House of Representatives
6 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2585

DEATH OF SIR WILLIAM BRAND

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death of Sir William Brand, a former member of this House. Sir William, who died on 26 October, represented the division of Wide Bay from 1954 to 1958. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased former member, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places;

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank honourable members.

page 2585

DEATH OF PRESIDENT PARK CHUNG HEE

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, I am sure that honourable members would wish me to place on record the sympathy and regret of this House at the sudden and tragic death on 26 October of President Park Chung Hee of the Republic of Korea. I recall the visit to Australia earlier this year, as Prime Minister, by His Excellency Choi KyuHah, whom honourable members had the opportunity to meet and who has now become Acting President of the Republic of Korea in such sad circumstances. That visit highlighted the sound and cordial relationship between Australia and the Republic of Korea, and the support for it which exists on both sides of this House.

It was with great shock and sadness that I received the news of the death of President Park. Under his leadership the Republic of Korea has become one of Asia’s outstanding economic success stories. His Government achieved remarkable improvement in the living standards of the people of the Republic of Korea while shouldering a major defence burden, to provide security in the face of serious external threat. President Park ‘s Government faced enormous problems in managing the country’s economic development and meeting this continuing external threat, and there were criticisms of his Government’s observance of human rights. Yet the display of national solidarity and mourning at his passing reflects the deep sense of loss of the people of the Republic of Korea. They have the sympathy of the Australian Government and people. This was conveyed personally to the Republic of Korea

Government and President Park’s family by the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) who represented Australia at the funeral ceremonies held in Seoul on 3 November. Despite the loss of President Park the Republic of Korea Government has indicated its determination to press forward with the development of the country’s economic and international relations. The Australian Government will continue to build upon the excellent and mutually beneficial relationship which has been established between Australia and the Republic ofKorea.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The sudden and violent death of the late President Park Chung Hee of the Republic of Korea shocked the world. The Opposition records its sympathy at the late President’s tragic death. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is correct to observe the phenomenal economic success of the Republic ofKorea under the late President Park’s Government. It is also fair to observe, as I have done publicly on a number of occasions, that the distribution of that wealth was far fairer than was the case for most developing countries. It is also undisputed, however, that material success alone does not guarantee community satisfaction and the deficiencies of the previous Government of the Republic of Korea in representing what we would generally regard as basic democratic rights have been the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Republic of Korea. In mitigation of the Republic’s administration under the late President Park it is argued by some that a little bit of democracy is better than none. Events in Korea would make it clear that many there believe, however, that a little democracy is not enough and that human aspirations and human dignity demand more.

In recording our sadness at the manner of the late President’s death we also feel a need to observe that perhaps the new government might find it timely to initiate a program aimed at establishing broadly and comprehensively the democratic rights of the people ofKorea including the basic rights of the members of its National Assembly under a new constitution to reinforce the impressive material gains which have been made in its economy.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I would like to support my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Nobody in public positions such as ours could feel anything but regret that governments are changed by assassination, violence and all that flows from it. One of the tragedies for the people of Korea, of course, is that assassination such as this may not end there. I deeply regret this kind of event happening anywhere in the world. I do think it is time that we applied ourselves more vigorously to encouraging the removal of those matters which have created the situation in which such events occur. I would like to express my concern that while we pay these respects this afternoon to President Park one of the greatest leaders of independent Africa, as one might call it, who died some time back- Jomo Kenyatta- was not acknowledged in this way. I hope that the Government, in paying its respects in these matters, will start to get its priorities straight.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As a mark of respect to the late President Park I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places

Mr SPEAKER:

-I thank the House.

page 2586

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 N.S.W.

Respectfully showeth:

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

Government School bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-Government school 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 Anthony, Mr Bradfield, Mr Cadman, Mr Carlton, Mr Howard, Mr James, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Kerin, Dr Klugman, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Morris and Mr Ruddock.

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 woman 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 Aldred, Mr Bourchier, Dr Cass, Mr Dawkins, Mr Fisher, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Martyr, Mr Nixon and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

That the thorough nationwide investigations by the Working Party highlighted the need to establish the National Women’s Advisory Council.

That we believe the Council consistently and democratically demonstrates its wide representation of the interests of all Australian women, as shown by the Draft Plan of Action for the 1980 National Conference to be held in Canberra in preparation for Australia’s participation in the United Nations Decade for Women World Conference in Denmark, July 1980.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women’s Advisory Council and its recommendations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns.

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 and to decentralized 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 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 ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Fisher, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Nixon, Mr Scholes and Mr Short.

Petitions 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 those 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 Burns, Dr Edwards, Mr Macphee and Mr Willis.

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 limit to the capacity of Australia’s drug manufacturing industry in Australian hands.

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 Serum Laboratories, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, 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 Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawnmac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and cost the Australian government several times the proposed sale price. It provides the Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing negotiators within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transnational drug firms. It complements the resources of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to make both Government owned drug firms more efficient and competitive by co-operation.

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, Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of companies.

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

Petition 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 Trans Australia 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 Morris and Mr Scholes.

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 States of Victoria and NSW respectfully showeth-

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 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 Holding and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

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 reintroduction of tuition fees for tertiary education and the introduction of a loans scheme of student financing as suggested by a research paper for the National Inquiry into Education and Training and as recommended for further study by the Committee of Inquiry, would add a significant financial burden to the already low finances of tertiary students.

Your petitioners also note that according to a major study on the abolition of fees made through the University of NSW Tertiary Education Research Centre, it is the category of students presently under-represented in tertiary education who would be most disadvantaged by the reintroduction of fees.

Furthermore, 20 per cent of students surveyed in that study said they would be forced to defer or not enrol if fees were reintroduced.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. . That fees for tertiary study not be reintroduced.
  2. That the grants based Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) not be threatened by the introduction of a loans scheme of student financing.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

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

  1. The petitioners believe that the current Tertiary Education Assistance Schemes maximum allocation per student is inadequate to properly meet the basic requirements of students.
  2. The petitioners believe that the minimum allocation of TEAS should be increased to a level equal to the poverty line, (as established by Commonwealth government enquiries), or should at least be brought into line with levels of unemployment benefits, as they currently stand.
  3. The petitioners are totally opposed to the introduction of any form of student loans scheme to replace TEAS.

Your petitioners therefore pray that you will give immediate attention to considering the above.

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

Petition received.

Air Fares

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

The humble petition of the undersigned members of the Italian community resident in Australia humbly pray that in the course of the forthcoming bilateral negotiations, the Australian Government accept the Italian Government’s proposal for the retention of (unrestricted) Excursion Fares, reducible in the off season, even after the introduction of the (prepaid) APEX Fares.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

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 because television and radio

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards needs stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a ‘Dual System of Regulation’ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for bleaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Pre-school Education

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

  1. In SA Pre School services are becoming increasingly inadequate.
  2. The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced Federal Budget allocations to Pre Schools in the last two years.
  3. Projected cuts for 1979-80 will cause further deterioration of the quality of services offered.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government increase its allocation for Pre School education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre school services in SA.

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

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

That we 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 licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will reconsider the increased licence fee and also consider a reduction for pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Religious Organisations

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 anti-social activities of certain organisations, in the main purporting to be religious and under foreign control, are causing increasing mental, physical, financial, and/or social distress to citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.

Such adverse effects include drastic personality changes, alienation and severance from persons’ families and normal society, dispossession under undue influence of persons’ worldly assets, abandonment of socially useful occupations or career education, mental disorientation, and a common requirement to surrender their labour with little or no pay, working unduly long hours fund-raising for the exclusive benefit of the organisations’ leaderships.

Furthermore, a disturbing number of our country’s youth have died prematurely in unsatisfactorily explained circumstances or have become so mentally or physically debilitated as to require hospitalisation or treatment following their involvement with the subject organisations commonly, but erroneously, described as ‘ religious ‘ cults.

All evidence points to the fact that the subject organisations are commercial enterprises which, for the purpose of evading tax and other business obligations, have falsely assumed the status of ‘religions’ in order to take advantage of the blanket protections provided by Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

It is your petitioners’ sincere belief that proliferation of such organisations unchecked with their personalitydisorientating and family-divisive practices and effects, represents a serious threat to the health, welfare, and peace of the whole community.

Notwithstanding the decision of the combined Australian Attorneys-General at their October 1979 meeting, that no special action should be taken by Governments to curb undesirable activities of religious cults and that these should be dealt with under existing laws, such laws as would provide protection against the aforementioned malpractices do not appear to exist.

For this reason, the Government should proceed with all haste to investigate the widely-alleged malpractices of the subject organisations which include the Hare Krishnas, the Unification Church (Moonies), and such other groups as are the subject of complaints, preparatory to introducing appropriate legislation to curtail the said malpractices to ensure citizens’ continuing enjoyment of peace and harmony.

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

Petition received.

Foreign Ownership of Australian Resources

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 has been an escalation of foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources to the detriment of the national interest. We view with deep concern that (i) over 35 per cent of the profits of all companies in Australia is payable overseas, (ii) that the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last 3 years has passed over 3,500 applications for the takeover of Australian companies and has rejected less than 25, (iii) that proposals for an effective resource tax on super profits made by foreign companies in Australia have been dropped, (iv) that foreign investment guidelines have been changed to favour foreign companies ahead of Australian owned companies for new ventures and takeover bids.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government reverses policies which place Australian resources, particularly Australia’s mineral energy resources under foreign ownership and control.

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

Petition received.

Overseas Students

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

The petition of the undersigned, citizens of Australia, and overseas students, respectfully showeth our deepest opposition to the introduction of discriminatory fees for overseas students.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that fee policy on overseas students be revoked in view of the following:

  1. The Financial Implications and Impact on the Matriculation Overseas Students.

The matriculation students came to Australia under the impression that they would receive free education. However, this sudden imposition of fees will cause immense hardship to the students and their families. Many students will have to return to their home countries as they are unable to meet the fees. These students, on returning home, will not be accepted by any local tertiary institutions as the Australian Higher School Certificate or the Matriculation Statements (HSC) equivalent are not recognised by their home governments. These students will be deprived of any chances of further education.

Those applicants to study in Australia in 1980 (e.g. students in Taylor’s College, Malaysia) are caught in the dilemma, either to bear the extra financial burden or to give up further education totally.

  1. Aid to developing countries.

The majority of overseas students studying in Australia came from the developing countries. Most of them did not have the opportunity to seek any advanced education owing to the poor and extreme shortage of educational facilities in their home countries. These developing countries need trained and tertiary education person to help in meeting the challenge of technological development and to contribute to the economy of the countries. Australia, as a developed country, has a moral responsibility to assist the developing countries.

  1. Discriminatory Effect of the Introduction of Fees.

By the introduction of fees, it would mean only a few students from rich families would be able to come to study in Australia. Students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain higher education. Thus making education a privilege, not a right.

  1. Interchange of cultures.

Overseas students have made a tremendous contribution in promoting better understanding and friendship between the people of Australia and the developing countries. The overseas students have provided the Australian public with the opportunity to learn and study the customs, life-style and different cultures of these various developing countries. Further, overseas students have made valuable contributions towards research and development in their post-graduate studies.

  1. Positive Form of Aid.

Providing educational opportunities to overseas students is the most effective and positive form of aid to developing countries.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Sullage Charges

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

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government;

  1. Recognise that the practice of disallowing taxation claims for sullage removal is discriminatory as tax payers owning property in sewered areas are entitled to a concessional allowance of up to $300 for sewerage services rendered.
  2. Take steps to remove the provisions of the Income Tax Law which prevents approval being given for taxation claims for sullage removal unless the charges are annually assessed.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefits

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

That, 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 Commonwealth 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 Sainsbury.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

To the Right 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 as Section 44 (iv) of the Australian Constitution declares that “any person who holds any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives”, persons in receipt of Social Security payments including aged pensioners seem to be barred from nominating for Parliament unless the pension is surrendered. We request that the Attorney-General be asked to give a ruling on the eligibility of persons in receipt of Social Security payments to nominate for Parliament without having to surrender their pensions.

That in order to retain the living standards of citizens in receipt of the Age, Widow and Invalid Pensions that the respective Acts of Parliament be amended to provide for the indexation of entitlement to Health Benefit card and other fringe Benefits, and for the indexation of the following subsidies: Domiciliary. Nursing Care Benefit, Funeral Benefit and Rent Subsidy, such indexation to be retroactive from the last adjustment, and that in particular, Funeral Benefit payments be increased immediately to$500.

That in order to maintain the health and mobility of elderly people, we request that the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act be amended to include, under Medibank Standard health insurance cover, physiotherapy and chiropody costs incurred by Aged Pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The reason for the form adopted today is that I asked the Clerks to try it to see whether it met with the satisfaction of the House. The matter will go before the Standing Orders Committee after there has been an opportunity for the House to hear it in this form. In the past the reading of petitions has taken some time and I have constantly had to call the House to order to listen to the petitions. Therefore I propose to try this method.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. One difficulty that I see with that procedure is that members receive petitions, irrespective of their contents, and I would question the wisdom of having a member identified necessarily with a petition which he is prepared to present as a representative of an area but which he may not be prepared to present under his own name. I would suggest therefore that it is probably more in line with the democratic process for which each of us as individual members is responsible if we were able to submit petitions irrespective of their contents. I would suggest that that would not apply if we were to be referred to by our names rather than our electorates or the areas which we represent.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will speak to the two points raised by the right honourable member for New England. As to the first point, it is the practice in this House to refer to members by their electorates rather than their names. I accept that point. The practice of referring to a person by his electorate is a long-established practice. It is done so that persons will not speak to each other across the chamber but instead will refer to each other as the honourable member of whichever electorate. I will look at the point made by the right honourable gentleman about identifying the member by the use of his name rather than the name of his electorate. I would have thought that identification of the electorate is tantamount to identification of the name of the member. As to the more substantial point, the fact is that every member may present a petition. Indeed, there is some argument that there is an obligation on a member to present a petition. I would not put it at the point of obligation, but I think that an honourable member, on receiving a petition, may present the petition without associating himself in any way with the contents of that petition. I will take into account the points made by the honourable member for Hume and the right honourable member for New England.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, will the full text of the abbreviated version, as read, be recorded in Hansard?

