs involved with the collection of the effluent.

Your petitioners therefore pray that consideration will be given to allowing these charges to be tax deductible.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Overseas Aid Organisations

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of overseas aid, both government and private as well as with support for local charities. Such aid is saving precious lives, giving undernourished and homeless people encouragement and help, bringing malnourished children to health, education and a better life, giving people friendship and a new hope. A Crusade of Compassion highlights the hope of a brighter and kindlier world in the International YearoftheChild-1979.

We therefore respectfully request that the Commonwealth Government provide some incentive to encourage such aid by making the same tax concessions to approved voluntary overseas aid organisations, as are already provided for charities working within Australia.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment

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, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson.
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week.
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.
  5. That the Government grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

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

Petition received.

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital

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

That the work undertaken at the occupational therapy (woodwork) section of the Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, Windsor, in Brisbane, is of great value to participating patients.

Your petitioners regret that:

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has deliberately discouraged the use of the occupation therapy woodwork section at the Hospital in order to downgrade the facility and ultimately to close it;

Repeated appeals from patients at the centre, from exservicemen’s associations and from other members of this Parliament to reverse this policy have been unsuccessful.

And because the alternatives offered are unsatisfactory, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to review its decision not to replace the former woodwork instructor at Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, and to effectively close the woodwork facility, jeopardising the therapeutic value of the work undertaken there.

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

Petition received.

Manufacturing Industry

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

This Commonwealth Government has failed to appreciate the benefits to Australia’s employment of a strong and efficient manufacturing industry, as well as ignored the problems faced by the small manufacturing industry, and your petitioners believe the ‘Buy Australia Made’ Campaign is completely ineffective in providing real assurances, and assistance to manufacturing industry, and this Government, despite its claims, has not assisted the small manufacturers of this country.

And your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to acknowledge the dependence of local manufacturing industry on the vagaries of the international market its reliance on regular shipping, and its vulnerability to fluctuating overseas prices, and thereupon adopt policies in regard to imported articles of real and substantial benefit to manufacturing industry and to employment in this country.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.

Taxation

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible, while donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine Outlook are an allowable tax deduction.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that in the Year of the Child, this House will see fit to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act by extending the number of charities, Donations to which are allowable tax deductions, to include World Vision, UNICEF, Save The Children, Austcare, Foster Parents Plan of Australia, and other foreign aid charities in order to achieve taxation justice for these charities and assist them in their fund raising campaigns.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray, by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.

Refugees

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 a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year, mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of these church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

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

Unemployment Benefit

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

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

Whereas-

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, by Mr Jarman. Petition received.

Pensions

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

That as present and past recipients of emergency aid, we the undersigned urge the Commonwealth Government to:

  1. Increase all pensions and benefits to above the poverty line.
  2. Establish and fund a national emergency aid system.
  3. Agree to the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income.
  4. Abolish the work test on unemployment benefit. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les Johnson.

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 showth

  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.

Health of Aboriginal Children

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

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

That there are Australian Aboriginal children living under conditions of inadequate nutrition in a background of poor housing, hygiene, and overcrowding that amounts to a third World enclave in the midst of affluence’ (see also the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ‘Aboriginal Health’ 1979); that such a state of affairs is intolerable in our country; that only an effort on an unprecedented scale could create conditions that would give these children the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will make generous funding available for the specific purposes of: making a real improvement in the health, housing, education, employment and welfare of the Aboriginal people, doing so with due regard for the needs, hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people themselves, providing increased help, encouragement and opportunity for Aboriginal people to train as nursing aides and in other paramedical roles, and as fully qualified nurses, doctors and social workers; providing increased health education for Aboriginal people in ways that are acceptable to them. by Mr Ruddock.

Petition received.

Fishing

To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia hereby showeth:

Whereas the undersigned citizens of Australia being professional fishermen engaged in full time employment in the fishing industry in the Lakes Entrance area.

  1. Deplore the apathy shown by this Government towards the fishing industry, a large and vital one, as regards to foreign exploitation of our natural resources in Australian waters.
  2. Are aware that the so called feasibility study out of Portland for squid fishing in February, March and April 1979 by Japanese interests using eleven vessels returned a gross amount in excess of $3.2m.
  3. Believe that this was not a feasibility study but a commercial undertaking.
  4. Are opposed to any further foreign fishing exploitation in Australian waters.
  5. Believe that in Australia ‘s current economic climate of unemployment and poor rate of exchange there should not be any deprivation of employment of Australians by foreign countries.
  6. Believe that it is time that this Government recognises the vast resources that our Australian waters embrace as they have been already recognised and tapped by most foreign countries either with compliance or noncompliance with Australian laws.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth:

That the Parliament take action to prohibit any further foreign enterprises and that the Parliament aid and assist the development of the local fishing industry as it has aided and assisted other primary industries.

And the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria hereby pray the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia to grant the prayer of their petition. by Mr Simon.

Petition received.

page 1821

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1821

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whether he is aware that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of persons looking for work for July 1 979 states: 175,000 unemployed people reported that their main difficulty in finding a job was that there were no vacancies at all or none in their line of work.

The survey further added: 8 1 , 000 people were unemployed for52 weeks or more.

Is this the interface between education and the labour market that the Minister referred to in his address to the National Youth Conference, or is it a statistical expression of the dull and unmotivated group of jobless young workers which the Prime Minister identified for the Catholic bishops?

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

– Perhaps it would be worth while informing the House of the full range of statistics provided by the Australian Statistician. In the results published today of a special survey on persons looking for work, which was conducted in July 1979, of 372,800 unemployed persons looking for work, that is, work of any kind- full time or part time- 16.7 per cent reported that their main difficulty in finding a job was that there were no vacancies in their line of work. In July 1978, the proportion was 15.1 per cent. In July 1979 30.3 per cent reported that there were no vacancies at all. In July 1978, the comparative figure was higher, 38.2 per cent. In the recent survey 13.8 per cent reported that they were considered by employers to be too young or too old. Of the remainder- and I emphasise these figures to the House- 8 per cent were considered to have insufficient work experience and 7.9 per cent were considered to be lacking the necessary education or skills. That means that some 16 per cent of those persons who are looking for work cannot find it because they lack work experience or lack the necessary education and skills.

This is precisely the area at which a transition policy between school and work is directed. All the survey results available to the Government indicate and all our experience has been that it is the young, inexperienced, unskilled, unemployed person who has the hardest task in the labour market- not only now but in the past. Therefore, a transition policy, a comprehensive policy seeking to further the education of young people beyond compulsory, general education schooling into the technical field, into the further education field, into trade training, into vocational training, which of course is wider than trade training, and into work experience programs will help those who at present are unemployable because they lack that experience or that skill.

I would have thought that the statistics produced today justified the concern of this Government to penetrate that area of young people, and to penetrate it in a constructive way that will give them alternatives to inactivity through unemployment. They will be positive alternatives- alternatives that provide work experience and better educational and vocational training opportunities. As I pointed out to the House yesterday, the experience in West Germany under a vocational training policy has shown that it produces less youth unemployment. That is the objective of this Government and that is the objective to which our transition policy will be directed.

page 1822

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Minister’s efforts at the United Nations to focus international attention on the urgent need for humanitarian relief in Kampuchea and, in particular, to efforts by the Australian Government to airlift food and medicine into Phnom Penh. Has the Government been successful in airlifting humanitarian relief supplies into Phnom Penh? Has there been an appreciable response by the international community to the human suffering in Kampuchea?

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

-The short answer to both questions is yes. Honourable members will be aware that -

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Sit down.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I will not sit down on this issue. It is one on which the public and the honourable member ought to be better informed.

Mr Young:

– Why didn’t you put this matter on the blue daily program, as the honourable member for Bradfield did?

Mr PEACOCK:

-I have not put the matter on the blue sheet. The honourable member for Bradfield was quite entitled to put it on the blue sheet. I have been asked a specific question.

Mr Young:

-But now you are going to bucket him.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I am certainly not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! When the chamber ceases its interjections the proceedings may go ahead. I call the Minister.

Mr Hayden:

– You will slap him with your Gucci, won’t you?

Mr PEACOCK:

-There is a very good response to that interjection which I am not going to use because of the nature of the subject matter under discussion and the type of question that I have been asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister to go ahead with his answer and ignore the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The Leader of the Opposition has revealed his own attitude on similar questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will continue his answer.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Honourable members will be aware that we have been successful in recently arranging for supplies to be moved across the border into Kampuchea with the assistance of the Thai Government. That move commenced the week before last. Over and above that, the Government chartered an aircraft to transport to Kampuchea further emergency relief supplies collected by non-government agencies in Australia. The aircraft left Melbourne on Monday morning and arrived in Phnom Penh yesterday. After unloading 44 tonnes of relief supplies it left for Hong Kong later in the afternoon.

Mr Leonard Teale who is Chairman of the Promotions Committee for the Kampuchean Relief Appeal travelled with the aircraft to Phnom Penh. I spoke with him on the phone this morning in Bangkok. He confirmed the delivery of supplies to Oxfam representatives in Phnom Penh for distribution. Mr Teale said that he will probably return at the end of the week. I do not want to cut across what he will wish to tell of his own eye witness account of the unfolding tragic scenes in Phnom Penh and elsewhere in Kampuchea.

It is hardly necessary for me to confirm again the Government’s deep and abiding concern for those in Kampuchea but I do so. Suffice to say the Government is looking at both the humanitarian and political issues. Today I am responding to a question solely on humanitarian relief. At the United Nations I spent the overwhelming majority of my time in discussions with Foreign Ministers and the Secretary-General on this very matter. Following my urging the SecretaryGeneral issued a very strong appeal to all countries to co-operate in assisting with humanitarian relief but obviously a great deal more will need to be done. Further Australian Government assistance will be sent shortly. Naturally the Government is keeping the matter under constant review. It is obvious that in answering the two elements of the honourable member’s question I was pleased to be able to say yes on both counts. If a tragedy of the most momentous proportions is to be avoided the international community must respond quickly. Australia was one of the first countries to get supplies into Kampuchea. Many other countries are now responding in the hope of alleviating a massive human tragedy. We have acted expeditiously and will continue to press others to do the same.

page 1823

QUESTION

WIDE-BODIED AIRCRAFT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Transport whether Trans-Australia Airlines has placed a holding deposit on four A300 wide bodied jets. Is this aeroplane the most cost effective middle range aircraft in the world and operationally the quietest? Would the introduction of this aircraft onto the main routes substantially reduce the noise level and frequency of aircraft movements around airports? Has Ansett Transport Industries Ltd any plans for the early introduction of the A300 or any other widebodied jet airliner? Having in mind this aircraft’s economic, operational and environmental advantages, will the Minister give an assurance that the early entry of the wide-bodied aircraft will not be delayed? Finally, is there anything in the two-airline agreement that would prevent either TAA or ATI from going it alone with the early introducton of wide-bodied aircraft onto Australia ‘s main trunk routes?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– There is nothing in the airlines agreement that will prevent either airline making a decision unilaterally on wide-bodied jets and seeking to change its aircraft to a particular type of wide-bodied jet. Trans-Australia Airlines has lodged a deposit for four A300B4 series -

Mr Cohen:

– You told me it hadn’t.

Mr NIXON:

– If you look at Hansard you will find that you asked an entirely different question about an entirely different aircraft.

Mr Cohen:

– That is just your tricky way. You are better on agriculture and you are hopeless on that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Robertson to cease interjecting.

Mr NIXON:

– The deposit has been lodged for four A300B4 series aircraft. I agree with the honourable member that the introduction of these aircraft will make a big difference to civil aviation in this country in the terms which he himself espoused. As to the decision of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd on a particular aircraft, my understanding is that it has had feasibility studies done on a number of the options available to it. It has not yet come to a decision but, like TAA, I have no doubt it will make its own commercial decision in its own time and seek government approval at that time.

page 1823

QUESTION

JOHN ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that the architectural firm of John Andrews International Pty Ltd of Sydney is one of six finalists in an international competition for the design of the multi-million dollar headquarters of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation, Intelsat, in Washington in the United States of America? What is the significance of this announcement to Australia?

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

– I am delighted to say that John Andrews, who is an Australian architect of international renown -

Mr Uren:

– Is that the bloke who did so well against the Herald!

Mr STALEY:

– It is a case where the assessor has received another award. He is one of the assessors of our own Parliament House competition, the first results of which were announced last night by my colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory. So now we know that Mr Andrews, one of Australia’s and the world’s leading architects, has been awarded a place in the final six who will go on in the competition for the Intelsat headquarters in Washington to cost about $30m. It is indeed the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation which has put up the satellite which Australia will be using to begin broadcasting to some remote areas during next year.

Mr Innes:

– What a load of tripe. Why don’t you tell them the truth- the end of 1 980?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw the remark. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting across the chamber and withdraw.

Mr Innes:

– What am I supposed to withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw the remark.

Mr Innes:

– I will withdraw whatever you say, but I do not know what I am withdrawing. .

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw the remark unconditionally. I remind the honourable gentleman it is customary to stand while withdrawing.

Mr Innes:

– How low will I bow, Sir?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not know how low the honourable gentleman can get.

Mr Innes:

– I withdraw unconditionally.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. I suggest in all seriousness, Mr Speaker, that your comment is unparliamentary. In the circumstances, and especially in view of your position, it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– In defence of the Chair, if I may, Mr Speaker, I think there would be excellent precedents for your remarks from a distinguished predecessor of yours some 20 or 25 years ago.

Mr Young:

– This is a different parliament and that comment is not acceptable to this Parliament. It may have been acceptable then. I do not know but there could be some confusion. I think you may have been asking the member for Melbourne to withdraw something that was said from the other side of the House. I suggest to you, in all seriousness, Mr Speaker, that it would be totally unacceptable to us to have that standard of speech from you to any member of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will come to order. If the honourable member for Melbourne feels offended by my remark, I will withdraw it.

Mr Innes:

– I certainly do feel offended and I remind the Speaker that the remark is not original.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. No, it is not original.

page 1824

QUESTION

ROAD FUNDING

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of the fact that Federal revenues from motorists are estimated to treble this year compared with 1975-76, how does he explain the substantial reduction in the Commonwealth’s share of outlays on road maintenance and construction from 2.73 per cent in the 10 years to 1973-74 to 1.76 per cent in the period since 1973-74, as pointed out by the National Roads and Motorists Association in its recent publication? Will the Government soon give Australian motorists a fair share of their petrol dollars?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– Through the years, governments have not hypothecated fuel tax to road expenditure programs. That principle was followed by the Labor Party during its period in office and has been followed continuously by this Government. In other words, there is no link between the amount of money raised from the sale of fuel and the amount of money made available to the States for roads. The determination of the level of road funds is made against the demands on all other aspects of government expenditure. It is worthy of note that in the last few years there has been a continuing increase in road funds for the States. In fact, we have ensured that the States have been able to maintain expenditure in real terms on road programs in this triennium. I do not think this Government’s efforts on road expenditure can be criticised in the manner in which the honourable member suggests.

page 1824

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS DECISIONS

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NCP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are decisions of the United Nations arrived at by including the votes of the leaders of countries who rule by the sword rather than by popular democratic vote? If so, is Australia morally bound by any such decision made in part by leaders who themselves violate basic civil liberties?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, all member states have the right to pass a vote when draft resolutions or decisions are put to the vote in the General Assembly. Such resolutions are defined in the Charter as having the force of recommendations. They do not bind member states, but are recommendatory only. Australia decides upon its reactions to specific resolutions against the background to their adoption and taking account of their consistency with Australia’s policies. We do not, therefore, see ourselves as being either legally or morally obliged to implement all General Assembly resolutions, but we take them into account as recommendations. The Security Council is different. With its complement of permanent and non-permanent members, it has the power to pass mandatory resolutions. But, of course, any of the five permanent members- the United States of America, Britain, France, the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union- has the right of veto.

page 1825

QUESTION

ROAD FUNDING

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to reports that the Commonwealth Government is treating Queensland motorists like milch cows and to reports that the Minister’s recent announcement on Queensland road allocations was a masterpiece of fiddled figures and juggled words? Is it a fact, as was claimed by the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, that the Minister was attempting to pull an enormous con trick on Queensland? Will the Minister now undertake urgently to increase substantially Federal road funding on the Marlborough-Sarina section of the Bruce Highway in order to prevent the tremendous disruption and loss of life that occurs on that section each year? Finally, will the Minister for Transport confer urgently with the Minister for Primary Industry to discuss ways of upgrading this section of the road so that dairy and sugar farmers in north Queensland will have more reliable and safer access roads to southern markets?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I will see that that discussion takes place. As a matter of statistical evidence, let me inform the House as to the level of road funds made available to Queensland under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. In 1974-75 the total grant to Queensland was $70.3m of Commonwealth funds. For 1979-80 the total level of funds will be $1 14.94m. So, it can be seen that Queensland is getting its proper share of funds made available under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. The other comment I would make is that I have had many a fight with my burly colleague, the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads. He has a similar capacity to mine to play it fairly rough. Let me not deny that I enjoy the occasional joust with him both through the media and through Australian Transport Advisory Council conferences.

Mr McVeigh:

– You always win.

Mr NIXON:

– The honourable member for Darling Downs rightly says that I always win. The fact remains that the Commonwealth is doing its utmost to alleviate Queensland’s problems in regard to road construction. As to the particular road mentioned by the honourable member, all I can say is that if the Queensland Minister does not put it in the list of priorities for construction, it cannot be built.

page 1825

QUESTION

APEX COMMEMORATIVE STAMP

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be aware of very strong representations over a long period by such people as the honourable member for Ballarat, the honourable member for Macarthur and me encouraging the issuing of a special stamp next year for Apex, a great Australian organisation. Can the Minister inform the House of the present position on the decision-making in regard to this stamp?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– It is true that the honourable member and a number of his colleaguesindeed, a great many of his colleagues from both sides of the House- have made representations to me on the desire of Apex to have a stamp commemorating its fiftieth anniversary. I did indicate to the House on a previous occasion that I would ask Australia Post to have another look at its earlier decision to refuse the application of Apex. Australia Post has had a further look at the application and further discussions with Apex. In view of the extent and depth of the organisation’s work in the Australian community, Australia Post has decided to award a stamp to Apex on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. As a rider, I add that Australia Post has also agreed to review its stamp issue policy.

page 1825

QUESTION

ROADS EXPENDITURE

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to the Bureau of Transport Economics finding that 64 per cent of direct and indirect expenditure on roads goes to the employment of labour, and the Australian Council of Local Government Association’s recent statement that road work programs could usefully employ day labour resources if more funds were made available to local government? In view of these facts, will the Minister support the establishment of an urgent program of increased Federal road funding to improve the deplorable state of our roads and generate more jobs in regional areas?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

-It might be helpful if I give the House some total figures for Commonwealth expenditure on roads for all the States. Again, I point out to the House the levels of expenditure now being experienced. For example, in 1 974-75 the total level of Commonwealth funds made available for roads was $342m. In 1979-80 the amount goes up to $546m. In view of the difficult budgeting problem that the Government has had I do not think anybody can say that roads have been unfairly treated against the back drop of the economic climate we had to deal with after beating the Labor Government in 1975. I also point out that the Commonwealth is not the only source of funds for road expenditure. The States are also expected to expend money. I mentioned the Commonwealth’s contribution for all the States but I would like to mention the contribution for New South Wales, which this year will be $ 176m as against $ 106m in 1974-75.

It is interesting to note that the State quota, being $ 169.7m, is less than the Commonwealth’s expenditure. It may well be that New South Wales from its own Budget can lift that sum of money and spend more than the State quota. There is nothing stopping any State government from re-ordering its priorities and allowing some of the very generous general revenue assistance from the Commonwealth to be spent on roads. No State at the moment does that but I encourage any State to do it. Having regard to the total level of road funds made available by the Commonwealth, I think the Commonwealth is meeting its obligations to the States in that regard.

page 1826

QUESTION

INCREASED TAXES

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Does he recall comments made last June that States would have to increase taxes and cut public works? Do State Budgets support those claims?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The State Budgets that have so far been introduced- and that is five State Budgets- indicate quite plainly that when the Premiers left Canberra after the June Premiers Conference they somewhat overstated their case. It is not the first time that Premiers have overstated their case, but this time it seemed to attract more notice. For example, Mr Wran said that the outlook was as bleak as the Canberra winter and that the Federal allocations to New South Wales would mean an increase ‘in State taxes or the suspension or cancellation of building contracts’. Mr Lowe said that the whole financial package was a catastrophe, but of course we know that he wanted to hold an election on that issue. We also know that he would not be game to have an election today.

Now that we have the Budgets for Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria it is interesting to see what has occurred as a result of those Budgets. On the revenue budget New South Wales increased its expenditure by 13.6 per cent, Victoria by 13.8 per cent, Queensland by 1 1.6 per cent, Western Australia by 12.1 per cent and Tasmania by 1 1.9 per cent. The capital works budgets have gone up by about 9 per cent to 10 per cent in general terms with the exception of Queensland where, because of infrastructure borrowing programs, I am advised that the capital expenditure budget has gone up by 26 per cent. The figures are not totally comparable with those of the Commonwealth. Our total budget expenditure increased by 9.1 per cent, which is significantly less than the average increase for the totality of State Budgets. All the States have found extra money for public works. They have all had the possibility of advantage from the infrastructure proposals where last year about $150m was borrowed and spent. This year the expectation will be about $400m under that particular program. There is a very great increase in our own revenue payments to the States of between 13 per cent and 14 percent.

My colleague the Minister for Transport indicated that it is open to the States to use those sums in the way they want to. New South Wales increased its education budget by nearly $ 130m or by over 1 1 per cent with an addition of almost 900 teachers. Tasmania transferred funds to the capital works program. In Queensland education expenditure was up by between 10 percent and 1 1 per cent, with over 250 extra teachers. In Western Australia the education budget went up 14 per cent, with over 245 more staff. So it goes on through other elements of State Budgets.

In addition to that, all five States have had tax cuts involved in their Budgets. When they can increase expenditure in the way they have and at the same time have tax cuts or increases in concessional limits for such matters as payroll tax, they are obviously not under great financial stress. In New South Wales, the payroll tax exemption limit was raised and the Premier said there would be no tax increases for the fourth year in a row. However the New South Wales Budget did involve one broken promise in relation to death duties. I think that ought to be noted. It was a clear promise. Mr Wran said that he would have to break the promise as a result of the rigidity of the Premiers Conference decisions. His own Budget very directly gives the lie to that claim.

In Victoria, the payroll tax exemption limit was raised, the gift duty exemption limit was increased and there were further probate concessions. In Queensland the payroll tax exemption limit was raised, stamp duty on principal residences was reduced and the maximum exempt amount on stamp duty was increased. There was also an increase in land tax exemption. The stamp duty on gifts was reduced in

Western Australia. The payroll tax exemption limit was also raised. In Tasmania there was a lower scale of land tax and estate duty concessions are to apply from 1 January 1980. Tasmania could do it; New South Wales could not.

The conclusion is a very plain one. The policies of this Government have not put the State Budgets under stress. They were easy Budgets to frame. The States were able to establish their own priorities. What has transpired makes a complete lie of that which the Premiers said when they left Canberra in June.

page 1827

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE ON ROADS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In view of the Bureau of Transport Economies’ recent finding that in the four years from 1975 to 1979 Commonwealth expenditure on road construction and maintenance expressed in real terms declined by 6 per cent, that expenditure by States on road construction and maintenance increased by 39 per cent and that expenditure by local governments on road construction and maintenance in the same four years increased by 7 per cent, will the Minister now undertake to ensure that a fairer share of the funds being stripped from motorists will be returned to the States and to local government to provide increased employment opportunities and improved road standards?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

-The financial year 1979-80 is the last year of a three-year Act under which the sums of money to be allocated for roads were determined by the Government on a broad basis. As I said earlier, since the introduction of the Act those funds have been indexed to ensure that the real value of funds provided to the States are maintained for the period of the Act. Of course, when considering a new Act to be introduced in 1980 the Government will take into account the sums to be made available to the States. The matters raised by the honourable member and the comments made by the BTE will be considered in that context.

page 1827

QUESTION

TOURISM

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-Has the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for tourism, been drawn to the arrival in Canberra of a friendly diplomatic mission from the Banana Coast Republic of Coffs Harbour? Is it a fact that the Australian Prime Minister has accorded traditional recognition to the mission? Now that tourism is being accorded greater recognition than ever before by the Government, can the Minister assure the

House that increased expenditure on tourist promotion, depreciation allowances for the tourist industry as well as other support such as cheaper overseas air fares to Australia negotiated by the Minister for Transport, will make it unnecessary for the Minister for Defence to take any steps to dissuade the Banana Republic from nonpeaceful action in the foreseeable future?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure that with the support of the honourable gentleman Coffs Harbour will certainly play a significant part in the development of the tourist industry in Australia. I am very much aware that a friendly diplomatic hospitality mission from the Banana Republic of Coffs Harbour was in Canberra today. I am also happy to report to the House that the Prime Minister accorded a traditional and historic welcome to that diplomatic mission. I might also say that it was a very ecumenical, apolitical function attended by the Honourable Fred Daly, who in addition to being the head of the diplomatic mission represents the Australian Labor Party.

As to the honourable gentleman’s question, this Government has accorded very significant support to Australia’s tourist industry. The honourable gentleman quite rightly mentions the depreciation allowance, the lowering of international air fares, the strong lift which has taken place in support of the Australian Tourist Commission, as well as the Commission’s plans for the development of domestic tourism within Australia. In response to the final part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I am sure that the strength of the Government’s support to the industry, which will be of major assistance to Coffs Harbour, will certainly dissuade my honourable friend the Minister for Defence from taking any precipitous action in relation to Coffs Harbour or giving any consideration to an incursion into that territory. I would suggest to the House that when the Minister next visits Coffs Harbour it will be for purposes of reconnaissance and certainly not search and destroy.

page 1827

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr UREN:

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Government of the People’s Republic of China has declared four danger zones in the South China Sea to be operative from 23 October 1979? Has he received advice from his Department, or on his recent visit overseas, about the likelihood of another incursion by China into Vietnam? What action is he prepared to take to help avoid any further conflict in the Indo-China region?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I am aware of the gathering of forces- not to the extent that was evident earlier this year- on both sides of the border by the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. The tragedy unfolding in Kampuchea itself would be answered if all external forces were to withdraw. The prime element behind what is transpiring in Indo-China is not restricted solely to the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam, but in fact to the variants within the play of the four communist states- the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam and, to a lesser extent because of its control by Vietnam, Kampuchea.