Mr SPEAKER:

-That will be done.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. Further to the points raised by the right honourable member for New England, I point out that there is some inconsistency in recording in Hansard the presentation of petitions. The previous practice has been for the Clerk to read that they have been presented by, for example, the honourable member for Lalor and the right honourable member for New England but they are recorded in Hansard itself as being presented by Mr Barry Jones and Mr Sinclair. There is an inconsistency there. If the point made by the right honourable member is valid, and I am sure that it is, then that ought to apply to the recording of the presentation in Hansard, which ought to record the member’s electorate rather than the member’s name.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will look at that matter.

page 2592

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is indisposed and for the time being I will handle questions on his behalf. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) left Australia on 1 November to attend the funeral of President Park in Seoul and to visit New York for the Kampuchean pledging conference. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Peacock’s return next week.

page 2592

EAST TIMOR

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That in view of the problems which have developed with reference to the delivery of urgent Australian relief aid into East Timor, and in order to ensure that the Australian Parliament is fully appraised of the current situation in East Timor, the House strongly supports the proposal of Mr Speaker that an official delegation from the Australian Parliament should make a fact-finding visit to East Timor at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

page 2592

MELBOURNE CUP

Notice of Motion

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

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

  1. 1 ) This this House offers its congratulations to the owner, trainer and connections of the winner of the Melbourne Cup, Hyperno; and
  2. That in future this House does not sit on Melbourne Cup days.

page 2592

PETROL RETAILING

Notice of Motion

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

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

That this House notes with concern the problems now being experienced by the lessee service station proprietors of Australia and calls on the Government to implement part of the Fife package prohibiting oil companies from themselves retailing petroleum through direct sales sites.

page 2592

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2592

QUESTION

BANK LIQUIDITY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I refer the Treasurer to the re: cent banking statistics which showed that the liquid assets and government securities ratio for the trading banks was the lowest for the last five years. Has the lower deficit for this year, coupled with the recent capital outflow in response to higher United States interest rates, been largely responsible for the reduction in bank liquidity? Does the Treasurer see this dramatic reduction in liquidity as reducing the lending capacity of the trading banks? What steps has the Treasurer in mind to avoid a severe contraction in credit? To what extent would a reduction in the minimum LGS ratio allow manoeuvring room in handling this problem? Would a deferral of the November cash loan be of any assistance in this respect? Will the Treasurer outline the implications of deferring that loan, especially on the method of deficit funding and inflation targets, should the Government resort to such a measure?

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

-I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Firstly, I remind him that about five months ago the Government announced that it was abandoning the practice of holding periodic cash loans and was replacing this system with a system of issuing tap Commonwealth stocks and tender issues of Treasury notes. So the question of the Leader of the Opposition about a November cash loan is redundant. He may rest assured that the Government has been following very carefully the effect on the Australian economy of the increase in interest rates in the United States of America. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that there was a private capital outflow in September. It is equally true, on the figures available to me in respect of October, that the indication is that whilst there has been an outflow on private account it is significantly lower than the outflow that occurred in September. I also inform the Leader of the Opposition that whilst the LGS ratio is around about the figure he mentioned, the volume of lending by Australian banks during September was extremely high. For the Leader of the Opposition to talk about sharp contractions of credit or anything analogous to that is not only to misread totally the present situation, but also possibly to arouse in the minds of some people unnecessary concerns about the management of monetary and fiscal policy in Australia at present.

page 2593

QUESTION

BONE MARROW DISEASES IN CHILDREN

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Are any Australian organisations or programs carrying out research into bone marrow diseases in children? Does the Government make any financial contribution to such programs? If not, will the Minister consider making arrangements for such contributions?

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

– A number of projects are being funded from the National Health and Medical Research Council’s program for bone marrow research. Generally speaking, the funds are made available not to institutions but to individuals carrying out research projects that have been approved by the Council and the appropriate bodies concerned. The only two exceptions happen to be the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and the Howard Florey Institute in Melbourne. Presently there are five projects specifically funded for bone marrow research, totalling $88,000. There are a further 15 projects which are directed towards bone marrow blood disorders, which are related to the problem. About $293,000 has been allocated to them. I should also point out that additional sums are made available for a whole range of medical research programs from State governments, private institutions and private sources. However, I am not able to say just how much money is coming from private and other sources for this very important area of research.

I would like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to Mrs Nolan, the mother of Anthony Nolan, who has shown tremendous courage in staying with her attempts to save the life of her son. I think it has focussed the attention of the medical profession, the research community generally and governments around the world on the great need to step up research into this disorder that has taken the lives of a lot of young people throughout the world.

page 2593

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Transport: Does he support the reappointment of the current chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd?

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

– The appointment of the chairman of Qantas does not come up until 30 June 1980. By that time there will be a recommendation to the Government and a decision made.

page 2593

QUESTION

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his capacity as Minister responsible for tourism: Can he give the House the number of overseas visitors arriving in

Australia? What significance does the Minister place on these results? Can he indicate the effect the Government’s measures are having in assisting the tourist industry?

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

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his question because tourism is of increasing importance to Australia, in terms of both foreign exchange earnings and the very considerable prospects for the employment of a large and increasing number of Australians. During 1978 over 630,000 short term visitors arrived in Australia- an increase of 12 per cent over 1977. Preliminary figures for the seven months to July 1979 show that visitor arrivals have increased by 28.4 per cent over the same period in 1978, whilst the number of Australians travelling abroad has increased by 10.5 percent.

The Government, of course, is committed to the development of this very significant industry and has introduced measures in three areas to encourage overseas visitors. Firstly, the Australian Tourist Commission was provided with $8.2m in the Budget to enable it to treble its overseas promotional activities and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been extended to include the tourist industry. Secondly, my colleague, the Minister for Transport, has been progressively announcing a range of new low international air fares. They have proved a particular and very important boon to the industry. Thirdly, the Government has introduced a number of specific measures to encourage the upgrading of tourist facilities and attractions in Australia, including a taxation allowance for depreciation of income-producing buildings for travellers. I might say in passing that this was an important factor in the recently announced decision to go ahead with a new 600-room hotel project in the Rocks area of Sydney at an aggregate cost of some $45m. I think it is fair to say that the Government’s policies have been very successful indeed in attracting a great surge of overseas visitors to Australia. For the months of June and July the numbers of visitors were respectively 61 per cent and 50 per cent higher than last year. Under the policies of this Government, Australia can, I think, look forward to receiving more than one million tourists in 198 1. 1 believe that tourism will be one of the fastest growing and most significant growth industries during the decade of the 1980s.

page 2593

QUESTION

PETROL RETAILING

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Why has the Government deferred a decision on important elements of the previously canvassed petrol marketing industry reform proposals? Incidentally, a government which has procrastinated on this issue -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will ask his question and not make any comment.

Mr HURFORD:

-Is it not a fact that this latest delay comes two years after the Prime Minister said that something would be done about this matter as soon as possible? Is it not a fact that the unfair practices of some, if not all, of the major oil companies continue to flourish, favoured by the neglect of the Government; that indeed the industry marketing patterns have changed for the worse; and that a change to discounting has not reduced the predatory pricing policies of those oil companies? In awaiting a report from the Trade Practices Commission on the extent of price discrimination in the industry, why has the Minister ignored the warning by the Commission in its latest annual report relating to the difficulty of evaluating the extent of unfair price discrimination between company operated and independently operated service stations?

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

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Adelaide for his question in relation to this matter. The honourable member, indeed all honourable members, will be aware that the Government is breaking new ground in this area. Because it is breaking new ground it is desirous that the Government move slowly but, nevertheless, in a definite way. Members of the industry will be aware that the Government has been meticulous in its examination of this question. We are breaking new ground in this country and it is to the discredit of members of the Opposition that they have not been concerned about the plight of small retailers in the past. To the best of my recollection this is the first question on this matter that a member of the Opposition has directed to me. There has been opportunity, week after week, month after month, to direct a question to me or to any other member of the Government if the Opposition had been sincere in its concern for the small retailers.

Mr Jacobi:

– I raise a point of order. I advise the Minister that I put a stack of questions on the Notice Paper and there is still one there.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr FIFE:

– I repeat that the Opposition has shown practically no interest in this very important issue. I said a moment ago that the Government is breaking new ground in this country. Indeed, new ground has been broken so far as this subject is concerned in the United States of America with its new legislation. For this reason we arranged to have the procedures in that country examined by the Australian ConsulGeneral in New York and also by a senior officer of my Department. Their report has been tabled in this Parliament and it has been available to honourable members on both sides of the House. The Government recently announced a decision to proceed with the drafting of franchise legislation. I would expect that that draft legislation will be prepared during the forthcoming recess. It will then be exposed for public comment. It will give every interested person and group an opportunity to comment before the Government introduces the Bill into the House.

There were two other components in the package that was announced in October last year. The second component concerned the divorcement aspect which the honourable member for Adelaide has referred to and to which the honourable member for Franklin referred earlier in his notice of motion. Divorcement, if proceeded with, would preclude oil companies from engaging in direct retailing. The Government has not taken a decision on this particular aspect because it does not believe that it needs to take a decision at this stage. It has reserved its decision making process in relation to divorcement until the draft franchise legislation is available.

The other part of the package deals with price discrimination. The Government believed that it would be in the best interests of the community and of the industry to have the Trade Practices Commission conduct a survey before the Government proceeded to take a decision in this area. The Trade Practices Commission has agreed to undertake this survey and believes that it will be able to do so in a short space of time. I give the House an undertaking that the Government is concerned not only about the position of the small retailer in the petroleum industry but also about the position of small retailers and small business people generally because they have been the backbone of this country. They are supported by people on this side of the House and they have received practically no support from people on the other side of the House.

page 2594

QUESTION

TELEVISION COVERAGE OF MELBOURNE CUP

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, concerns the television coverage of today’s major sporting event, the Melbourne Cup. Is the Minister aware that because large numbers of residents of western Queensland and other outback areas of Australia receive only an Australian Broadcasting Commission television service, they were denied the pleasure of watching live the running of this great Australian event? Can the Minister confirm that this is the result of the sale of exclusive television rights by the organisers, the Victoria Racing Club, to a commercial television operator who can provide only a limited coverage? Is the Minister able to offer any hope to residents of remote areas of Australia that all organisations involved in these arrangements will accept that they have a responsibility to enable all Australians to receive coverage of these major events- cricket, football, tennis and other events- and thus put to an end this continued attack on services provided to rural and outback Australia? Will the Minister take all possible action available to him to have this contempt for so many disadvantaged people brought to an urgent end?

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

– That was yet another very statesmanlike question from my honourable friend. I am able to confirm that there are still too many Australians who are beyond the reach of any television signal or beyond the reach of all television signals but a single ABC television signal. As the honourable member knows, it is only satellite transmission which, in the fairly near future, will be able to overcome the gravest problems of people in remote and rural areas of Australia. In the meantime, I will continue to encourage all those responsible for the arrangements relating to the televising of sporting events to ensure that they do their best to see that all Australians who are presently within the limits of coverage get these great events. I can add only that they are matters which lie between independent commercial organisations and the ABC. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions and I will continue to do so.

page 2595

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the iron and steel industry which was released yesterday. I also refer to section 23a of the Industries Assistance Commission Act which requires the Commission to report on the levels of assistance required to ensure the maintenance of activity and employment. I direct the Minister’s attention to the following remarks in respect of those recommendations. For high alloy steel, the recommendation is ‘unable to give precise estimates’. For steel wire, the recommendation is considers it inappropriate’. For other iron and steel products, the recommendation is ‘unable to specifically answer’. In view of the fact that the

Commission is either unwilling or unable to advise the Government on what will be the social consequences of the recommendations, on what advice does the Government now propose to rely when dealing with the recommendations?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The Industries Assistance Commission has just released the second of its draft reports on the iron and steel industry reference. The initial report came down in March of this year. It covered only the basic iron and steel products which are manufactured mainly by the steel division of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. The second report is complementary to that report. The points which the honourable gentleman has raised in relation to projections about activity and employment are well taken by me. He will be aware that this is not the only reference in which there has been an inadequacy of data base at the draft or interim report stage. He will also be aware that part of the rationale behind bringing down a draft report is to enable the respective parties in the jurisdiction to provide responses to the nature of the IAC ‘s thinking in the interim stage. It does not, of course, commit the IAC to that thinking in the ultimate; nor is there any commitment on behalf of the Government. Whilst the Government welcomes submissions in respect of any IAC interim report, it is not responsible for any Minister to respond definitively to what, after all, at the time is no more than simply a discussion paper.

With regard to information which relates to activity and employment, I give the honourable gentleman the assurance of all industry Ministers that before any final report is processed to the decision-making stage by the Cabinet on behalf of the Government the major industry groups are always seen by industry Ministers. That provides a very significant opportunity for developing the data base to reduce any inadequacy which may at that stage still be a fact before the Government. The honourable gentleman is aware that draft hearings will shortly be taking place. I have no doubt that members of the industry will be submitting their own views. No doubt that point will be comprehended. I recognise the responsibility which the IAC has in relation to section 23A of the Act. It is a matter for regret that in some recent reports- this is not the only one- there has been some inadequacy of reporting. However, I remind the honourable gentleman that this is not the final report. When that report comes in I would expect the data base to be completed so that the Government can take sensible decisions upon a sensible report brought down by that body.

page 2596

QUESTION

ASBESTOS

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-In view of the mounting community concern about the possible health effects of asbestos, will the Minister for Health inform the House whether the National Health and Medical Research Council has made a study of the subject?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-On 29 March 1979 I received a question on this subject from the honourable member for Petrie. I indicated that I would refer the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council and that when it reported on the issue I would make the report available to the Parliament and the public. As a result of its deliberations, a sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council has prepared the following documents entitled: ‘The Medical Aspects of the Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos’, ‘Statement on Health Hazards Associated With the Use of Asbestos in the Construction Industry’ and ‘Code for the Safe Removal of Asbestos Based Thermal/Acoustic Insulating Materials’. These documents were adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 88th session on 25 and 26 October. I have placed copies of the documents in the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members. In due course the documents will be widely distributed through State and Territory health authorities, employer associations and trade unions. Naturally, the National Health and Medical Research Council will continue to keep the matter of asbestos under review and will issue further reports and guidelines from time to time as the need arises. Any legislative action resulting from the Council’s recommendations is, of course, a matter for the State or territorial governments.

page 2596

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In what way has recruitment to the Australian Public Service been changed from conditions prevailing since the adoption of the Public Service Act, so justifying the claim by the Minister in his speech at the launching of the pilot multi-lingual information program for the Australian Public Service Board that the program ‘will open up new opportunities for many gifted migrant children’? Have the examinations for admission to the Public Service been modified in any way, bearing in mind that these examinations have been an effective barrier against immigrants and their children from non-Commonwealth countries entering the Public Service, in addition to the legal discrimination against them?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– A career in the Australian Public Service, like a career in any of the other public services in Australia, is one to be highly regarded. I do not belong to that section of the community which makes fun of or derides in any way the contribution of public servants. Because we would like to see the Australian Public Service manned by the best people from within the Australian community, it has been decided to launch a program which will make information available to all of the Australian community about the career opportunities within the Australian Public Service. The special program has been designed to make this information available particularly to migrant parents who do not speak English as their mother tongue so that they will be aware of the conditions obtaining within the Australian Public Service and, most particularly, will be able to advise their children about the opportunities that exist within the Australian Public Service.

There is no discrimination either for or against any segment of the Australian community. There is a requirement that people seeking to enter the Australian Public Service do so on a competitive basis. That condition will be maintained. But the essential aim of the program is to make information available to a wider range of the Australian community about the opportunities that exist in the Public Service.

page 2596

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Kennedy. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that five Sheffield Shield games have been played and not one of them has been televised? Is not this a breach of contract? Will the Minister have a look at the situation to see whether the televising of the cricket can be put back with the Australian Broadcasting Commission so that the public may get a competent and efficient service?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– It is my understanding that for the moment neither the Australian Broadcasting Commission nor the commercial organisations which telecast sport have decided that they are prepared to telecast Sheffield Shield cricket this season. I will inform the ABC of the honourable member’s interest in this matter. However, it is my understanding that the matter has been seriously considered by all broadcasting organisations. They have decided that at the moment it is not in their particular interests to broadcast Sheffield Shield cricket. Nevertheless, I will convey the honourable member’s view to the ABC.

page 2597

QUESTION

TRANS-TASMAN TRAVEL

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the recent handless body murder case in the United Kingdom and to the report that some five or six New Zealanders have already been arrested as suspects in the case. Further, it has been widely reported that other New Zealanders are already operating in Australia and have been direct parties to murders in this country. In the light of this further evidence of the difficulties that arise from having no control over trans-Tasman travel, should not this country again approach the New Zealand Government on the matter? In the event of that Government refusing, for reasons associated with the tourist lobby, to co-operate with us in preventing heroin addicts and drug runners from coming into the country, should we not act unilaterally to place these people under a requirement to enter or leave the country only upon production of an identity card or passport? Should there not be a further requirement that before and after they are allowed to pass through the exit gates in Sydney they be placed under closed circuit scrutiny and not allowed to leave until they have been cleared by the computer data bank in Canberra?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I am aware of reports of the arrest of some people in the United Kingdom who are said to be New Zealanders and associated with particular crimes. Naturally enough, I am as concerned as the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the incidence of crime and, in particular, drug related crime, as in this case, in Australia should be absolutely minimised. The question of the introduction of passport controls or similar controls between Australia and New Zealand has been under scrutiny for a long time, as the honourable member would know from when he was Minister for Labor and Immigration. There is close cooperation and consultation between New Zealand authorities and Australian authorities in both the immigration area and the police area. My colleague the Minister for Administrative Services was recently in close contact with his New Zealand counterpart. I understand that there will be a visit to Australia by the New Zealand Minister responsible to discuss again the way in which the police forces operating in Australia and New Zealand can co-operate. There is no guarantee that by the introduction of passport controls we will prevent the entry of criminals. It is simplistic to believe that merely by the introduction of some sort of control we will prevent the movement of criminals between one country and another.

This is a question of great concern. It has exercised the minds of successive Ministers and governments. It was raised again at the most recent meeting of Australian Ministers concerned with immigration, which was also attended by the New Zealand Minister. Again I say that I am not convinced at this stage that the introduction of controls would result in superior benefitsbenefits which would attract me to that proposition- over and above the very real benefits which flow, in the relationships between the two countries, from the free flow travel arrangements which presently operate. It is a question of concern and it is under active consideration, but at this stage I am not convinced that the introduction of controls would necessarily have the effect which the honourable member has suggested.

page 2597

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Health seen a report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide on 1 November 1979 in which it was said that officers of the Department of Health, when appearing before an Estimates committee of the House, had suggested that the total cost of the reintroduction of a Medibank-style health scheme would be only about $500m? Is this true?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I received the transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide. The Leader of the Opposition did say that officers of the Department of” Health had said that the introduction of a Medibank-type health insurance system would cost of the order of $500m. I do not know whether he deliberately left out the word ‘more’ or whether he misunderstood what in fact the officers of the Department had said. I have checked the transcript. The words ‘$500m more’ should have been used. Indeed, further investigations have revealed that if a Medibank-type scheme were introduced, with an 85 per cent benefit and a $5 gap, the actual increased cost to Commonwealth revenue and therefore to taxpayers would be of the order of $600m. So in order to introduce a scheme with an 85 per cent benefit and a $5 gap there is no doubt that an additional $600m would have to be found from somewhere. Undoubtedly that sum would be found from the pockets of the Australian taxpayers. Instead of costing $500m, it would cost in fact about $ 1,200m for medical benefits alone. That is a far cry from the $500m figure that the Leader of the Opposition used on the ABC program Nationwide. I would like to clarify the position of the officers of my Department. At no time did they say that a Medibanktype scheme would cost $500m. Indeed, the truth of the matter is that such a scheme would cost $ 1 ,200m for medical benefits alone.

page 2598

PRIVILEGE

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr Speaker, I ask you to examine the answer given by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) today and the transcript of the parliamentary Estimates Committee. The Minister for Health has indicated that officers of his Department misled the Estimates Committee in giving evidence.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not see the point as a matter of privilege. I will look at the transcript of the Estimates Committee and the answer of the Minister for Health, but I do not see it as a matter of privilege at this point.

page 2598

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2598

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROL BOATS: BOFORS GUNS

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for Defence will recall his characteristically flatulent reply to my question on 25 October in which, amongst other things, he said that the Bofors gun being mounted on the new naval patrol boats was not obsolete. I ask the Minister whether he has seen an article in a recent Sunday newspaper in which the following references were made:

The Australian Navy is the laughing stock of the world following a decision to fit its new fleet of patrol boats with a single Bofors . . . gun, developed in Sweden in 1942 . . . Naval experts claim the Bofors are useless against anything bigger than a fishing boat at close range. One expert described it as a ‘pop gun*.

Leaving aside what damage the gun may or may not do to me if, to use the Minister’s own words, it was discharged in my direction, what damage would the gun do to the targets in relation to which the patrol boats will, with any luck at all, be finally brought into use?

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

– I am sorry that my honourable friend takes such a pessimistic view of life. May I give him the firm assurance that I certainly would not, under any circumstances, aim a Bofors gun in his direction. It may come as a complete surprise to him, but he does occupy a lingering place in my affections. If I were to be guided by weekend newspapers I would be in the thorough-going state of confusion which some of the critics allege I am in. I point out to the honourable gentleman that the Bofors gun is not meant to be an offensive weapon but for the role that it is presently meeting it is absolutely ideally suited. If the honourable gentleman and any of his colleagues remain in any doubt as to the efficacy of the Bofors gun I will, with the greatest of pleasure, arrange a demonstration. I am quite sure that the honourable gentleman will write as an angry taxpayer to the author of that article in the Sunday newspaper.

page 2598

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND AIR SERVICES

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for Transport will be aware of the discussions at a State level regarding the contemplated withdrawal of one airline from the BrisbaneMaryboroughBundabergGladstone service. Will the Minister inform the House whether he is in a position to exert a proper influence to ensure the maintenance of adequate services to the area affected?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I can understand the honourable member’s concern to ensure that appropriate air services are maintained throughout Queensland, but I have to say to him that the matter under consideration is a matter of a licence within the State of Queensland and therefore is a responsibility of the Minister for Transport in the Queensland Government. He has been keeping me informed of his approach to this question. We have had consultations on this matter. I will keep the honourable member’s worries in mind.

page 2598

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Health a question. Is it a fact that contributions to private health insurance in 1974 for full family cover amounted to 1.9 per cent of average weekly earnings? Is it also a fact that contributions to private health insurance on the same basis now represent 6.4 per cent of average weekly earnings, or a 240 per cent increase in five years? How does the Minister justify this increase in health insurance costs, which is forcing tens of thousands of Australian families to opt out of the cumbersome and confusing system that the Government has created with four major changes of policy in four years?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, you have no idea how glad I am that the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question. I think that the Australian people have a right to know why health costs have risen to the level that they have. Health expenditure in this country rose from about $2,500m in 1972-73 to $5,600m in 1975-76. That happens to be a rise of 125 per cent in a three-year period. In the first four years of the Fraser Government’s term of office there has been a rise of 40 per cent, against an increase of 125 per cent during the Labor Government’s term of office. Under the Labor Government the cost of health to Commonwealth outlays rose from $780m to about $2,900m-a 277 per cent increase in three years. Doctors’ fees for medical benefit purposes almost doubled in just over three years under the Labor Government. After four years under the Fraser Government the fees have increased by 3 1 per cent. During the Labor regime- that is what it was; it was a regime, I am sure- health expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product rose from 5.9 per cent to 7.85 per cent. In the four years that we have been in government we have stabilised that figure at around 7.89 per cent. During the Labor Government’s term of office the number of medical services increased, increasing by 13.1 per cent between 1973-74 and 1974-75 and by a further 28.5 per cent between 1974-75 and 1975-76. Since the Fraser Government has been in power the number of services has stabilised. It decreased by 4.8 per cent from 1975-76 to 1976-77. Between 1976-77 and 1977-78 it increased by 5.2 per cent.

The great explosion that has occurred in the health area goes right back to those Labor Government days. The Australian people are paying a very high price in their health insurance premiums for the luxury of a Labor government. We are waiting with bated breath for this new policy that the Labor Party will announcebefore Christmas- the return of Medibank, staged or phased, call it what you will. It will be a cooked goose, honourable members can be sure. If it does not cook the Australian economy it will cook the hide of practically every person in this country. The only people who prospered under that regime were the providers of health care and the doctors. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The Australian people have suffered greatly. When the Fraser Government came to office, health costs in this country were exploding by almost 36 per cent a year. It has taken a lot of very unpopular decisions on the part of this Government to wind that back to about 10 per cent. We make no apologies for attempting to stabilise the costs in the health area in order to bring budgetary sensibility back to this country.

page 2599

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd for 1978-79.

page 2599

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 10(1) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 I present the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd for 1978-79.

page 2599

SNOWY MOUNTAINS COUNCIL

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Council for 1978-79.

page 2599

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Research Grants Committee on grants approved for 1980 together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment relating to the report.

page 2599

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Overseas Students Charge Bill 1979.

Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill 1 979.

page 2599

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Migration Amendment Bill 1979.

Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Overseas Students Charge Bill 1979.

Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill 1979.

Social Services Amendment Bill 1979.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

page 2599

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Reports

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I present the 176th and 177th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-by leave-I present a statement by the Tertiary Education Commission entitled ‘Funding of Tertiary Education’. I move:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-by leave-The Public Accounts Committee has decided to depart from its usual practice of not releasing evidence submitted to it in advance of its report. Due to the importance of this inquiry, it has decided to table the submission from the Tertiary Education Commission. This submission to the Public Accounts Committee is the first definitive statement by the Tertiary Education Commission, which was established in June 1977, on its functions and operations. The submission not only provides details of the procedures followed by the Commission in recommending Commonwealth funds for tertiary education and in administering approved programs but also describes the respective roles of the Commission, State authorities and tertiary institutions.

The Public Accounts Committee and the Tertiary Education Commission’s Chairman, Professor Peter Karmel, believe the early publication of this document will give individuals and institutions a further opportunity to provide comment to the Committee before it formally takes oral evidence. The Committee believes that it will also help to satisfy a wide community interest that has been generated by the inquiry.

The Public Accounts Committee ‘s inquiry into the funding of tertiary education was initiated in May 1979 to review the arrangements for Commonwealth funding of universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education with particular reference to the respective roles of the Commonwealth, State and institutional bodies concerned and with the objective to find whether the administration and co-ordination of funding arrangements are cost effective. The terms of reference for the inquiry are:

  1. To inquire into the system of grants to support tertiary education;
  2. To inquire into the operations of the Tertiary Education Commission and its associated councils with particular reference to:

    1. The relationships between the Commission and the councils and State education co-ordinating authorities, State departments concerned with education, and tertiary education institutions;
    2. The procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to require the appropriate authorities to account for the expenditure of funds appropriated by the Australian Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the appropriate State grants legislation, and the Audit Act, and to determine whether the conditions attached to grants are adequate;
    3. The procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to evaluate, or have evaluated, tertiary education institutions, their courses and the ‘product’ of tertiary education; and
    4. The procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to investigate, report on and recommend alternative action for the allocation of resources in the tertiary education sector.

As a result of our Federal-State Public Accounts Committee conference in June 1977, it was agreed that real advantages might be gained in conducting inquiries into subjects such as education where concurrent responsibilities existfor example sections 107 and 108 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. We have therefore invited the public accounts committees of State parliaments to consider holding complementary inquiries as State authorities have a constitutional responsibility for the administration of tertiary institutions, including accountability for the distribution of funds to those institutions.

I refer now to the Committee’s 176th report which I have just tabled. Each year the AuditorGeneral reports to Parliament. The Committee’s 176th report concerns matters raised in the Auditor-General’s reports for 1977-78. During the inquiry, the Committee sought submissions from several departments and government authorities and held public hearings into matters relating to the Departments of Defence, Education, Primary Industry and National Development as well as the Canberra Commercial Development Authority.

The committee examined the AuditorGeneral’s reference to the handling by the Department of Defence of rental charges on Royal Australian Navy pipelines at Fremantle. The Committee was appalled that, although an oil company had made proposals in 1969 to effect lease rental changes in 1 970, at the date of its inquiry almost 10 years later, the Department had been unable to complete the matter. The Committee has also been critical of the lack of adequate departmental monitoring procedures which can allow overpayments and undercollection of revenue by departments to continue over many years.

The Committee examined the beef industry incentive payments scheme which was hurriedly introduced in 1977. The Department of Primary Industry, in the Committee’s view, demonstrated a lack of some capacity to cope with stringent time constraints. The Department conceded that, in certain areas, it had misinterpreted its legislation. The Committee noted inadequate prepayment and automatic data processing administrative control procedures and was also critical of the apparent lack of flexibility within the Public Service to meet short term staff needs such as those which arose in this case.

In examining aspects of the Department of Education’s control over student assistance allowances, the Committee is aware of the Department’s difficulties in reconciling the need for prompt and regular payment of benefits with the demands of proper control of public moneys. However, the Committee believes that the Department’s previous neglect of control and recovery functions, particularly in relation to its ADP controls, has contributed to the present high level of overpayments. The Committee was disappointed with the poor preparation of witnesses and with the uncertainty exhibited by the Department with regard to the degree of cooperation by tertiary institutions. The Department had initially contended that there was a lack of co-operation by institutions but progressively modified this during the course of the inquiry. The Department showed an attitude of apparent resignation to continuing high overpayments in its stance that as students did not always observe its requirements then its procedures must be adapted accordingly to allow for student shortcomings. Such an attitude is not acceptable to the Committee, which has emphasised the view that receipt of public money carries with it corresponding obligations and responsibilities which cannot be ignored or minimised.

The Committee has recommended changes to the application forms for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme which it believes will place greater onus on students to recognise and act upon their responsibility to advise the Department of status changes. The Committee has also recommended that the five major student assistance schemes which are currently not enacted should be legislated. It was advised by the Department that such a task would occupy a number of staff for approximately five years, primarily in the drafting of regulations. This estimate particularly dismayed the Committee in view of its recommendations in its 144th and 159th reports, which were directed at reducing the delays in the preparation of subordinate legislation.

The Committee has commenced inquiries into three other topics arising from the AuditorGeneral’s 1977-78 reports and will table, when completed, substantive reports on off-shore petroleum royalties, the late submission of financial statements by statutory authorities and other bodies, and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority.

I refer now to the Committee’s 177th report, which presents the official response from the Department of Finance, in the form of Finance

Minutes, to the Committee’s 168th and 173rd reports. These reports concerned expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1976-77 and expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the financial year 1977-78. The Committee has commented on the response of the Department of Defence to the difficulty of introducing procedures to ensure adequate commitment control. The Committee proposes to review this when it again examines the Department’s use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. I commend the reports to honourable members.

page 2601

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report

Mr FRY:
Fraser

- Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I bring up the Committee’s report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs (68th series), together with copies of extracts of the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

-by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present the report of the Committee on the 68th series of variations to the Plan of Canberra. In preparing this report the Committee had before it the report of the ACT House of Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance. The Chairman of that Committee appeared before this Committee to discuss the report of the Assembly. It is not intended that the work of the Assembly’s Committee should duplicate the work of this Committee, but it is obviously helpful to the Joint Committee on the ACT to have the Assembly’s views and to be able to take them into account. We welcome this process of cooperation between the ACT House of Assembly and the National Parliament.