Dr Klugman:

– And Laos, of course.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Laos as well, yes. The honourable member is quite right. I was thinking more in terms of four primary factors which I named earlier. The honourable member’s question referred also to some solution. In answer to a question that was asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition some weeks ago I said that one should seek a political solution. I have spent some months discussing with other Foreign Ministers around the world how this could be achieved. The harsh reality which one comes back to is that it does require the withdrawal of the external forces from Kampuchea, their presence being seen as one of the primary ingredients of the disputes that are occurring in the region at the present moment. The Government will continue to work for some form of political solution. The withdrawal that I mentioned is a prerequisite, but it will require even more than the good will of western powers who are prepared to talk about political solutions. It will require honesty and the good will of the communist powers who are themselves the major disputants.

page 1828

QUESTION

TAXATION PROPOSALS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Acting Treasurer recall the Treasurer giving me an assurance that income splitting tax proposals designed to ease the tax disadvantage of single income families would receive close study from members of the Government? To enable this to be done have officers of the Taxation Office and the Treasury been asked to examine the proposals? If so, have they commenced work and, if not, when will work begin? When does the Acting Treasurer expect that the Treasurer will receive reports from each of these Departments? Further, as the Treasurer is a member of the Social Welfare Policy Committee of Cabinet, will the Acting Treasurer ask the Treasurer whether he will also refer the proposals for analysis and report by the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat which was established by the Government to co-ordinate development of welfare policy? If not, why not?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do recall the Treasurer, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Sturt, saying that he would give close study to the honourable member’s submission on taxation matters. The Treasurer has asked that the matter be examined. The honourable member for Sturt asked me whether in fact that examination has started already. My understanding is that it has not, for the simple reason that the tax officials have been very busy, involved with Budget legislation and also tax avoidance legislation to which the Government and indeed the Parliament as a whole would want the Austraiian Taxation Office to give priority. 1 give an undertaking to the honourable member for Sturt that the report on his proposal will be available as quickly as possible and on the Treasurer’s return this weekend I will put to him for consideration the suggestion that the proposal should go to the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat.

page 1828

QUESTION

URANIUM: FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the fact that the Government has now abandoned its 75 per cent Australian equity policy in respect of Yeelirrie and Roxby Downs for what it deems to be special circumstances and given that no manufactured special circumstance can exist with Ranger, will he assure the House that the Ranger deposit will be maintained in Australian hands at least to the level of 75 per cent local ownership in accordance with the Government’s definitive foreign investment policy statement of 1 976?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The House will be well aware that, in relation to Yeelirrie and Roxby Downs, Australian ownership of 50 per cent or more has been maintained. That is very firm policy. When the Government reviewed the ownership guidelines in relation to these particular matters it could see no substantial reason why there should be a rigid maintenance of the 75 per cent guideline which had earlier been stated as an objective, especially if that would hold up development and progress in that area. Of course we know that the Australian Labor Party does not want the developments to proceed and therefore would not mind having guideline requirements that could not be achieved. In relation to Ranger, no decision has been made to divest. A decision has been made to explore the possibilities and my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources has made that plain on many occasions. Those matters are now being examined by the Minister and his Department. When the interest that has been shown in the

Government’s share in Ranger has been appropriately analysed the matter will be put before the Government and a decision will be made. Quite plainly one of the factors- let me stress it would be only one of a number of important factors- taken into account will be the nature of the offer, whence it comes, whether it involves Australian ownership or otherwise. Other factors also are important. The guidelines have been stated quite clearly and whatever the Government does will be consistent with those guidelines.

page 1829

QUESTION

CANBERRA YOUTH CONFERENCE

Mr HASLEM:

– Is the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs aware of claims that the recent youth conference held in Canberra was a fiasco and, more particularly, that important and representative groups of Australian youth were not present? Can the Minister refute those assertions?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I can positively refute those assertions. I think that anybody who makes a fairminded assessment of the 1 20 young people who attended that conference would say that they were representative of all parts of Australia, of all young people in Australia. They were from all walks of life, from rural, city, Aboriginal and ethnic backgrounds. Deliberately there were unemployed people there. There were professionals and students and there were some 1 5 and 1 6 year old boys and girls present. Some of them were attending secondary schools or tertiary and technical institutions. Some represented youth organisations. As I have said, I think any person who made a fair-minded assessment would say that they represented the young people of Australia. They did not represent the kinds of people who sought to demonstrate outside the Australian National University on the arrival of the Prime Minister and me and who sought to demonstrate within for the purpose of disrupting the conference. I speak in particular of the Unemployed Workers Union because it was the Unemployed Workers Union in Canberra which sent out an invitation which, among other things, called on people to bring a friend, or two, and a plate, old tomatoes, eggs, et cetera. It was also the Unemployed Workers Union which, from a post office box in Canberra- No. 1875- sent out a leaflet saying that the union opposed the idea of having a conference. I am very pleased to say that the overwhelming view of the conference was that the young people of Australia wanted a conference.

It should be of some interest to the House, as I know it is of particular interest to the honourable member for Canberra, that the post office box No. 1875 also appears as the postal address of the following organisations: Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre; Friends of the Earth, Canberra; Movement Against Uranium Mining; Mumimbidgee Monitor Association; South Coast Committee; Action for Public Transport; and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The Canberra directory of public organisations from which I take this information shows as the contact point for the Australian Conservation Foundation a Mr A. Sorrensen. I am advised that he is a legislative assistant on the staff of the honourable member for Reid. The House will recall that during the Ranger negotiations with the Northern Land Council we were able to pinpoint a member of the staff of the honourable member as one of those who were demonstrating and agitating to prevent the signing of that agreement. So we can make the same link.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order. Trie Minister cannot reach those judgments at all. We have seen over the last year that this Minister is prepared to go to any lengths including reading out in this Parliament the private mail of the honourable member for Capricornia. We are not going to let this Minister take the rest of us down to the gutter with him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr VINER:

– I think it becomes quite clear to the House that the Unemployed Workers Union is a front for the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. In the same way as this link can be established, it is within the knowledge of the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Denison that there were clear links between the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania and those who demonstrated against the Prime Minister in Hobart.

page 1829

QUESTION

PROPOSED PURCHASE OF ARMOUR-PLATED VEHICLES

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Government is procuring from the United States two armour-plated Cadillacs for the Prime Minister’s use? If so, what has prompted this decision to abandon the Prime Minister’s previously expressed policy of using a locally produced car, that is, the policy that led him to dispose of the official Mercedes-Benz in favour of a Holden Statesman limousine? Is it a fact that the new vehicles will cost $60,000 each in the United States?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The honourable gentleman’s alleged facts are totally and completely false. I am the first Australian Prime Minister to be using an Australian designed and built car. I intend to go on doing so. The honourable gentleman should also know the reasons for this, and the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a brief on this matter if he wants one. The Minister for Administrative Services believes on security advice that the Government does need available to it security cars for VIP visitors from overseas or for special circumstances in Australia if that is necessary. Arrangements have been made to procure such vehicles, not from the United States. They are not Cadillacs. Two vehicles have been ordered. I think one has arrived and has already been of significant use in circumstances where it was necessary and desirable, but not for me.

page 1830

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr ERIC ROBINSON (McPhersonMinister for Finance and Acting Treasurer)Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 I present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation 1979.

page 1830

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present material received in January 1979 from Mr Justice Staples concerning human rights together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the material.

page 1830

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 35 (2 ) of the Prices Justification Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal 1978-79.

page 1830

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Act 1970 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation 1 979.

page 1830

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1979.

Lighthouses Amendment Bill 1979.

Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy Collection) Amendment Bill 1979.

Sea-Carriage of Goods Amendment Bill 1979.

Seamen ‘s Compensation Amendment Bill 1 979.

page 1830

KAMPUCHEA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from both the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today.

As required by Standing Order 107 I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Bradfield, namely:

The urgent need for Government support of international initiatives for the provision of humanitarian aid to the war and famine stricken people of Kampuchea.

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

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

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-Mr Speaker-

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Unbeknown to members of the Opposition and probably to you, when this matter of public importance was selected we did not know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was going to give us a rundown on the government aid that has already been given to Kampuchea, and which the Opposition obviously supports. In view of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I do not know whether this matter is still relevant. It seems to me that if we are talking about more aid that is perhaps a reason for debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The House has expressed its view by the required number of members standing. And I might point out that the honourable member for Port Adelaide was one of those honourable members who stood.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-The world has been for too long a near silent spectator of the genocide of a people whose only crime was to live in Cambodia at a time when it fell victim to the spread of the Vietnam war and ultimately to the effects of Vietnamese aggression unleashed upon them following nearly four years of the most brutal system of government yet devised by modern man.

The Pol Pot regime undertook a conscious policy to introduce what it saw as pure communism through social engineering. To this end it set out systematically to eradicate every vestige and every trace of Western influence from that country. As a result of this, from all accounts there was genocide of some two million people or 25 per cent of the Cambodian population.

The Pol Pot Government was brutal, bestial and bloodthirsty. Every citizen, every Cambodian, of whatever age or sex, who inhabited any town or city was compelled to evacuate. They were allowed to take only what they could physically carry, and many thousands died in the course of this forced march. Few children survived and pregnant women gave birth along the roadside. Patients in every hospital in Phnom Penh were compelled to leave, whatever their condition. Doctors were interrupted in surgery. They were taken out and either thrown out of the window or forced to take to the roads with the remaining inhabitants. Phnom Penh and every other city and town in Kampuchea has since then remained deserted and crumbling, the Khmer Rouge soldiers at that time emptied and looted what was left.

Phnom Penh shrank from a population of some 2.5 million to an empty and lifeless shell with an estimated population of about 45,000. Masses of people were moved from one side of the country to the other and the border near Vietnam was abandoned absolutely. People were forced to work on the rice fields which were already nationalised. Land was cleared to plant crops such as maize, cassava, yams and sweet potatoes. People worked long and they worked hard. One thing can be said in retrospect. Whatever the massive cost in human life at least at that stage the people of Kampuchea did not face, as they do today, the ever present and very real danger of absolute starvation. Nevertheless, that period of mass slayings and the mindless hatred and destruction which resulted, of orgies of book burning, of fires fed by musical instruments, television sets, radios and even Buddha images, of the absolute destruction in Phnom Penh of the Roman Catholic cathedral to such an extent that not a stone stood upon a stone, left that country in a lower relative state than possibly any nation in recorded history, and I do not exclude from that parts of western Europe in 1945. Life in Kampuchea, insofar as it exists, is mainly in the countryside. The concept of the mobile gulag that was so clearly developed during the period of the Pol Pot regime of some three and a quarter years of terror still exists today.

What we have today therefore is the destruction of a people. The western world in particular is facing the very real problem of what it can do to help save the last vestiges of humanity in Kampuchea. We have heard in recent months horrendous accounts from the very few journalists and others who have been allowed into that nation. I see no point in repeating them in detail today. What is quite clear is that the Australian Government was one of the very first- as it should have been because of our geographical position- to appreciate the fact that we had to take whatever action we could to alleviate the massive human suffering of the people of Kampuchea and, wherever possible, assist the border states such as Thailand which, as we are all aware, in the last two years in particular has been facing the enormous social and economic burden brought upon them by the refugees from all over Indo-China, Laos, Vietnam and now Kampuchea.

What has been done in this regard is relevant. Already Australia has pledged a contribution of some $3. 7m to aid Kampuchea. In addition, we have undertaken to pay the costs of charter flights to get aid from private relief organisations into that country. In this regard, it is particularly important that members of this Parliament tell the Australian people why it is necessary that they should on an individual basis do all they can to support the appeals which are currently being mounted by non-government organisations such as Austcare, the Australian Red Cross, Community Aid Abroad, the Australian Council of Churches, Australian Catholic Relief and the Australian Freedom from Hunger Campaign. The target of this combined operation is $lm. Surely that is not too much to ask of the Australian people who in this part of the world are so far ahead in terms of their standards of living and the quality of life that they enjoy? If we seriously expect the world to regard us as moral leaders on the fundamental questions of life and death then we have to be prepared as a people to stand up and support a just and essential cause. In days yet to come the program announced by the Australian Government and the attitude demonstrated by the Australian people will be remembered not just by the people of Kampuchea but also by the nations in the region in which we live and in which we will continue to exist for many years to come. We must demon.trate our co-operation and our sincere regard for the welfare of people in matters such as this. We are building up for this nation an appreciation in our region, an expectation that we are truly part of the region, that we do not shirk our responsibilities and that we will always do our best for our neighbours.

The record which we have demonstrated in the last two years in terms of the problem of refugees from Indo-China speaks for itself. Although we are a nation of only 14.5 million people, we are among the foremost of nations of the western world which are absorbing refugees from Indo-China. Regrettably, what we are seeing in Kampuchea today is merely an extension of the problem which has existed in that part of the world more or less since the first period of the Vietnam war. Whereas in the past people left the region essentially for political and economic reasons we are now facing not only the prospect of mass starvation within Kampuchea but also the quite strong probability, especially if there is a military offensive along the Thai border in the next few weeks, of a further mass migration of Khmer citizens who are simply trying to save their lives either from the bullets of the opposing forces or from the ravages of starvation and the total breakdown of health and communications in that country. What will happen will obviously depend on the approach taken not only by Australia but also by the entire world. We have not yet seen a clearly enunciated international call launched by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund or the International Committee of the Red Cross but we anticipate that this will take place within the next few days.

There are political problems. It is obviously essential that before massive aid can be introduced into Kampuchea agreement must be reached between the authorities in Phnom Penh and international relief organisations to ensure that the aid once it arrives can be distributed to the entire population, not just to those sections of the country which are under the administration of the pro- Vietnamese government or the Pol Pot forces. These are difficulties which have yet to be faced. One thing is certain. Once the aid offices are open, and the visas have been issued to enable personnel to enter Phnom Penh, once communications are re-established- this is an enormous area in which the Australian Government could well play a role- we will be in a position not only to fly aircraft carrying rice and medical supplies into the country but also to distribute such aid. When we have reached that stage it is probably fair to say that the essential danger point will have passed. But the crisis will be with us very much in the next few weeks. If, within the next month, in particular, we do not help to solve these problems, political and otherwise, and develop the administration on the ground for a major relief effort within Kampuchea, it will be too late for hundreds of thousands of people. As I said in my opening remarks, they have committed no crime. They were just unfortunate enough to have been born citizens of a state which has been totally destroyed by war and is now racked by famine to a level which we have not seen in modern history.

The people of Australia and the rest of the world, as well as the people of Kampuchea are facing a period of trial, as did the people of Western Europe during the period leading up to 1939. We all know what happened as a result. We must demonstrate through our humanity as well as through our diplomatic and military capacity that we seek nothing in South-East Asia except peace. We ask nothing of the Vietnamese people but that they should settle down to live in peace. We ask for nothing more of Indo China than that the people of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam should live as neighbours in a state of peace. But, above all, sovereignty must be returned to Kampuchea and Laos. What we are seeing today is the gradual but total destruction of the concept of sovereignty in Indo China.

We are seeing the establishment of a new Indo Chinese empire under one nation, controlled from Hanoi. Naturally the nations of South East Asia such as Thailand and other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations are extremely concerned about the implications of one state being absorbed by another. They realise that, if they accept that borders can be ignored, their own future is in danger. If the offensive is launched soon along the border with Thailand, troops of the Vietnamese Army may cross that border and, as a result a series of serious international incidents may occur. We must support the fundamental principle that no state has the right to invade across the borders of another. That is what we have seen in Kampuchea and its relationship with Vietnam. While that problem remains, we will face continually major difficulties in terms of the basic political stability of the region, not only of Indo China but also of the entire area of South East Asia. In the midst of all this, while the chanceries of the world perhaps may spend their days and nights debating the merits of which government in Kampuchea they should recognise, the simple human fact remains that thousands and thousands of citizens of that nation are going to die because the system within their country has totally broken down: Communications are inadequate; their food supplies have failed; they have no medicines or medical personnel; they have little capacity to look after themselves; they are dispirited; and they are a broken people. They look to us and to other nations of the Western world for support. I am certain that the Government and the people of Australia will pull their full weight because, as I said earlier, our record in respect of Kampuchea is going to be seen by the world as demonstrable evidence that Australians do care and that we are concerned for the welfare of our fellow human beings.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition supports the discussion of this matter of public importance. The important question that must be asked after what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has just said is: Do Australians care? Each member of the Opposition has been as anxious as any person in Australia to ask: Can we do more for the unfortunate people of Kampuchea? The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and I were in Bangkok last week attending as observers at the Association of South East Asian Nations conference. We can understand the problems of ASEAN. The main element of the discussion focussed on what the ASEAN nations deemed to be the problem of illegal migrants entering their countries. We would say that they are refugees. The position is that we can well understand the problems that the ASEAN nations feel that they will be unable to cope with in the coming weeks. As has been indicated here, great loss of life has occurred and is occurring in the former Indo-China area of Kampuchea- Cambodia as it was formerly known.

It is recognised now that the butcher called Pol Pot has probably slaughtered over Vh million people. That is the tragedy of the situation. The problem that we must consider now is whether we can save some of the remnants in that unfortunate country. It is not much good- I say this advisedly- thinking that adjoining countries will be able to offer aid. They feel that they are more burdened themselves in looking after their people. That would apply particularly to Thailand where there are refugee camps. Those camps have been there for years. The Thais cannot see that they can cope with any more refugees. Obviously the inclination in Thailand would be that refugees who sought to cross into the country would be asked to return to their homeland. That has happened. Thousands of refugees have died in the process. The question is: What more can a government do? I say that any government has to do a lot more. I am not criticising the Australian Government in that context, but it has to do much more if we are to be more successful in offering aid. The number of people who have to be looked after runs virtually into hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

The problem in the coming weeks will become more acute as obviously further military action will occur within Kampuchea. That will cause more problems for present refugees and will increase the number of refugees. The refugees will be jammed against the border area of Thailand, but will not be able to cross that border. A tragic further loss of human life will result. Those are the facts at present. The tragedy is, as honourable members will notice from the International Disaster Emergency Committee recommendation, that the amount of aid needed is 100,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes and Australia can give about 3,500 tonnes. Many people have been slaughtered. Others have been uprooted or removed from their homes and from any visible life sustaining support. As a result many have died and many more will die. A further problem comes from the cessation of all production, particularly food production. The great tragedy in the agony of Kampuchea, as mentioned in a number of articles, is starvation. This fact is obvious. We should be talking now to the government of Vietnam and the representatives of the former Pol Pot regime. Any government in the world can do this. I do not think Pol Pot should be given any further recognition. What I have said here is in sympathy with what my former colleague Kim Beazley wrote yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald. Why should we recognise such a treacherous man who has committed genocide against a people? We do not have to do it. We do not want to be caught up in the niceties involved in giving recognition to anybody on the basis of aid.

I give my full support to what was said in this morning’s edition of the Canberra Times. The issue is that we cut out the niceties of who is to get aid and whether it is to amount to de facto recognition. We give aid to everybody in Kampuchea. We do it on the basis that we give aid to Vietnam also and we do not get ourselves in the ridiculous situation in which I feel the Government is because it has ostracised Vietnam. This has been the great problem. We have been anxious to indicate that we will penalise Vietnam; so our aid has been discontinued there. It is important that we resume aid to Vietnam. It needs aid as well. Further, we should be giving aid to the people in Kampuchea. But we also must talk to the representatives of these people; they are in Canberra. The Labor Government was always able to talk in Saigon and Hanoi at the same time. It could talk to Moscow and it could talk to Peking. It was able to do that on the basis of what was in the best interests of peace and stability and what was in the interests of our region.

I know that the tragic record of this Government particularly in the 1 960s leading up to 1 972 meant that it was never able to feel that it could talk to Hanoi. It was only recently that it felt able to talk to Peking. In the tragic days of Kissinger, Nixon, Foster Dulles and others, the idea was that we would be militarily involved in Vietnam on the basis that we were going to contain China. The whole of that philosophy is obvious now. It is so ridiculous that it was never viable. But if one looks at a book called Sideshow, written by William Shawcross, which relates to Kampuchea, one sees how, during the KissingerNixon administration, Kampuchea was betrayed and destroyed. It was attacked. It was invaded. It was bombed. Nobody was told that it was done. It has now been established that it was done by Kissinger and Nixon. That is the origin of the complete collapse of the regime in Kampuchea. That is where Sihanouk was destroyed by the Central Intelligence Agency, and deliberately so, on the basis that somebody outside the region knew what was best for the region. As a result there is complete instability in that country. There is the destruction of Sihanouk and the introduction of the Lon Nol regime and support for him when he never had the support of the people. There are refugees from Lon Nol in their thousands in Thailand now. We now have to look at the disaster that has occurred with Pol Pot. It is no credit to China for it to say that it wants to support Pol Pot. He will go down in history as one of the greatest tragedies ever in charge of a nation- the worst sort of butcher one could imagine. Evidence in Bangkok clearly tells us that the Thais know that 2Vi million people at least were destroyed. People were ordered out of hospitals. They had to carry their bottles of intravenous fluid to keep themselves alive. They were made to march down the streets to death and destruction. Anybody who wore spectacles was assassinated because he was deemed to be of an educated class. Yet today- I am not pinpointing the Australian Government- we still give recognition to this man Pol Pot. That recognition has been forfeited.

The issue is: What do we do about aid? I want our Government immediately to talk to Vietnamese representatives in Australia about whether we can go to Kampuchea in our planes, with our food, to deliver aid to our personnel. I want the Government to talk to the representatives of China, if need be, as to whether something cannot be done in the northern section of the province which is still under the control of the Khmer Rouge. Australians have courage, initiative and ability in these sorts of circumstances. They can say: ‘We will offer help; we are not interested in the politics of the situation’. It is pretty clear that from our point of view the sooner Vietnam can overcome its problems and get out of Kampuchea the better. It is pretty clear that the Vietnamese will be the winners. There is no doubt about that. They need aid as a result of all of the problems that they have been through in the 30 years of war fought in an effort to get a national identity for their country. The great problems of the 1960s are now to be inherited by us in the 1 980s. We are heading for a third world war based on the instability of the region in which we live.

We get no marks for just boycotting others or suggesting that because they are communists they should not get aid. That principle has gone. We find that in the world trading blocs and the world energy blocs all the big countries of the world, whether they are communists or otherwise, are getting together on the basis of their people’s needs. In this case, what is needed for the people of Kampuchea is peace and orderly government. Whether they can ever get it, whether there are enough of them left to be able even to organise it, is a matter of doubt. We give credit to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for raising this matter of the need for aid. But the matter cannot be left on the basis that a mere million dollars will do it. The country needs massive Australian help. Such help would be very worth while from Australia’s point of view. As we know, there are plenty of initiatives in Australia. Many volunteers would go to Kampuchea to offer aid. Medical teams would go, agricultural leaders and experts would again talk about soil cultivation and regeneration. There will be all the difficulties of a war-torn country still in the midst of a civil war.

Let us look at the tragic history of events since the 1960s. Do not let us get caught up in the principle that we can give aid only under certain circumstances to certain people. Let us not again ostracise Vietnam. The key to the situation is for our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to go straight away, this day, to the embassy representatives of Vietnam, China and Russia and talk about how we could go to Kampuchea with their support, both overt and covert, to see what we can organise for Phnom Penh and other areas. It was stated by the International Disaster

Emergencies Committee that a French nun working in Phnom Penh criticised aid agencies for insisting on monitoring the aid. She claimed that this was holding up supplies when Samrin ‘s government which is deemed to be a communist government has proved its honesty in distribution of supplies. We have to talk about getting that aid to Kampuchea. If we look at the normal humanitarian aspects of most people- Pol Pot excluded, of course- we find that it is clear that aid would be distributed on the basis of helping people. It could be argued that perhaps some of it would go to the army. That is the risk that we could well afford to take. There is strong evidence in that region, which I left only last Wednesday, that there will again be massive starvation because once the dry season starts in two or three weeks there will be a massive escalation in the number of refugees and virtually the complete loss of the remnants of this tragic country called Kampuchea.

Do not let us forget that there have been many guilty people on what we call the Western democracy side. The tragedy of Vietnam, the dishonesty of Vietnam, the lies and deceptions that were perpetrated in the cause of being involved in Vietnam, are now coming home to roost not against us so much at this stage- although perhaps it will in the future- but certainly against Kampuchea. The Kampucheans are the unfortunate, innocent victims. As I said, their government and their stability were destroyed in the course of what was deemed to be the solution to problems in Vietnam. We lost heavily in Vietnam, apart from our own dead. We lost the opportunity to go there and talk about democracy. We lost the opportunity to talk about the use of the ballot box as a means by which people can be elected. That means was never available. Kissinger must bear that indictment. The Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 would never have worked and he could not have cared less whether they did or not. They were drawn up on the basis of having full, free democratic elections in Vietnam and they were never allowed to operate. Why was that? It was because President Thieu was not going to vacate his position. We notice that in London last week President Thieu criticised the United States for not helping him. That country lost thousands of men trying to help him. This man went off to London to retire, with 16 tonnes of gold.

This is the problem of the whole of the Asian area in which we are involved. As far as governments of the likes of the Pol Pot regime are concerned, ballot boxes are only receptacles for the bones of the dead. They could not care less about the people. No argument that we can put up can justify what happened there. The real point is that we have to say to the Australian people: Wake up, time is running out’. A number of nations in our region are running out of people because they think they know how best to control their lives. Human rights, political rights and civil rights do not exist in a number of countries. We have to realise that. Whilst we want to trade and establish good relationships with them, the time for democracy has come. It is ridiculous for the Harries report on Australia and the Third World to suggest that the time for democracy in the Third World has not yet come. Unless we establish the rights of the people, unless we give them the right to talk about their governments, we will continue to get all the tragedies that we have had in the past. The question is one of aid and how we can give it. We are not here to criticise the Foreign Minister, who I know has another engagement. The question is to get into Kampuchea today and talk about how we can get more planes, more aid and more people into these areas. It can be done and we urge him to do it forthwith.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– It is very valuable for the House to hold this debate today because it brings before the Australian people an understanding of the issue. I should like to commend the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for bringing the matter forward. We do not have enough constructive bipartisan debates in this House on matters of such fundamental importance. I take a slightly different view from that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the fundamental causes of the situation, but there is no great point in my going into those matters. At present we have a most serious humanitarian problem. There are two aspects that need to be considered and I think they are intertwined. They are, firstly, the possibilities of finding an overall political solution; and secondly, how actually to deliver aid to the persons who are suffering.

On the first point, in my opinion, most of the problem arose from the tragic loss by the Americans in South Vietnam. That issue has now passed. Vietnam defeated the Americans as it had previously defeated the French and the Japanese. I have little doubt that ultimately Vietnam will be capable of completely defeating the remnants of the Pol Pot regime. Therefore, one has to ask: What is to be the situation over the next few months when it is likely that Vietnam will mount a further offensive in Kampuchea? I have expressed opposition to the invasion of

Kampuchea by Vietnam and I maintain that opposition. Indeed, for many years I expressed continuing opposition to the North Vietnamese regime. I express opposition to the present Vietnamese regime. Nothing could justify its invasion of Kampuchea. I also support the Government’s decision to remove aid from Vietnam, which decision was taken after the invasion of Kampuchea. But we must look at the situation as a matter of fact.

It appears to me that the Vietnamese Government, backed by the Soviet Union, is now determined to mount another offensive in Kampuchea for the purpose of eliminating the remnants of the Pol Pot regime. Another offensive will undoubtedly be bloody and cause horrendous casualties. It will affect the civilians in the country even more than they have been blighted in the last few years and it will make the delivery of aid even more difficult than at present. At present, it is extremely difficult. I believe that the Vietnam Government, and the Soviet Union, which supports it, seek to mount another offensive for the principal purpose of obtaining international recognition for the Heng Samrin regime in Vietnam. I also understand the problems of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, which are, in fact, terrified of the Vietnamese actions; but I point out that this has come about because of the fundamental shift in the balance of power when Vietnam succeeded against America a few years ago.

Therefore, one has to ask whether we could remove from Vietnam and the Soviet Union the incentive to mount another bloody offensive. I believe the incentive to mount an offensive might to some extent be reduced if Australia withdrew its recognition of the Pol Pot regime. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went to some length in his attack on the Pol Pot regime. He said that its recognition had been forfeited, but he did not actually say that he believed that recognition should be withdrawn. The former Labor Government recognised the government of Cambodia, as it then was, and the present Government followed that line as a matter of course. However, the Pol Pot regime simply does not control Cambodia at this time. At best, it controls certain areas. In the usual course of events it is control that determines recognition.

Other matters such as the character of the regime may also be taken into account. The character of the Pol Pot regime was absolutely and utterly horrendous. It is a matter for the Executive Government to determine foreign policy questions such as recognition. It is not directly a matter for the Parliament, although the Parliament has a very close interest in it. I am of the view that the Australian Government should now withdraw recognition of the Pol Pot regime, but should not recognise the Samrin Regime. Like a number of other countries, we should take the view that at present we do not recognise any regime in Kampuchea. It might be said that such a policy would militate against the delivery of aid. However, looking at the practicalities of the situation, I do not believe that argument would lie well. The physical problems on the ground are so severe that the question of recognition does not bear on the matter in great detail.