There were 18 variations initially under consideration in this series. However, one was withdrawn by the National Capital Development Commission at the hearing. The total value of the variations considered was $ 1 ,045,000. Objections were lodged to seven of the proposed variations. The Committee heard evidence on these and has approved all but two of the variations. The total value of the work involved in the 1 5 variations approved is $885,000.

A variation was proposed to provide for a road part of the way to the summit of Mount Taylor in the suburb of Chifley. The Chifley-Mount Taylor Residents Association felt that this road would adversely affect residents in the area. The Committee carefully considered the views of the Association, and other views put forward, including those of the House of Assembly, but after considering the alternatives proposed by the Association, decided that the roadworks envisaged by the National Capital Development Commission were the best desirable alternative and that this work should proceed. The proposal has therefore been approved by the Committee.

Careful consideration was also given to objections by Pedal Power to modifications of the cycle path system. While the Committee has approved the proposed changes, some reservations have been indicated and the Committee would expect that these will be taken into account by planners in the further development of the cycle path system.

The proposed variations in the Belconnen Town Centre- sections 54, 55 and 65- gave rise to considerable concern. The issues involved are referred to in the report. The Committee is not satisfied with the way in which planning in these sections has proceeded. There is uncertainty about an option claimed over part of section 54 by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The Canberra Revival Centre also faces difficulties because of proposed changes to planning in the area.

The Committee endorses the view of the House of Assembly’s Report that a comprehensive management plan for the Belconnen Town Centre should be prepared and believes that no further decisions should be taken on the development of section 54 in particular until this is done. However, the Committee considers that the development of the proposed library in the Town Centre should not be delayed by this decision. There will need to be much better communications between all those involved before such a plan is finalised. The Committee especially wishes to emphasise its concern and dissatisfaction with the way in which planning for the development of the Belconnen Town Centre has proceeded in recent times. The Committee intends to keep this matter under the closest possible scrutiny when future variations are proposed in the Town Centre.

The Committee has also expressed in this report its concern about the limited time it has had to consider these variations. The Committee has expressed the view before that it is essential that proposed variations come to the Committee early in each parliamentary sitting period. On this occasion there was a long delay, with the result that the variations were advertised only towards the end of the current period. The result has been that the Committee had to examine the variations immediately the time for objections expired. We had then to finalise this report within three days so that we could be sure that the required six sitting days remained for the variations to be considered by the Parliament. We assume that there will now be six sitting days for this to occur, but we can be by no means certain that this will be the case. This could mean that work on these variations would be delayed until next March. This is not a time in Canberra’s development when such delays can be accepted. I therefore reiterate that this Committee expects that in future proposed variations will be advertised within a month of the commencement of the parliamentary sitting period. We take the view that the NCDC and the Department of the Capital Territory should organise their program in a way to meet such a requirement. We seek the co-operation of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) to ensure that this occurs. I commend the report to the House.

page 2602

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

The Government’s failure to protect the rights of the Aboriginal community at Yarrabah Reserve in Queensland.

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 LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Yarrabah reserve in Queensland is one of 14 reserves in that State. The population of Yarrabah is 1,500 and there would be some 14,000 or more people on the various reserves. Substantial sums of Commonwealth money are given to the Queensland Government for the welfare and advancement of the Aboriginal people. What I saw recently at Yarrabah proves clearly to me- and, I think, to all members of this Parliament- that the Queensland Government is failing to meet its obligations to look after the Aboriginal people. It is failing in the area of welfare and in the area of the advancement of the Aboriginal people. If Yarrabah is an example of some of the other problems in Queensland- and I believe it is- it is timely, appropriate and urgent that the Commonwealth Government assert its constitutional rights and take over the administration of the care and advancement of Aboriginal people. Australian governments have never been able to negotiate an adequate and satisfactory arrangement with the Queensland Government. There have been motions and debates in this House time and time again as to what is happening to other sections of Queensland, where Aboriginal people are deemed to be on reserves or land with some other legal definition.

The Aboriginal people in Queensland are quite clear as to their rights, namely, that they should have control of their own destiny and that they should have control of the land on which they are located. That is a normal and understandable right. At Yarrabah the people are under a system where they are third grade Australians at best, living in refugee-like conditions. They can only be fleeing from the sort of system which the Queensland Government seems to think is to their advantage. I looked at Yarrabah only because I was asked to do so by representatives of the council of the Yarrabah people who came to Canberra. These people came to Canberra to talk to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) about their needs. I understand that at the same time the Liberal leader in Queensland, Dr Llew Edwards, was present. Some two or three months ago they put a specific plea to the Minister as to what was wrong and why they could not be given the opportunity to control the Yarrabah reserve and its community. There are good and valid reasons why that request should have been acceded to. The council representatives came to my office and asked that I go and have a look. I had a chance to do that at the weekend and I am appalled at the conditions that exist on that reserve. I think that any other member of this Parliament would be equally appalled.

Let me just deal with the factual situation. There are 1,500 people- many of them children- living in sub-standard housing. For

I, 500 people there are 149 houses. At present, the average number of people per house is 10 or

  1. I . There would have to be at least two families per house in order for them to obtain some shelter. That in itself is an indictment of any government, whether it be of a State or Federal nature. But we have the responsibility. As one drives into Yarrabah one notices that the bitumen road ends virtually where the reserve commences. The reserve is covered in dust and grime and the people are in the greatest slum-like conditions that one has seen. But what does one see when one comes into an area which is deemed to be the focal point? One sees a building with the titles ‘court house’, ‘visiting magistrate’ and police’ over the doors. When anyone arrives at the reserve, say on a Sunday, they see uniformed police officers standing there and a guard dog of the most ferocious type. Surely that is on the basis that the police are trying to protect themselves from the Aborigines. I cannot see any welfare or advancement in that. Up on the hill there is a galvanised and concrete structure called the gaol which would do credit to Idi Amin from the point of view of incarcerating people in the worst sort of environment. Can honourable members imagine the environmental impact of that sort of situation on the women and children in the Yarrabah community- with guard dogs, police in uniform, gaol-like conditions and visiting magistrates? The penalty position is quite clear.

What about all the other things we hear people talking about? Where is the opportunity for the Aborigines in this area to start their own programs and develop their own community? I understand that the Church of England had control of the reserve for years, commencing in the 1890s. I understand that splendid progress was made under its control. Since 1960 the reserve has been under the control of the Queensland Government and the standards of the people on the reserve have slipped from those which had been obtained to a position of people with no motivation, no spirit and no ideas. They are virtually in the refugee class. I recently visited refugee camps in Thailand on the Kampuchean border and what I said is no exaggeration. The level of motivation among the people at Yarrabah is about the same as that in the refugee camps. It is one of hopelessness. The people are dispirited and they cannot see any future. Why would the Aboriginals in this area take that attitude? It could only be because of the environmental factors I have outlined and the fact that an oppressive sort of superior group is going to control their destiny. Control is exercised by surveillance from police officers with the assistance of guard dogs, by the imposition of penalties or by incarceration in a gaol on the hill at the reserve. It is a matter of: ‘We will teach you a lesson ‘.

In looking at the situation in terms of welfare and advancement, welfare would relate to good personal health, hygiene, a good diet and the right sort of environment. About the most progressive thing that I saw at the Yarrabah reserve from the point of view of a building was the new pub that has been built. That can be regarded as being an asset but I do not think it ought to have top priority. The licensee of it, of course, is the

Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland. I am not saying that he has any personal interest but that is the way things operate. Everything is under the control of somebody other than the Aboriginals. I think that as a matter of urgency at least many more houses should have been commenced or built by now, but that has not happened. I read in this morning’s Press that the Acting Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland said that I am off the mark; eight houses have been started. If he was referring to the ones that I saw, they were started many months ago and the building materials are still on the ground. Any crops that the Aboriginals may have planted have been ruined because the people there cannot see any advantage in trying to continue to grow things without a water supply, fertilisers and so on. Nor do they see that they would have control of their own destiny.

Let me look at the legal situation. We as parliamentarians have an obligation to look after the Aboriginal people. The people of Australia by referendum amended the Constitution to say that the Australian Government has the responsibility to look after these people. What have we done about looking after these people? Admittedly we have given millions of dollars to the Queensland Government to look after these people. I say that is money wasted; money destroyed. We are in the process of destroying these people if we leave their welfare to the likes of the Queensland Government. But we did go through the motion of passing legislation in this place because, as honourable members would be aware, of the further difficulties faced by the Aboriginal people at Aurukun and Mornington Island. Those people wanted to be able to control their own destiny. We solemnly passed a piece of law called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Selfmanagement) Act. However, that Act did not do any good for the people at Aurukun and Mornington Island because the Queensland Government immediately altered title to the land so that we could not exercise direct control over it. Since then some sentiments expressing the reaching of a satisfactory solution by way of leases have been uttered but we have never seen the leases. But under that Act the community council, which comprises the Aborigines themselves, can request the Minister to give the community autonomy. That is made clear under section 5 of the Act. Under section 7 of the Act the Council can manage and control the affairs of the Aboriginal community residing on the reserve. The community made that request to the Minister, that is,

Senator Chaney, as far back as 30 January but no action has been taken under the Act. All that we have been told is that the Minister is still anxious to negotiate. As I understand it, he is having difficulty because it is like negotiating with the enemy. That is how he has described the situation. He is not far wrong in talking that way because a recent article on a visit to the Yarrabah people by the Queensland Minister, Mr Porter, states:

Porter started off the meeting by strongly saying ‘the Commonwealth Government is the enemy of the Queensland Government’. Then he went on to say “There is no good relying on the Commonwealth Government because they won’t be in power after the next election and they know it, there is no negotiations going on between the Queensland State Government and the Commonwealth Government about Yarrabah’.

Let me make the position very clear. What sort of nonsense is it we are hearing from this Government? I ask honourable members to consider the situation I saw on my visit on Sunday to Yarrabah. These people are subjugated, downtrodden and not making any progress at all. What are we about? We have to be able to say to the Aboriginal people: ‘We are genuinely concerned about your welfare’. The only way for us to help them is to follow up the submission by a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the Queensland Aboriginal and Islanders Commission which was incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard of 5 April. The submission reads:

I submit that all special legislative and administrative measures affecting Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders should be based on respect for individual dignity and human rights and should be designed to develop selfrespect, independence, self-management and self-sufficiency of Aboriginals and Islanders. Specifically, I submit that . . Aboriginal and Island Councils should have full responsibility and authority for managing reserve communities;

Official powers of management and control of reserves and reserve communities and persons on them should be terminated; tide to reserves should be vested in appropriate Aboriginal and Island trusts; the trusts or councils or other representative Aboriginal bodies should be empowered to authorise entry to reserves for exploration and mining . . .’

Honourable members can see the concept within that submission. What about the people of the Yarrabah reserve? They are not entitled to remain there if the administrator so decides. The administrator does not live on the reserve. He lives in Cairns, some 32 miles away. Turning now to health care, a 29-year-old man, who lived on the reserve Septimus Livingstone, died in the casualty ward at Cairns Hospital on 15 October 1979. When he sought treatment at Yarrabah he was asked to go to Cairns. He went there and sought treatment and was brought back to the reserve again. He again sought treatment and was given some headache tablets. He died of double pneumonia. That actually happened in recent days. These people live in humpies made from galvanised iron and parts of old tents. What about their educational opportunities? Only half of the children who are supposed to go to high school actually attend school. How do they get to school? They have to travel 30-odd miles and it takes two or three hours to get there if they have the use of a vehicle. The vehicle on the reserve is now broken down. It ran into a cliff last week because nobody had bothered to carry out any repairs and keep it in running order.

I ask honourable members to have a look at the dreadful position these Aboriginals are in. I have mentioned health, education and housing. In support of my remarks on health let me refer to the fact that some weeks ago a number of doctors in Queensland sent a petition to the Director-General in Queensland stating that there is a crisis in this region; that there is an urgent need to improve the situation by taking health care away from the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement and giving it to some more appropriate department. They claim that this change of responsibility would get rid of the paternalistic and undemocratic policies of the Queensland Department which are adversely affecting the health of the Yarrabah population, leading to alcoholism, malnutrition and maladaptive behaviour. That is the evidence of professional medical practitioners in the area. Yet we as members of parliament sit in this place and say that we cannot interfere because we are negotiating. The time for negotiation has run out.

The same issue is involved when it comes to the question of award rates for Aborigines. They are paid half rates. One of them went to the court and got an award to be paid full rates. But that action has been circumvented on the basis that it is a matter for Queensland negotiation and is not the Commonwealth’s responsibility. Let us make it clear. We passed a law here called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act which provided that a person shall not employ an Aborigine at rates lower than or under terms and conditions inferior to those received by anyone else. Why is the Minister not doing something about that particular case? Unfortunately, Mr Justice Matthews in Queensland ignored the Commowealth law and made an award on the basis that the Aboriginal ought to be entitled to the money. But he has never been able to get that money. Why? It is because the Queensland Government says in respect of Aborigines: ‘We cannot afford to pay them full award wages so we will pay them only half wages’. They have a system called the trainee system where Aborigines are paid half wages as trainees. Some of these unfortunates are still trainees at 60 years of age. It is exploitation. It is a complete abdication of Commonwealth responsibility. It is a matter that must be raised here today and the only satisfactory way of solving this problem is for the Australian Government Minister immediately to take over those reserves- Yarrabah in particular- and grant these people the right to selfdetermination, thereby getting rid of all that nonsense that has applied there for some time and which has degraded these people.

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

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

– I speak in this debate on a matter of public importance on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). I think that by any fair assessment of the actions of my colleague since the Yarrabah community petitioned the Commonwealth in January this year, he has assiduously looked to the community’s interests and has sought to negotiate a settlement with the Queensland Government. At the outset, I would like to draw to the attention of the House details of the actual request by the Yarrabah Council to my colleague. It is in these terms: The Yarrabah Council had been advised of the findings and recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in a report on Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland reserves. The Council noted the concern expressed by that Senate Committee upon the effectiveness of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-Management) Act of 1978. In particular, the Yarrabah Council noted that, in the opinion of the Senate Committee, the effectiveness of that Act depended on the ability of the Commonwealth Government to negotiate land tenure for any community which may petition to come under the Act.

The Yarrabah Council said that it would not be satisfied with the kind of leasehold land tenure which the Commonwealth had negotiated for the Aurukun and Mornington Island reserves. Consequently, the Council requested that the Minister- and I emphasise this point- try to negotiate with the Queensland Government on behalf of the Yarrabah Council a form of land tenure for Yarrabah Community Council similar to that legislated for Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory with the addition of timber rights. If, said the Council, the Minister was unable to persuade the State Government to grant the Yarrabah community comparable land tenure, then it respectfully requested him to prepare the legislation recommended by the Senate Standing Committee with the intention of purchasing Yarrabah reserve for the people of Yarrabah. The House will therefore see that at the heart of the request by the Yarrabah Council was a request that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs negotiate with the Queensland Government for land tenure.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has noted from a statement that I made to the House some time ago that the Commonwealth is committed, as it has been committed in the past, to obtaining for Aboriginal communities in Australia the right of selfmanagement, and with it a form of land tenure which in particular would secure for them their traditional, rights and the usage of their traditional lands. Of course it is well known that by an Act of this Parliament land rights by means of a particular form of land tenure were granted to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory over which at that time the Commonwealth had exclusive constitutional control. However, as is also well known, the constitutional position between the Commonwealth and the States is rather different from that which held between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. This came to light in particular at the time when the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities were seeking to have self-management of their own communities and of their own reserve lands free of domination by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement under the Queensland Aborigines legislation. It is well known to this House that both self-management and land tenure were achieved by the Commonwealth for the Aboriginal people of Aurukun and Mornington Island under an Act of the Queensland Parliament, but one which specifically entrenched the rights of the Aboriginal people in those two communities. I think a government which in the future sought to take away from those two communities the entrenched rights which they have achieved under that legislation would be a government which threw fear and caution to the wind.

I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and also by one of the leaders of one of those communities to whom I have since spoken, that the situation at Aurukun and Mornington Island has settled down very well indeed under that legislation. They do truly have self-management under a local authority which is all Aboriginal, and which is elected by the people of those communities and under a law which gives them the right to control substantially their own destinies. Those communities have been granted a 50-year lease of the former reserves. This lease is renewable and in particular it secures for them the right to exercise the traditional usage of their land, which is their traditional land. The Yarrabah people have said that they do not want land tenure of the kind which was granted to the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities. They are seeking something different. My colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has been to Yarrabah at least on two occasions- I believe on 6 April this year and again on 25 June this year. I am also advised that he plans to visit Yarrabah again in the near future, possibly during this month. The Minister has gone to Yarrabah to meet with the community Council to discuss their requests of him, so that he would be in a better position to negotiate in their interests with the Queensland Government. This is in fact what my colleague has done. He has had extensive discussions with the Queensland Minister, Mr Porter and with the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland and the Deputy Premier, the Honourable Llew Edwards. Both he and the Deputy Premier of Queensland have had discussions with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

I draw the attention of the House to a Press statement issued by my colleague on 1 1 September. He said that in Canberra that night he had met with the Council of the Yarrabah reserve and had had further discussions on their request that he negotiate with the Queensland Government for secure land tenure over the Yarrabah reserve and freedom to manage the reserve. On that occasion the Deputy Premier of Queensland was also in Canberra for discussions with the Prime Minister. He attended the meeting with the Yarrabah Council at the suggestion of the Prime Minister. Since then, extensive representations and negotiations have been made by my colleague, through Dr Edwards and Mr Porter, to the Queensland Government. Those negotiations are still on foot. They have not been completed. Therefore, it is premature for me to indicate in any way the result of those negotiations. However, I can inform the House and I can positively inform members of the Yarrabah Council, through this House, that the twin rights which my colleague is seeking to negotiate on their behalf, as requested by them in January, are to obtain self-management of their community and their reserve lands. Secondly, he is seeking to obtain land tenure over the reserve in the hands of the Yarrabah Council. I cannot foretell what the ultimate result of those negotiations may be. Perhaps my colleague can negotiate something different, as requested by the Yarrabah Council, from what was achieved on behalf of the communities of Aurukun and Mornington Island. But the important thing is that whatever is negotiated has to meet those fundamental desires for security of land tenure and self-management.

We know from past experience that the Opposition would seek to confront the Queensland Government, which would be in contrast to our efforts to negotiate a solution. We adopt that stance because we recognise that Australia is a federation. The States have constitutional rights and jurisdiction within their own territories. The Commonwealth has been given by the Constitution certain jurisdiction, amongst which is a right to make laws with respect to the people of any race. Thankfully, no longer is there any limitation upon the Commonwealth’s right to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Islander people. It ought to be noted that the Opposition when in government for three years had the opportunity, if it had the will at the time, either to negotiate to take over the Aboriginal reserves of Queensland or to take them over by legislative action. The Whitlam Government of the day chose not to take that action. We also know that that Government thoroughly investigated the prospect of doing that, but having done so it withdrew from the prospect. So it is rather an empty argument that we hear today, as we have heard before, from the Opposition in demanding that this Government take over willy-nilly all the reserves of Queensland, both Aboriginal and Islander. Senator Chaney has acknowledged that the Yarrabah Council has been patient in waiting upon the negotiations that are presently being undertaken. On his behalf I thank the Yarrabah Council for its patience. I think its members appreciate that the best result in the end will be one which has been patiently negotiated to a satisfactory conclusion. I emphasise again that those negotiations are in train. They have not been completed. They will be pursued resolutely by my colleague in the interests of the Yarrabah people.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the claim by the people of Yarrabah to be paid award rates for work they do. He asked why the Commonwealth has not acted under its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act. I do not know how many times I have to inform the House of the action taken by this Government, but let me repeat that we as a government were directly involved in the legal proceedings taken by the Yarrabah people to obtain award rates. We briefed counsel and counsel appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth before the relevant arbitration court. The judge decided the matter under the Queensland law and held that under Queensland law these Aboriginals were entitled to be paid award rates for the work they did. It was not, therefore, necessary for him as a matter of law to consider the implications or application of the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Why not?

Mr VINER:

– It is a matter of law. The honourable gentleman is a lawyer. He would appreciate that the judge found as a matter of law that the Aboriginals were entitled to be paid under Queensland law. Therefore, there was no need to call in aid the Commonwealth Act. I assure the honourable gentleman that if this issue arises again and if there is any need for the Aboriginal people of Yarrabah or any other Queensland reserve to obtain the protection of the Commonwealth law this Government will see that they obtain that protection. I should also inform the House of -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has told us that the people at Yarrabah do not want the confrontation which the Australian Labor Party would offer them but that they want negotiation with Queensland. He thank them for their patience; but all patience has its limits. The people of Yarrabah applied on 30 January this year for federal intervention to achieve self-management. They have kept on asking not only for self-management but also for the very awards which the courts and the law of Queensland have not granted since that date. They released a statement on 4 June as follows:

We, the elected persons constituting the Yarrabah Community Council, wish to notify the public of the following:

On 14 May 1979 this Council sent a telex to Senator Chaney, Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, requesting:

results of negotiations between the Federal and State Governments regarding self-management, full freehold title to land, mineral rights, water rights, fishing rights, timber rights, etc.;

a meeting with Senator Chaney prior to any agreement being drawn up between the Federal and State Governments; and

fulfilment of promises made by Senator Chaney to provide Yarrabah Council with funds to employ a project officer.

To date no response has been made to the issues raised in that telex and we believe we are being ignored and treated with contempt in the same manner the Aurukun and Mornington . Island peoples were. Therefore we insist that this Council be involved in all discussions and at all levels with Federal and State representatives concerning Yarrabah.

This Council has decided that prior to any work or use of land presently under our jurisdiction (that is within Yarrabah boundaries) permission must be given from this Council and not the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement.

This decision has been made to stop the mis-use of our land by State authorities who in the past have displayed wanton disregard through bulldozing our land, blatant destruction of our fauna, the unauthorised handing over all our land for things such as deep water ports, tourist complexes, pine tree forests, etc., etc.

This callous destruction has raped us of our natural heritage and has had a soul destroying effect on our lifestyles and values.

This Council has become an incorporated body and therefore has the power of right to manage our own finances. Accordingly we demand that in respect of all aspects of funding concerning Yarrabah the Federal Government fund this Council ‘direct’ not through the State Government.

Signed: Percy Niel, Chairman Yarrabah Council; Councillor Connolly; Councillor Formile

The Minister thanked the Yarrabah people for their patience. It is the only response that they will get from this Government. The Minister says that confrontation is the alternative offered by the Australian Labor Party. Confrontation is the only alternative left, as was concluded by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the all-party committee which the Minister referred to. During the AurukunMornington Island crisis, the Government passed the necessary legislation in, I think, a matter of three weeks, and was ready to act within a matter of days or hours to take over Aurukun and Mornington Island. The legislation was passed and the Government could have acted if the Queensland Government had not taken the backdoor escape route by de-gazetting those reserves. The Queensland Government has not de-gazetted Yarrabah as a reserve. Why then cannot this Government act within a matter of days or hours as it proposed to do in the case of Aurukun and Mornington Island when they were reserves?

The matter drags on and will continue to drag on as long as the Queensland Government can somehow persuade this weak-kneed Government that unless it has the Queensland Government on side it cannot achieve anything for Aboriginal people. State rights have priority with this Government. The Minister said that the Labor Government had the opportunity for three years to implement the confrontation policy but did not do so. The Labor Government negotiated thoroughly and found all the facts. The Minister said that we retreated from confrontation. That is not the position.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– We investigated all the facts as far as possible during the time we were in government. In Opposition we have continued to investigate them. The present Government has continued to investigate these matters since. The action that was not taken by the Labor Government should have been taken long before this stage as it is almost a year since the Yarrabah people applied. I am not against negotiating with the Queensland Government. When I became shadow Minister for Aboriginal affairs, one of my first acts was to write to Mr Porter, the Queensland State Minister. I offered him consultations to find out on what matters concerning Aboriginals we could co-operate. I offered him discussions, but his response was that there could not possibly be anything we could have in common and he did not propose ever to meet me. On another occasion, I courteously requested him to release to me the statements that he made publicly. His reply was that I could read them in Hansard. That is the sort of person whom the Minister says one can negotiate with. The Minister must get a different response from Mr Porter if he thinks that he is negotiating.

The Minister told us that it would be premature to announce what the negotiations have achieved. He then told us what the negotiations are hoping to achieve. He said that selfmanagement of the Council, the land and land tenure is being sought. For God ‘s sake, how long does one have to say these are being sought? They were being sought even before the Yarrabah people asked about them. They were being sought by the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has flown there twice, and will go there again to seek the proper tenure or use of the land by those people who own it.

In the Northern Territory this problem would have been solved in one hit. We have achieved this objective in the Northern Territory simply by not giving the Northern Territory Government the sorts of powers that the Queensland Government has arrogated to itself in defiance of the 1967 referendum which decided that the Federal Government ought to have the power to pass laws in these matters. In the light of that referendum result, I believe that there has been enough negotiation. Had the Labor Government continued in office, I confidently state that, within a matter of months after we were thrown out of office, this confrontation would have occurred. We were preparing for it. Ministers have only to look at the records of the Department to see that the escalation of confrontation was continuing. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) I, and other honourable members on this side of the House have indicated our bona fides in this matter by the amendments we have moved to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Bill. I asked the Minister to discuss this Bill with me. I tried twice to discuss the matter with him before the Bill came to this House. I said that he should accept the Opposition’s amendment that it not be just the designated reserves that the Government take over but all reserves gazetted as at 3 1 March 1978. He said that there was nothing we could discuss about the Opposition amendments; the Government had made up its mind. That was said by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs who is at the table when he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

A few weeks after that conversation, when it appeared that the Opposition amendments could have saved the day, prevented the de-gazettal of the reserves and given the people genuine selfmanagement not a local council which has to be observed by the Minister every few monthsSenator Kathy Martin from Queensland said that in retrospect it may have been wiser if the Government had had a closer look at the Opposition’s amendments. The Government did not have to ask the Opposition’s permission to look at the amendments. Anybody concerned with land rights in Queensland could have told the Government what was about to happen. There is no excuse for dilly-dallying. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised the matter of poor housing and atrocious town planning. The houses are cheek by jowl within spitting distance of each other. Dust clouds from the road are going over the houses each time a car passes. However, once one gets out of the township onto the rest of the reserve, there is a beautiful sealed road all the way into Cairns. Town planning takes note only of priorities that save money for the State Government. If the houses were spaced properly apart it may be necessary to put in a few more yards of water pipes. There is no consultation with the Yarrabah Council. The Yarrabah Council issued a Press release on the matter in June and it is still saying: ‘Why cannot we be in on the negotiations? You are negotiating for selfmanagement, not for a modus vivendi between the Federal Government and the State Government’.

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

Mr THOMSON:
Leichhardt

-The speeches made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) were very disappointing in that they were emotional and destructive. To say that confrontation is the only alternative for Yarrabah is complete and utter nonsense. It is quite wrong to say that and it will only do great damage to the people of Yarrabah and to other Aboriginal communities in Queensland. A destructive speech does not do any good in this very difficult area. Let us try to do something for these people by negotiation. Confrontation is not the answer and never will be. Let me be constructive. I would like to pay tribute to the Yarrabah Council and the people of Yarrabah. It has been a first-class Council. I am very impressed with its members both individually and collectively. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has said that they have been patient. They have been patient and they have been determined, too. They have stated exactly what they want. They have been part of the negotiations and on 11 September in Canberra the Council met with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) and the Deputy Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Llew Edwards. In those negotiations the Council said what it wanted. Following the negotiations, the Council issued a statement. It gave a copy to me and to a number of other people. I was at Yarrabah only a couple of weeks ago when one of the councillors gave a copy of the statement to the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement manager. The Council said in its statement after that meeting with Senator Chaney and Dr Edwards:

We want the right to do our own thing at our own pace. First we want land tenure and land security of all the land included in the present Yarrabah Reserve, including Mission Bay.

As a first step we want a SO year lease granted to the Yarrabah Council with a guarantee of a renewal. We want the Yarrabah Council to be appointed trustees. We want this agreement protected by an Act of both the Commonwealth and the State Parliament so that the land can never be sold.

Then we want to move to self-management in cooperation with the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Advancement and the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The statement continued:

Gradually, as the Council sees fit, we will take over all the functions at present carried out by D.A.I.A. on the Yarrabah Reserve.

The statement concluded:

We believe these are sensible and practical ideas which must be achieved in co-operation with both the State and Federal Governments.

That statement was made by the chairman and two councillors of the Yarrabah Community Council. It seems to me to be a very firm and very sensible statement. It is a great credit to the Council which is under great pressure from people like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Capricornia to confront. It is under pressure to confront. That is the statement made only a few weeks ago.

Dr Everingham:

– From Minister Porter, not from me. Why do you think they said that? It is because the State Government has them under its thumb. They cannot change the government. They cannot move.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Capricornia will remain silent.

Mr THOMSON:

-I am quietly confident that the community will get the two things that it has asked for. It has asked for security of land tenure in that beautiful area- it is a beautiful area- and self-management. It can get this. I am sure that it will get it. The annual report of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement for 1979 states:

Of great single importance was the extension of the powers and prerogatives of elected Community Councils, which as corporate bodies are now able to accept greater responsibilities for the conduct of their communities.

That report was tabled in the Queensland Parliament. It goes on to say:

Councils are legally able to carry out many of the functions provided by the Public Service administration and establish a greater degree of independence and selfmanagement by raising their own revenues, receiving other public moneys and accepting responsibility for provision of services.

After hearing that statement, does the Opposition believe that confrontation is the only way? Of course it is not. Negotiation is the way in which to do it. It has taken a long time. I agree that this has taken far too long. I know, and I have already said, that the Yarrabah Council has been very patient and very firm. It knows where it is going and it knows what it wants. I think it will get it. It has said publicly and to me privately that it really does not want local government as the communities of Aurukun and Mornington Island have it. That is an alternative which it might consider. Three weeks ago I visited Aurukun and Mornington Island. I must say that I was very encouraged by what I saw. The difference in the six months or so in which the communities have had local government functioning effectively is quite remarkable. I suggest that the Council of Yarrabah should visit Aurukun and Mornington Island before it makes firm decisions on the form of management which it wants. I met the council of both Aurukun and Mornington Island and discussed the success or otherwise of the experiment which is being conducted. They believe that it is successful. They told me that it is working. They said that they are getting more confidence in running their own affairs. They said that they do not feel that they are being interfered with by either State or Federal government. That is an important statement. They said that they believed that they had selfmanagement as they wanted it.