I turn to the practicalities of delivering aid. The Australian Government has supported airlifts and apparently it is possible to get into Phnom Penh. These airlifts should continue. I commend the Government and I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) for what he said on the question today. It is also interesting to note that a considerable amount of Australian wheat is getting into Kampuchea via the Soviet Union. I believe that it is sound for the Australian Government not to object to that practice, provided the wheat is going to civilian people in need. If the wheat is being used for military sustenance, we should review the question. At present, the Soviet Union provides about $2m of military aid to Vietnam each day. The delivery of wheat to Vietnam from the Soviet Union- wheat that has been purchased in Australia- is something that we should keep under review; but it is hoped that the supplies are going to the people concerned.

The need for technical aid should be emphasised to the greatest degree possible. I am quite certain that Australian volunteer organisations, subject to reasonable arrangements for their safety, would be prepared to help in Kampuchea. Kampuchea needs doctors, agricultural experts and technicians because the country has been utterly ravaged. There is no food and the people need the agricultural expertise and farming assistance to plant food as soon as possible. I understand that because of the Vietnamese invasion no rice was planted during the last season and therefore there will be no rice at the usual harvest time. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government should seek all possible ways to increase the delivery of aid. The Government has done a good job so far, but we need to do more.

An interesting suggestion was raised of sending the HMAS Melbourne up the Mekong River to Phnom Penh to deliver large amounts of aid. At first sight, this is probably impracticable, but I am sure the Government will investigate it very closely. If at all possible, that should be done, because much greater tonnages of materials and equipment can be delivered by sea than by air. Only the Soviet Union and the United States have the capacity for the air transportation of huge amounts of equipment, material and other aid. A ship would be able to deliver either to Phnom Penh or, more likely, to southern ports, assuming port or anchorage facilities are available and assuming the immediate local safety question can be resolved.

In summary, I make three points. Firstly, the political situation should be addressed carefully. I have absolutely no brief for the Vietnamese Government, none for the Samrin regime and certainly none for the Pol Pot regime. But, in addressing the question of reality and the question of control, and without in any way recognising the Samrin regime, I believe Australia should withdraw its recognition of Pol Pot and have a policy of no recognition of either of those regimes. Secondly, Australia should make sure that its efforts to deliver aid are increased. Thirdly, that aid should be based as much as possible upon the provision of technical and expert assistance to enable the immediate food aid to be backed up by an infrastructure capability to get Cambodia in some way back on its feet and to enable it once again, if at all possible, to be a nation that has a normal way of life.

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

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Let us get back to the question of aid, and let us get back to the sheer dimension of the tragedy in Kampuchea. It is very difficult to know just what the total population of Kampuchea was in the 1960s. Some authorities say seven million people and others eight million. It is very difficult to calculate precisely how many people were killed during the Pol Pot regime, but it seems a fair estimate that the equivalent of the entire population of Melbourne was wiped out between 1970 and 1975. It seems that the number of people who are faced with starvation, crop failure and the ecological and environmental destruction of the last few years is of the order of 2,500,000, at a minimum. That figure is also equivalent to the population of Melbourne.

Let us do a little simple arithmetic in regard to the volume of food necessary to stave off that starvation. I have been doing some rough calculations. The estimates that have been put up so far grossly underestimate the extent of the problem. If there are 2,500,000 people facing starvation, and if we assume an average food intake of 500 grams for the entire day- it means that Kampuchea needs an extra 1,250 tonnes of food per day. Over 365 days, that would amount to 456,250 tonnes. The Australian Government has offered 3,500 tonnes, and the Opposition wishes it were more. Although at first blush it sounds a very significant contribution, 3,500 tonnes would provide sustenance for only 2.8 days.

It is true that not many other countries are contributing. Australia’s record is better than that of many other countries, but then we also have to recognise that we bear a heavy moral responsibility. The Soviet Union bears a heavy degree of moral responsibility for the recent invasion by Vietnam and that country is supplying food as well. This is an international problem. We cannot tackle it by ourselves, every nation has to be in it. There are a number of practical suggestions that I want to make to the Government. The first suggestion I have is that the Commonwealth Government, as a matter of urgency should send a group of members of parliament to Kampuchea to see the situation for themselves. If we were able to give first hand reports to the Parliament and if we could then give those reports to the nation it might at last make the inhabitants of this lucky country able to grasp the full extent of the horror which is Kampuchea.

When the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposed his matter of public importance he said that we were all aware of the extent of the tragedy because we had all read about it in the newspapers. I am sure that some members of this Parliament have not read of the situation in sufficient detail, and I am sure that there are millions of people within the community who have not read about and who do not comprehend the extent of the tragedy, for obvious reasons. The situation is of a dimension that is utterly remote from our own experience, and because it is utterly remote from our own experience it is very difficult for people to understand it. We reject it psychologically; we cannot absorb it because it is too far away from our experience.

Secondly- this is a very rare occasion when I support the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil)- we ought to be doing much more to provide technical aid. Australia has sophisticated technological skills which we ought to be sharing. Thirdly, we must provide more food and much more in medical supplies.

I point out the extent of the West’s degree of moral responsibility for the physical destruction of Indo-China generally. The involvement of the United States in what happened in the early 1970s in working out the ‘Kissinger doctrine’ is horrifying. We were guilty accessories to doctrine. I point out to honourable members a horrifying remark, quoted in the Watergate Papers, and made by President Nixon to his Chief of Staff, Robert Haldeman, when he said:

Bob, I want the North Vietnamese to think there is a mad man in the White House and I want them to realise that this mad man has his finger on the nuclear button. That way they will be in Paris negotiating for peace within two weeks.

In other words, as a means of bringing the war in Vietnam to an end, the decision was made to destroy what they could of Cambodia. Cambodia had no direct role in that action at all, except to the extent that it was used as a supply route for troops from the north. As a nation Cambodia was not directly involved, and everyone knows that. I quote again what William Shawcross said in his book Sideshow. He made the comment that the Kissinger doctrine, and the Theory of Expendability assumed that all the world was a chess game in which the small nations were mere pawns to be moved at will, or to be declared expendable, regardless of questions of sovereignty, morality etc., and that the crushing or isolating or starving of these troublesome lands could be accommodated or negotiated in the spirit of detente between the super powers. (Not surprisingly, it is a view shared with enthusiasm by the Kremlin, which is currently attempting to crush ‘expendable’ Eritrea, without, of course, a murmur from the West.)

Let us just think for a minute about the kinds of physical conditions that we find in Kampuchea. In John Pilger ‘s article in the New Statesman of 2 1 September 1979 he wrote: . . the survivors -

That is, the survivors of the four years of Khmer Rouge terror- now face the real prospect of their extinction. ‘We have six months to save three million people, the majority of the population, from starvation and related diseases’, said Jacques Beaumont.

He was the representative of the United Nations Children’s Fund. The article continued:

Six months is the maximum. Eighty-five per cent of the women have stopped menstruating, because they are malnourished and exhausted and, like everybody, they have not recovered from the trauma of the terror. So where is the next generation coming from?’

Cambodia will be the first ‘expendable’ nation to die, not because it cannot survive the killing of perhaps a third of its population, but because it cannot sustain the complementary effect: the denial of relief, lt is interesting that those who have led this land to the edge of death share a particular style. They have taken their decisions to bomb and to refuse humanitarian help at a great remove in distance and responsibility from the consequences of their obduracy; not for them the sight of an emaciated child spitting itself to death !

We bear a heavy responsibility and I believe that we ought to be putting much more pressure on the United States. The United States expressed a willingness- indeed a passion- to be involved in South East Asia. If it has a passion to be involved in South East Asia, let it be involved in humanitarian work, in doing something to end the de:struction, the death and the dissolution of a nation with a great and a peaceful tradition.

I agree also with the honourable member for St George in another respect: I do not understand why we are casting our vote in the United Nations in support of recognition of the Pol Pot regime. It is truly one of the most repulsive regimes ever to have been seen on the earth. I agree that there are great difficulties, probably because of the peculiar circumstances of Vietnam’s intervention. There is a very real fear that in the next few weeks the beginning of the dry season will lead to resumption of military activity in that area. Tragic though that is, the important thing now is to do what we can to ensure the survival of the Kampuchean people. I also refer to the House the comments of the Oxfam relief worker, Jim Howard, reported in the Melbourne Age of 21 September 1979. He had visited a hospital in Phnom Penh on 7 January. He stated:

Terrible conditions- children in bed in filthy rags dying with starvation- no drugs- no food, 550 beds with 600 patients. Adjoining the hospital a high school now used as a TB hospital with about 250 dying people all so depressing and hopeless. The TB allied to starvation gives the people a Belsen-like appearance. In one ward a boy of 13 was tied down to the bed because he was going insane.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

page 1838

OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to put into effect the Government’s decision to introduce an annual charge on overseas students studying in Australian Universities and colleges of advanced education. This policy was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget Speech and elaborated in a statement I made to the House on 22 August. At that time I mentioned that the Government has been anxious to make available additional educational opportunities for overseas students. In my earlier policy statement I outlined new provisions that will make this program more responsive to the needs of people seeking to study here and the needs of their home countries. At the same time the Government has been concerned at the cost of providing educational opportunities for overseas students attending educational institutions wholly or partly funded from public moneys. Indeed, for some years the total numbers were subject to an arbitrary limit mainly because of these costs.

The Government believes that these new policy initiatives will result in increased numbers of overseas students coming to Australia and improvement in selection criteria and arrangements. With these considerations in mind, the Government has decided that private overseas students attending Australian universities and colleges of advanced education, which are fully funded by the Commonwealth, should be called upon to contribute towards the cost of their education. The charges do not apply at this time to overseas students attending other educational institutions which receive funds from the Commonwealth. The question of applying charges to overseas students at those institutions is currently being examined but there is no likelihood that such charges will be introduced for the 1 980 academic year.

The level of charges set by the Government has been determined after taking into account the costs of providing the courses as well as fees charged by other comparable countries. We have also been conscious of the need to set charges at a level which will not unduly deter overseas students from undertaking studies in Australia.

I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. I will also refer to matters that we propose to include in regulations that will be made under the Bill so that honourable members will be able to obtain a full appreciation of the legislation. Clause 5 of the Bill imposes the charge on overseas students enrolled in a prescribed course for a year, Clause 4 of the Bill defines the term ‘overseas student’ and provides definitions of the courses and educational institutions to which the charge will apply. The charge will apply to persons other than permanent residents who enrol in certain courses at universities and colleges of advanced education. Courses concerned will be those leading to a degree, diploma or associate diploma, as well as compulsory prerequisite courses for which no tuition fee is charged. The charges to apply from 1 January 1980, will range up to a maximum of $2,500 per annum. The actual charges to apply will be prescribed in the regulations. They will be based on the costs of providing particular courses and will be as follows: Students undertaking a Masters’ or Ph.D

Degree will be charged $2,500 per annum; students undertaking a medical, veterinary science or dentistry course will be charged $2,000 per annum; students undertaking other award courses will be charged $1,500 per annum. It is estimated that about three-quarters of the students affected by the charges will pay the minimum rate of $1,500 per annum. The regulations will provide that in the following circumstances students will be required to pay only half the charges which I have listed:

  1. Where a student undertakes a course of study for which the course load, as assessed by the institution concerned, is no more than half that of the normal full-time award course; or
  2. Where a student commences the first semester or year of his course in the second half of the year, or completes the final semester dr year of his course in the first half of the year; or
  3. Where a preliminary prerequisite course is of no more than six months’ duration.

This Bill provides for the charge to be paid by overseas students commencing new courses at prescribed institutions from I January 1980. Students continuing courses at these institutions will not be affected. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1839

OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill provides for the collection of the charge to be imposed by the overseas Students Charge Bill 1979. Clause 4 of the Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill 1979 provides that the charge will be due for payment at the time of enrolment or 15 March, whichever is the later. However, payment of an amount equal to the charge will be required prior to visa issue for persons who are to travel from overseas or prior to the issue of a further temporary entry permit for students remaining in Australia. An exception to these arrangements will apply in respect of overseas students who come to Australia under Australia’s development assistance programs. The Bill includes provision in clause 7 for these students to be relieved of liability to pay the charge where a scholarship is awarded by a Commonwealth department or authority. This provision was included principally to cover the case of scholarships awarded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. In these circumstances the charge would be paid by the Bureau, which will receive additional funds for this purpose within the appropriate aid vote, to ensure that the overall level of assistance to developing countries is not reduced. It will mean that there will be a more accurate reflection of the true level of assistance Australia makes available under these programs.

There is also provision to permit development assistance funds to be applied to meet the charge in respect of students sponsored for entry by the governments of developing countries, if the Minister for Foreign Affairs agrees to such an arrangement. In addition, where a home government is to meet the charge, there is provision for payment to be deferred beyond the issue of a visa or entry permit subject to agreement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Government has also agreed that there should be other exemptions from the charges on a continuing basis. These will cover the following:

  1. Postgraduate students who are the holders of a scholarship providing a basic stipend of at least $3,500 per annum awarded by a university or college of advanced education for study at the institution concerned
  2. Students undertaking postgraduate courses who are the holders of a scholarship awarded by the Australian-American Educational Foundation
  3. Students who are the subject of approved reciprocal exchange agreements between Australian universities or colleges of advanced education and overseas tertiary institutions
  4. Students coming to Australia as part of an external studies course
  5. Students holding postgraduate fellowships awarded by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, an international organisation or an overseas government, who are undertaking a course funded by these bodies; and
  6. Residents of external territories.

These categories of exemptions will be prescribed in the regulations. The Government also proposes that some students will not be liable to pay the charge. They are, firstly, students already in Australia who were admitted specifically to undertake the final two years of their secondary education in Australia as a preliminary to an approved tertiary course, and who commence that course in 1980 and 1981. The Government has decided to exempt this group of students from charges because they came here in the expectation that they could proceed to their chosen tertiary course without charge. The Government is aware that by coming to Australia these students have already committed themslves to education in Australia and may have adversely affected their prospects of further study in their home countries or elsewhere, if they are now unable to pay charges in Australia. Secondly, they are students already in Australia who commence new courses at the same level of study that could be regarded as a normal progression from their current course. However, they will need to be capable of completing the new course in the minimum time which would have been taken if they had enrolled in that course initially. This will include students changing from, for example, a B.A. to a B.A./L.B. degree or continuing to a Diploma of Education on completion of a first degree. This exemption would not however apply to those commencing a postgraduate degree. Included also are students changing from masters to doctoral awards or vice versa, but only where either award has not been conferred, and finally, students currently undertaking English language courses as a preliminary to an approved tertiary course but only in respect of tertiary courses which are commenced in 1980.

It should be noted that these exemptions are of a transitional nature as they apply only to students already in Australia. Provision will also be made in the regulations for a refund of the charge in full where a student withdraws his enrolment within two weeks of commencing his course, or where liability is not in fact incurred. A partial refund will be payable where a greater amount has been paid than the amount of charge for which the student is legally liable. It is also proposed under the regulations to refund half the amount of the charge where a course has run for no more than half its normal duration in any year and in the event of the death of the student, the withdrawal through serious illness of the student, the withdrawal through serious illness or death of a parent, spouse or child, or the grant of resident status to the student. If for any reason an overseas student does not pay the charge for which he is liable a debt due to the Commonwealth will arise. At this stage it is not proposed that there would be any additional penalty for the non-payment of the charge. It will be appreciated that in these circumstances the entry permit for the person concerned could also be cancelled or at least not renewed. The Bill represents an important pan of the development of a more effective and viable program under which people from overseas may come here to obtain qualifications of use to their careers and of value to thier home countries. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1841

NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments. Senate ‘s amendments-

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– I move:

Amendment (1) eliminates a discrepancy in clause 2 which provides for various groups of provisions in the Bill to commence at various times. The discrepancy arises from the fact that section 106 is mentioned in two places, that is, in sub-clause 2(1) and again in sub-clause 2 (5). The effect of amendment ( 1 ) is to delete the reference to section 106 from sub-clause 2(5). Amendments (2) and (3) eliminate a discrepancy in clause 65 which contains two provisions, one permanent and the other transitional, for making regulations to give effect to the Limitation of Liability Convention. At present only the permanent provision contains an express power to make regulations converting the gold francs mentioned in the Convention into Australian currency. A similar power is required in the transitional provision. Amendment (4) affects clause 9 1 and substitutes a revised section 427 for that contained in the Bill. A code providing for Australia-wide uniformity in the laws covering survey and manning of commercial vessels has been adopted by the Marine and Ports Council of Australia, which consists of the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for marine and port affairs. Since section 427 as now in the Bill was drafted, the Council has decided that the code would best be implemented by the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory legislating by reference to it, and that the most appropriate way of enabling satisfactory reference to be effected would be for the code to be published in the Commonwealth Gazette. The necessary gazettal arrangements having been made, amendment (4) therefore changes proposed section 427 so that the Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, declare that the provisions annexed to the order are the provisions of the code. It also provides for future variations of the code to be similarly declared and gazetted. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Opposition is not opposing the amendments, but I make a point very clear to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). Contrary to the usual traditions and courtesies of the House, no notice was given of the amendments last night when this was being debated in the Senate. My colleague in that place, Senator Gietzelt, made reference to that fact. Senator Chaney, representing the Minister, acknowledged that he apparently only a short time before had received notice of the amendments. There has been a good attitude from the chamber in its approach to this legislation. I would have liked to have seen it concluded in that way because -

Mr Nixon:

– I apologise to the honourable member.

Mr MORRIS:

– I accept the Minister’s statement. This is a complex piece of legislation. If there is a joint approach to this legislation the nation will be served better. As the Minister pointed out, the first three amendments seek to correct the drafting errors that did occur. I can understand that because of the magnitude and complexity of the Bill. The fourth amendment, relating to a decision made by the Marine and Ports Council subsequent to the drafting of the Bill, has improved the legislation. As I understand the Minister’s remarks and the advice that I have had, the Bill will be the better for this fourth amendment.

Throughout the Bill a great deal of reference is made to francs and the way in which this affects the limit of liability of shipowners. The amendment deals with how one defines the limit of liability. I thought that it would be of use to the Committee and certainly to any one reading Hansard to have some understanding of what a franc is. I am referring to the definition referred to in that amendment, Article III of the International Convention relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of sea-going ships. Item 6 of Article III reads:

The franc mentioned in this Article shall be deemed to refer to a unit consisting of sixty-five and a half milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness 900. The amounts mentioned in paragraph ( I ) of this Article shall be converted into the national currency of the State in which limitation is sought on the basis of the value of that currency by reference to the defined above at the date on which the shipowner shall have constituted the limitation fund, made the payment, or given a guarantee which under the law of that State is equivalent to such payment.

It makes it a little easier to understand the definitions that arise. The amendment then has two effects. Firstly, the gazettal will make the uniform shipping laws code more readily accessible for perusal or for use in legal proceedings. Secondly, as I understand, it will simplify State complementary legislation which may refer simply to the Gazette notice rather than spell out the provisions of the code. The amendments have been agreed to by a decision made by the Marine and Ports Council of Australia. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1842

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 9 October.

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

Clause 3 (Commissioner to consult with Presidential member before exercising certain powers).

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-During the second reading debate, many members from this side raised the question of the application of clause 3 of this Bill. Clause 3 says: 22a. Where-

  1. a Commissioner proposes to make an award, or certify a memorandum of agreement, making provision for, or altering, the rates of wages or the conditions applicable in relation to employees in a particular industry or group of industries; and
  2. that industry or group of industries, as the case may be, has been assigned under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 23 to a panel of members of the Commission, the Commissioner shall, before making the award or certifying the memorandum of agreement, whether or not he is a member of that panel, consult with the Presidential Member who is a member of that panel. ‘.

During the earlier debate, I raised the matter of the lack of any explanation in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) as to how this was to apply. I also raised the need for the Minister to explain to us now what this consultation meant. Does it mean that the Commissioner is informing the Deputy President of the decision he has made? Is he seeking advice as to how the decision ought to be given? Does the Deputy President have an overriding say in the decision that has to be given. Does the Deputy President have to listen to the submissions being made by the parties to the case, or can he be empowered, under this section of the Bill, to make a decision on a case of which he has no hearing? Is the Deputy President to stand by on every case heard before a commissioner so that he is available to give instant advice or instant decision-making to any decision?

I draw the attention of the Committee to the Minister’s second reading speech on this most important aspect which is one of the most unexplained features of the Bill. The Minister said:

The Bill proposes that a commissioner be required to consult with his deputy president before making or varying an award with respect to wages and conditions. There is a complex range of awards and registered agreements operating in Industries coming within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This very fact demands consistency of a principle in decision making within the Commission itself. Regrettably there have been some occasions when such consistency has been lacking. The consequences for the community have been very serious, both industrially and economically. The proposed consultative process is designed to provide greater co-ordination and consistency in decision making within the Commission.

That is all that the Minister has put before the Parliament in support of a major change in the operations and the relationships between people serving in the Commission itself. Where does the Minister find justice for putting forward the argument that there has to be total consistency in the decisions being made by the Commission? Where is it said in the Act? Where has it been laid down by tradition that there has to be consistency in the decision-making of any of these people that are involved? Where are the decisions that have been so vital to the industrial welfare or the economy of this country which have so upset the Government that it has to introduce such a draconian measure? On behalf of the Parliament I ask the Minister, and I hope that he feels it is incumbent upon him to give us the answer: Does the consultation requirement mean that the deputy president can override the Commission? Does the deputy president have to listen to the case? Does he have to be aware of all the submissions that have been put before the commissioner before he has such an overriding decision-making role to play or will the commissioner merely inform the deputy president of the decision that he has taken? I also ask the Minister, in his reply in the Committee stage, to tell us whether he has had any feedback from the Commission as to its attitude on the operations of this clause?

What would happen in the case of a deputy president not being available to consult, so called, with a commissioner? Does this provision mean that the deputy presidents have to be on hand to hear and to consult with a commissioner on every possible occasion a decision has to be made or does it mean that the Government is searching for consistency, in which case we could do away with most of the commissioners? All these questions must be answered by the Government before we can understand, or even get to first base in understanding, how this law will apply both in relation to the parties that appear before the commissioners and the law makers in the Parliament.

If parties go before a commissioner knowing full well that somebody who is not there at the hearing can override the decision of the commissioner they must understand that they are wasting their time. If this legislation provides that a trade union can be granted a certain amount of money by a commissioner and that amount can be changed by the deputy president in favour of consistency and against the arguments that the commissioner has heard, obviously this Parliament is adopting a bad law. The only way justice can be seen to be done is if anybody making a decision- in the civil courts or the industrial arena- makes it on the basis of having heard both sides of the argument. For instance, in the case of a murder charge if someone were to suggest that a judge or jury making up their minds about whether a person is guilty or not guilty had to talk to somebody outside the court who had not heard the case before they could give their final decision there would be uproar in this Parliament. But the Parliament is adopting a law which leaves us in the dark as to the relationship between a commissioner and the deputy president after the commissioner has heard a case and made up his mind.

If this provision means that the commissioner will write the deputy president a letter saying: This is what I have decided to do and I will announce it next Thursday’ let the Government tell us. But if it means that the commissioner can expect a letter back from the deputy president saying: ‘I have read your decision but here is my decision: You will reduce the amount you were going to award by 50 per cent’ we are in a different ball game altogether. That would be totally objectionable to all the parties that go before the Commission, not just to the trade unions who may be upset by some of the decisions that may be given as a result of this clause. Be that as it may, the Minister’s second reading speech is totally inadequate in the explanation of the ramifications of the clause. Before the debate continues further we ask the Minister to explain to us in detail and comprehensively exactly how the clause will apply once it is adopted.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-I very much regret the speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) on this provision. He is attempting to undermine the very process of conciliation. What he has just said to this Committee is that if a person who is going to hear a case, a commissioner, has to consult with somebody outside the industrial process, that person outside in some way will be making the decision. That is not what the clause means, and I will come to that in a moment. But clearly, in suggesting that it means that the deputy president will make the decision without having heard the evidence, the honourable member is undermining the very system of conciliation- by suggesting an interpretation of this clause which cannot be construed as the proper interpretation by the very words in the clause. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) cannot tell the honourable member what he asked. He can tell us what is in the Government’s mind when it proposes an amendment to the principal Act. He cannot say what the clause will ultimately mean because it has to be interpreted as an Act of Parliament, like all other Acts of Parliament, by judges and the people involved in the administration of the system and, ultimately, those who have to interpret the matter if it goes to appeal. We all know that this is the way in which these decisions are made. The Minister can state the evil that we are endeavouring to remedy with this provision.

What the honourable member opposite has to do, as I have done and as any reasonable person would have done, is to look at the words used. The word ‘consult’ is not a strange word. We have discussed the word ‘consult’ which appears in large numbers of Bills that have recently been before us. We discussed the word in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. We had long debates over the meaning of the word ‘consult’. The Government undertakes, in the ASIO legislation, to consult with the Leader of the Opposition. That does not give the Leader of the Opposition a veto. If that had been the interpretation in the ASIO legislation the Opposition would have been cock-a-hoop at that prospect. The Opposition does not glean that to be the interpretation of the word ‘consult’. The Opposition argues that the Leader of the Opposition needs further power to be involved in ASIO to give the Opposition some insight into ASIO’s operation. Clearly, the word ‘consult’ means a discussion at which one says what one has in mind and listens to another’s views. Then a decision is made. The commissioner will still make the decision. Nobody outside the system will make a decision, but the commissioner will be aware, by this requirement- the words plainly state and one has only to read them- from the presidential member of the panel that was involved in fixing wage structures generally of the factors that the panel had in mind. He would not be left making a decision in vacuum without an awareness of the wider factors. That is the requirement. That is what the words say and that is how any reasonable person is going to interpret them.

Mr Innes:

– Why change it now?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Because we know that there is no requirement for the commissioners to consult and to speak to their colleagues and those involved on that panel- Commissioner Deverall was one- who have made decisions that on the face of it were clearly out of line with all the other decisions that were made in that area.

Mr Innes:

– What is the difference?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I will tell the honourable member what is the difference and I will tell him why it is so important. It is very important and fundamental to one of the questions upon which honourable members opposite have been harping in debates in this place for some time. It is important to the question of unemployment. Whether one likes it or not there are some people who can make wage demands in a situation in which their jobs will never be in jeopardy. I refer to those who have particular skills or who work in areas in which there is a local industry or where there are particular demands for the product and it cannot be imported and the work cannot be done by a little man in Japan. Then that skill is in demand in Australia. Such people can seek wages, using their bargaining power, out of line with any reasonable wage that can be paid to other people who work in areas in which there is genuine competition, where if they price themselves out of business they lose their jobs. That is the situation. On the question of relativities, some people in this community are able to use their bargaining power to get inordinately large wages. Some of them have wages higher than those of members of parliament.

Mr Holding:

– Oh, how terrible!

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Yes. Look at those people who have been building pipelines, those people who have been operating in certain mining situations and so on. They are getting more money than the honourable member opposite, if one excludes his investments.

Mr Holding:

– They might well deserve more than you.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I do not know whether the honourable member is speaking for himself, but certainly most of his colleagues, from my experience, work a darned sight harder and longer hours than one would expect anybody in a factory to work. The very point that I am making is that those people who are in that peculiar bargaining position are able to seek more than others. They can use their bargaining position to say: ‘This is an industrial dispute and you have to take into account these very special factors, so give us more’. Other workers may be in an area in which there is competition and their employer may lose his ability to compete in the manufacture of motor cars, engines or any number of things -

Mr Innes:

– You don’t know anything at all about it, do you?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I know a great deal about it. Those people- and some of them are in the metal industries- find that they are without a job when their employers are forced to pay wages which bear no relationship to the area in which they are competing.