At Aurukun the shire clerk withdrew and the council discussed its progress with me. It discussed it very forcibly. In fact, I was rather pleased to witness a considerable argument between two councillors about a certain matter. That is the sort of argument that I had not seen previously. It was a hammer and tongs argument in council. That was local government working as I think it should work.

Mr Braithwaite:

– They were debating things.

Mr THOMSON:

-They were debating things. They were not confronting; they were negotiating and discussing. That is what we really want to do in relation to the Yarrabah situation. To say for a moment that confrontation is the right answer is quite wrong. I hope that it will not come to confrontation. The Commonwealth has certain responsibilities but I hope that we can achieve recognition of those responsibilities as far as Yarrabah is concerned by negotiation, not by confrontation. It is not just the future of Yarrabah which is at stake. All the other communities, which have not yet achieved selfmanagement that is, all those except Aurukun and Mornington Island- half a dozen or more of which I have visited recently, are watching the Yarrabah situation very closely. They are waiting to see what they should do next. That is a sensible decision on their part.

There are many good things about Yarrabah. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a very emotional speech about it. Three weeks ago or less I went to the Yarrabah school sports and fete. I wish that he had been there to see that. That was very encouraging, too. The staff at that school are very dedicated. All the children and the parents were there. The parents were running the fete, making money for the school. The art work of the children was quite remarkable. The story of the history of Yarrabah was depicted in a mural around the walls of one of the school rooms. That is the sort of thing which is happening. It is easy to be destructive; it is easy to pick out the worst points. Let us pick out the good points such as the fact that we have a community there. It has problems, but there are many problems in other communities, both Aboriginal and European, in the isolated areas of Australia. These problems occur as a result of distance and isolation and often as a result of the neglect of governments, both State and Federal. Our job is to see that that neglect is redressed. We must do that but not by confrontation. We could have confronted the communities of Aurukun and Mornigton Island, but by negotiation, by the firmness of the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the present Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who is sitting at the table, a very satisfactory solution was found. The people of Aurukun and Mornington Island have land tenure. They believe that they have security over their land. The outstation system at Aurukun is working splendidly. The people feel confident of their future.

Mr Braithwaite:

– They are making progress.

Mr THOMSON:

-They are making a great deal of progress. I suggest that if we had had confrontation at that time, we would have had High Court actions, legal battles extending maybe for years while those people were destroyed. Now at Aurukun and Mornington Island, because of the firmness of the Government, we have achieved great things. We have to have the same sort of achievements at Yarrabah. They may follow a different path. That is up to the Yarrabah people. If they decide that they do not want local government, but some other form self-management, as they indicated in the statement that I read, then we should listen to them. There are many complexities. It is not going to be simple. We are going through a new phase in relationships between State and Federal government and the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. I am confident that good sense and charity will prevail and that we will get security of land tenure and self-management not only for Yarrabah but also for all the communities in Queensland that want it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) ignores the fact that no white community in Australia is living under the same housing conditions as the people of Yarrabah, who are living on one of the more delightful parts of the Australian coast. All sorts of factors are involved. For instance, the Marine Board dredging destroyed the community’s beach. Nothing is being done to continue the road, which was taken by the Mulgrave Shire, to the gate of the community through the township itself. I appeal to the House and to the people involved to start to apply to the Aboriginal communities in Australia the same standards and attitudes as they apply to every other part of Australia. Until we do that we cannot stand in this House and pat ourselves on the back. We have a duty to the Aboriginal people, something which we have managed to ignore almost completely for the last 12 years or so since we passed the referendum. There will be no security for the Aboriginal people of Yarrabah until we have taken steps to secure their land for them -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr BRYANT:

-Against the wishes of such people as the honourable member for Bendigo, who restrains this House -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the arrangement was for two speakers from each side. Therefore, I move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr BRYANT:

-The honourable member for Bendigo is a fine example, is he not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2611

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed). This Bill provides for grants amounting to $225.3m to the States for 1980 for the capital and equipment programs of universities and colleges of advanced education and for the recurrent and capital funding of technical and further education. In addition, the Bill provides for grants amounting to $6.4m to the

Northern Territory for 1980, for advanced education and TAFE recurrent purposes and for major building projects in relation to the provision of tertiary education. In order that the Northern Territory be funded under the same arrangements as apply in the States the Bill also provides $2.8m for advanced education recurrent purposes in the Northern Territory for 1 98 1 . The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1978 provided grants to the States for universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE institutions for 1979 as well as recurrent grants for universities and colleges of advanced education for 1980 and 1981.

The grants provided for in the Bill are consistent with those announced by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in the Senate on 16 October. However, in accordance with established procedures, appropriate adjustments have been made for movements in costs to June 1979, both for the programs now approved and for programs covered under the existing legislation. The Bill puts into effect arrangements relating to the consideration of new teaching developments in universities and colleges of advanced education which have been agreed to by the Australian Education Council and endorsed by the Government. Under the present Act, the Tertiary Education Committee is required to approve, for funding purposes, all courses of advanced education; it has exercised control over major new developments in universities through its financial recommendations. The Bill introduces a new system under which universities and advanced education authorities, subject to State requirements for co-ordination, may introduce new courses of study which do not fall within classes declared by the Minister on the advice of the Tertiary Education Commission. It is intended that these classes will cover new developments of national significance involving major financial or educational implications or potential duplication among the three sectors. The Bill gives the Commission a discretion to disapprove, for funding purposes, courses involving new teaching developments of this kind. It also provides that notice of any disapprovals by the Commission should be tabled in the Parliament; this provision ensures that the operation of these sections is subject to public scrutiny.

The Bill provides a definition of courses of advanced education which is necessary in view of the new arrangements for teaching developments. The definition recognises the responsibilities of the States for the accreditation of these courses but provides that the courses be undertaken for awards of a kind determined by the

Minister on the recommendation of the Tertiary Education Commission. It is intended that the kinds of awards determined by the Minister will be the categories currently recognised by the Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education. Under the existing legislation, payments of advanced education building grants to the States, must be transmitted to the colleges concerned without undue delay, despite the fact that some projects may run ahead of schedule while others may fall behind. The Bill allows the States greater flexibility over the allocation of cash payments between projects according to their rates of progress. With the agreement of the States concerned the Bill provides recurrent assistance to partially funded non-government teachers colleges in respect of 1980 and 1981. These amounts were approved within the programs for advanced education for the 1979-81 triennium. Until now they have been provided by way of the Commonwealth’s annual Appropriation Act. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 2612

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Interim Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the amended version of the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the report be printed.

Dr Klugman:

– Was anybody on our side given the paper?

Mr Anthony:

– I think so.

Dr Klugman:

– You think so.

Mr Anthony:

– I understand so. I am sure of it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ANTHONY:

-by leave-In July 1979 following allegations of leakages of information from an unknown officer of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau, the Government decided it was appropriate to consider general matters relating to the Narcotics Bureau, including organisation, recruitment, staffing and control, lines of responsibility to the Permanent Head and the Minister, and relationship with other arms of government. Accordingly, on 7 August, with the approval of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs an interim report on those issues. The interim report was presented to the Governor-General on 18 September 1979. On the following day the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) made a parliamentary statement advising that the report had been received and that, as requested by the Royal Commissioner, it would be kept confidential. He said that the Royal Commission’s final report, including whatever recommendations may be made relating to the Narcotics Bureau, would be tabled in the Parliament when received.

The Government has now obtained the consent of the Royal Commission to the publication of an amended version of the interim report, without the material appended to it and with some amendments principally to delete references to the appendixes. Copies of the original interim report have been made available on a confidential basis to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). The Government has given careful consideration to the chief recommendations contained in the interim report and has decided to adopt, in principle, the recommendation that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded and that responsibility for enforcing, at the Customs barrier, Commonwealth law against imported drugs remain vested in the Bureau of Customs and responsibility elsewhere be vested in the Australian Federal Police. An administrative direction will give the Australian Federal Police responsibility for decisions, in appropriate cases, on seizure, arrest and prosecution in relation to drugs whichever side of the Customs barrier the offence is, or could be, detected. Responsibility for narcotics policing will now be transferred from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to the Minister for Administrative Services. The Government will be giving consideration to other recommendations in the interim report, some of which will involve consultation with the States and Territories.

In making its decisions the Government has been conscious of the need for the Commonwealth to maintain a high level of effort against drug trafficking and drug abuse. It has also been concerned to safeguard the interests of the staff concerned and the security of their employment. The Government has therefore decided not to accept the Royal Commission’s recommendation that staff of the Narcotics Bureau be given the option of transferring to the Australian Federal Police or remaining with the Bureau of Customs. Instead, the Government has decided to follow the normal procedures for transfers of functions within the Government’s service. To do otherwise could adversely affect the level of the Commonwealth’s efforts against drugs and could lead to operational difficulties and problems of placement of staff- even to redundancy. Therefore, to maintain the trust of the Commonwealth’s efforts against drug crimes, officers of the Narcotics Bureau will be transferred in the firstinstance to the Office of the Australian Federal Police, Department of Administrative Services and will be directed to work under the direction of the Commissioner, Australian Federal Police. This transfer will take place as soon as possible. When the Commissioner, Australian Federal Police, has established the appropriate organisation, those Narcotics Bureau staff who are qualified and suitable for appointment as police officers will be appointed to the Australian Federal Police. Those who are performing duties which are better fitted to Public Service employment and who are not qualified or suitable for appointment as police officers would remain in Public Service Act positions and retain normal Public Service rights.

The long-term arrangements will involve close linkages with other crime functions of the Australian Federal Police. A multi-disciplinary approach involving police officers and public servants will be adopted. Transitional arrangements for pay, leave, allowances and so on for staff appointed as police officers will be worked out between the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the Public Service Board and the Department of Administrative Services. They will then be formally determined in the normal way. There will be full consultation with the staff and staff associations. The Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters will be fully involved. The Government will shortly be introducing amendments to the Customs Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to give the Australian Federal Police, alone, authority to intercept telecommunications and use listening devices in the investigation of drug offences; this authority will not extend to other kinds of criminal offences.

The Royal Commission identified three main factors in support of its recommendations. In brief they are:

  1. the Narcotics Bureau is founded on an insufficient legislative base.
  2. . . . persons who by any standards would be classified as criminals are deeply engaged in the illegal trade in drugs …
  3. the total staff of the Narcotics Bureau is too small.

In addition to the above factors the Royal Commission states:

An effective police agency, which is what the Narcotics Bureau tries to be, cannot be conducted within the framework of the Public Service.

It went on to say:

The Narcotics Bureau claims that the simple remedy for any deficiencies it may have is to increase its staff, powers and resources. The Commission rejects this cure which, in its opinion, would compound the problem not solve it. The solution is to attach the main functions of the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police Force. The much greater manpower and resources of that body would then be available to assist in drug law enforcement. The resources of Customs would not be stripped to support the Narcotics Bureau but would be deployed where they should be, to prohibit the passage of drugs across Australia’s borders.

The Royal Commission has come to the considered opinion that the Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient agency; that there is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement agencies; and that within the judicial system, generally speaking, the Narcotics Bureau’s reputation for efficiency is lower than that of State police forces. Most compelling and convincing however is the fact that the Narcotics Bureau is working in an area of crime in which highly intelligent and ruthless criminals are involved and which spills over into other areas of crime. This is a matter for a police force with police powers, training and discipline and possessing a range and breadth of resources that can be employed as needed in the fight against drug crimes. The Government is confident that the Australian Federal Police with the full co-operation of the Bureau of Customs will forge new relationships with State police forces in a greater, better directed, Australiawide effort against drug crimes and drug abuse.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- Today the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs has been tabled in this Parliament a little behind the presentation in the New South Wales Parliament of the report of the New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. The Australian Associated Press news print-out leads the report on the New South Wales Royal Commission’s findings in this way:

The New South Wales Royal Commission into Drugs today recommended against the decriminalisation of marihuana usage and warned that highly organised crime syndicates are poised to flood the State with heroin.

It is a disturbing report but, in the light of evidence which is available, it is not a surprising one. On 23 June 1978, Mr Cedric Hampson, senior counsel to the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry, which was set up by this Government, wrote to Mr M. A. Besley, Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, in these terms, inter alia:

Apart altogether from what has been properly said about the inadequate surveillance of the north of Australia, Sydney Harbour would appear to provide an obvious but not unique case where surveillance is also defective. There is reason also for thinking that containers present opportunities for the illicit entry of goods, the problems of which have not yet been faced up to, much less, grappled with.

The significance of that is that a response went from Mr Besley a little later- I want to talk about this again in the course of my remarks- to Mr Hampson acknowledging the defectiveness of the Narcotics Bureau’s functioning in terms of drug surveillance and drug apprehension. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, is directly responsible for the administration of the Narcotics Bureau and of the law which gives the Authority to the Bureau to fulfil its functions. Unlike the police forces of the States and the Commonwealth, the Narcotics Bureau is not a separate and independent organisation, but rather a part of the Public Service. It accordingly follows that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is directly responsible and therefore answerable for anything which shows up within the administration of any section of his Department concerning defects for which that Bureau is responsible.

That, alone, is disturbing enough. But even more disturbing is the simple fact that the correspondence that I referred to passed backwards and forwards between Mr Besley and Mr Hampson of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the middle and latter part of 1978 and in the middle of 1979 the Minister was extolling the virtues of Mr Harvey Bates and the successes for which Mr Bates had allegedly been responsible in enforcing the anti-narcotics laws of the Commonwealth Government. Clearly, on evidence which was available to the head of the Minister’s Department and which obviously would have been made available to the Minister, that assertion could not be sustained. The Minister must have been well aware of that.

All one can say about this report- they are matters I want to come back to- is that it represents a litany of the most alarming disclosures and the gravest defects in the administration and the operation of the Narcotics Bureau, contrary to the fiction which had been propagated in the community with great enthusiasm by officials of the Narcotics Bureau, not the least of whom is Mr Harvey Bates, and contributed to by the behaviour of the Minister. In spite of that fiction, the Narcotics Bureau was incompetent and failed dismally in every important respect to protect the interests of this community. No issue causes more alarm in this community than the issue of narcotics of narcotic addiction, of narcotic peddling and of organised drug crime. For too long we have been fed this nonsense, this fiction, this deceptive fabrication that the Narcotics Bureau was fulfilling its job, that it was a very skilful organisation, that it was maintained at the peak of efficiency and that it was sheeting home responsibility for extensive infractions of the narcotics law. This report makes it clear that, very largely, the claims of success which the Bureau lodged could not be sustained. They were the successes of other organisations. So what the Narcotics Bureau did, with the full complicity of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, was to hide behind the shield of secrecy to contrive fictitious results. To do this and to promote itself it fabricated a spurious public relations effort.