Mr Innes:

– You are making a fool of yourself.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Dundas will resume his seat temporarily. The honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports will no doubt have an opportunity to address the Committee and benefit the Committee with their thoughts and knowledge. In the meantime I ask them to remain silent.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– The plain facts are that in some industries in this country import competition is so relevant that people cannot ask for higher and higher wages. In other industries which are protected jobs may never be put at risk. We say that there should be relativity between these two types of industry and that those people who are in the very advantageous bargaining position ought not be allowed to outstrip others in the community who may lose their jobs or have to take a position which places them much further behind.

The ultimate consequence of commissioners not being prepared to take into account the decisions that have been reached overall by their colleagues is that the people whom they put in that advantaged position become the pacemakers and everybody feels that he must go after the same amount. When people do that, ultimately they find that their jobs are at risk. It is important that the pacemakers are held back at least to the level which the overall economic situation of this country is able to support. It seems that a provision which enables people at least to be aware of decisions that are taken in other parts of the court system and at least aware of what is involved when those decisions are taken is a reasonable one. The commissioners can have those factors in mind when they have to take a decision themselves. That is what the commissioners are being asked to do- simply to consult, be aware of the information and to take it into account.

Avenues are available for appeal to a Full Bench. But surely the question of consulting with a presidential member, as the commissioners will be required to do, will resolve any difficulty that may otherwise arise and perhaps will obviate the need for an appeal, because the presidential member will be fully aware of all the important matters. To argue rather extended meanings of the word ‘consult’, as has been done by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, would do no service and ultimately would destroy the credibility of the Commission in the eyes of the work force. I think it is very unreasonable of the honourable member to give the interpretation he gave when he well knows the consequence.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition has been gravely concerned for some time about the way the Government has been proceeding with its industrial relations legislation. The Opposition submits that the Government does not have the constitutional power to legislate as it has. We raised this matter when other amending legislation was before this chamber. The Kane case in Melbourne subsequently proved that that legislation was defective. An appeal by the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union over the constitutional validity of that legislation is now before the High Court of Australia.

The legislation now before us is rife with provisions which suggest that the Government will be given power in respect of many things which affect industrial awards and working conditions. The Constitution clearly gives the Government certain powers in respect of conciliation and arbitration, but the Government cannot conciliate and it cannot arbitrate. Under clause 3 a commissioner who has taken evidence and who has made up his mind on an award will not be able to grant that award unless he consults with a presidential member. That means that a commissioner will not be able to exercise his judgment unless there has been consultation. That provision is fraught with the gravest of constitutional difficulties. Apart from its being an obvious insult to the commissioners the question of natural justice is involved. The legislation provides that a presidential member who has heard no argument at all is to be involved in the merits of the decision on the case. Let me deal with the inverse logic of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). If there is to be consultation with a presidential member who has heard nothing about the case at all, there is no need for the parties to make out a case before the commissioner. The honourable member for Dundas said that the Government wants to know about pacesetting and relativities but if a commissioner has to consult with a presidential member before he makes a decision there is no point in a case being submitted to a commissioner in the first place. The question of justice also is involved. If a presidential member is to make a decision not on the merits of the case but on questions of general policy, I put it to the Committee that that is contrary to natural justice.

Mr Ruddock:

– It is another factor.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, it is not. A decision as to the rights of parties should not be made on extraneous factors or on the basis of undisclosed policy. That is the principle which throws into doubt the constitutional validity of this legislation. Does the Bill mean that a commissioner is obliged to do no more than have a quiet chat with a presidential member, whose suggestions can be ignored? Of course it does not. It opens up the question that the Government itself is trying to conduct the process of conciliation and arbitration. The honourable member for Dundas talked about pacesetting. The Melbourne City Council fixes awards which are well above other council awards. I think the honourable member was in local government so he will know that on many occasions salaries have been fixed for local government employees. Yet the honourable member talks about pacesetting.

Mr Ruddock:

– I was not in local government.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I accept that. In the past the pacesetters in some instances have been people who were not bound by this sort of nonsense. Local councils can make their own arrangements. They are not bound by decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Let me talk about the law. I will put the Opposition ‘s argument on the basis of what has already been decided by the High Court. In the boilermakers case it was said that there should not be a judicial tribunal. However, the fact that an arbitral tribunal cannot exercise judicial functions does not mean that it has to operate under Rafferty ‘s rules. The decisions by both the High Court and the Privy Council in the boilermakers case are based upon the fact that section 51 (xxxv) requires the establishment of a tribunal which will proceed according to the principles of justice and hear the parties before determining the matters in dispute. That involves the taking of evidence. In respect of differentiating between the roles of conciliator, the arbitrator and the judge, the Privy Council has said:

None of them should act without hearing both sides or the case.

This legislation proposes that a presidential member who has not heard one side of the case let alone both sides has to be consulted. In 1 930 in the case of the Australian Railways Union v. Victorian Railways Commissioners the High Court held invalid provisions which allowed conciliation committees comprising persons not members of the then Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to make decisions without hearing argument. The majority decision handed down by Mr Justice Rich, Mr Justice Dixon and Mr Justice Starke read: a law which enables a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by discussion amongst themselves without any hearing or determination between the disputants is, in our opinion, not a law with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and is not authorised by sec. S I (xxxv) of the Constitution.

The Opposition also makes that submission. To put it succinctly, this Government has no power, no right or legal capacity to introduce a piece of legislation that dictates the way a commissioner may make an award. For that reason we again ask the Government to reconsider this clause.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I join in the debate on this clause because of the most unsatisfactory explanation given to the chamber by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has quite eloquently pointed out where the honourable member for Dundas was at fault in law. The honourable member for Dundas did not talk about the name of the Bill or the nature of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is charged with the responsibility of settling industrial disputes. In the closing stages of his address, he started to talk about pacesetting and about one wage being aligned with every other wage in the community. He left the very clear impression in my mind that he sees the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as one of trying to rectify the mess that the Australian economy is in, but it is a mess which has been caused by other action of government. It is the responsibility of government to correct that mess and it should not delegate that responsibility to dispute-settling organisations such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The honourable member for Dundas talked about what men earn, what they are able to ask for and what their employers are able to pay them for welding pipelines or diving deep into the sea or for doing a myriad of other tasks around the country that neither I nor any other member of this chamber, including the honourable member for Dundas, would be inclined to do anyhow. But it seems to me that the question of what wages those people should be getting is a separate issue.

I am very suspicious of this Government at all times and I have never made any secret of it. For this clause to exist indicates quite clearly to me that the Government has some nefarious purpose in mind. If it has not, why is the clause there? Why does the Government want to put the commissioners in the position of being lame duck adjudicators or lame duck umpires who must sit there and hear argument from both sides in a dispute, come to their own conclusions after hearing that argument and decide where the solution lies, but then must say to the contestants:

Well, look, I am terribly sorry about this, gentlemen or ladies, but I cannot give you a decision even though I have heard all the arguments because the Act now says that I must consult with my presidential member’.

I will not go into a lengthy argument about the meaning of the word ‘consult’. That is an argument that could go on from now until the end of time and a solution probably would still not be reached. I simply make this point: It looks suspicious in the eyes of those who have put their argument to a commissioner if they know that, having heard their argument, the commissioner is required to consult. The world ‘consult’ can be used in its lightest sense to include perhaps asking a presidential member to have a cup of tea or writing him a letter. It can have any sort of meaning. But the point I am making is that it undermines the authority of the commissioner who until now has been respected by those who have appeared before him. His decisions have been respected. But I put it to you, Mr Chairman, for your consideration: How can that respect continue to exist if the parties know that the Act requires that a person who has heard nothing, who is ignorant of the issues involved, must be consulted?

The honourable member for Dundas spoke about Commissioner Deverall. Again, it is a matter of judgment as to whether Commissioner Deverall acted properly or improperly. I am one of those who believe that he acted quite properly in the circumstances of the case, and I think that his decision was wise. Quite clearly the Government does not think that he acted properly or wisely and quite obviously the honourable member for Dundas does not think so either; otherwise he would not have raised that as the specific lone case in point out of 70 years of conciliation and arbitration in this country and would not have given that as a reason for this clause being inserted. I am implacably opposed to this clause. There is no attempt to define the word ‘consult’, although I may be prepared to accept the argument that it is not possible to do so.

Fine legal argument was put by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. It must always be remembered that the commissioners must be seen with dignity and respect by those who come before them in the spirit of settling a dispute. Neither that dignity nor that respect can exist if it is known that the commissioners, before they come to a decision, must consult with somebody else. I repeat: I do not care what that word consult’ means; its very existence is enough to be offensive to the parties who go before a commissioner. There is no justification for it. It is an over-reaction to past action. I sometimes wonder where this clause arose. As well as being in close consultation with the trade union movement, on occasions I do have conversations with those from employer organisations. I cannot find where this request for consultation was requested by employer organisations. I know for a fact that it was not requested by employee organisations. So it is little wonder that I am suspicious about this whole . clause. I will oppose it with every means available to me in this House because it does nothing to strengthen the Act; in fact, it weakens it. It weakens the authority of the commissioners and contributes nothing towards the very thing that the commissioners are charged with doing, that is, settling disputes and not starting them. This clause will start more disputes than it settles because it almost forbids the commissioner from settling a dispute on the evidence that he has heard.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-I will not delay the Committee long on this matter, but I think that the debate that I have heard so far has not dealt with the important factors relating to this clause. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) certainly raised a number of key and salient issues and I believe that he was perfectly right in presenting them as he did. He mentioned, for instance, the Deverall decision brought down before Christmas last year. I mentioned this matter in the chamber last night. I think it is perfectly reasonable that a commissioner, before making a decision or before coming to a conclusion, should consult. A presidential member of a panel is aware of the activity right across the whole range of industry.

I think that what the Opposition has to do is decide whether it will maintain its support for indexation. If the Opposition is prepared to let indexation go, I think that consultation of the type proposed here is not necessary. But if the Opposition wishes to continue the concept of indexation, there must be a consultative process so that no one section of an industry can on, shall we say, a work value case, advance its cause to the extent where either it disadvantages other groups or there is a flow-on and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its half-yearly hearings has to say that there have been so many gains outside indexation that there is no need for the continuation of indexation. I am not arguing for complete conformity, but I believe that this process of consultation will assist those in the union movement who are in weak bargaining positions. It will also prevent instances, such as I have noted over the past 12 months, of work value cases being presented in an effort to break down indexation and increase wages and salaries to an extent not justified under indexation. These claims are often outside the indexation guidelines and are seen to be outside them.

The catch-up process is common within the industry and in fact the flow-on from the Deverall decision, endorsed by the full bench, has been the key factor in industrial relations problems throughout Australia during the past 12 months. It is at the centre of the Telecom dispute. The $8 a week to $14 a week granted by Deverall is what is being sought by most unions in Australia today. They want access to that increase despite the fact that the full bench said that it was to be a specific instance and there would be no flow-ons. The subsequent activity has been about flow-ons and I think that if at that stage we had had a consultative process we would not be facing the difficulties we are facing at the moment. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) spoke of only one instance- I can think of others where consultation would have been of great advantage. I instance the case of the Builders Labourers Federation in Victoria. In that case strike pay was initially granted but was later withdrawn and the full bench, after consultation at presidential level, reversed the decision. I think that it should have reversed that decision. It might have settled the dispute at the time, but there were implications for the whole of that industry and other industries in Australia in making decisions which were inconsistent, very difficult and very damaging to the Australian work place. I therefore wish to indicate that I consider this legislation to be a sensible process which endorses indexation. If Opposition members wish to do away with indexation let them say so.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The objectionable part of clause 3 is that it converts a flexible situation into a rigid, inflexible situation. In effect, it converts what a commissioner may do and very often does into what he must do. I believe that there will be cases when this will deny substantial justice to any parties. For example, it may lead to undue delay. As my colleague the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) pointed out, we do not know what that mysterious word ‘consult’ means in this context. This is not just a terminological quibble. What is a process of consultation? An unsatisfactory intervening element comes into the whole arbitral process. I could understand if the Government had gone a little further and said that in cases of this nature a commissioner must sit with the presidential member. If it said thatconsideration of whether people would be readily available aside- I could see some sense in the provision.

There are several elements in a determination. First, there is a cause arising. Then there is the hearing of evidence. Following the hearing of evidence is the determination by the person who has heard the evidence. In this clause a new element is introduced. There is a cause, a hearing of the evidence and, after the hearing of the evidence by A, there is a intervening process of consultation with B. B has not heard the evidence. He may have no clear idea about the specific issue except as it is reported to him by A who has heard the evidence. B is in the peculiar situation then of either saying to A: ‘I have not heard the evidence and on the basis of what you have told me I think that you are a whacker who has not understood what it is all about and I do not think that the determination you are to make is right’ or saying: ‘You have heard the evidence. I have not. I have known you for 54 years. I take it for granted that your judgment is right. I will concur with what you are going to do.’ There will then be the absurd situation in which either the presidential member is overturning a conclusion that has been reached on examining the evidence by the man charged with that responsibility or the presidential member will simply be a rubber stamp. He will say: ‘I am conscious of what you are doing. I think you are all right and I am simply going to confirm it. ‘

Mr Ruddock:

– No.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In that case there is a heavy obligation on voluble Government members like the honourable member for Dundas on the wealth of his experience as an industrial lawyer to tell us precisely what it means and what the word ‘consult’ refers to. What if there is a difference of opinion? If there is a difference of opinion as a result of consultation, what then happens? Does it mean that in effect the final decision will be taken out of the hands of A, the commissioner who has heard the evidence and gone through the whole process, or will there be a kind of sandwich situation in which there is a compromise between A who has heard the evidence and B who has not heard it? The whole traditional concept of natural justice meant that the parties had an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence and to rebut it before the person making the judgment. But if the ultimate judgment is to be part of a consultative process in which A who has heard the evidence is forced to justify himself before B who has not heard the evidence there will be a complete upsetting of the tradition of natural justice. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) with all respect to his capacity, has made no attempt to address himself to what the process of consultation involves and what will happen if there is a serious disagreement between A and B.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I wish to reply to a couple of points in relation to the speeches that have just been made to the Committee. The first relates to the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). He questioned the constitutionality of what this clause aims to do. I remind the Committee, as did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that the constitutional power given by section 51 placitum (xxxv.) is a power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. Judicial decisions in relation to the constitutional power are to the effect that the Commonwealth may not direct the Commission as to how it is to settle industrial disputes. This derives from the judgment of the High Court in R. v. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union in 1967. Although the propositions enunciated in that case have not subsequently been tested, it is significant that the High Court took the view that the legislature has power to make laws directing the Commission with respect to procedural matters- in that case, the constitution of the Commission in particular ways. The directions to the Commission in this legislation are also quite clearly procedural. I emphasise what has been said before but needs to be said again, that is, that the Commonwealth’s legal advisers do not consider that the proposed amendments offend against the constitutional requirements.

I now turn to the issue of consultation to which most honourable members on both sides of the Committee have referred. Clause 3 proposes the insertion of a provision to the effect that a commissioner shall, before making an award or certifying an agreement, consult with the appropriate presidential member. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency in the application of principles formulated within the Commission for the settlement of disputes. The proposed statutory requirement for consultation is clearly procedural in nature. No legislative controls are imposed over the manner of the exercise by a commissioner of his discretionary powers in relation to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. Nor is a commissioner- I emphasise this- subject to direction by a presidential member of the Commission. The requirement is merely that he consult with the presidential member before making a decision. The word ‘consult’ is by its very nature not a specific one but its meaning is evident. The definition of the word in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is to take counsel and to seek information or advice.

It is clearly appropriate that the expertise, knowledge and experience of senior members of the Commission should be available to commissioners through such a consultative process. Some degree of consultation is already built into the procedures of the Commission by reason of the requirement that members of the Commission are assigned to panels and work closely with the presidential member in charge of each panel. That is not found to be objectionable but rather to enhance the work of the Commission. A more formal requirement for consultation will further enhance the work of the Commission by promoting a greater consistency in decision making and a greater acceptance of decisions by the parties. It would not be desirable to define too closely the manner in which the process of consultation should take place. What is an appropriate form of consultation may depend on the circumstances of the particular case. It is important that members of the Commission should have a discretion as to how they fulfil their obligation to consult. The requirement in the Bill is, as has been stated, a requirement merely of consultation. That requirement neither demands nor authorises the substitution of one decision for another. Decisions made as a result of the consultation process will continue to be decisions of the commissioner who heard the matter. The amendment will not thereby infringe the constitutional requirements.

I emphasise again as there seems to have been some misunderstanding on this point that the requirement is one for consultation. The ultimate decision remains the responsibility of the commissioner himself. Finally, there have been allegations by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) that the requirement was offensive, and by the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) that it would infringe natural justice. These honourable gentlemen apparently are completely unaware of the fact that similar provision has been part of the Public Service Arbitration Act for many years. This provision has worked to the satisfication of both the office of the Public Service Arbitrator and the people who come before him. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the same degree of success- which for many years has attended this provision in the Public Service arbitration areashould not, with the explanation I have just given, operate in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I take up the point that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) concluded upon. I would have thought that the Minister would have known from his own background and knowledge that there is a considerable degree of difference in the responsibilities that exist when commissioners are dealing with a wide range of industries. In some cases many of those industries traditionally are strike prone. Some of them have had bad records of industrial relations. There are industries, in which industrial tension, is more the rule rather than the exception. To say that a commissioner who has to deal with those industries, and to make decisions on the merits of the arguments in the case before him, for the purposes of resolving an industrial dispute, is in a like situation to the Public Service Arbitrator is to show a lack of understanding and comprehension of the complexities of industrial relations, which I think does not do the Minister due credit. Obviously the Minister has been stuck with this provision and he has to do the best he can with it. I share the view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that this is one provision that will be subject to constitutional challenge.

I take little comfort from the views- albeit eminent views- of those advising the Minister. If all the views that were given to Ministers of the Crown by prominent lawyers in terms of the power of the Commonwealth had been correct, then many of the decisions made by the High Courts would have been more favourable to the Commonwealth. Ultimately the courts will decide the legality or otherwise of this provision. I am concerned about two things- firstly, the intent and, secondly, the sloppiness in the drafting of this clause. The Minister has not dealt in any significant way with the problems which this provision creates within the Commission itself.

What does ‘consult’ mean? Is it a proper consultation if a commissioner meets his presidential member in the gentlemen ‘s toilet and, as they are standing there concentrating on other things, he says: ‘I have got an interesting case before me. I am proposing to give the members of the Electrical Trades Union an extra $5’. As they adjust their clothing the presidential member says to the commissioner: ‘That is interesting. They are not bad fellows in the ETU. I hope it goes all right’, and then walks out the door. Is that a consultation? The one thing the Minister has not said is what is required. Is it to be a more formal procedure? Is a member of the Commission required to write a letter to his presidential member saying: ‘Would you appoint a convenient time and place so that I can go over this material that has been presented to me because I am interested in carrying out the provisions of this clause?’ What occurs when a commissioner says: ‘I am going to give an increase of $10 a week because I have looked at all the merits and heard all the arguments. I believe that the proper decision on all the merits as they have come to me is that an increase of $10 is warranted’? He may say that nothing at all is warranted. What occurs if the presidenta member says ‘I think that would be absolutely disastrous’, but the commissioner says: ‘You might think that, but with great respect, I have got to make the decision. I believe it is in the best interests of industrial peace if I make the decision in these terms’? Whose view is ultimately going to prevail? There is no provision or suggestion by the Minister. Presumably it will be all right -

Mr Ruddock:

– That is the Commission’s view.

Mr HOLDING:

– I respond to the interjection of the honourable member for Dundas. If the commissioner says that he has consulted and he sticks to his judgment, then the very point of the consultation process which was made by the honourable member for Dundas, namely, that some of the decisions in the past would not have been made if consultations had taken place, falls to the ground, because ultimately -

Mr Ruddock:

– No, it has not. He has done it with knowledge.

Mr HOLDING:

-I would suggest to the honourable member for Dundas, who is probably an admirable conveyancing solicitor, that he should stick to what he knows because obviously he has never appeared before a commissioner or in an industrial tribunal. I say that with respect because if he has, does he really believe that in some of these industrial matters that come before commissioners in the normal course of discussion there is not continual, on-going conversation about the merits or demerits of the case? Of course there is. The problem that is created by this sloppy concept is this: Let me remind the Minister of the view of the Privy Council in the Boilermakers case which stated:

The same qualities of fairness, patience, and courtesy should be exhibited by conciliator, arbitrator or judge alike . . . none of them should act without hearing both sides of the case.

What happens if the commissioner takes that injunction to himself very seriously indeed and says: ‘I have got the parties before me. I have heard their arguments. I am not going to consult without them being present. I am going to do it in open court so that all parties can hear the submission I am going to put’? Is that a procedure recommended by the Minister? Is that a method of consultation that is going to be accepted? Let me take the further point and assume that a commissioner disagrees strongly with the view of the presidential member and says: ‘Well, whatever view you have got, I am sorry, I cannot accept it. I am going to decide this case on the merits and that seems to me to be a proper judgment in all the circumstances’. Is the commissioner bound to disclose in handing down his decision the fact that he consulted with the presidential member? Is he bound to say that, having consulted with the presidential member, he arrived at a different view? If he does not, can it be a ground of appeal that there has been no adequate process of consultation or that the consultation process was not fully carried out?

I think it is obvious from the Minister’s demeanour and the way in which he has presented this matter to the best of his ability, and with his background knowledge, that he cannot be happy with this clause. It is a clause which will create difficulties for the functions and the operations of the Commission. I do not believe it adds anything at all to the settlement or resolution of industrial disputes. I take the point that the process of conciliation and arbitration, the determination of the complex issues as they arise, involves not merely the exercise of judicial discretion, but the parties before a commissioner are entitled to the view- often the proceedings are somewhat informal, as the Minister well knows- that all aspects of the case as they have been put will be properly dealt with and that the arguments will be decided on their merits by the commissioner who is bound to do just that because that is the obligation of his office.

I do not believe that anything is added at all to the complex area of industrial relations by saying: That commissioner has got a duty to do in terms of this legislation, to represent presumably the view of both parties, and give his view of their arguments to the presidential member. For what purpose? That is the question. For what purpose? If a person is good enough to be appointed a commissioner he is good enough to exercise the obligations that go with that office. The Minister has not said what purpose the consultation will fulfil. He has presented a concept which will compound and make more complex industrial relations and which will add nothing at all to the settlement of industrial disputes. This is a bad clause; it is legally sloppy and the Minister ought to abandon it.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I will not delay the Committee for long, but so that it is clearly understood in this Parliament, I point out that all parties except the Government are opposed to this clause. Mr Ray Kirby and Mr George Polites both indicated at the National Labor Consultative Council meeting held in August to discuss this measure that they were opposed to it. They said that it would interfere with the appeal system because every decision of a commissioner would appear to be endorsed by a deputy president. It would also cause great disaffection between the members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There can be no doubt from the reasons given to us by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and by the members of the Government Members Industrial Committee who have spoken on this measure, that the Government has absolutely no idea of how this clause will operate. They talk about the autonomy of the commissioner, but the fact that he has to speak to a deputy president gives the appearance that the deputy president will endorse every decision a commissioner makes. Perhaps members of the Commission will interpret the clause differently as a result of what has been said in this Parliament today and, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) has said, we will appear to be very sloppy law-makers indeed. As the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) says, the Commission has to interpret the clause because that is the way the Parliament deals with the legislation. The word ‘consultation’ has to be looked at in terms of explanations given in dictionaries so that the Commission can take its lead from that. I believe that members of the Commission, the employers and the trade unions are opposed to this clause. Everybody who contributes to or participates in industrial relations in this country, with the sole exception of the Government, is opposed to this clause. Therefore there is no doubt in my mind that for industrial relations it is a bad law. No proper explanation has been given to us by the Minister or by other speakers from the Government side of the chamber. We remain unconvinced, and opposed to the clause.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I will take a very short time to reply to the explanation given by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) as to just what this clause means. If it simply means what he says it means, there is no point whatsoever in the provisions of the clause being included in the Act. One person came clean on the whole issue. If the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) belongs to the Government Members Industrial Committee, he has had the benefit of knowing something of the discussions that led to the inclusion of this clause. I give him credit for at least being honest. He put his finger right on what we are saying is the meaning and effect of this clause. He pointed out that one of the issues that motivates the philosophy for the inclusion of the clause is the protection of indexation. He went on to say that a de- 1cision taken by Mr Commissioner Deverall was in fact at the core of the Telecom Australia dispute. If catch-up arrangements and the on-going question of whether indexation will survive or fail were the reason for its inclusion, it has the desired effect. But it does not have the effect that the Minister has spelled out in addressing this Committee.

Mr Cadman:

– Do you agree with the indexation proposition?

Mr INNES:

– I agree with indexation if it is full indexation. The whole question relates to arrangements between parties in negotiation. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) put his finger right on it. The whole basis of the settlement of industrial disputes in this country harks back to Mr Justice Higgins and the principles that have been built up over years and years of discussion and people applying themselves in an endeavour to resolve industrial disputes.

One would have to be naive to accept the explanations of the Minister. If a commissioner had considered indexation and the effect of flow-on and catch-up arrangements, had negotiated with the parties and listened to all their arguments, and had taken into account the inspections and the complicated aspects of consultation and attempts to conciliate on a dispute, one would have to be mad to expect that a presidential member, after consultation with the commissioner, could intelligently consider the merits of what might be an important decision that could change the course of an entire industry in respect of wages and conditions. He would never be in a position to do it. Forcing members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to consult under the circumstances that the Minister has outlined is a load of tripe. One would have to be absolutely naive to accept the Minister’s explanation. When the so-called half smart lawyers who represent employers before the Commission talk about literal interpretations of the word consult’, what the Minister spells out in this

Committee will not be taken into account. The literal interpretation of the terminology used in the Act is the one which will be taken into account. The representatives will be arguing about whether or not ‘consult’ means that the commissioner ought to take direction, in effect, from the presidential member who is involved.

Why is the Minister not honest about it? If he means what he says he has an obligation to withdraw the clause. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports pointed out, the clause is sloppy and it will create all the problems in the world. It will be open to interpretation and the lawyers will have a bonanza arguing about it before the Commission. I have spent enough time in the Commission to know that they will hang on any word. The fact is that the honourable member for Mitchell has put his finger on the real motive behind this clause. He has asked me about indexation. Indexation was agreed to and one party involved in the discussions set about breaking down the principle on which it was established, that is, the principle of full indexation. That is what broke down the principle of full indexation. It had nothing to do with the organisations. It is a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or for an individual commissioner to determine what is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances.

As the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) pointed out, all this Government wants the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be is a regulator of the economy, a body to give effect to the policies and the economic philosophies of the Government. Because the Government is incompetent it cannot come to grips with the economic problems that bedevil the community. It wants to pass the buck to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If that is not involved in this consultation that the honourable member for Mitchell talks about, why did he raise the question of indexation? Why did the honourable member raise the question of flow-on and mention the Telecom dispute? I know a great deal about Commissioner Deverall. I worked with him for years.

Mr Neil:
Mr INNES:

– In the Arbitration Commission, in the Industrial Court, a place which you have never seen. The real point here is that Deverall, even if he had consulted- he was not forced to take direction- would not have changed one word of his determination. Of course, Deverall and all the other commissioners consult. They consult on an on-going basis. If decisions are taken and guidelines are established, do honourable members think that Deverall would not know anything at all about it? Consulting is not a matter of just having a cup of tea, getting out some knitting and having a chat about some of the issues involved in the case. It is not like that at all. Resolving an industrial dispute is a matter of applying what is fair and reasonable. One cannot simply take a whole series of inspections and discussions and whatever might have been negotiated, consider some principles that were determined in previous cases and then consult with a presidential member of the Commission who has not had the benefit of all that, and expect him to understand the ramifications of what has occurred. That suggestion is a load of claptrap. That is not the philosophy behind the Government’s move. Once again, the Government’s philosophy is to put the Arbitration Commission in a straitjacket. If that is the case then, as my friends have pointed out, this legislation is challengeable. If the Government is to restrict the ambit and area of influence of the Arbitration Commission, at whatever level, in resolving industrial disputes, surely this is not only Draconian legislation but legislation which is outside the principles of conciliation and arbitration. I will give the honourable member for Mitchell credit for at least being honest. He pointed out the real reason behind the move and did not offer the mealy-mouthed excuse given by the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-I am fascinated by the extent to which the course of this debate has changed. I listened with interest to the second speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) when he referred to the way in which the commissioner might construe this provision. He indicated that after hearing the explanation of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), he did not feel that the points he had made earlier carried as much weight as he thought they did when he spoke on the first occasion. He argued in much more reasonable tones, and I think the points he made can be more easily accepted as a result. I am more fascinated by the direction in which the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) has moved. What he just said, was and I quote of course, the commissioners consult’. He indicated that if consulting were given the meaning which we all know and understand it has, one could have no objection to consultation taking place. He then went on to put a rather extended interpretation on this particular clause if the word ‘direct’ were used and said that the Opposition disagreed with the provision. That is fair enough, but apparently the Opposition has no objection to consultation.

Of course commissioners consult already. This clause simply requires the commissioners to do what they are already doing and what the honourable member for Melbourne says is not unreasonable. In that case, how could Opposition members have any objection?

Mr Innes:

– What are you putting it in there for, if that is all it means?

Mr RUDDOCK:

– Because there might be one or two who do not consult. What the honourable member says is happening now, that is, that the commissioners consult, is to be regularised. The consultation is quite proper and is to be expected.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has suggested that this particular provision might be open to challenge. Of course, if one were providing for the situation which occurred in the Victorian Railways case- in that case there was no hearing and the facts were not heard before a determination was arrived atthere might be some basis for challenge. If there were so obvious a breach of the rules of natural justice, the matter might be challenged. We need to understand the situation that was being dealt with in the dispute between the Australian Railways Union and the Victorian Railways. The judge who dealt with that case said:

A law which enables a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by discussion amongst themselves without any hearing or determination between the disputants is . . . not a law with respect to Conciliation and Arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and is not authorised by the Section 51 (XXXV) of the Constitution.

The court was dealing with a situation in which the parties had been excluded from discussions amongst the body of persons who were to settle the dispute. That is not what is being provided for in this legislation. To try to impute that it is by referring to cases such as the Victorian Railways case which dealt with a very specific matter is quite unreasonable. Even the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), who respectfully suggested that I had some lack of capacity because I allegedly had dealt mainly with conveyancing matters whereas he had dealt mainly with criminal law, suggested -

Mr Holding:

– Industrial law.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I just want to indicate the sensitivity of people when their credentials are impugned in such a patronising manner, as was done by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports a little while ago. If he wants to be patronising in relation to these matters instead of arguing the case on its merits, he will have to learn that other people can dish it out as well. I do not like doing it. I do not think it adds to the debate and I hope that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and I can be good friends and argue the matter on its merits rather than by impugning each other’s capacity, based upon his experience to look at the words in a clause and construe them properly. Having got that into perspective, perhaps we can go ahead and honestly look at the words. The meaning of consultation, is clear and, as I have pointed out already in this debate, using the words of the honourable member for Melbourne, if all we are requiring the commissioners to do is to consult, there is nothing unreasonable about this clause. I hope that that matter has been clarified now and that honourable members opposite will support the clause.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There are two points that I want to take up. First of all, I have listened very carefully to what was said by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), especially his reference to the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1973. 1 am sorry to advise the Committee that he is wrong. I will read the relevant section to the Committee. I think this is what the Minister was referring to when he said that this clause of the Bill is exactly the same sort of provision that has always obtained in the Public Service arbitration system. Section 15a (3) states:

The Arbitrator shall, upon request made as provided by the next succeeding sub-section, on the ground that a claim or application, or a matter forming part of or arising out of a claim or application . . . is of such importance that the claim, application or matter should, in the public interest, be dealt with as provided by this section’ consult with the President as to whether the claim, application or matter should be so dealt with.

It then provides that the request may be made by the Board, by a Minister or by a relevant organisation, or others under the special circumstances referred to in section 12c of the Act. In other words, consultation is not a precondition to judgment. I agree with what the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) was saying. Of course, consultation occurs constantly as a fact of life. If this is passed there may not be much more consultation; it occurs already. What we are concerned about, is the fact that the use of the language in this clause appears to make consultation a precondition to judgment. This then raises the question of natural justice. In reality, of course consultation does occur, will occur and should occur.

I direct the Minister’s attention to the provision in the Public Service Arbitration Act. That provision contains superior wording. That wording should have been put in the Bill. The Minister clearly thinks that the two provisions are on all fours, but they are not. I believe that the Committee might find the clause presently before it much more acceptable because under that clause at least we know the ground rules on which there will be a consultation. It is made quite clear that consultation has nothing to do with the act of judgment. It is a precondition to how the matter is heard. It is not something that happens after the evidence has been examined and prior to judgment, and that is a very important distinction.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Both the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) and the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) seemed to have a. pretty poor opinion about whether the deputy presidents and commissioners in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be able to conduct their affairs in a responsible manner. I see no reason to suppose that that should be so. Neither do I see any reason why the proposed amendment to the Act, which is now before the House, should interfere with that in any way.

I take the point made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He made the point that only the Government supports this clause. He then said that neither employers nor unions support it. I reiterate the points which I made in my second reading speech, namely, that the opportunity was given to the union movement to come along and discuss these amendments with us. The unions did not take advantage of that opportunity. As a result of comments made and suggestions put forward in the National Labour Consultative Council changes were made to the Government’s original proposals. As I have mentioned previously, the main objective of this particular amendment is to maintain consistency in wage fixing in the Commission. This view is one that is not necessarily always held by the parties to industrial relations. Those parties have their own interests to look after, and I understand that. They do not have the public interest as their main concern.

I reiterate that the Government does have the public interest as its concern. The Government will always frame its legislation with that interest in mind, and it makes absolutely no apology for doing so. In this debate the Labor Party has made it quite clear that it does not care two hoots about the public interest. That is its outlook and it will be judged on that attitude accordingly.

That is just another illustration of the very sharp differences between this Government and the Opposition in relation to industrial policy.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I rise to correct very quickly any impression that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) or anyone else may have got. I have a high regard for both the capacity of the deputy presidents of the Commission and for the commissioners themselves. The thrust of my argument and of the arguments of the Opposition is that this clause gives no guarantee that any more consultation than that which takes place at present will, in fact, take place in the future. I believe that the way in which this clause is worded and the thrust of the arguments that have been presented lead to a reasonable conclusion amongst those who appear as parties before industrial commissioners that the authority of the commissioners has been eroded in this way.

The commissioners are compelled presumably- and I adopt the phraseology of my colleague, the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones)- as a condition precedent to making a judgment on all the facts and all the evidence which they have heard to consult or to discuss with a person who, whatever his qualifications or his capacity, has not been a party to the hearings and has not had the benefit of hearing the arguments, but who will somehow be expected by this Government to exercise some effect from outside knowledge, on the ultimate judgment that is handed down by the Commissioner. I think that is a bad concept. I think it will erode the authority of commissioners and it will intensify and make more complex the whole system of industrial relations and negotiations.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 72

NOES: 28

Majority…… 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 4 (Limitation on powers of Commission).

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is opposed to this clause which, in effect, seeks to take away from the power of the Commission.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the chamber coming particularly from my right side. Will honourable members please remain silent?

Mr YOUNG:

– The Opposition is opposed to this clause because it takes away from the Commission one of the powers that it has to solve industrial disputes. It has been said ad nauseam during this debate that the role of the Commission is to settle industrial disputes. The Government has seen fit to propose a new section 25A. The new section reads:

The Commission is not empowered to make an award, certify a memorandum of agreement, make a recommendation or take any other anion, whether by way of conciliation or arbitration, in respect of a claim for the making of a payment to employees in respect of a period during which those employees were engaged in industrial action.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is still far too much audible conversation, particularly from the Government benches. I ask honourable members to remain silent and to give the honourable member for Port Adelaide an opportunity to speak. The talk is coming particularly from the front bench of the Government side.

Mr YOUNG:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I cannot hear you. Should we continue after the suspension?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I think we may have to make that decision.

Mr YOUNG:

– Otherwise I am just wasting my time. I put this question to you seriously, Mr Deputy Chairman, should we continue after the suspension? Government members will not be here then.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member for Port Adelaide will proceed. If this problem persists, I may have to take a certain course.

Mr YOUNG:

– The Opposition is opposed to this proposed new section. It is of some interest to note that the National Labour Consultative Council when only the employers were present wholeheartedly endorsed this measure being enforced by the Government. Why would the employers not do that? The employers were acting in the best interests of the people whom they represent at the National Labour Consultative Council. But we are not talking about all the money that is lost by people who go on strike. We are talking about those quite rare decisions made by the Commission which, after hearing the evidence brought before it, decides that people in certain cases who have lost money as a result of bans or industrial disputation should have their pay made up. It has been pointed out that we are not talking solely about a total strike situation where somebody is out of work altogether. We are talking about a situation where that may be the case, but we are talking also about a situation where certain limitations or bans may be applied in work places where most of the work is being carried out. In both instances the Commission has seen fit to decide to resolve the industrial dispute. One of the measures that it has used is to decide that these people are entitled to some pay for money lost during the industrial disputation.

As I pointed out yesterday, 25 per cent of industrial disputes recorded in this country in 1978 flowed from managerial policy. These industrial disputes were the fault of management. The building industry, which for many years was prone to a great deal of industrial hazards in relation to safety, was also strike prone as a result of the agitation taking place in the work place to improve safety. On many occasions, employers were virtually found guilty by the Commission of not having looked after their workers in regard to safety as these workers should have been looked after. Employers have been found guilty, so to say, by the Commission that they did not do all the things that were required of them and subsequently, they provoked the work force into taking the action, which may be called an industrial dispute or a strike or ban or limitation of work, in which case the Commission awarded the pay to them. Sir Richard Kirby says that it is ridiculous, if not unconstitutional, for the Government to take upon its shoulders the withdrawal of a power that the Commission has to settle industrial disputes. What the Government is saying, irrespective of the evidence that comes before the Commission, is that the Commission has no power to give back pay.

As the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) pointed out at the National Labour Consultative Council, we are not talking about daily occurrences; in fact, we are talking about very rare occurrences. With respect to the occurrences to which the Government objects we are talking about really rare occurrences. But, if the Commission is to do its job as the Constitution lays down and as the Act interprets, how can the Government possibly justify drawing the teeth of the Commission and the ways in which it settles a dispute? There can be no doubt, as was pointed out during the debate, that this clause flows directly from the defeat suffered by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last year during the Telecom dispute. He got on his feet in this Parliament and told us that the money that was lost by the Telecom employees over the technology dispute was money lost and would not be made up. Then the Commission, of course, reversed the Prime Minister’s decision as was its right after it heard the case. It said that in 70 per cent of the cases where people had lost money Telecom was to make their pay up. The Prime Minister is not to be defeated. Even to the extent of hamstringing the Commission which is put there to do the job, this Prime Minister will go to any lengths. He would rather have an industrial dispute than have the Commission overturn the sentiments which he expresses in this Parliament.

Sir Richard Kirby quite rightly points out, I am sure that other speakers also will point this out during the debate, that quite possibly it is unconstitutional to do so. To say that someone should go before the umpire knowing already what the umpire’s decision is going to be makes for an untenable situation for the parties to the Commission.

The ridiculous feature of this clause is that one would have thought that the Government was overcoming its problems in this area, that once and for all there would be no strike pay made up in those rare occurrences where such a claim is made. Not at all. The most serious feature of this clause is that the parties to the Commission are going to be pushed outside the Commission. Our adherence to conciliation and arbitration is somewhat submerged by the fact that we are adopting a law in this Parliament which is going to push the parties that abide by the Commission ‘s decisions outside the Commission.

As I said yesterday, is it seriously contemplated that anybody who goes on strike to improve the safety standards of a building site, a mine or a wharf, and loses a week’s pay in trying to have the management or the employers improve the safety standards of that site, is not going to want, as part of the settlement of the return to work, his pay made up? Of course he will. If the Government closes off the avenue to the Commission employees will seek redress in what we call the jungle. They will just do it outside the Commission, and will do it directly with the employer. There can be no doubt that the employer will not be able to put up his hand and say: ‘The Government has passed a law which forbids the Commission from making these decisions’. The unionist or the employee will say: ‘I do not care what laws the Government passes. If it passes a bad law which forbids me to fight for better and more safe working conditions- or whatever the case may be- I am going to continue to fight for it and I am not going to go back to work on that site until my pay has been made up’. Obviously that is what the case is going to be. The clause that the Government writes into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to take away this power from the Commission is a very serious one. The only way that it can be justified is because the Commission itself- Justice Mary Gaudronoverturned the sentiments that were expressed by the Prime Minister in this House some months ago. There can be no other justification for it.

I do not think the Minister would derive any satisfaction from the fact that George Polites, Ray Kirby and some of the other employer spokesmen in this country go to the National

Labour Consultative Council and say: ‘If we support you we might be able to save the employers some money’. Obviously that is what they are there to do. George Polites, a realist, knows what is going to happen. Instead of the Commission determining these matters we are pushing the parties outside the role of the Commission, back in between direct negotiations or collective bargaining between employer and employee. We undermine the role of the Commission. There is absolutely no justification for the provision. It ignores completely the complexities and the makeup as to why people go on strike in this country.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-Clause 4 of this amending legislation goes to the very hean of the problem which we face in the Australian community- the disruptive activity of irresponsible trade unions. In the industrial relations scene in recent times we have seen a significant shift in power towards the unions, especially union leadership, and away from employers and government. The attitude revealed by the Australian Labor Party Opposition in this debate highlights the attitude of the trade union movement. It seeks the protection of the law when it is to the advantage of the unions but seeks to escape from the provisions of the law when that law is to the disadvantage of the unions. I believe that clause 4 of this legislation to a large extent will assist in restoring the balance of power. This clause is part of the whole process of making the system of industrial relations in this country more rational.

The clause is necessary since some of those involved in industrial relations lack a proper sense of perspective or any feeling of public responsibility. This clause therefore has the very sound objective of ensuring that people who wish to exercise their right to strike do so in full knowledge of what they are about and are genuinely prepared to make a sacrifice to achieve what they believe are legitimate goals. The clause prevents the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from awarding payments to employees for periods that they have been on strike. It has always seemed to me something short of ludicrous that people can be paid for not working. That is an absurd imposition to place on an employer. He suffers enough from industrial disruption without having to make payments when no work is done or when no goods or services are produced.

The lack of responsibility by the trade union leadership in the industrial relations sphere is of major concern to the people of Australia. They are justifiably sick and tired of the disruption to their lives caused by industrial disputes. This attitude is reflected in my own electorate of Kingston. Many constituents have personally complained to me about the disruption that they experience through the activities of trade unions. This has been confirmed recently, according to media reports, by an Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls survey within my electorate which was apparently sponsored by the Labor Party. The reports indicate that that survey showed that the abuse of trade union power and industrial disruption were major issues in the minds of people resident in the Kingston electorate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member to the fact that his remarks are not altogether relevant to the question before the Committee. The Committee is discussing clause 4.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-That is right, Mr Millar. What I am saying is very relevant to the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair is not persuaded to that view. I ask the honourable member to address his remarks more closely to the clause.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– It is relevant, Mr Millar, because those who go on strike ought to be made to realise the effect their actions have both on themselves and on the community.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member may proceed. He is required to be relevant in his remarks. The Chair will pass judgment on his remarks.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– Clause 4 will ensure that people who go on strike are made very much aware of the effect of their actions on their own situations by providing that they will be denied wages for the periods when they are on strike. I certainly believe that the attitude that has been expressed by people in the Kingston electorate is typical of the view of people right around Australia. We need to recognise why people have this concern. They realise the effect that strikes are having on themselves and on the country as a whole. In that context I think it is worth considering the statistics on industrial activity released yesterday. They indicate that there have been significant losses to the country even in years when industrial disputation was relatively low. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1976 disputes cost 3,799,200 working days, which is no small total. The estimated loss of wages in that disputation was $1 14,552,000. In 1977, 1,654,800 working days were lost, costing $59,674,000 in wages. In 1978 the situation worsened, with 2,130,800 working days being lost.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I again remind the honourable member that his remarks are ceasing to be relevant to the clause. If he cannot bring himself back to the clause I will be required to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-With due respect, Mr Millar, I am referring to the cost of wages lost, and I would argue that that is very relevant to wages not being paid for working days lost by people on strike.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair is not of a mind to accept argument that the remarks are relevant. I invite the honourable member to proceed if he can remain relevant in his remarks. Otherwise I will be required to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Clause 4, Mr Millar, relates to payment of wages to employees in respect of a period during which those employees were engaged in industrial action. The comments I am making are directly related to the wages lost through industrial disputation. Those are wages which might have to be paid to those employees if the clause is not implemented. In 1978 the value of wages lost was $78,404,000. Of course, they are significant losses to the nation’s productivity and to those on strike. If this clause were not introduced -

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I think it is a pity, sir, that the honourable member continues to flout your ruling. The fact that he continues to call you ‘Mr Millar’ I do not think ought to influence you one iota. I ask the honourable member to talk to the Bill or to sit down and shut up.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable member for Kingston has been requested to remain relevant in his remarks.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– As I was saying before the point of order was raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, those wage losses are significant losses both to the nation’s productivity and of course to the wages of those on strike. If this clause were not passed as part of the legislation employers could be forced by the Arbitration Commission to pay wages to people for periods when they were on strike and this would be a significant cost to those employers and a significant additional cost to the nation. Those statistics that I have cited very much justify the firm line that has been taken by the Government in this legislation and in this particular clause.

Mr Neil:

– A very proper point. It is most relevant. It goes to the core of the clause.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I am very glad for the support of the honourable member for St George. The clause is made even more important by the fact that there were more working days lost in the first half of this year-2,474,400-than for the whole of last year, meaning a loss in wages of some $91,499,000. Once again, this is far more than for the whole of last year. It is for this reason that this clause is so important It will ensure that employers cannot be required by the Arbitration Commission to restore wages to people who have been on strike. This clause gives effect to the fact that people are sick and tired of the level of disputation that those statistics represent. My own constituents are certainly sick and tired of that level of disputation and I am sure that they are fully in support of the intention of clause 4 of the legislation. Its aim is to ensure that militant trade unions do not get privileges to which they are not entitled. The unhappy fact that we face is that the militant union leadership today is getting way out of touch with the day-to-day desires and aspirations of the average union membership. Extensive opinion polls confirm that fact very strongly.

Clause 4 is very important in the process of overcoming union militancy and protecting the rights of the average citizen. I think it is worth reiterating the need for workers and grassroots members of unions to involve themselves actively in the affairs of their unions to ensure that the leadership accurately reflects their views and takes action appropriate to their wishes. I believe it is especially important that they become involved with the election of union office bearers through secret ballots. Perhaps then we will not have the level of industrial disputation that has led to the necessity to insert this clause in the legislation. I am quite sure that the people of Australia support the insertion of this clause in this very important piece of legislation and I am very happy to give my strong support to it.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) addressed himself to general arguments about strikes and, to some extent, I suppose one can feel sorry for him because he was probably misled as to the purport of this clause by the second reading speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The Minister, in giving the reason for the policy of the Government, stated that at the present time the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may provide payment to employees in respect of time not worked because they were engaged in industrial action. This is the reason advanced by the Minister for the insertion of this clause in the Bill. The Minister’s approach is undesirable by any standards and one therefore has to direct the attention of the Minister, the Committee and the community to what the law is. The first question to be asked is: Should the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have power to deal with industrial stoppages and claims for arrears of wages in respect of those stoppages? I argue that that is not only a desirable power for the Commission to have but also a necessary power. Accepting the Minister’s explanation to the Committee of the constitutional prerogatives of the Commonwealth in terms of industrial power, and if there is any section likely to be subjected to substantial challenge, it is important for us to ask whether it is consistent with constitutional principles for the Parliament to fetter the Commission ‘s power to deal with a dispute or a settlement function by preventing the Commission from considering or adjudicating on a particular type of industrial dispute. What is that particular type of industrial dispute? What is the nature of the claims that come before the Commission? What are the types of judgment that the Commission has made?

The law on this is clear and was not adverted to by the Minister in his second reading speech. That is why honourable members such as the honourable member for Kingston are so grievously misled in respect of this matter. Under past decisions of the Commission wage claims have been granted only where the Commission has found that in respect of industrial action against an employer it would be unfair to expect employees to bear the loss of wages. In the most recent case of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia v. Costain in 1979, Mr Justice Alley stated the position of the Commission when he said that there was no proper basis for payment for time lost as a result of industrial action unless the actions of the employer were so extreme that the refusal to work was the only reasonable course open to the employees. Is that an unreasonable proposition? Are there not circumstances in industrial situations when the only reasonable course of action open to employees is either to refuse to work or to impose a ban? For many years I personally was involved in situations in which it was necessary for me as a lawyer to visit an industrial site at which there had been a fatal accident. Perhaps, if some honourable members opposite had had that experience of going on to a site where a man had been killed they would not be quite so flippant in their attitude to this particular clause. In all sections of industry there are industrial problems about safety.

Although the working conditions for members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia have changed because of technology still there are methods used in the loading of ships which vigilance officers of the Waterside Workers Federation are fearful of and believe will cause loss of life or limb. If the union cannot negotiate, it will black ban that job until the matter is resolved. We are all very sorry when there is a major industrial accident but has the Minister or any honourable member opposite been on a site after a major industrial accident? Unfortunately in Melbourne a girder on a bridge collapsed and dozens of men lost their lives.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Thirty-seven.

Mr HOLDING:

-I am reminded by the honourable member for Lalor that 37 lives were lost. There was a threat of a ban and a stoppage to ensure that the legal rights of the families were protected. The Government of Victoria responded to the situation instantly. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) referred to the mining industry, and a mining tragedy occurred only recently in New South Wales. Honourable members opposite have not been involved with such an industry. Is it unreasonable for a worker to say: ‘I will not go into that situation because it is dangerous. I am not going to risk life or limb’. There is a process by which, once he takes that position, the matter can be dealt with. Is it unreasonable for the Commission to say: ‘Well, yes, we have looked at all the evidence. We have visited the site. We find that the attitude of the employer was so unreasonable and so unconscionable that it would be a dire penalty to say that these men were not entitled to their wages’.

Mr Burr:

– What about the State Bank site?

Mr HOLDING:

-I wonder whether there is adequate protection in a State bank. If the honourable gentleman were a teller and the bank had been raided on four or five occasions by someone pointing a gun, I wonder whether he would claim to be entitled to say to the employer: Look, I am tired of being threatened. I want proper safety precautions in this bank or I will not work’.

Mr Burr:

– It was the builders’ labourers who were on strike.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Wilmot will remain silent.

Mr HOLDING:

– I have been on building sites where builders’ labourers have lost their lives. The honourable gentleman will never be in an industrial situation where he will put his life in jeopardy. The worst thing that can happen to him is for him to lose his seat. I suggest that he look at the legal situation and the position as it is actually dealt with by the Commission. The honourable member for Kingston is saying that in this situation the Commission should have no power at all to resolve the disputes and then to say to the employer: ‘You have acted so unconscionably, so badly and so neglectfully that you have possibly breached State laws or industrial regulations such as safety regulations’- that situation occurs time and time again- ‘and we will make a determination which entitles these men to recover their lost wages’. That is the position in law and I challenge the Minister to deny that that is the position. He will not do so. He has a little more integrity than some of the gentlemen who sit behind him. They are so one eyed in their attitude towards the trade union movement and its members that any law will do. I suppose that in respect of some honourable gentlemen opposite who have never been in the situation I could be tolerant and say: ‘Well, perhaps if you had had the experience and knew what was happening in industry you would have a little more compassion’. If honourable members opposite disagree with my statement on the position of the law I challenge them to argue the merits of the decisions which have been made by the Commission. That is the issue and I believe that the Commission ought to have this power. I challenge the Minister and his colleagues to show where the Commission, in the exercise of that power, has grievously erred. I do not believe that that can be done. Unless it can, there is no justification, other than blind warped prejudice, for the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-Mr Chairman, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) asked members of the Government to stand and refute some of the matters that he has raised. I just want to say that I am not going to speak on this clause because, as I think the Opposition knows, the Government has agreed as a matter of great generosity to allow the Opposition to have three speakers to our one on each clause. Therefore I do not intend to proceed any further. Unfortunately, we are going to have to hear three times as much rubbish as we would normally hear from the Labor Party.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I think that, as with the preceding clause, the clause before the Committee represents a real limitation on the powers on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to bring about effective justice. I think that the absurdity of this position can be demonstrated by imagining what would happen if a Labor government went to the other extreme. Suppose a Labor government legislated to change this Act to provide that there be an automatic payment for all people out on strike, irrespective of the circumstances. I think there would be a great furore in the community and a claim that that kind of legislation was much too sweeping and much too broad. We say that in the same way, here there is a situation that requires that, whatever the circumstances, no payment can be made when men are out on strike.

As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) pointed out, some pretty extreme circumstances have occurred. I took part in a legal action where a building was under great structural threat. It was decided to stop the work completely because there was extreme danger of a collapse. A number of legal problems came up about it, especially insurance. But it was agreed that the men could go home and would continue to be paid- and quite rightly so. If they had gone out on strike and said: ‘We won’t work in the building. It’s too dangerous’, in my view they would have been absolutely and totally justified in everything that they did, given the circumstances of the case. I am not talking about generalities but about particular sets of circumstances.

Even though a variety of fair minded people, on and off the Bench would agree that that was the appropriate way to deal with the matter, this legislation would say: ‘No, whatever the circumstances, the Commission may not make an order for payment’. That is an extremely negative approach. What it does is to limit the power of the Commission. I suggest that the circumstance in which the Commission would make an order would be comparatively unusual. It would occur, no doubt, where the Commission concluded that management was entirely or, very substantially to blame, and the order to pay would be virtually a penalty. What the Government says in this legislation is: ‘No: We don’t want to permit a situation where it is possible for the Commission to have the extreme range where it penalises the men on one hand and management on the other’. ‘No’, the Government says, ‘ We want a situation where management will not be penalised in any circumstances but where the option is always open for the trade unionists, the workers on the job, to be penalised ‘. That is very far removed from the concept of natural justice that we were talking about earlier. This is a very extreme limitation on the powers of the Commission.

I think the timing of the whole legislation and this clause in particular is extremely bad. I think we face a period of potentially very great instability, very great uncertainty and very great sensitivity in industrial relations when the whole nature of employment as we have traditionally known it may be changed- undermined, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports said, by technological change and similar developments. Changes may occur of a nature which we do not yet fully comprehend. That uncertainty, I believe, is likely to engender fear and will make the task of resolving industrial disputes amicably more difficult than it has been before.

I do not believe that clause 4 is a helpful move. It will not make the resolution of increasingly complex and sophisticated issues easier. It is likely to make it harder. At the very time when we should be looking for greater co-operation, greater understanding and greater willingness to take the long view, I think that with this clause the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) is responding by tossing an industrial incendiary bomb into the arena. This clause has all the elements of confrontation in it. I think it is as reckless and as foolish as it is unnecessary. Is the Government not prepared to allow the commissioners any discretion at all? The Bill is making the commissioners automatons. It denies them the opportunity to say: ‘We will make an award in circumstances that we believe appropriate’. What it is really saying is: ‘Whatever the circumstances, your hands are tied ‘. At a time when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ought to be able to operate with greater subtlety and sensitivity, the Government cuts the Commission back to make it no longer a commission for conciliation and arbitration but a commission for confrontation and attrition.