Let us look at the essential features of this report of Mr Justice Williams. He condemns the Bureau of Narcotics for being amateurish, for being incompetent, for effectively being dishonest, and for being obsessive about its own reputation instead of getting out and getting done the job it was charged to discharge. He suggested that perhaps it was corrupted on a significant scale. We know that it is the belief of State law enforcement agencies that it was infiltrated at the higher levels by organised crime. I put to the Minister: What sort of damage has this done to our international affiliations and contacts for combatting crime, more specifically for combatting narcotics peddling? Into what jeopardy has it cast our relations or our connection with Interpol? Such is the grave disservice that this continuing cover-up by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has been responsible for. Harvey Bates, the celebrated drug trade buster, has little to sustain his reputation, or that which has been contrived by the fictitious public relations efforts conducted by him and others in the face of this searing indictment that Mr Justice Williams has brought down as only his interim report.

There are a number of issues which have not been dealt with in his report but which deserve the attention of this House because they have been raised in public documents elsewhere- for instance, in work value cases before the appropriate industrial bodies. Listen to this sort of Katzenjammer type of situation that has arisen in the Narcotics Bureau: The Bureau armourplated one of its vehicles so that undercover agents using it as a cover would be safe, perhaps from gunfire. It was so effectively armour-plated that it was soundproof. The upshot was that the

Bureau agents then became worried that someone could come along and drop a lighted match into the petrol tank which did not have a locking cap. As far as one can establish the armourplated vehicle still does not have a locking cap on its petrol tank. Perhaps this is not a big issue but it seems to be symptomatic of the confusion, the lack of coherence in the administration by the Narcotics Bureau of the anti-narcotics legislation in this country.

This effective, front-line organisation that was to do- and allegedly was doing- so much damage to organised drug crime had no more than three surveillance vans available to it. It was incapable of sustaining continuing cover of suspects when more than about three cases were under surveillance at the one time. Customs agents were going through the front door of the Customs building in Sydney and people who were not friendly disposed towards them, who had some sort of commitments to the organised drug trade, one presumes, were across the road in another building photographing them as they entered and left the building. I do not in any way derogate from the danger of many of the tasks that the undercover agents undertake nor do I want it believed for a minute that I am condemning all the agents, far from it. I just cannot believe that the incompetence covers every agent or that the allegations of corruption seep through to every member of the Narcotics Bureau. On the contrary, from reports that I have heard many people were prepared to risk their lives. It is a very dangerous and demanding task to fulfil the role of an undercover agent shadowing a suspect.

Every now and again the whole process in this crucial matter had to be held up while the Bureau bickered with the Public Service Board about travelling allowances and other allowances due to members of the Narcotics Bureau because they were members of the Public Service. That shows the sheer stupidity and the mess of this situation. The Commonwealth Police Force numbered some 2,500 members; the Narcotics Bureau numbered less than 200 members. On the evidence available it is quite clear that the Commonwealth Police Force had enormous resources available which could have been mobilised to enhance the effectiveness of the Narcotics Bureau. In spite of that, there was obsessive suspicion and preoccupation with secrecy, a single-minded and ill-informed determination to create an elite service around the Narcotics Bureau, very largely on the part of Mr Harvey Bates. His virtues, I repeat, were extolled by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, quite wrongly on the evidence available to us today and quite wrongly on the evidence available to the Minister prior to that extolling of Mr Bates ‘ alleged virtues. The fact is that the Bureau did not enter the sort of co-operative arrangements that could have made it a much more effective organisation.

What about the disturbing allegations, which have become public issues in recent days, that the Commonwealth Police passed on information to the Narcotics Bureau about suspects and potential drug hauls. Allegedly that information was not acted on. So offenders escaped and drug hauls were not seized. One draws the obvious conclusion that there was either incompetence, corruption or a combination of both. No reasonable, decent, ordinary Australian citizen who shares that widespread concern about illicit narcotics traffic in this country can feel any comfort or security in the face of these disclosures, which heap upon each other fresh allegations of alleged incompetence or corruption in an organisation which was supposed to reassure us that we were being protected and that our children would be safe from the depredations of the worst form of criminal offence imaginable.

Again there have been reports of lavish rewards for informants meted out by the Narcotics Bureau. Last year the amount provided was $32,000. This amount seems to have been fairly consistent over recent years. There is no accountability for the payments. This is entirely inappropriate and cannot be justified. I assure the House that one other organisation which operated under the cover of secrecy had the experience of one of its senior agents making claims for payments to an informant. After that agent was transferred it was discovered that the informant or informers- I think it was plural- did not exist. The payments were what one might call a fringe benefit that the agent had developed for himself at the expense of taxpayers in the community. How do we know that this has not happened in this case too? There has been no accountability?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has sought to smooth the matter through as quickly as he can by down-playing the significance of this report. This is the most alarming set of disclosures that we have had before this Parliament in a long time. It is not only the Minister who has to answer some of these matters; it is also the head of his department, Mr Besley. It would seem that he misled the Royal Commission on a number of matters. He certainly seems to have misled it on the matter of co-operation with other law enforcement agencies. I will condense what he said for the sake of time. On page 16,070 of the report he said: On the broader scale of co-operation -

Mr Anthony:

– Is that in the appendices?

Mr HAYDEN:

-No, it is not. I will not quote from the appendices. However, my quick glossing through the appendices confirms a view which I established when I went through the secret, and therefore restricted, reports of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in this country. With a need for only a few deletions there is absolutely nothing, in my view, which would justify, outside those deletions, maintenance of secrecy on those volumes of the Hope report which have not been tabled and made public. I certainly agree, in the interests of security, that some matters ought to be deleted. The major reason why the Hope reports have not been tabled is that they would have been an enormous embarrassment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in terms of its operations in the 1960s, and of even greater embarrassment to a government that sought consistently to cover up an organisation that had become thoroughly demoralised, incompetent in its operations, and deviant to the responsibilities which had been laid down for it by law. I repeat, in relation to the appendices that I find it very hard -

Mr Anthony:

– This is the Commissioner’s request.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Even so, I still find it hard to believe that secrecy can be justified. I think it is a matter that the Government ought to take up with the Commissioner in the interests of more openness. Fundamentally, this is what is defective in these areas. On the assertion of conservative politicans, ASIO was believed to have been a supremely effective and efficient security organisation. It was believed to have been so until that was thoroughly demolished as being nothing more than an unsustainable myth when the Hope reports were tabled publicly. Those which have not been made available to the public merely consolidate to an alarming degree that failure, that complete shortcoming of ASIO to measure up to the task set to it which conservative politicians alleged that it was achieving. They like to drag the trait of patriotism around as though it is exclusively their property and to impute the worst sort of motives to people who ask reasonable questions on these matters. I am suggesting to the House that it is quite clear from the documentation which is available that the same thing applies to the Narcotics Bureau. It has hidden behind a shield of secrecy to contrive fictitious results and to operate in a most incompetent, inefficient and thoroughly unsatisfactory way. Let me get back to what Mr Besley had to say in his evidence to the Royal Commission:

On the broader scale of co-operation, the Department contends that there is marked evidence to show that reciprocity and agreement operates at the Federal and State level.

He is talking about law enforcement agencies. That just cannot be asserted with any integrity at all. The interim report of the Royal Commission which has been made available says this:

There is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement bodies. For some years past relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and COMPOL, especially at the top levels, have been bad, but now relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and State police are bad in many places.

That is the finding of Mr Justice Williams. It is no secret. Anyone who has regular contact extensively with members of the State police forces knows that they have been saying this for several years. I do not believe that the Government was uninformed on this matter. I do not believe that Mr Besley was totally ignorant of this very serious shortcoming on the part of the Narcotics Bureau; that, because of the Bureau’s obsessive preoccupation with its own role and the strange personality of Mr Harvey Bates, the man at the head of it, and his concern to create an elite force that would exclude any support or co-operation from State authorities, there was a failure to establish proper co-operation. Nonetheless, Mr Besley gave evidence to the Royal Commission which was quite contrary to the facts. He would have well known about these shortcomings.

The other matter about which Mr Besley has been less than candid in his evidence to the Royal Commission concerns the seizure of drugs. Mr Justice Williams’s findings and recommendations are very judiciously worded, but what he is saying here- and I base this assertion on evidence publicly available from the transcript of evidence to the Royal Commission, on work hearing cases, and so on- is that fictitious results were concocted by the Narcotics Bureau and by Mr Besley in his evidence to the Royal Commission to mislead the Royal Commission and the public into believing that the Bureau was more successful than it had been. I ask honourable members to listen to what the report says:

The Bureau’s recent seizure figures reflect failure in its declared aim of detecting major traffickers, especially in heroin, and leaving lesser operations to the attention of State police. In 1977 and 1978 over 90 per cent of Narcotics Bureau heroin seizures were of less than 100 grams. Seizure of quantities less than 5 grams represented over 60 per cent of its seizures in 1 978 and 70 per cent in 1 977.

There is something awfully significant about that. That is a very poor result for the Narcotics Bureau. Let me be, rather briefly, anecdotal on a relevant point. Earlier this year- it might have been late last year, but it is several months ago and the date can be easily verified, although that is not important- through arrangements made on behalf of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Harvey Bates saw me in my office in this building. I had present a gentleman who was then working for me as a private secretary. Ostensibly Mr Harvey Bates’ role was to convince me of the justification of the provision of legal authority for the Narcotics Bureau to tap telephones. The evidence he produced was contained in a rather huge photographic album concerning drug seizures. It took a considerable amount of time to flick through the pages looking at the photographs of the drug seizures and the offenders. When it was concluded I made one observation only to Mr Harvey Bates, and that was that I found it disturbingly odd that, without exception, all of the seizures related to marihuana or marihuana-type products; not one of the seizures related to hard drugs. I did not find Mr Harvey Bates’ response articulate or convincing.

When the Minister was kind enough to give me this report today I reminded him that I had murmured to him something about this concern, as I recall, during a division in this House, when he asked me whether the briefing had taken place and whether it was satisfactory. One does not have to be a terribly skilled investigator, when presented with that sort of evidence, to be enormously worried about the method and the extent of operation of an organisation such as the Narcotics Bureau which is such a prime target for corruption. That is something of which the Minister should have been aware then. I mentioned it to him. He should have been aware much earlier in 1978 of the concern of Mr Hampson, on behalf of the Royal Commission, that Sydney was wide open, as were other parts of Australia. Mr Besley also has a lot to answer for in all of this. Let me remind honourable members of what the Minister said in June 1979 in his Press statement. They will recall that at that time the Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner- as he is defined in this Press statement- Mr Harvey Bates, had resigned from his position as Commissioner. The statement says:

Mr Harvey Bates will return to his position as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics tomorrow.

It goes on:

Mr Fife said that he had invited Mr Bates to return to his work at the Narcotics Bureau because of his wide experience and the great contribution he has made over many years in this field.

This was on 4 June 1979- some 12 months or more after the letters had passed between Mr Cedric Hampson and Mr Besley of his Department, outlining serious defects in the administration of the narcotics surveillance and narcotics legislation in this country. Among other things, this is what Mr Justice Williams says of the Narcotics Bureau:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient enforcement agency.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs would have us believe otherwise. Is he so totally incompetent that a section of the Public Service for which he is responsible was able to hoodwink him so thoroughly as to have him come into this House and mislead us and have us believe otherwise? Mr Justice Williams also says:

Increases in arrests, prosecutions and seizures of drugs have often occurred with little or no Narcotics Bureau assistance.

He continues:

Some of the largest seizures in recent years attributed in the media to the Narcotics Bureau have in fact occurred without any real assistance from the Narcotics Bureau.

Those are only some of the searing condemnations of the Bureau. Where was the Minister when all of these propositions were being put to him? To what extent did he exercise his responsibility to establish properly that what he was being told was reliable and accurate and was based in fact? Did he come into this House knowing full well that a fabrication had been established by the Bureau to keep it out of trouble, and then seek to deceive this Parliament by concocting a record for the Narcotics Bureau that cannot be sustained in the minutest fact and detail? The Minister has a lot to answer for in this matter; as has Mr Besley of his Department; as has the Narcotics Bureau, and particularly its head, Mr Harvey Bates.

The Minister’s blame in this matter is further compounded since the Bureau is not subject to the same accountability as a police force when there are allegations of internal corruption. The date of the report from which I am about to quote is significant; it is 1978. Sir Robert Mark, in his report on the organisation of police resources, at page 20, paragraph 41, says:

A police force discharging the duties assigned to the AFP -

The Australian Federal Police- indeed, any police force in a genuinely democratic societywill not enjoy public confidence and trust unless it is accountable, and moreover, is seen to wish to be accountable. Accountability to the criminal law, the civil law and its own police authority, even though that be the government itself, is not enough. Nor should the object be to satisfy complainants, some of whom will never in any circumstances be satisfied. The object should be to satisfy the public that every complaint is investigated thoroughly and impartially, that if there is evidence of crime the decision whether or not to prosecute is taken by a member of the Attorney-General’s Department and that in the event of acquittal, a decision not to prosecute and all complaints not amounting to crime, the possibility of discipline proceedings should undergo the same meticulous examination

The Law Reform Commission, in its report on complaints against police- again in 1 978- said: . . officers with the narcotics bureau perform policelike functions. They are required by their duties to have close contact with members of the public in circumstances that may give rise to complaints.

It goes on to say: . . it is plain that an improved and independent method of receiving investigating and determining complaints against these commonwealth officers is urgently required.

The Minister did nothing. The Law Reform Commission went on to say:

Under the proposal to incorporate these officers in the Australia Police Force, they would have become subject to the discipline of the force and the consequent machinery intended to deal fairly and independently with complaints. Following the decision not to proceed with the Australia Police, they remain outside this machinery.

In view of the matters placed before the Commission no more need be said than that urgent attention should be given to adopting the proposals suggested here to the receipt, investigation and determination of complaints against officers of Customs and of the Narcotics Bureau. The Commission has drawn this matter to the notice of the Australian Royal Commission on Drugs. The position of these and other police-type officers of the Commonwealth is deserving of the attention of the departments concerned and of the Parliament, particularly in view of recently announced proposals to increase the numbers and powers of such police-type officers.

Those were very firm findings and recommendations in 1978. There is no evidence that the Minister was at any stage prompted to the slightest degree to respond to them but there is evidence that concurrently facts were being presented that showed serious shortcomings in the administration and the integrity of the Narcotics Bureau.

There are vast amounts of evidence to show that crime syndicates are more highly organised, more professional and equipped with far greater resources to promote trade in human misery than the Bureau is to stop it. As an example of the Government’s inaction I refer again to that letter of 23 June 1978 from Mr Hampson and the response in September 1978 by Mr Besley- that is, 16 months ago and 15 months ago respectively these matters were being aired to the responsible department, to the Minister concerned. Presumably such an important matter would have gone to the Minister. In June this year the Minister, never acknowledging such serious shortcomings being evident to himself, to his Department, sought to have the Australian public and this Parliament believe that the Narcotics Bureau was operating in an incorruptible, thoroughly efficient and quite effective way. There is no evidence which could sustain that view, for any reasonable and honest man. I regret therefore the behaviour of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the way in which he has handled this.