The story told by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports about the horror of the collapse of the West Gate Bridge in October 1970 is a perfect example of the kind of dispute that could have occurred in which the men would have been 100 per cent right. It is very rare in any dispute to find 100 per cent right on one side and zero per cent right on the other side. But that would have been one of those cases. I am glad to say that when the men went out the Bolte Government agreed that they would be paid until the situation was resolved. But if the men had gone out on strike and said ‘No: We believe it is too dangerous at this stage to continue to work until there has been a clear investigation of what has happened’ I believe they would have had a perfect moral right to receive their wages. But that moral right would not have been permitted by this clause. I believe that it is a very bad clause indeed and I am shocked that the Minister is prepared to associate himself with it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I support my colleagues in the Opposition particularly on the basis of the constitutional position. In the discussion on the previous clause, the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) attempted to say: ‘Well, on behalf of the Government, I argue that the consent of a presidential member is a procedural matter’. No such argument can be made in respect of this clause. The note in the margin of the Bill reads: ‘Limitation on powers of Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’. The clause itself says that the Commission shall not make any payment to an employee engaged in industrial action, whether or not in the course of deliberations by way of conciliation or arbitration.

I again make the point that I think this clause goes beyond the constitutional power of this Government. The Parliament itself has limitations under the Constitution. It only has a power to make laws in respect of conciliation and arbitration and the settlement of disputes. It cannot conciliate and arbitrate itself. It has to give that power to another body. Sir Richard Kirby said:

The Government at the moment would dearly like to put a ceiling on wages, but it has got no legal power to do so. If it attempted to do so, in my opinion that would be invalid and I think that (the) provisions inhibiting the Commission from acting in a certain way, is probably invalid too. The power to conciliate and arbitrate is not vested in the Commonwealth. It is vested by the Constitution in the Commonwealth only in that the Commonwealth can appoint another body to do the conciliating and arbitrating.

That is exactly what we are about. The Government has some power to appoint a group, a commission or a tribunal to deal with conciliation and arbitration. To say to the Commission We know there is industrial action. You have to solve it. We cannot do it as a parliament. But you will not make any payment to those employees in respect of the period of the industrial action’ is a direct interference with the powers of the Commission. I say that it is ultra vires of the constitutional power of the Parliament. In other words, the Parliament has no power to direct the Commission as to what it should do or should not do. This amounts to direct industrial legislation and not legislation within the meaning of the powers of the Parliament to make laws in respect of conciliation and arbitration in accordance with section 5 1 placitum (xxxv) of the Constitution.

In the second reading speech the Minister referred to this provision as preventing payments for time lost. However, I am reminded that the definition of industrial action includes bans, limitations and performance of less than the total amount of an employee’s duties. We could find that where there are bans and limitations, but some work is performed, because it is deemed to be industrial action, under this clause as it stands, no payment could be made to the employee. Honourable members can imagine what this will do for industrial peace. On that basis, an employer who was guilty of a breach causing industrial action would be happy to realise that even though he was guilty of causing that industrial action, no payment could be made to the employees who took the action. That is the position. If the Government really wants peace and harmony from the point of view of conciliation and arbitration why not leave it to the Commission to do its work? To intrude by legislation to give a direction to the Commission and to admit in the marginal note on this clause that it is a limitation on the powers of the Commission makes it clear that this power is beyond the constitutional power of the Parliament. The Parliament has power to make laws only with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of disputes. This provision does entirely the opposite.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I will be very brief because I know that other people want to speak. The point I make is that this clause assumes that employers are never wrong. Of course they are. In 1978 some 25.6 per cent of disputes are on the record as being caused by managerial policy. I believe that the most important area in which this clause is at fault is that of industrial safety. In New South Wales the Department of Labour and Industry on a State level controls industry regulations. It is possible that employers could order employees to participate in unsafe practices which could cause injury or death. If the employees stopped work that action could be construed as going on strike. The DL could be called in and could rule in the employees’ favour but because they were classified as being on strike they would not be able to be paid. Is that the position? I would like the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to answer that question.

We could take this matter further into areas of Commonwealth responsibility such as the stevedoring industry in which there is always a problem with regard to unsafe working practices. The common position is that when the men stop work a navigation officer under the Commonwealth powers intervenes and rules either in favour of the employees or against them. Under this legislation those men could be considered as having been on strike. Even if they were proved right by either DLI inspectors or Commonwealth navigation inspectors and were given a favourable decision, under this legislation it is very likely that they would not be entitled to be paid for the time that they stopped work. That is clearly wrong. The Government has obviously not thought through the full ramifications of this clause. They will be most clearly felt in the area of industrial safety.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-Mr Chairman -

Question (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 66

NOES: 29

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 67

NOES: 30

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 5 to 14- by leave- taken together.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– It is unfortunate that the gag was applied to the debate on the previous clause. The idea behind going in to the Committee stage is to give the Minister the opportunity to give a further explanation of his second reading speech and to answer the questions raised by members of the Opposition as they speak in the Committee stage.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. The shadow Leader of the House made an agreement that the Opposition would have three speakers, and it had five. That is the reason the gag was applied.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The private arrangements of the Committee are no business of the Chair.

Mr YOUNG:

– There were no such arrangements. The arrangements were that this Bill would be completed tonight. It is no good the Government trying to overprotect the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). He has to answer the questions that are being raised in the debate. When we were considering one of the most important clauses contained in this Bill more questions were asked than about most other clauses, but those questions were not answered by the Government because the gag was applied. I suspect that the same thing will continue to happen throughout the evening because the Government has no answers to some of these matters.

Mr Deputy Chairman, we do not wish to overfacilitate the passing of this Bill. We understand what the Government can do with its numbers come 10.15p.m. or 10.30 p.m., but we want to be on record about what this Bill means and the type of law that we are passing in this House. We think it encumbent on some members opposite to understand what they are putting up their hands in favour of. Obviously, judging from the speech that was made in relation to clause 4 by the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman), Government supporters clearly do not understand what this Bill is about. Clause 4 is one of the least complex clauses in the legislation, but we have received no answers to our questions about it. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, employers and trade union representatives search the Hansard record tomorrow for the answers that ought to have been given by the Minister, they will find a vacuum. No answers were given.

We are now dealing with clauses 5 to 14. Some of them relate to an amendment that was passed earlier in relation to the exercising of powers. Clauses 5 to 14 have degrees of importance. I will deal with one of the clauses and other members on this side will deal with the others although, I suppose, that again, there will be no explanations given by the Minister. I deal with clause 8 which provides for the inclusion in the Act of new section 34a. Proposed new section 34a deals with one specific matter in which the Commission was involved. We are writing a whole new law to overcome the predicament in which the Government- not the Commissionunhappily found itself earlier in the year. Proposed new section 34A reads in part:

Where proceedings in relation to an alleged industrial dispute, or in relation to an industrial dispute, are before a member of the Commission other than the President, whether the proceedings are proceedings referred to in subsection ( 1 ) of section 24 or are proceedings by way of conciliation or arbitration, the President may, if he is of the opinion that there are special reasons that justify his so doing, direct that the proceedings be dealt with in accordance with this section.

Again, no interpretation or explanation of these special reasons has been given by the Minister. No explanation has been given of the role that is expected to be played by the President. There has been no assurance that this clause will not interfere in a wholesale manner with the relationship between members of the Commission and the President. Obviously, further explanation ought to be given. These amendments will change the existing position in at least three ways. Firstly, they will allow the question of whether an industrial dispute exists to be the subject of a reference to a Full Bench. One would gather from that that the presidential members of the Commission were just sitting around waiting for something to do rather than carrying out the busy exercises that they undertake at the moment. Secondly, the amendments will allow the reference of an industrial dispute to a Full Bench at any stage of the conciliation and arbitration process. Thirdly, they will allow the President at any stage to withdraw a matter from an individual member of the Commission and to decide how the matter is to be dealt with. One can imagine parties appearing before a presidential member with whom they are not happy trying to get the ear of the President to take the matter out of the hands of his colleague.

The fact that the Minister or the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) may have been unhappy with the handling of one industrial dispute is not sufficient reason for us to change the whole of the law in relation to the role of the President and the relationship between the President and his colleagues on the Commission. How will the President justify taking over one case when he refuses to take over others? What will the special reasons be? Will the President be expected to make public his reasons for intervening and going over one of his colleagues in certain circumstances? Will his special reasons be subjected to public scrutiny?

There are many objections to these proposed amendments. They will certainly undermine the existing authority of single members of the Commission and place a very heavy emphasis on Full Bench hearings. The emphasis on Full Bench hearings is both unnecessary and wasteful as many matters may be settled satisfactorily by- and some may be settled satisfactorily only by- single members of the Commission without the need for more formal proceedings before a Full Bench which, from the viewpoint of both parties and the community, are costly. The changes, and, proposed section 34A in particular, place an impossible work load on the President of the Commission. Under the proposed new section the President may be obliged in effect to monitor every case before the Commission in order to decide whether at any stage there are special reasons that justify his withdrawing a matter from a member of the Commission.

I believe that this proposed amendment is an insult to members of the Commission. If we had some sort of industrial lunatic- I am sure that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) could name one- holding down the position of President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission we would have wholesale chaos if these powers were available to him. As I said earlier, we want to know whether the President is going to make public his special reasons for taking certain business out of the hands of one of his colleagues? If he is not, it may mean that the President will be subject to accusations that he has been canvassed or lobbied by a particular party appearing before his presidential colleague to take the case away from that colleague and take it over himself before a Full Bench. These questions ought to be answered by the Minister. I hope that they will be answered before the Government gags the debate on clauses 5 to 14, because again the second reading speech of the Minister gave insufficient clarification of the operations of many of these proposed new sections.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to deal with clause 6 of the Bill. At present, if a standdown clause is inserted in an award, an employer is authorised not to pay some or all of his employees in certain specified circumstances, such as in the event of a breakdown in machinery or industrial action by employees. Those applications are normally dealt with by a commissioner or a deputy president. Clause 6 is designed to cover the situation in which there may not be a stand-down clause in the particular award but the employer seeks to have the award varied by the insertion or variation of a standdown clause. We want to ensure that those matters are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. This is most important in order to avoid union blackmail.

I have had experience in the industrial jurisdictions in New South Wales. Some years ago it was apparent that certain unscrupulous union bosses had devised a tactic to cause serious damage to employers. They would call on a dispute, usually on a Thursday or a Friday, in a case where there was no stand-down clause in the award. The employer would be faced with employees not at work for the Thursday and Friday. He would then have to try as fast as possible to get some legal advice to go to the industrial commission. He might be able to get before a judge on the following Monday or Tuesday. The matter would be adjourned to the Wednesday or Thursday for further discussions. And a week would go by during which it might well be that his entire factory was idle and he was losing substantial sums of money day by day.

It might be that this occurred only because of a small group of employees. This happens particularly in highly technological industries, and can often happen in essential industries. A week goes by and then, just as the parties come to the court, the union, by that time having bled the employer dry of all liquid funds, calls off the strike and the workers go back to work. Quite often, one of the terms of going back to work is that they get all their overtime extra to catch up on the work that they have not done. So, they not only get all the pay that they were trying to blackmail the employer into paying during the time they were on strike, but when they go back to work all the work that was not carried out for a week has to be done on overtime and they are paid extra.

These tactics are nothing more than industrial blackmail. It is absolutely vital to ensure that the employer is protected and that wherever possible if persons are not being gainfully employed they should be stood down.

I would like to see stand-down clauses in all awards. If such a provision is good enough for certain awards, it ought to be good enough for the remainder of the awards. Of course, the unions always fight tooth and nail against having stand-down clauses inserted. Whenever the employers go to the Commission, the unions put up every sort of tactic. They squeeze the employers on the one hand and on the other hand they put up all sorts of legal technicalities to enforce a settlement. The past master as far as these socalled settlements are concerned is Mr Hawke, who used to come in at the tail end of disputes and take the credit for settling them when really the employee’s union had managed to settle those disputes by blackmail tactics. Everyone would say that the strike was over and people would be superficially happy, but what was happening was that continuously the industrial position of employers and their profits- and consequently their capacity to employ people- were being eroded.

Unfortunately, it is not possible constitutionally for the Government to legislate that there should be stand-down clauses in every award. That is a matter for the Arbitration Commission to decide. I do not think that is good, but we have to abide by the Constitution. Fortunately, the Government has power in respect of its own employees. This is most important in the cases of government instrumentalities. At least the Government is able to stand down people who are not gainfully employed and it can ensure that justice is done by the revenue which is provided by the taxpayer, who is the ultimate employer of people in essential services. There are other reasons for this clause. Firstly, I hope it will encourage unionists as a whole to exert a moderating influence on union members or officers who want to strike rather than to use the processes of arbitration. The Australian people are sick and tired of arrogant trade union bosses calling them out on strike without any reasonable cause. Secondly, it will help to minimise the economic loss to the employer. I have dealt with that aspect. Thirdly, it will, in fact, protect employees by helping them to be protected against termination of employment contracts.

One aspect to be noted is that this provision prevents the Commission from being involved in these particular matters, except by way of expedition. The Commission must act expeditiously. At present the Commission takes the attitude that an employer is not entitled to have the clause inserted in an award as of right. If that is the way the Commission interprets its powers, so be it; it has that power. At least it must now act as expeditiously as possible. The fundamental reason for this provision is that, if a person is not being employed, he should not have to be paid by the employer. The great, traditional trade unionists always understood that the trade unions developed in order to assist employees in certain circumstances where the employees were prepared to go on strike. They all have the right to strike but it is up to the union funds to provide financial assistance to those members who go on strike. That is why union dues are paid. Dues are not paid so that they can be sent off to some Labor party or to other political organisations. Dues are there to protect the employees. It is the union funds- the $ 18m or similar huge amounts that the largest unions in Australia have locked away, and one remembers the good legislation that the Government has introduced in regard to disclosure- which should be used to provide the wherewithal for employees who go out on strike, and not the employers funds or the profits that keep the business going and consequently provide employment, and not the taxpayers’ funds because it is the taxpayer who is the ultimate employer where the public sector is concerned.

Dealing particularly with the public sector, we have had some disgraceful examples in the past few years of three, four, five or a dozen members in some cases throwing the switch in a highly technologically oriented industry, and every one has to go out on strike because of these people. I really do feel sorry for the wives and dependants of workers who are dragged out on strike. Of course, in these circumstances where blackmail tactics are being used, they still retain their salary. That is not correct. I would like to see that they are not paid when out on strike, even if it is no fault of their own. Sometimes they do not want to strike but the union forces them to. It is still very important to maintain the principle of no work, no pay. I am quite certain that, if the vast majority of unionists have this point brought home to them instead of getting paid when they are on strike, as at present, they will take a new line. They will call the six or seven offending fellows around a corner and have a quiet word in their ear, and they will be back at work very soon.

Alternatively, the wives will be asking why they are on strike and not bringing home any money for the children or for running expenses. The wives will tell them to get back to work. The day has to come when we have to enfranchise wives into the union system. One day in this country wives will get a vote in union office elections so that they can come in and help kick out the left wing and communist leaders of the trade unions through the ballot box. Also, in those exceptional cases where there are secret ballots, wives should be included on issues so that they will have a fair say and will not be subject to this union blackmail. I commend the Government for clause 6.I would like to see it more strong. I believe honourable members should pass this clause, and I am sure the entire community would welcome it very strongly.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-Mr Giles, we have heard the voice of -

Motion ( by Mr Hodges) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses15 and 16- by leave- taken together.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– It is a great pity that those of us who serve in this Parliament have allowed it to degenerate into the worst Parliament since Federation. There is less debate now on the laws being made in this chamber than at any other time in the history of this country.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! I advise the honourable member to get on with the clause rather than to be provocative. I cannot protect the honourable member if he is going to be provocative.

Mr YOUNG:

– My remarks are relevant. We are passing very serious laws in this chamber. It is no wonder that people who have served in this chamber previously- the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), all of whom have been here for a long time- tell us that this is the worst Parliament for reviewing legislation that we have had in their lifetimes. That is true. It is a sad indictment on this Parliament.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– That procedures, such as those we have taken tonight, are adopted by the Parliament because the Government has the numbers.

Mr Neil:

-I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. My point of order is taken under Standing Order 75, which reads:

No member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament . . .

The words used by the honourable member for Port Adelaide are offensive against the House itself.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- There is no point of order. Will honourable members resume their seats. Before I call on the honourable member for Port Adelaide, I point out that when I ask him to resume his seat, I expect him to do so.

Mr YOUNG:

– In clauses 15 and 16 we are dealing with power which the Parliament is handing over to the Executive arm of government in this country and which is probably unconstitutional. It is not justified in any way by what the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has said. It has been criticised by such prominent people as Sir Richard Kirby. It is criticised by members of the Commission, by employers and by employee organisations. The vast majority of members of this Parliament do not have a clue what these clauses are all about. If the gag is moved in a few minutes’ time, those members will march in here to vote but they will not know what they are doing. In a couple of months’ time if the clauses we are now debating provoke a nationwide strike and Australia comes to a standstill because of actions taken by two or more Ministers acting with the GovernorGeneral in Executive Council, those honourable members will not know that they helped to pass the law which has been used to bring about that situation.

The Government says that it is not satisfied with the deregistration provisions as they now apply. As they now apply the deregistration provisions call for a full judicial review before a decision on deregistration can be made. In this circumstance I ask honourable members opposite to read clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill to see what powers they are going to give the Excutive arm of government in this country. Proposed new section 143a. reads:

  1. 1 ) Where, on application by the Minister,- so the Minister has the power in his own handsa Full Bench is satisfied that:

    1. an organization has been or is, or two or more members of an organization have been or are, engaged in industrial action; and
    2. the industrial action has had, is having, or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or of a part of the community, the Full Bench shall make a declaration that it is so satisfied and cause the declaration to be recorded in writing.

As honourable members from this side of the House said yesterday, there will be very little opportunity or flexibility allowed to the Commission to do other than to offer the declaration that was required by the Minister. The real catch of this clause is: What happens once the declaration is issued? Proposed new section 143a. (2) reads:

Where a declaration is made under sub-section ( I ) by a Full Bench in relation to an organization or members of an organization, the Governor-General may:

at any time within the period of 6 months after the making of the declaration, by order in writing under his hand, direct the Registrar to cancel the registration of the organization; or

at any time, or from time to time, within that period of 6 months, by order in writing, exercise any one or more of the following powers:

Here is the bonding that we are reintroducing into industrial relations. It is a bonding system between a very reactionary conservative government and the employee organisations of this country. The clause continues: the power to suspend, to the extent specified in the order, any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the organization or of all or any of its members, as such members, under this Act or any other Act or under awards or determinations under this Act or under any other Act; the power to give directions as to the exercise of any rights, privileges or capacities that have been so suspended;

A person may be democratically elected by any trade union, right wing, left wing, centre or whatever it may be, but the Government is giving itself the power over the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, over the judicial review of the deregistration processes which are now in order, to bring about total confrontation with the trade union movement in this country. The clause continues: the power to make provision for restricting the use of the funds or property of the organization or a branch of the organization and for the control of those funds or that property for the purpose of ensuring observance of the restrictions.

There can be no question that if this clause is not unconstitutional, certainly then it is inoperable. It will be unacceptable. Could honourable members imagine what would happen if a union with 100,000 members has half a dozen members take action in a locality over which the central office or the State branch has very little capacity to override what they do. A declaration is made by the Commission to say that the health, welfare or safety is affected. That is a very wide scope. We cannot get anything wider than that. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said yesterday: ‘Forget about the health and safety, just concentrate on welfare’. The interpretation of that is wide enough to see that the Commission must issue the declaration. Because of that action of a very small group out of a total membership of 100,000 or 150,000 members we find the Government giving itself the power to suspend a union offical, to freeze the union’s funds, to suspend any of its activities, virtually to tell that union under a bonding system that for six months there will be no industrial confrontation and virtually to tell the employers involved in that industry: ‘Take whatever action you like against these employees in this industry because if they take any action under the bond which we have set for their behaviour we are going to deregister them’.

Who is going to operate under these bad laws? That is why I say it is relevant to push home to honourable members opposite the point that we should take cognisance of the laws which we are making in this Parliament so that we do not collectively denigrate ourselves in the eyes of the people who have served in this Parliament previously. This Bill contains bad laws. We have seen bad laws fought over in the streets of Australia previously. We saw it when the Government in the 1960s said that it would conscript young people. It developed a bad law and the people beat that law, not in this Parliament but outside the Parliament. We denigrate ourselves by making laws which people defeat outside. We should conduct a debate in this House without restriction before we allow laws of this nature to go through the House. The fact that we restrict debate makes it even worse. We do not give ourselves in this House of Representatives the same period for a sophisticated debate on these laws that the Senate would give. We treat ourselves as a secondary partner on laws of this nature. One can rest assured that when this Bill goes to the Senate, the senators will spend more time debating it than we will be allowed to spend debating it in this chamber. I ask honourable members to look at the clause and the powers that two Ministers, acting with the GovernorGeneral, are going to try and enforce on the trade union movement.

I emphasise to members opposite, and quite proudly we should all say, that at least in this country we have a free trade union movement. We are not living in a totalitarian state. Overwhelmingly these unions subscribe to conciliation and arbitration. Overwhelmingly the people who operate in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have the respect of the people who operate from the employee and employer organisations. This law cuts across all that It will mean a loss of respect, not only for the Parliament because we have not understood fully the law that has been passed, but it will undermine the relationship between the Government and the trade union movement of this country. The Government would not dream of introducing, let alone implementing, laws of this nature against employer organisations. It shows its bias by the fact that the whole legislation is aimed at the trade union movement and not just, as the Minister or Government would have us believe, at one or two militant groups. How can any union keep control over its total membership?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I rise for two reasons. The first one is that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said I had made a comment that this was the worst Parliament I have been in. I have very great respect for the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I would not, under any circumstances, accuse him of lying. What I do say is that I have never used that expression. Therefore, if he is inventing this story, people can make up their own minds about what he said. I am glad he has coupled me with the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who is waddling along there in his old age, to his seat. I am glad he has got there. I am delighted he is able to make it. I did not think he would. I thought he was going to sit in the lap of my friend in the brown suit. I cannot remember his electorate or what he does. That is not the only reason I stand here. I stand here to teach these unfortunate creatures opposite a lesson. I think I ought to know more about this clause than anyone other than the honourable member for Hindmarsh because -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I think the right honourable member should not use the phrase ‘unfortunate creatures’. That does impute.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Do you not like that, sir?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No, I do not. I ask the right honourable member to continue his speech.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– They do not seem to care. If you ask me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Chairman, of course I will. I will do whatever you ask. I will always do so. The honourable member for Hindmarsh should know that in 1965 when I introduced the Bill relating to the deregistration of the waterfront unions, I put in a clause exactly identical with this clause. Not a word was changed. What happened? It remained on the statute books until 1977 when the Fraser Government repealed it. If members of the Opposition are sincere in what they are saying about this Bill, about its horrible effects, the dreadful things it will do, the way it can crucify men in this community of ours, why did they not repeal it when they were in office between 1973 and 1975? Was the honourable member for Port Adelaide too innocent to know what it was all about? In any event the Opposition had the honourable member for Hindmarsh. He knew every word of it. The honourable member for Port Adelaide asked whether or not it was constitutional. I use these words with bated breath but, in fact, I got the former Governor-General who was a very talented lawyer- he was then John Kerr, Q.C.- and another very eminent Queen’s Counsel to draft this section of the law for me. They did and it is on record.

Mr Young:

– Do you mean he has always been a crook?

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member can go on if he likes. He hates the truth and I can understand his squirming anguish. Nonetheless the honourable member spoke about constitutionality. What would he know about constitutionality? Has he had any constitutional experience? Was he ever trained in the law? I want to tell honourable members that there was one clause in it that restricted the powers that could be exercised. It was deliberately designed by two very talented lawyers, to ensure that it restricted itself to matters concerned with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and its jurisdiction. Mr Justice Kirby, I cannot remember whether he is a knight or not -

Mr Young:

– He is.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Well, I give him the credit for being a knight, but if he likes to have a look at the clause in question and cares to ring me, I will show him quite clearly how it is constitutional. It has been constitutional since 1965. We again were going to introduce a similar Bill in 1972 and the trade unions decided not to proceed with their tactics. I agreed that the Parliament should be called together in order to ensure that a Bill containing similar clauses to these would be introduced, but the trade union movement did not care to stand up to the fight. So there it is.

All I can say is that the Opposition members obviously are not sincere. If they are trying to give the appearance of sincerity they have no historical knowledge. Had they looked up the law or sought some advice from the Parliamentary Library they would not have made themselves appear- I will not use the word ‘fools’- to be totally devoid of knowledge of constitutional law and totally devoid of any knowledge of what was done in 1965 relating to deregistration of unions. They would not have been totally devoid of knowledge of the fact that they continued the 1965 deregistration legislation on the statute books and, therefore, they believed that on occasions they might have to act on the law that I introduced in 1965. I thank you, sir, for your indulgence.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would not have risen but for the untrue remarks made by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). It is sad to see the performance we have just seen from a former Prime Minister of this country, a member of the Privy Council, a man who has distinguished himself for having a very fine memory. Books have been written about his memory, but tonight we find that the memory has decayed. It is either that or he is lying in this Parliament.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member will use parliamentary language.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was about to say that in this Parliament we do not say that people lie, because parliamentarians do not lie.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I take a point of order. I ask that that word be withdrawn. I can understand the honourable gentleman becoming emotional about what I said concerning his abilities. All I ask is that the word be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I understand the point. I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh to withdraw that remark.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Certainly. The right honourable gentleman is wide of the mark when he says that a section was written into the Act in respect of the registration in identical terms to the clause about which we are now talking. I am sorry to say to my right honourable friend that that never happened. No such section was ever put into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I will keep talking until the right honourable gentleman can find the previous volume of 1964 and produce it. If he can produce it, I am prepared to wager my cattle station against his that no such provision was ever put into the Act. Mr McMahon, one of the advisers who is talking to Sir William McMahon now, will tell him that I am correct.

This Bill is proposing to do the very things which Sir Robert Menzies failed to do in 1951, when he sought to amend the Constitution by writing into it every single section of the Communist Party Dissolution Act. Sir Robert Menzies tried to discover a way of altering the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to give him the power to prevent communist union officials from holding office, and to prevent people who were declared by the Minister to be supporters of Marx and Lenin from holding office. The Act was even wider. It said that any person who supported any of the principles or teachings of Marx or Lenin would be ineligible to hold office in any trade union. Sir Robert Menzies tried unsuccessfully to find a way to achieve those ends constitutionally by means of an alteration to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. He discovered ultimately that it could not be done constitutionally. He was then forced to bring in the Communist Party Dissolution BUI, which was passed and declared unlawful by the High Court of this country.

This Bill is an attempt to do the thing which Sir Robert Menzies was told he could not do. Under this Bill, once a certificate is issued by the Conciliation Commission to the effect that there is a stoppage of work in a particular union which affects the welfare of the community, the Minister will have the right to declare that particular members of that union shall not be eligible to continue to hold office, or that particular members of the union shall not be eligible to contest a ballot for office, or that particular members of a union may not be eligible to record a vote in an election for union officials, or that a particular member or members shall be prohibited from attending a union meeting, voting at a union meeting or attending a meeting of workers on a particular job.

All of the things that Sir Robert Menzies was told he could not do in 1951 when he sought to achieve this very thing by means of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the advisers to the Government are now saying are possible. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the Government will find that it will be impossible to do these things because the High Court will have to be consistent. I hope that the High Court does say that it is possible to do all of these things. That will leave this Parliament in complete control of the conciliation and arbitration procedures. We will then be able to do that which every State Parliament can do. If we are given the power to do these things the Parliament can fix the minimum wage, the number of weeks leave that employees will be entitled to have on full pay each year, and the period of long service leave we give to our employees.

Once we start fighting elections on the basis of people voting for the party that is prepared to use the powers of Parliament to increase wages and to reduce the hours of work, I know which party I would like to have my money on. There is the party that is advocating a reduction of hours so that everybody can get a job, or there is the party that says: ‘We are going to increase hours and continue to reduce the living standards’. That is the reason why the founding fathers did not want the national Parliament to have the power to legislate directly over wages and working conditions. They did not want to have to fight federal elections on the issue of wages; on the bread and butter issues. They did not want to have to say: ‘We are against the Labor Party’s proposal for an increase in wages, a reduction in working hours, an increase in sick leave, and an increase in long service leave. Our Party stands for increased hours and for reduced wages. When we get into government we will bring in an Act to do those very things’. That is what all this will lead to and I hope that the High Court does hold that this Parliament has those powers.

Whilst the Government would have the temporary right to do all of these evil things, it would be only a temporary right, because as soon as it exercised its right in that way it would lose the next election. I would like to see elections fought on bread and butter issues. The trouble with elections today is that they are fought on abstract issues such as foreign affairs and all kinds of other issues that do not directly affect the hip pocket nerve. But if we can have the Parliament doing the things I have mentioned I believe the Liberals would realise that they would be out of government for all time.

I conclude by again challenging the right honourable member for Lowe to stand up here and produce any Act of this Parliament, whether it be the 1964 amendment which he talked about, which is in identical terms with the clause with which we are now dealing- an Act giving the Minister the right to do all of the things set out in the Bill.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-Clause 16, which relates to the deregistration of unions, is a very sensible attempt to introduce more flexibility into industrial relations. The clause refers to section 143 of the principal Act. This has rarely required alteration by governments of either party over a number of years up to the present time. But alas, threats of industrial militancy are now such that the Government has no choice but to act in this way providing an alternative route in seeking deregistration of unions. Of course this is a most serious matter. The Government has proceeded very responsibly. The Government certainly cannot be accused of heavy handedness regarding this proposal. Despite this, the Opposition this evening has been strongly opposed to this most reasonable initiative. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) accused the Government of taking away from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission its traditional role and of giving itself the power, behind the cloak of the Governor-General and the Executive Council, to determine the question of deregistration of unions. He also claimed that under this clause the Government can lay down the standards for the operation and behaviour of trade unions.

Such a view is not justified by the provisions of clause 16 or by the comments of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). Therefore it is important that we ask ourselves why the Labor Party is so vehemently opposed to this clause. Of course, the answer lies in the increasing power of the militant extremists of the Left in the trade union movement. This is in turn reflected in their growing influence over the Labor Party. It should be noted that this is happening despite a widening gulf between the attitudes of the militant union leaders and the grass roots union membership. In opposing this clause members of the Opposition confirm their position as spokesmen for the militant Left. We need to remember the long historical ties between the Labor Party and the trade union movement and especially between the party and the trade union leadership. The very origin of the Labor Party goes back to when the trade union movement decided to achieve through Parliament what it could not get through industrial force. That is exactly what it is trying to achieve by opposing this clause this evening. There has always been a close interrelationship between the two. Their organisational links are intimate. Thus when the trade union movement becomes more extreme inevitably so does the Labor Party. It is little wonder that they do not like clause 16 of this legislation.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Chairman. The comments of the honourable gentleman might have been appropriate at the second reading stage but having regard to the details of the clause I suggest that most of his comments are irrelevant.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -There is no substance to the point of order. It has been a free-ranging discussion until now.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Thank you. We should remember the voting power that the trade unions have directly in the Labor Party machine, their direct control over party office bearers and over party parliamentary pre-selections. That ought to be remembered in the context of this particular clause.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise the same point of order as that raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. We are in Committee. We are supposed to be debating the contents of clauses. The clauses under consideration make no mention of the Labor Party. They are about a particular matter- the deregistration of unions. They have nothing to do with the history or the latter-day attitude of the Labor Party.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Whilst the debate has been basically free-ranging I remind the honourable member for Kingston that we are debating clauses IS and 16.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I accept the point that we are debating those clauses but it is important for us in this debate to establish why the Labor Party is so strongly opposed to those clauses. The reason is the direct link between the Labor Party and the trade union movement which has expressed opposition to these clauses. The voters, particularly in South Australia, are very much aware of the attempts of the Trades Hall to foist left wing union candidates into safe Labor seats at both State and Federal levels. Sometimes the electors in even safe Labor seats have revolted against this as we saw-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Again I remind the honourable member for Kingston to make his remarks relevant to the clauses under consideration.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– My remarks will certainly remain relevant. We saw this in Semaphore recently where Mr Apap, who was particularly opposed to this sort of legislation, was defeated by an independent Labor candidate.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I again raise the point of order. These clauses are not about elections in South Australia or anywhere else. They are about the deregistration of unions. The honourable member did not participate in the second reading debate and he is now reading the speech that he had prepared for that debate. This is a Committee debate, not a second reading debate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The point of order of the honourable member for Burke is upheld. I once again remind the honourable member for Kingston that we are debating clauses15 and 16.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– The importance of clause 16 is emphasised in the case of the Master Builders Association -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What has that got to do with the clause?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The Chair has listened to the points of order raised by the honourable member and they have been upheld.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– On each occasion I had to call you three times before you heard me.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Burke has been on his feet twice. I upheld his points of order.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Clause 16 has particular relevance to the application of the Master Builders Association of New South Wales for the deregistration of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation in the Australian Industrial Court. I think we ought to recall the way in which Mr Justice Smithers summarised the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation at that time. He said in his judgment:

  1. . it is apparent that the executive officers of the union have endeavoured to establish an unreasonable domination of employers and indeed of employees by intimidatory actions, arrogant, vulgar, and insulting communications, mass violence to property, and menaces, sometimes in mass, and sometimes terrifying to persons . . . it is as though the Federation converts the expression ‘ Have gun will travel ‘ to ‘ Have power will ban ‘.

Despite that it was very difficult for that union to be deregistered. That is why it is important that these clauses are passed in this Committee stage. The importance is emphasised by the link between the Labor Party and the trade union movement. They are inextricable.

Motion ( by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no point of order.

Question put:

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 66

NOES: 30

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to use the opportunity presented by clause 17 to point out the deep concern of all members of the Opposition at the cavalier way in which the Government has chosen to treat this Parliament by gagging this legislation, legislation which affects the rights of some two and a half million people, legislation which dramatically alters the basic fabric of the Act dealing with conciliation and arbitration and the settlement of industrial disputes.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. Clause 17 amends the principal Act as set out in the Schedule. It relates to consequential amendments. It only changes the numbers of various sub-sections. For example, it omits sections 34 or 35 and substitutes proposed new section 34. The intention of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to attack the Government for its handling of the debate is nothing more than a sham and is totally irrelevant.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond)- Order! To date, in the Committee stage of this Bill there has been a fairly wide ranging discussion on all points. I believe that if every honourable member in the chamber were to show a little tolerance, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports would quickly get to the substance of what he was endeavouring to say in relation to the rest of the Bill. However, the point of order raised by the honourable member for St George does have some relevance.

Mr HOLDING:

– The basis of my argument that the consequential amendments which are based upon the principles which the Government has adopted should not be passed is that I believe the principles which are contained in the Bill should not be adopted. That is the thrust of the argument I desire to put forward. In doing so, I condemn this Government for its blatant interference with the rights of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I condemn the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) who, right throughout the consideration of this Bill in its Committee stage, has chosen to rise only once to explain amendments and to answer criticisms made by members of the Opposition. This legislation affects the rights of some two and a half million people.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. I ask that the level of conversation in the chamber be lowered. I will ask individual members to cease talking in a moment.

Mr HOLDING:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I am not surprised that you have to ask for order because the whole attitude of the Government to this Bill has been largely to ignore the debate and the arguments. The Minister has sat silent while we have been subjected to periods of abuse by honourable members on the other side of the chamber whose only arguments have been to condemn, to malign and to bash wherever possible the trade union movement and members of the trade union movement. The bully boys of the Liberal Party are so used to dealing with wheelers and dealers, tuppenny crooks and spielers, that the gag has become second nature because they do not want to use the democratic processes of this Parliament.

Question (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 65

NOES: 30

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. ( The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond )

AYES: 66

NOES: 30

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I seek leave to move the third reading forthwith.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– I wish to raise some matters concerning this debate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. He is not entitled to address the House. Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay.

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 30

Majority…… 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I thought that the Minister would have been anxious to give some explanation -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 30

Majority…….. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 67

NOES: 30

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1878

ADJOURNMENT

East Timor- Aid to Kampuchea-Water Supply to Spencer Gulf Towns

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being after 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-This afternoon honourable members from both sides of the House called for assistance to Kampuchea. I think that that is to be commended. Not only should aid be given to Kampuchea, but I believe aid should be given to Vietnam because we have to keep under consideration those people who suffered for so long in that area. At this stage we have to be concerned about people, and not so much about governments. I want to draw attention to the gravity of the situation in East Timor, a country on our own doorstep and whose people fought so bravely and stood by us during the years 1941 to 1945. They were people left alone to defend themselves against the brutal Indonesian invasion in which Australia had complicity.

According to a variety of informed sourcesnone of them associated with Fretilin- a large section of the population of East Timor is in such a desperate plight that between 20,000 and 40,000 Timorese people will die, even with new relief coming from the recently announced joint International Red Cross-Indonesian Red Cross mission. In the district of Ermera it has been estimated that 300 Timorese are dying each month. In ten or more centres, some 75,000 people are identified as being in desperate straits. Most of these people will die unless immediate assistance is give. Twenty thousand will die even if immediate assistance is given, according to medical officials. The Indonesian church has documented the population change in East Timor since the Indonesian invasion. In 1974, the population was 688,771. At the end of 1978, the population had declined to 329,271. The population has been more than halved; over 350,000 people have died. The Foreign Affairs Research Group of the Parliamentary Library has analysed the continuing reports from East Timor over the past three years. That group states:

It seems beyond doubt that most of the deaths since December 1975 and the present poor physical condition of the Timorese are the grim consequences of the deliberate Indonesian strategies designed to starve Fretilin and its supporters into surrender.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the report of the Foreign Affairs Research Group of the Parliamentary Library.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

East Timor- Notes on the humanitarian situation

Although there continues to be a lack of detailed information on the situation in East Timor, a steady flow of reports from diverse sources- Indonesian as well as nonIndonesian offers further evidence that the Timorese people have suffered terribly as a direct or indirect result of Indonesia’s intervention, and that many thousands continue to be at risk. Indeed, according to a fell-informed source, large sections of the population are in such a desperate plight, that, in spite of the fact that armed resistance to Indonesian forces no longer presents a serious impediment to relief operations, a further 20-40,000 Timorese will die, even with new relief coming from the recently-announced joint International Red Cross/Indonesian Red Cross mission. Information from a variety of sources (and none of them linked with Fretilin) supports the view that, although the military resistance might well be almost over, the vast majority of the Timorese people, including most of those who were initially not averse to the idea of ‘integration’, would favour an alternative to Indonesian rule if the options were presented to them.

In the unfolding of the grim human dramas in Indochina, reports on the situation in East Timor have barely rated a passing interest. While it is clear that the humanitarian consequences of Indonesia’s ‘integration’ of the former Portuguese province might seem comparatively small in absolute terms, in relative terms the dimensions of the Timor tragedy, based on a wide range of experienced, wellinformed and impartial sources, appear difficult to surpass.

Indeed, one particularly disturbing aspect of the Timor situation is the persistant refusal of those countries that normally champion human rights to examine, let alone accept, the steady flow of evidence that a tragedy of far greater proportions that was at first believed has been endured by the inhabitants of an island only 350 miles from Australia. Thus no single nation has sought to bring any significant pressure to bear on Indonesia, the power largely responsible for what must be one of the most flagrant denials of human rights in the history of modern decolonization.

It is true that, in a recent statement by Mr Peacock announcing a further $200,000 of aid for East Timor, the Government acknowledged its recognition of the ‘genuine humanitarian problem which exists in East Timor’. But it seems that the present level of relief, not to speak of the low level of interest in the human rights situation, does not match the magnitude of the problem. The attention the world has given to the Timor problem stands in conspicuous contrast to the interest evoked by the humanitarian situation in Indochina, which deservedly has become a focus of international concern, of all kinds of assistance, and of diplomatic activity by a large number of countries, both Western and Third World. In recent times abuses of human rights in relatively distant Uganda, Eritrea and the Central African Empire have been more extensively reported and responded to in the Australian press than reports at least as credible, that have come out of East Timor. Perhaps the most disturbing dimension of the Timor tragedy is that none of those countries who are in a position to exert some influence on Indonesia, has shown other than a sceptical and passive interest in reports of this disturbing contravention of human rights.

During the past 12 months press reports about East Timor have been few, but a number of interesting and credible accounts from private sources have been studied in the preparation of this paper. Most informants have sought assurances that their identities not be disclosed, reflecting their fears of possible reprisals involving relatives or the Timorese community in general. In the circumstances, it is not possible in a paper of this kind to document sources other than in a general way. From the continuing reports of maltreatment of the Timorese population by Indonesian authorities and the obstruction of the family reunion programme, the fears expressed by the Timorese appear to be justified. It is clear that a comprehensive and more widely acceptable account of what has happened in East Timor during the past three and a half years cannot be completed without the constituting of an enquiry of some kind with facilities to research and process the information available, as well as means to safeguard the identities of those prepared to supply it.

Reports from Indonesian sources and foreign visitors

Of course not all reports about East Timor are critical of Indonesia’s role and behaviour in the ‘integration’ process. Indonesian officials and the Jakarta press consistently report that resistance to integration no longer exists and that the Timorese are now concentrating on the tasks of reconstruction and development. Earlier this year East Timor was visited by a group of provincial governors, at least some of whom were obviously taken aback by Timor’s desperate need for development assistance in one form or another, and some donations from provincial budgets were subsequently made. In March this year the annual meeting of military commanders (the Commander’s Call) was held at Dili (the first time this meeting has been held outside Java) and the press dutifully reported favourably on conditions in the former Portuguese colony.

It is evident that the Indonesian authorities have launched a number of development projects, although some of them seem to be more related to military and security needs than to the immediate needs of the people. One area of emphasis is the teaching of Indonesian. According to a recent article in Kompas’, there are now about nearly 200 Indonesian teachers in East Timor whose main task is to spread the knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia as quickly as possible. Extensive road repair and construction is also reportedly being carried out, mainly by Zikon (construction engineer) troops. But some of the projects, such as the traffic lights for Dili and consignments of colour television sets from Pertamina, seem designed more to serve the needs of the Indonesians than the basic survival requirements of the Timorese. There is no reason to doubt, as some travellers report, that at least on the surface, life appears to be returning to normal in the main towns. On the other hand, only some 5 per cent of the population is to be found in the main towns of East Timor. Most of the few foreign visitors to Dili seem to have been unduly influenced by the relative calm of the capital which, in some cases, seems to have distorted assessments of the overall situation, perhaps reflecting an ignorance of what Timor was like before the Indonesians invaded the territory and of the true course of events during the past 4 years. It seems that the few visitors to the territory have had only fleeting and controlled contact with the fringe of the Timorese population most of whom are now reportedly located in a number of displaced persons camps, some of which were initially based on the ‘strategic hamlets’ set up by the Americans in Vietnam. Thus there has been a tendency among the few foreign visitors to Dili to accept the Indonesian explanation that the ‘displaced persons’ are Timorese who ran into the mountains with Fretilin where they were held against their will, and that they subsequently responded to President Suharto’s offer of an amnesty and reported to receiving centres for registration and relief. It is often overlooked that it was the harsh treatment of the population by the invading forces, plus opposition to ‘integration ‘, that prompted many of the Timorese to seek refuge in the mountains in the first place. From an analysis of numerous reports from East Timor over the past 3 years it seems beyond doubt that most of the deaths since December 1975, and the present poor physical condition of the Timorese, are the grim consequences of the deliberate Indonesian strategy designed to starve Fretilin and its supporters into surrender. As one of the more perceptive observers put it: ‘The Indonesians tried to starve Fretilin into submission, and in the process succeeded in starving tens of thousands of Timorese to death’.

Reports from non-Indonesian sources

Nearly all of the many reports from non-Indonesian sources paint a grim picture of the humanitarian situation in the territory. They differ substantially from the reports of such sources as the representative of the New Zealand Red Cross and, for that matter, the occasional comments that come from Australian officials, but, in the writer’s opinion, most of the latter observations less accurately and frankly reflect the real situation in East Timor. In fairness to officials, given the present sensitive character of AustralianIndonesian relations, observations critical of Indonesia’s performance in the territory would present obvious difficulties. One of the most interesting and intriguing accounts is a report which was compiled by Indonesian Church officials who spent some time in Timor in the early part of this year. We have also received a detailed interview of Father de Rego, a Portuguese priest, who was repatriated to Portugal in July this year, after having spent the past 4 years or so in mountain areas. Information has also come from many Timorese sources, none of whom are members of the Fertilin movement. Unfortunately, for reasons mentioned earlier in this paper, their identities cannot be divulged in a paper of this kind. Some of the sources, on which this account of the situation is based, among them the Indonesian Church officials and the Portuguese priest, are experienced, wellinformed, and politically impartial observers, whose observations are of great value. The Portuguese priest and some other Timorese sources would, I believe, be prepared to make themselves available for further questioning.

The report from Indonesian Church sources is the first document to contain demographic information on the effect of the fighting on East Timor’s population. It notes that the population of 688,771, which was recorded by the Diocese of Dili in 1974 had declined to 329,271 at the end of 1978, based on an assessment completed at that time by the Indonesian Defence and Security Authorities responsible for East Timor. This assessment shows a slight increase in the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants- for Catholics an increase from 220,314 in 1974 to 255,417 at the end of 1978, and for Protestants an increase from 2,550 to 4,354 during the same period. The population count of animists, on the other hand, indicates a drastic decline- from 460, 1 12 in 1974 to 68,839 at the end of 1978. At first glance it is tempting to conclude that an increase in the number of Christians could not be reconciled with such a drastic fall in the total population of the territory. However, this change in the pattern of religious adherence is in fact consistent with reports from Church sources that the horrors of the past three and a half years led to tens of thousands of Timorese turning to the Church for salvation. A similar upsurge in baptisms occurred during the Japanese occupation, and during other upheavals in the past two centuries. Under the Portuguese, the Church constituted a kind of buffer between the colonial administration and the ordinary people, to whom it offered some sanctuary in times of crisis.

A further explanation of this catastrophic decline in animist population since 1 974 is the fact that this group, who make up the more primitive inhabitants of Timor, most of them residing in small mountain hamlets, suffered heavily from the Indonesian military operations, particularly the bombing raids to which their tinder-dry palapa and bamboo houses were so vulnerable. But the major cause of death was starvation and disease, because this element of East Timor’s population, as in the case of adjacent Indonesian communities, suffers from endemic malnutrition. These people form the majority of the victims of Indonesia ‘s policy of isolating the Timorese (who were without doctors and had few medicines) and starving them into submission. Finally, thousands were to die of starvation and disease in the ‘strategic hamlets’ where the Indonesian authorities failed to provide adequate food supplies and urgently needed medical treatment. It might well be that the Indonesian military authorities have underestimated the Timorese population in areas where Fretilin remnants are still active, but, in view of the small size of the country, such an oversight could not be expected to exceed 50,000 people.

The authors of this report are not the only ones to refer to a sharp decline in East Timor’s population. A sensitivelyplaced Indonesian official spoke frankly about the Timor affair to U.N. officials in December last year and confided that the military authorities had spoken of a population assessment of ‘about 400,000 Timorese’. The Portuguese priest, Father de Rego, has made some interesting comments on this subject. The priest stated that about one-third of the population perished in the Laclubar/Turiscai district in which he spent most of the past three years.

The Indonesian authorities themselves have made few comments on the loss of life in East Timor. One rather facile comment was made in an interview reported in The Sydney Morning Herald on 10 September. In this article Jusuf Wanandi (a member of Indonesia’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies) claimed that only between 10 and 15 thousand Timorese had died over the past four years. The stated basis for his reckoning was that a recent Indonesian census had revealed that the Territory’s population was 15,000 less than the figure of 650,000 in 1974 according to the Portuguese census of that year (in fact no Portuguese census was taken at that time). The journalists who conducted the interview did not take up Wanandi on his crude arithmetic, but, even if these figures had been correct, the Indonesians had overlooked the fact that the population, following the demographic pattern, would have grown at the rate of about 1.8 per cent, leaving another 50,000 people unaccounted for!

The report from Church sources recorded some examples of population decline. It noted, for example, that the former mountain tourist centre of Maubisse had recorded a population of 9,607 in 1976, but by 1979 the figure hade declined to 4,586. But perhaps of greater relevance to the present paper are the report’s comments on the continuing, in some places accelerating, high death rate. For example, it noted that the head of one district reported that 164 of his people died during 1978, but 120 had died between January and March in 1979. The report concluded that ‘an increasing death toll seems to be a general phenomenon all over the villages in East Timor’.

In reference to the once prosperous coffee district of Ermera, the report states: “in Ermera, the densely populated capital of a coffee producing district where the ‘refugees’ coming back from the mountains were held, the death toll was so high that the people started to use the expression: ‘the more refugees, the more corpses’ “. It noted that 300 Timorese were said to die each month at this particular refugee camp. The continuing high death rate in the mountains is a subject of almost every report coming out of Timor. A recent report from an aid source stated that in ten or so centres some 75,000 people were in desperate straits. The aid official observed that 20,000 of the inmates were in a hopeless condition and would die, even if assistance came at once. Of the remainder, most would perish unless assistance was received as a matter of urgency.

The Indonesian Church Report and reports from other Church officials in East Timor make it clear that the various Indonesian authorities concerned with relief, including the Indonesian Red Cross, have failed to provide relief appropriate to the magnitude of the humanitarian situation in East Timor. In the first place, it is clear that the death toll continues to be extremely high, in spite of the fact that in most areas relief operations are no longer hampered by war conditions or insecurity. The Church Report noted that in spite of the Government subsidy of $US5 million and the availability of supplies in Dili, the ‘Indonesian Red Cross is unable to carry out an efficient program. Lack of transportation is the big bottle-neck. Unfortunately supplies stored in the godown of Dili promote manipulation, black market and the like. Medicines are sold in the shops for prices only very few can afford to pay’. The Report mentioned, as an example, the medical centre at a major refugee camp near Maubisse, which was almost without supplies, its main items being ‘300 pills of chloroquine tablets and 5 metres of band aid’. It was also reported that in March 1979 some 6,000 people in the same area waited for food for some five weeks and then received only five tonnes of corn. The report declared that; providing aid in small quantities and with long delays impresses as an irony. No wonder that people started complaining that the Indonesian authorities want them to die off by hunger and disease’. The same story of maladministration and corruption in the distribution of aid comes from many other sources, among them letters from East Timor and from others who have managed to leave the territory. The former Bishop of Timor, Bishop Ribeiro, who is now in Portugal was in the past often critical of the humanitarian relief arrangements organised by the Indonesian occupying authorities. But efforts to arrange for relief supplies to be channelled through the more efficient Church organizations have met with opposition from the Indonesian military who are apparently anxious that this assistance should be identified as originating from Indonesian rather than Church sources.

A Report published by the Austraiian Council for Overseas Aid in July this year, also drew attention to the complete inadequacy of the basic relief arrangements for the vast number of displaced persons in East Timor. Some of the material on which the ACFOA Report is based has also been referred to in the preparation of this paper, but almost all reports from non-Indonesian sources contain similar criticisms. Nearly all of these reports reinforce the conclusion that Indonesia ‘s forced integration of East Timor has been devastating in terms of loss of life and other forms of human suffering, and that the Indonesian authorities, including the Indonesian Red Cross, have not been able to cope with its devastating humanitarian consequences.

The comments of Father de Rego who left Timor in June this year, provide a unique insight into the situation behind Fretilin lines in the three years after the Indonesian invasion. He said that hunger first became serious towards the end of 1 977, when the Indonesian armed forces intensified their operations against Fretilin. He reported that the Indonesian search and destroy’ operations forced the Timorese to flee from one area to another and thus food production behind Fretelin lines virtually came to an end. The Indonesian military authorities then began to force the Timorese into the centres based on the American ‘strategic hamlets’. But based on the evidence accumulated over the past 12 months, it is evident that the Indonesian authorities were unable to provide the basic food and medical needs of these hamlets which soon became centres of disease and death. In one or two of the hamlets (which are now known as centres for displaced persons) some attempts were made to improve living conditions, and the few foreign visitors to East Timor appear to have been directed to these centres, hence the favourable comments by some of them on Indonesia’s efforts to deal with the starving population of East Timor. Some foreign aid officials have also praised the local authorities for the arrangements they witnessed during their brief visits to the territory, but the visitors appear not to have witnessed the actual distribution of supplies in the areas most desperately in need.

There have been many reports on other aspects of the treatment of the Timorese population by Indonesian authorities. These included, during the past six months or so, several accounts of executions of surrendered Fretilin soldiers, reportedly by firing squads. According to one report, a party of some 200 soldiers were said to have been executed in the Baucau area. Other sources claim that many of the Fretilin soldiers and other persons have just disappeared. According to a letter in July this year; ‘many widows of the recently disappeared walk around in a very disturbed state, as though as skeletons’. There have been some six separate accounts of bizarre executions of captured Fretilin leaders, possibly including Alarico Fernandes, the former Fretilin Minister for Information and Internal Security, who surrendered to the Indonesians some 1 2 months ago. These sources claim that a number of captured Fretilin leaders were taken up in helicopters and then hurled to their deaths during flight. At least one of these reports comes from a member of 744 Battalion, a recently formed unit of Timorese troops, but officered by Indonesians. A letter from Timor five weeks ago reported the execution of the Lobato family, the father being a male nurse and the mother a former member of the Portuguese Red Cross. The children ranged between 12 and 18 years of age. There have been many reports that a large number of Timorese are incarcerated in prisons in various parts of East Timor, contradicting an official Indonesian denial that there are any prisoners at all. According to one source, there are in fact some 40 prisons throughout the territory. Father de Rego spent some time in a prison in Baucau, where he was interrogated, and which he said he shared with hundreds of East Timorese. There have also been several references to the use of a warehouse in Dili and an old walled cemetery for prisoners said to be of a political kind. Reports from Indonesia suggest that the authorities in East Timor have so far refused to allow the International Red Cross officials to examine this particular question.

In a sense, there is a suppressed refugee problem in East Timor. If the country had shared a common border with a third power Australia would have been drawn into a massive refugee problem on its own doorstep. Tens of thousands of Timorese would leave for Portugal, Australia or any other place if they were able to do so. It is clear that the Indonesian authorities are determined to prevent the kind of exodus that would attract international attention, and would lead to an undermining of the credibility of Jakarta’s version of the integration process, not to speak of other aspects of life under Indonesian rule. Thus, the family reunion program involving those Timorese with relatives in Australia is proceeding at a very slow pace. Only one or two full-blooded Timorese are among the 260 who have been permitted to leave the territory. The remainder are mostly Chinese or ‘mestico’ Chinese, many of whom appear to have bought their way out. Most of the ethnic Timorese whose relatives fled to Australia in August 197S, were UDT officials who have become increasingly frustrated and critical of Indonesia’s performance in East Timor. The fact that they know a great deal about the true situation, and are in a position to reveal that integration ‘ was very far from an act of free choice seems to be the main obstacle to their release. It might well be that the Indonesian authorities will not allow these officials to rejoin their families while there is some risk of a revival of interest in the fate of this unfortunate territory. According to recent reports from Timor those who have sought permission, via the ICRC, to leave the territory have found themselves being discriminated against in terms of food rations and employment. Meanwhile, the hopes of the Timorese women in Australia, some of whom are living in difficult circumstances, that they will ever be reunited with their husbands, are beginning to fade.