There is one other matter I want to raise and that concerns telephone tapping. I recognise the enormous problems that arise in seeking to sheet home responsibility for illicit narcotics trade in this country. No reasonable person in the community would be prepared to display the minutest amount of sympathy or concern for the offenders. Accordingly, it becomes a very hard issue between that concern and the issue of civil liberties in relation to authority to tap telephones. I do not propose to go over reservations that we of the Opposition have. In the course of the debate in this House recently on the appropriate legislation it was indicated that we are not opposed to that sort of authority in certain circumstances but that specific safeguards were required, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has outlined those. It is quite clear, however, that once having extended the authority to tap telephones to the Australian Federal Police it will be impossible to prevent the extension of that authority to State police forces. The interim recommendations of Mr Justice Williams make it clear that the effective functioning of anti-narcotics activity in this country in future will depend upon, first, the termination of the Narcotics Bureau; secondly, the absorption of that role by the Australian Federal Police; and, thirdly, an integrated effort between the Australian Federal Police or Commonwealth Police and those sections of the State police forces responsible for narcotics law enforcement. What disturbs me is that the safeguards will have to be iron-clad. I am not convinced by any means at all, at this stage anyway, that we can establish that sort of iron-clad protection for the rest of the community against wrongful telephone tapping which is ostensibly justified on the basis of antinarcotics legislation. Let me quote from a story published recently in the Bulletin concerning narcotics agent Bernard Delaney. It reads: “Back to Ray Phillips to tell faim about the meeting and he relayed a message to Harvey Bates. Perhaps the Minister could come to our assistance? “No way in the world,” said Bates. “The Minister must not know about this. There are some things that Ministers cannot know about and this is one of them. He was sacked from one Ministry and he would cut our throats if he knew about this. “

What was he talking about? He was talking about telephone tapping by the Narcotics Bureau without any legal authority in existence at all. Let me quote from a work value hearing before Deputy Public Service Commissioner Booth, evidence taken from a Narcotics Bureau investigator, D. J. Shobbrook. It reads: “A lot of the technical things we would have liked to have done- with the permission of the Attorney-General we have used listening devices in premises. This type of thing we never contemplated in the early days of the bureau. Apart from being taboo and never spoken of- I do not know if the central office did not ask for permission or central office did not have faith in the men, that the men could do it themselves without having to call in outside agencies to instal and maintain and monitor the equipment- we are now doing it ourselves. We have proven we can do it. “

This is disturbing, extremely disturbing, because it was illegal behaviour that he was talking about. A question on this matter was asked of Senator Durack in the Senate on 6 November this year and in reply he said that while he as Attorney-General had never authorised the installation of listening devices by Bureau officers he was unable to give assurances in regard to previous Attorneys-General and he undertook to find out. Following the giving of wide telephonetapping powers to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation it was reported in the Age of 14 June 1979 that the Victorian police are likely to press for the legislation to be extended to cover them. The Royal Commission into Drugs in New South Wales has made a similar recommendation.

This is a matter we are going to have to be very careful about because on the evidence already available the Narcotics Bureau was behaving illegally in tapping phones without legal authority. That was divulged in a report in the Bulletin magazine only a few months ago. I am sure the Minister’s Department would have read that report carefully because it affected an important and controversial part of the Minister’s administration and of the Department. Accordingly, I pose the question: Why has there been no comment on this matter by the Minister to this Parliament? It is a very grave infraction of basic civil rights as the law stands at the moment and it is a much more grave infraction of the legal authority of the Narcotics Bureau to function. If the Bureau requires authority to tap phones- and I do not quibble about that at all- then legislative authority should have been provided much earlier and with appropriate safeguards. But until it was provided there could be no justification at all for such illegal incursions taking place- incursions which took place in circumstances about which we know nothing and which may have been a very serious infringement of the basic rights of perfectly honest people going about legitimate activity. It may not have been, but the fact is that the telephone tapping took place without authority and there has been no discussion of this matter in the Parliament, or reference to it by the Minister who should have been concerned enough about it to have raised it. I repeat that the Minister is answerable on these matters and must be made answerable. The head of his Department is answerable and must be made answerable, as must Mr Harvey Bates and senior officials of the Bureau.

The report by Mr Justice Williams shows many parallels with the series of reports conducted by his brother judge, Mr Justice Hope, into Australia’s security services. Both judges uncovered a sorry record of incompetence and ineffectuality. In the case of ASIO, the problems were nepotism, lack of education, lack of training and poor recruitment. All of these defects were accentuated by the excessive secrecy with which the service operated. Excessive secrecy has never bedevilled the Narcotics Bureau. It has operated in a blaze of publicity. Its tremendous public relations skills have been acknowledged by the royal commission. When the royal commission began its investigations it accepted the Narcotics Bureau’s own grandiose opinion of its abilities as an accurate one. Like most Australians, it was dazzled by the media’s accounts of Bureau activities and its frequent extolling of reputed achievements. At least, this interim report has stripped away the tinsel and glitter from the Narcotics Bureau. It has revealed the rather pathetic spectacle of an institution which has been incapable of living up to its rhetoric, of an essentially incompetent group of gummed-up gumshoes who, through a variety of constitutional administrative accidents, have been given responsibilities way beyond their powers to sustain. With ASIO and the Narcotics Bureau, we have the two extremes of agencies of investigation and surveillance. We have the organisation which for more than 20 years concealed its incompetence behind rigidly enforced government secrecy while at the other extreme, we have the Bureau which used all of the techniques of media manipulation and seemingly maximum disclosure to conceal a level of incompetence which was just as spectacular.

The report drives home again the basic lesson that investigation, surveillance and enforcement depend on subtle and increasingly sophisticated techniques. There is no place for the shambling shamuses who have dominated civilian law enforcement bureaus such as the Narcotics Bureau. It speaks volumes that even the least efficient of Australia’s regular police forces should be accounted as vastly more efficient than a bureau formed from traditional Customs officer elements. These truths should have been established conclusively after the monumental fiasco earlier this year when Mr Harvey Bates resigned and after a week or so of public posturing was induced to return to his post by the Minister. In the terms of this report, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs made a dreadful mistake by his public performance in wheedling Mr Bates back to the fold. He was handed an opportunity to clean up the Narcotics Bureau, to transform its administration, to move it into a less public posture towards a stance in accordance with reality.

Mr Bates has been a consummate media performer for very many years. I make no criticism of him as a man or as a Customs investigator. Undeniably, he has much to his credit in the areas of Customs enforcement over a long period. But I do suggest that his whole style has been fatal to the Narcotics Bureau and that the basking in the media glare which the interim report found to be so destructive to the Bureau is very largely an inheritance of Mr Bates. I suggest also that if this vainglorious grandstanding had been recognised some years earlier for what it was, many of the problems identified by the inquiry might have been avoided. If the essence of the Williams report can be distilled into one simple phrase, it emerges in the old truism: He who lives by the Press, dies by the Press. If we extend the Press label to the contemporary media, we come to the heart of the reason for the unlamented demise of the Australian Narcotics Bureau.

It is time for an attitude of realism, of quiet competence, of sober dedication in the task of stamping out the pernicious drug trade within Australia. For too long, sensible enforcement has been inhibited. The Commonwealth Police has shortcomings, but its morale and responsibilities have been considerably enhanced in recent years. It is appropriate that in view of the Narcotics Bureau debacle over the last several years its responsibilities should be handed over to the Commonwealth Police. In conclusion, I make it clear that the Minister must make himself fully answerable on these matters and related issues to this Parliament, just as he must make the head of his Department and Mr Harvey Bates respectively responsible in related matters for their behaviour as exposed in the course of this inquiry.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 2621

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 8 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-The Commonwealth Grants Commission is a finely tuned body established for the purpose of equalising Australian living standards. The principle on which it was established in 1933 and on which it still operates 46 years later is that ali Australians, no matter which State they live in, deserve the right to receive equivalent government services, thereby providing the environment for a relatively equal standard of living throughout the community. I feel that it is a pity that the Government does not take notice at this point of the principle on which the Grants Commission was established. I refer to the matter of public importance debated this afternoon about the Government’s failure to protect the rights of the Aboriginal community at the Yarrabah reserve in Queensland. Once again the principle on which the Grants Commission was established would apply. Under the terms of the Grants Commission Act and by virtue of section 96 of the Constitution, Queensland is a claimant State. All States must be able to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States. This is the principle underpinning the Grants Commission.

In order to achieve that without having to levy taxation and other charges of greater severity than are levied in other States, the revenue of a claimant State has to be supplemented because of, firstly, its lower capacity to raise taxes and other revenue and, secondly, its need to incur higher costs in order to provide comparable government services. In other words, Queensland’s tax or revenue base is generally smaller than that of the other States while its expenditure needs are generally larger than those in other States. In reaching its assessment of Queensland’s case for special assistance the Grants Commission considers a multitude of factors. It considers not only the severity of government charges and the nature of services offered by the State government but also the type of people to whom those services are directed, the density and age of the population serviced by the State Government, the educational and financial status of those people and the economic base of the State, that is, the States ‘s predominant industries and businesses. Not least of all the Commission takes into consideration such factors as distance and climate. Generally, Queensland comes out on the debit side of the ledger.

However, there are areas in which Queensland is singularly blessed. Mineral resources is such an area. It is very instructive to read the Commission’s report on Queensland’s mineral royalties and the disagreement between the Commission and the Queensland Government over what standard should be applied in determining how much Queensland should be receiving in royalties, that is, its revenue base from mining companies which do not operate in the standard States. The Commission uses profitability as a measure of revenue raising capacity. Understandably, the Queensland Government is acutely sensitive about profitability. After all, it has raised exploitation to the level of an art form. The Queensland Premier has curried favour with benefactors such as Mr Iwasaki on the strength of a promise that they can have the maximum of Queensland’s resources with the minimum repayment to the Government. The Queensland Premier can take all the credit for mortgaging our heritage and birthright. In paragraph 4.4 1 on page 33 of its 46th report on special assistance for States the Grants Commission said: . . profitability is not irrelevant to the determination of revenue-raising capacity. There is considerable evidence to suggest that, regardless of the revenue base used to assess the royalty payments for particular minerals, the profitability of a rnining venture is a paramount consideration in determining whether, and to what extent, the venture will be required to make royalty payments . . . profitability provides the best measure of the relative capacities of the States to raise revenues from mining royalties.

I believe that it is worth looking at some of the rather enlightening statistical information about Queensland which the Grants Commission considered in determining Queensland’s case for special assistance. Annual personal income per head in Queensland is $5,1 13. The average income per head for Australia is $5,540. Queensland has the lowest average income per head of any State. It is 7.7 per cent below the Australian average. Apparently, life is not as great in the sunshine State as the Premier of Queensland would have us believe. Queensland has persistently had an unemployment rate a little above the Australian average. In 1978 it averaged 6.6 per cent as against 6.2 per cent for Australia. The unemployment level in Queensland approximates that of South

Australia. I wonder whether we can expect business and industry leaders in Queensland to attack the Queensland Premier in the same way as they attacked the South Australian Labor Government. Queensland has the lowest enrolment of school age population, that is, in the five years to 18 years group. Seventy-nine per cent of its school age population is enrolled compared with the Australian average of 83.5 per cent. Queensland also has the lowest expenditure on education per head of any State. It is $197 compared with $222 for the whole of Australia. I think there is a definite correlation between those two facts. Queensland spends less on education. Its facilities are therefore inferior and there is less incentive for students to remain at school. Similarly, expenditure on health, hospitals and welfare is the lowest for any State. It is $98 per head compared with $129 for all other States. Those are pretty dismal statistical figures.

The irresponsibility of the Queensland Government has created a vacuum. Into the breach comes the Grants Commission to the rescue. The Grants Commission is an innovation which other governments round the world have attempted to emulate with varying success. It is a shining example of Australian Government know-how. However, I find two things about the Grants Commission difficult to accept. The first flaw is the geographical unit on which it is based- in other words, the States. The second is the form in which assistance is provided by the national government to the States. Taking up the first point, apart from Tasmania no State or Territory in Australia has any real cohesive economic or geographical entity. For example, economically Queensland is not totally agricultural or primary industrial, nor is the economy of New South Wales totally based on manufacturing. Political unity in the form of State governments is superimposed on overlapping geographical and economic regions. The old colonial lines which separate one State from another are almost totally arbitrary. We have only to look at the situation at Tweed Heads on the border of New South Wales and Queensland to see that half of the Australian citizens in that community can use one-armed bandits while the other half cannot conduct a street march in support of onearmed bandits even if they wanted to do so. I am not endorsing one-armed bandits for Queensland; I am simply trying to point out that the rights that people have depend on which side of that non-existent invisible line they happen to live.

The Grants Commission establishes the potential for equalisation amongst States. But how do you effect equalisation within the States? Let me take Queensland as an example. How do we know that the people of Cairns will be provided with the same government services as the people in Brisbane? The Grants Commission begins the process of equalisation. It is up to the States then to continue that process. Queensland has traditionally proven itself reluctant to follow a national lead. Until the last couple of months Queensland has steadfastly refused to join the intergovernmental relations committee of which every other State government and the Federal Government were members. When Queensland did join, it was so embarrassed by its complete obstinacy that it did not bother telling anyone. No public announcement has ever been made.

The Queensland Premier always tries to latch onto the old slogan of States rights. But in any objective sense or analysis at all the levels of government the States have the least claim to any so-called rights. After all, who do they represent? They represent a collection of communities, bound together by an arbitrary line on a map. It is to those communities to which rights belong. However, the Queensland Government’s record in acknowledging local government rights and a certain amount of local government autonomy would be, without a doubt, the worst in Australia’s history. If the national government even considered intervening in Queensland’s affairs to the extent that the Queensland Government has intervened in the affairs of local governments, it would secede. The national government, for very obvious reasons, has the overriding responsibility for those communities. The only way Australia can organise its defence, manage its economy and conduct its trade, is at the national level through the national government. Perhaps we would have a greater chance of establishing a more equitable base for living standards throughout the entire nation if we organised our government infrastructure along national and regional lines.

I believe that the Australian Assistance Plan introduced by the previous Labor Government was the most far-reaching reform introduced by any government in the field of federal relations and would have gone a long way towards reaching a fuller appreciation of local community needs. Queensland provides an excellent example of how States, far from channelling money from the Federal Government through to local government, actually inhibits the process of equalisation. A great example of that is the Brisbane City Council. It is Australia’s largest government authority and one of the largest in the world. It is the only capital city authority assuming control over public transport. Running a large metropolitan bus service like that in Brisbane is a complex management exercise which requires careful and informed handling of sensitive local issues with a responsible eye to equity considerations. Clearly, the local authority is a proper democratic body to handle such matters. The aldermen are directly responsible to their constituents for the standard of their bus service, but the State Government is practising the fine old art of political blackmail. The value of my party’s conviction that these sorts of services are best funded from the national coffers and administered by regional or local government bodies is completely confirmed and vindicated by Brisbane’s experience. That experience has been that the State, as the channel for the flow of funds to Brisbane’s buses, has taken advantage of our outdated feudalistic federal system to frustrate- indeed, to sabotage- public transport in Brisbane. Every metropolitan public transport undertaking in other States and the suburban passenger division of the Queensland Government Railways, derive their funding support from their respective State governments.

Let us go back several years to when the Queensland Government applied to the Grants Commission for assistance and based its case for support substantially on Brisbane’s public transport. As a result of this factor, Queensland’s grant was increased by more than $7m in 1974- 75, by more than $6m in 1975-76 and by more than $9m in 1976-77. The Queensland Government flatly refused to acknowledge that one cent of that Grants Commission money should have gone to the Brisbane City Council. That is on the record. I wish to quote the question asked of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and his reply. In my question on notice No. 3409, I asked:

Is it a fact that, although more