The re-admission of the International Red Cross to East Timor is an encouraging development but the effectiveness of the present arrangement, which involves a joint operation with the Indonesian Red Cross might well be affected by the fact that the ICR component is very small- I understand that there are less than half a dozen ICR officials as against 70 or so representatives from the Indonesian side. There are also indications that the team might not be granted access to areas such as Ermera, where the humanitarian situation has been very grim, and continues to be serious. Another important question is whether the International Red Cross officials will be permitted to probe into the sensitive areas of family reunion, tracing and the question of political prisoners, traditional functions of the organisation. Whatever the dedication of the ICR officials and their Indonesian colleagues there is mounting evidence that the Timor tragedy is of far greater magnitude and seriousness than most observers have hitherto been prepared to concede, and therefore the situationmight well call for much greater effort than the present mission will be in a position to mount.

This paper represents an attempt to survey and analyse the present situation in East Timor and recent developments, from a humanitarian rather than a political viewpoint. Although it is based on a careful study of the many reports that have come to the writer’s attention during the past 12 months, there are obvious difficulties in verifying the facts of the situation in East Timor. Nevertheless, there is an unmistakable pattern of continuity and corroboration in nearly all of the hundreds of accounts that have come out from East Timor in one form or another since the attack on Dili in

December 197S. Based on this particular study, it is difficult not to conclude that the dimensions of the Timor tragedy are far more serious than even concerned observers of the situation have so far been prepared to concede. It is particularly disturbing that Indonesia’s efforts at humanitarian relief seem to have proceeded in marked contrast to the intensity of her military operations. The world ‘s conscience has been appropriately shocked by the ordeals of the ‘Boat People’, and by the reports of enormous loss of life and suffering in Kampuchea, yet scant attention has been given to the humanitarian consequences of Indonesia’s forced integration of East Timor which seems to be assuming the proportions of genocide. The case of East Timor presents, in relative terms, the most serious case of abuse of human rights, not to mention the right of self-determination, ever to have been inflicted ona people, in the crude guise of integration.

Mr UREN:

– Australia has had complicity in the tragedy of East Timor, having condoned the brutal Indonesian invasion and having recognised the forceful annexation of East Timor into Indonesia, in spite of the outcries from other countries about the atrocities committed at the hands of the Indonesian generals. Frankly, Australia’s role in the war against East Timor has been irresponsible and, in many respects, very cowardly. In terms of long term stability in the Pacific region, the Indonesian aggression is extremely dangerous. The failure of the Australian Government to use its leverage over the Indonesian Government to prevent the forceful takeover of East Timor, its keeping quiet about the continuing atrocities and even recognising the Indonesian annexation have endangered the balance of forces in the region.

Australia has sold out its long term friendship with the people of East Timor and has acted to prevent those people from achieving selfdetermination and independence. The human tragedy of East Timor at least requires immediate and substantial relief aid to the thousands of starving people. The tragedy of East Timor is no less profound than the tragedy of Indo-China. East Timor, which is so close to our doorstep, stood by us for many years. It stood by our servicemen and protected our servicemen. In fact, during the Second World War over 60,000 East Timorese died both directly and indirectly from the Japanese occupation of that country, but only 35,000 Australians died in all theatres of war. So we know about the suffering and tragedy of and the debt that we owe to the Timorese people. I feel that Australia has deserted them and the tragedy is going on. I believe there should be an outcry made in Australia about the great tragedy in that country.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-This afternoon the Parliament debated the following as a matter of public importance:

The urgent need for Government support of international initiatives for the provision of humanitarian aid to the war and famine sticken people of Kampuchea.

I regret that I was unable to participate in that debate, but I do not want to let this day pass without my making some comment on this very tragic subject. We have a situation where the callous regimes of this area continue to permit the massive genocide of their people. China and the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam and its puppet regime in Kampuchea have been prepared to allow their political differences to permit the sacrifice already of thousands of innocent citizens. On the admission of the Government of Kampuchea there is the imminent death by starvation of at least two million men, women and children. I am amazed that the international community has seen fit to indulge in diplomatic haggling while millions are dying. Government officials of all countries knew at the beginning of this year that the crops had not been planted in Kampuchea. Everyone knew that there would be famine. Therefore, it should have been possible to give long and detailed consideration to the ways and means of distributing food and medical supplies to these people in a way which could have overcome these diplomatic niceties at a much earlier stage.

All of a sudden, there is a crisis where the entire population of a country may be wiped out because the great national and international governments and agencies were more concerned about diplomacies than the sanctity of human life. If we have left it too late to help these people then this period of the 20th century will forever be a blot on the conscience of us all. It is a shame that the goodwill of so many nations which is now being exhibited was not displayed much earlier. I do not care about the butcher leaders of these countries. I think it is a shame that we have had to recognise the authority of people like Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Heng Samrin in the name of international diplomacy. Nor do I think it relevant at this time to indulge in futile debate about the pros and cons of the Vietnam warwho was right and who was wrong. All that is now important is to feed two million starving people. If we cannot do it through bilateral aid due to problems of diplomatic recognition, then we should devote all available resources to the relevant international agencies while the political debate continues. At last we are now doing this.

I recognise that Kampuchea has no effective infrastructure, either human or physical, and certainly the international community will have to do something about that in the rehabilitation phase of any aid program. It will be absolutely necessary in the longer term aspect of the aid program to provide self-supporting technical assistance and professional personnel to that country. That is for the future. There will be no need for these longer term initiatives if we fail to provide direct food and medical aid now, because if that is not done there will be no people left to assist in the future. Therefore, notwithstanding the distribution problems and doubts about whether or not all the needy will receive the aid, this is a risk we must take. We have to take that risk now.

This Parliament expressed its bipartisan concern today. I know the Government is concerned, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) is doing all he can to ensure that this country plays its part in helping the people of Kampuchea. Three thousand five hundred tonnes of rice is a start but, according to the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), it will keep the population alive on scant rations for only 2.8 days. That gives an indication of the extent to which Australia and the rest of the world must increase this aid program. I ask the Government to maintain and to expand its present efforts in this regard. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to keep us fully informed of the emerging situation. I hope that he will present a full ministerial statement to the Parliament outlining the problems we have in assisting Kampuchea and the course of action open to Australia and to the international community to overcome these problems and to ensure that this impending tragedy can be averted.

I take up the suggestion made today that perhaps a small delegation from this Parliament could go to this region and gauge first hand exactly what is required. It seems to me that within this Parliament there is a genuine concern for the people of Kampuchea but there is also a feeling of general helplessness and frustration about our ability to do anything. I would like to see all of us bring to some form of concrete action the concern that we have expressed today. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to do all that he can to accommodate the views that have been expressed in this Parliament today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I draw the attention of the House to a problem that is affecting an area in my electorate. I refer to the water supply for the main northern towns of Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Pirie and some of the smaller towns situated between those towns. The water is extracted from the River Murray through the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline which was developed during the war years to feed the growing industrial township of Whyalla. Since then, of course, that pipeline has been duplicated. One of the main problems is that although the pipeline was very welcome at the time, it provides very poor quality water. The water is very foul smelling, foul tasting, very murky and is usually a brown colour.

A number of years ago people living in the northern areas of the State struck a lot of trouble with their children becoming ill. In the hot summer months quite a number of children contracted amoebic meningitis and there were quite a number of deaths. The medical examinations that took place following those deaths indicated that the cause of death was attributable to the water that was carried in the pipeline. The pipeline is above ground. The further north it goes the hotter it becomes. The heat in the pipeline somehow energises the amoeba, which causes the deaths. Not only is the water now dirty, murky and foul smelling, but also it carries a chlorine taste. The water is certainly not the type that people look forward to using.

Appreciating this problem the South Australian Government decided a number of years ago that, because of the increased funds it anticipated it would receive from the Whitlam Government when it was in power, it would bring forward plans for a filtration plant to clear the water in the northern part of the State. When the Federal Labor Government lost office the funds from the Federal Government were not available to the extent that had been promised. So the plans for the filtration of the water to the north never came to fruition. That is the situation which we have at the present time.

Prior to the recent South Australian election the then State Premier, Mr Corcoran, made a commitment that the South Australian Department of Engineering and Water Supply would initiate plans to establish somewhere in the northern area of South Australia a water filtration plant that would clean up the water so that it could be made usable. In that way its present disadvantages could be done away with. But, of course, the Corcoran Labor Government was defeated. I will not discuss tonight the reasons it was defeated. There were reasons.

Now what do we find? We find in the newspapers reports of statements by the Minister in charge of water resources in South Australia that he has now decided that there will be a change of priorities. The previous Premier was under the impression that the plans to install that nitration plant would not alter, whichever party came to office. We now find that with the Liberal-Country League in office there is a proposal to change the priorities. The priority that was to be given to establishing the plant in order that the people in the north could have clear water has now been put to one side. Apparently the priority now is to carry out some desalination in the Murray River. It is rather strange that the priorities have been changed so that the people on the Spencer Gulf in the northern part of the State who voted solidly for Labor on election day will now not have their water filtration plant. The money will be spent in an area where the Minister in charge of water resources has responsibility; that is, up the Murray River. Perhaps we are right in thinking that the people in the northern area of South Australia are being punished because they continued to support a Labor government.

This matter has caused some concern. The mayors of the three major towns- Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Pirie- have all expressed concern that the promise that was given by the Labor Government prior to the last election will not be honoured by the present Liberal Government. Although the South Australian Government says that it will look at the situation next year, it is obvious that it will be quite some time before any start is made in providing a filtration plant to give a decent water supply to those major provincial cities as well as the towns surrounding those provincial cities. It means that the sort of thing to which I have referred will take place for many more years.

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I think that it is a well recognised, if regrettable, fact that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is given to the utterance of terminological inexactitudes. One could perhaps put it in a mild way and say that he has a tendency glibly to varnish the truth. It has become necessary for us on this side of the House to look specifically at the statements that are being made by this Minister about unemployment in this country and constantly to test them as soon as we can. Yesterday the Minister made a series of statements about unemployment in this country, particularly in relation to the Community Youth Support Scheme. I want to take some of those statements and examine them in the light of the evidence that is available. First of all the Minister said:

It was on the basis of information that the Government had as to the requirements of those State committees-

That is the CYSS committees- that the appropriation of $ 10m was made.

The Minister is arguing that the cut from $ 10.7m to $10m was made on the basis of information that the Government had as to the requirements of the State CYSS committees. I can only say that in the case of South Australia that is nonsense. We can see that it is nonsense by the fact that for the year 1979-80 the CYSS committee in South Australia had already allocated approximately $941,000 to the various 31 projects operating in South Australia. The committee has now been required to cut that allocation by $151,000. There is no evidence whatsoever that the State committee in South Australia believed that it was possible to cut the budget. It in fact had argued for a budget which it is now required to cut back by a further $151,000 after that amount had been promised to the project committees. I would be very interested to find evidence that the Minister is acting on the basis of information from the State CYSS committees.

We can go even further than that. We know that in South Australia the chairman of the CYSS committee wrote to the Minister. The chairman claimed that he had written earlier to the Minister expressing the State CYSS committee’s concern and objection to the on-off allocation of funds and the detrimental effect this had on the operation of projects. Rather than provide information which would enable a cut to take place, the CYSS committee in South Australia had been advising the Minister of the detrimental effects of the policy that he is now pursuing allegedly on the basis of information received from the State CYSS committees. We then see the Minister’s next statement. He said: . . the overall objective of using this year as one of consolidation in order that the good projects may be maintained and those that are not working so well can be either disbanded or brought down to an appropriate level . . .

Apparently the cuts were to be made so that the good projects could be consolidated and the others could be disbanded or run down. But again that is nonsense in relation to the situation in South Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

page 1884

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, and for related purposes.

Mr Killen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Services Act 1947 and for related purposes.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 4 of the National Health Act 1953.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1 973.

Mr Adermann to present a Bill for an Act relating to repatriation and related matters.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1886

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Social Security: Opinion Polls or Surveys (Question No. 3758)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by the Department of Social Security in each year from 1975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys, (a) which companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) While my Department does not undertake or commission opinion polls, considerable survey work is undertaken in conjunction with its evaluation of ongoing programs, internal administrative arrangements and overall assessment of the welfare needs of the community.

The Research Information System maintained by my Department indicates that since 1975 the Department has been involved in 87 research projects, excluding Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and Social Welfare Commission undertakings.

The following table shows the number of research projects which have included surveys carried out in each year since 1975:

Seven of these have not yet been completed.

  1. Those projects for which the available information indicates that survey activity has been involved, and which do not relate solely to internal management, are listed in the attached table. Costs have been given only for projects involving outside organisations and relate to the entire project rather than the survey component.

In addition to the funds set out in the table, the Department has provided the Australian Council of Trade Unions with grants totalling $95,000 over the financial years 1974-75 to 1978-79 inclusive, to assist in the establishment and operation of its Social Welfare Research Unit. The Unit has undertaken some survey work in the preparation of research papers on social welfare aspects of employment and the industrial setting, and has collected information on social welfare benefits for dissemination to trade union members.

My Department has also funded the Family Research Unit and the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. The Family Research Unit conducted a general social survey of families through the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and its first report has been published. A second report is expected by the end of the year. The Social Welfare Research Centre has not yet commenced operation.

Behaviour of Migrants (Question No. 3918)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr N. G. Cowdrey appear for the Crown in an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by Mr Guiseppe Sergi against a deportation order?
  2. If so, did Mr Cowdrey state on behalf of the Crown that the Tribunal should consider the deterrent effect of an order for deportation on other members of the same migrant group who might be persuaded to commit a similar offence?
  3. Had Mr Sergi been resident in Australia for 26 years?
  4. Why does the Government generalise on the behaviour of migrants?
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr N. G. Cowdrey of Counsel appeared on my behalf in the proceedings to which the honourable member refers.
  2. In his submissions to the Tribunal Mr Cowdrey referred to decisions of the Tribunal in other cases in which the deterrent effect of a deportation order has been considered. Mr Cowdrey summarised those decisions in the following terms:

The deterrent effect on others particularly others within the same immigrant group from committing further offences of a similar nature is a matter that weighs most heavily with the Tribunal . . . ‘

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government did not and does not generalise on the behaviour of migrants. This was made clear by Mr Cowdrey when he said:

I am not seeking to make a judgment or carry on any judgment of the Italians in Australia: I am seeking to confine myself solely to the matters relating to this applicant alone. ‘

Some time ago I outlined to the Tribunal the policy considerations which I take into account when deciding whether a migrant should be deported. In a case where the migrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, one (and only one) of those considerations is the necessity to prevent or inhibit the commission of like offences by other persons. Insofar as the power of deportation is limited to aliens and immigrants, the only persons upon whom a deportation order can have a deterrent effect are, of course, aliens and immigrants. That the deterrent effect upon such persons of a deportation order is a relevant and important factor has been recognised on a number of occasions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 4362)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

What has happened to the review of the Community Youth Support Scheme guidelines in view of the fact that community consultations for the review were completed in 1978.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Revised CYSS guidelines have been drafted following consultations with State CYSS committee chairmen, comments by federal members of Parliament and departmental officers concerned with the administration of the program, and submissions by local CYSS Project Officers.

The revised guidelines are currently being considered and will be released as soon as possible.

Work Test (Question No. 4363)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

In view of the findings of ali official inquiries to 2 1 August 1979 what new evidence is before the Government which leads it to conclude that the work test needs to be tightened?

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Government’s decision to review the work test arrangements was in response to a concern that persons who are not making reasonable attempts to obtain work or who might be refusing work that is available or otherwise are not meeting the requirements of the Social Services Act should not be assisted at the expense of the general taxpayer.

Defence Housing in Sydney (Question No. 4469)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that flats in Carawatha Derribong and Gundaroo Streets, Villawood, NSW, are leased by the Army from the New South Wales Housing Commission.
  2. Is it also a fact that a number of houses are similarly leased in the same area.
  3. If so, how many (a) flats and (b) houses are leased.
  4. Have any of these dwellings been vacant for longer than one month within the last 2 years; if so, how many have been vacant and for how long in each case.
  5. Will he release any vacant dwellings leased by his Department in Sydney’s western suburbs for urgently needed crisis accommodation for the civilian population.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) ( a) Forty-four flats and ( b ) twenty-one houses.
  4. Thirty-nine of the forty-four flats have been vacant for longer than one month during the past two years. The details, shown in whole months, are contained in the following table.

In the majority of cases, the New South Wales Housing Commission carried out improvements during the period July to November 1978. As a consequence, vacancies occurring during the period March to December 1978 directly related to this program of improvements.

None of the houses at Villawood has been subject to vacancies of one month or longer.

  1. In relation to the western suburbs generally there is a significant shortage of accommodation for married Servicemen. Nevertheless, Service personnel have been reluctant to occupy the premises listed above, despite the improvements that have been carried out, and the retention of these flats is therefore currently under examination. If it is found that none of the three Services has a requirement for them arrangements will be made to effect their return to the New South Wales Housing Commission.

The matter of surplus accommodation is kept under continuous review and I am able to say that since early 1978 some 273 dwellings in Sydney have been returned to the New South Wales Housing Commission or approved for return on expiration of existing Service tenancies, because the dwellings have been assessed as being unsuitable for further service requirements. Included in this total are 25 flats located mainly in Woodville Road, Villawood.

Poverty Line Incomes (Question No. 4518)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

What are the current poverty line incomes, calculated using the factors recommended in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (the Henderson Report), for households in which the head is (a) in the work force and (b) not working, for a (i) single person, (ii) married couple, (iii) couple plus one child, (iv) couple plus 2 children, (v) couple plus 3 children, (vi) couple plus 4 children, (vii) single parent plus one child, (viii) single parent plus 2 children, (ix) single parent plus 3 children and (x) single parent plus 4 children.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (i) $69.60, (ii) $93.10, (iii) $1 1 1.90, (iv) $130.70, (v) $149.60, (vi) $168.40, (vii) $89.40, (viii) $108.20, (ix) $ 127.00, (x)$ 145.80.
  2. (i) $56.40, (ii) $79.90, (iii) $98.80, (iv) $1 17.60, (v) $136.40, (vi) $155.20, (vii) $76.20, (viii) $95.00, (ix) $1 13.80, (x)$ 132.60.

Tourism (Question No. 4522)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many tourists (a) in transit, (b) visiting relatives, (c) engaged in employment, (d) attending conventions or engaged in business and (e) in other categories entered Australia during 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  2. What was the country of origin of each group of tourists.
  3. If up-to-date information is not presently available, will he take action to ensure that it is available in the future.
Mr Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1) and (2) Information in respect of 1 977-78 and the first six months of 1 978-79 is shown in the following tables. For the purpose of these tables tourists are defined as overseas visitors to Australia who indicated an intended length of stay of less than a year. Country of last residence was obtained, rather than country of origin. Persons accompanying business travellers are included in ‘other categories ‘. Statistics for visitors from countries not separately shown are available but, because they are based on a sample of all visitors, the estimates derived from very small numbers are too unreliable for most purposes.
  1. The recent lengthening of the time between the occurrence of passenger movements and publication of the corresponding statistics is due in the main to the time taken to obtain the necessary processed data from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. That Department undertakes the collection of passenger cards and the transfer of data from the cards to magnetic tape. The Department has now put into effect plans which will allow the publication of provisional estimates, in considerable detail, of visitor traffic other than of Australian and New Zealand citizens. These provisional estimates, starting with the July 1979 figures, will become available well in advance of final figures which will include the movements by Australian and New Zealand citizens.

Holsworthy Army Range: Noise Levels (Question No. 4600)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. Did he or his Department consider the National Acoustic Laboratories report on the noise levels resulting from artillery firing at the Holsworthy Army Range, NSW; if so, what action is contemplated following the report.
  2. Did the Government accept the recommendation that firing at Holsworthy be restricted to between the hours of 1000 and 1700 (particularly in winter) in order to effect a substantial decrease in overall noise exposure in the neighbouring community; if not, what alternative action is contemplated.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. It is proposed, as indicated in the Preamble to the Report, to continue research, physical noise measurements and ultimately to conduct social studies with a view to providing recommendations to the range managers on ways to reduce the level of noise annoyance to nearby civil communities while at the same time meeting training requirements.
  2. ) Not yet. See ( 1 ) above.

Tourist Maps of Hobart (Question No. 4641)

Mr Goodluck:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that all tourist maps available on request on all TAA flights have a brief description of all capital cities: if so, does the description of Hoban detail a list of exports, namely, wool, zinc, paper, chocolate and timber, but omits apples.
  2. 2 ) Will he ensure that TAA has this omission rectified.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 have asked my Department to bring the matter to TAA ‘s attention.

Income Tax Collections from Companies (Question No. 4642)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the amount of income tax due by companies and outstanding as at (a) 30 June 1978 and (b) 30 June 1979.
  2. What sum outstanding as at 30 June 1979 was collected during (a July 1979 and (b) August 1979.
  3. What sum outstanding as at 30 June 1979 was outstanding as at (a) 30 June 1978 and (b) 31 December 1978.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) and (b) The net amounts of income tax outstanding in respect of companies at 30 June 1978 and 30 June 1 979 were $ 1 92m and $294m respectively.

Of the amount outstanding at 30 June 1 978, $2 1 m related to assessments in which the due date for payment was after 30 June. A comparable figure for 30 June 1 979 is not available but it is known to be at least $35m.

  1. (a) and (b) Net collections in July and August 1979 amounted to $2 1 m and $62 7m respectively, of which $S93m was in respect of the first quarterly instalment for 1979-80 which became due on 15 August 1979. It is not known how much of the remaining collections had been outstanding at 30 June 1 979 but July collections would be expected to relate to assessments that had been issued prior to 1 July 1 979.
  2. (a) and (b) This information is not available. However, of the amount outstanding at 30 June 1 979, $ 1 74m was due for payment prior to I April 1979.

Income Tax Collections from Individuals (Question No. 4643)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the amount of income tax due by individuals and outstanding as at (a) 30 June 1978 and (b) 30 June 1979.
  2. What sum outstanding as at 30 June 1979 was collected during (a) July 1979 and (b) August 1979.
  3. What sum outstanding as at 30 June 1979 was outstanding as at (a) 30 June 1978 and (b) 31 December 1978.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The net amounts of income tax outstanding in respect of individuals at 30 June 1978 and 30 June 1979 were $496m and $73 lm respectively.

Of the amount outstanding at 30 June 1978 $99m related to assessments in which the due date for payment was after 30 June. A comparable figure for 30 June 1979 is not available but it is known to be at least $ 1 1 9m.

  1. (a) and (b) Net collections in July and August 1979 amounted to $66m and $47m respectively. It is not known how much of these amounts had been outstanding at 30 June 1979 but July collections would be expected to relate to assessments that had been issued prior to 1 July 1 979.
  2. (a) and (b) This information is not available. However, of the amount outstanding at 30 June 1 979, $223m was due for payment prior to 1 April 1979.

Air Services Between Australia and South America (Question No. 4694)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has an application for services into Australia by the airline, Lan Chile, been rejected; if so, why?
  2. Has any consideration been given to pool services, or Qantas/Lan Chile connection services, between Australia and South America; if so, what fares have been established on these routes and what is the weekly capacity available from Australia to South America?
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Lan Chile was advised in March 1979 that consideration of its application to operate services between Chile and Australia, would be deferred until renegotiation of Australia ‘s existing air services agreements, in the light of the international civil aviation policy announced by the Government in October 1978 had been completed, and the adequacy of air services then existing between Australia and other pans of the world could be assessed.
  2. Services operated between Sydney and Nadi (Fiji) by Qantas connect for pan of the year with Lan Chile services between Nadi and Santiago. During periods of the year when Lan Chile does not operate services between Papeete (Tahiti) and Nadi, services operated by UTA between Sydney and Papeete connect with those by Lan Chile between Papeete and Santiago.

Present round trip fares between Sydney and Santiago (in Australian currency) are

First class-$3,096. Economy class- $2,222.

Economy excursionHigh season- $1,496. Low season-$l,197.

I am advised that Lan Chile is discussing the question of fares between Santiago, Papeete and Nadi with the relevant Governments, following recent introduction of revised fares packages for travel between Sydney and Nadi and Sydney and Papeete.

The airlines concerned do not reserve portion of their capacity on South Pacific routes specifically for carriage of traffic between Australia and South America, but the following services are relevant.

Qantas- Sydney-Nadi 4 X B747 services per week.

UTA- Sydney-Papeete 2 X DC 10 services per week.

Lan Chile- Santiago-Papeete 2 X B707 services per week. During pan of the year, 1 X B707 service per week is extended from Papeete to Nadi.

Means Test on Age Pension Increases (Question No. 4702)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was a means test imposed upon the indexation of the aged pension for persons over 70 years of age.
  2. What has been the saving to the Government since that date.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) An income test on age pension increases for persons aged 70 years and over was announced in the 1978-79 Budget Speech and first applied to the pension increases which came into effect in November 1 978.
  2. It is estimated that about $l4m of expenditure was saved in 1978-79 as a result of this measure. Savings in 1979-80 are estimated to be of the order of $65m.

Maternity Allowance (Question No. 4704)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was the maternity allowance abolished.
  2. What has been the saving to the Government since its abolition.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Abolition of the maternity allowance was announced in the 1978-79 Budget Speech in respect of births occurring after 31 October 1978.
  2. It is estimated that there were savings of the order of $4m in 1978-79 in respect of births occurring in the period from 1 November 1978 to 30 June 1979. The savings in 1 979-80 are estimated to be of the order of $7m.

Adelaide-Crystal Brook Rail Link (Question No. 4729)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

In view of the interest of local government from the northern Spencer Gulf region of South Australia in future railway activities in that area, when is the standardisation of the Adelaide-Crystal Brook rail link to be commenced.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

No decision has yet been taken by the Government to commit further funds to this project, and there is accordingly no timetable. However, a revised proposal for a standard gauge connection to Crystal Brook has recently been the subject of a study by Commonwealth Departments in consultation with Australian National Railways, and is expected to be submitted for the Government’s consideration in the near future.

Liberal Party Ethnic Council (Question No. 4746)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does his Department (a) give any assistance to a body called the New South Wales Liberal Parry’s Ethnic Council and (b) receive advice in relation to persons who take part in the activities of this Council.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to allegations of dissension and disruption within this Council.
  3. Has his attention also been drawn to a report that at a recent meeting Council members gave a standing ovation to a Mr Lyenko Urbanchich, against whom charges of Nazi collaboration and fascist-type activities have been made.
  4. Did Council members call for Mr Urbanchich ‘s reinstatement to all his Council positions.
  5. Has he investigated these reports; if so, what is the result; if not, why not.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am not personally aware of any assistance my Department has given to the New South Wales Liberal Party’s Ethnic Council. A check made within the department has not revealed any evidence of or recollection of assistance.
  2. , (3), (4) and (5) The events referred to have not been drawn to my attention as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Pensions (Question No. 4753)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What would be the base rate pension after adjustment, in November 1979 using (a) the existing indexation formula and (b) the (i) highest and (ii) lowest proportion of average male earnings reached by the base rate pension during the years 1970-79.
  2. When were the proportions referred to in part 1 (b) attained.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) The standard (single) rate of pension will be increased in November 1979 from $53.20 to $57.90 a week under the existing indexation formula.

    1. b) The highest proportion of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings per employed male unit reached by the standard rate of pension between the March quarter 1970 and the June quarter 1 979 was 24.00 per cent; the lowest was 17.5 percent.

The information sought by the honourable member refers to November 1979 and cannot be provided until average weekly earnings figures for the December quarter 1979 become available. Based on the latest available figure for seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings per employed male unit ($231.40 in the June quarter 1979), the information sought by the honourable member is:

  1. 1 ) $55.55 a week; and (ii) $40.50 a week.
  2. (i) December quarter 1978. (ii) September quarter 1971.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791010_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant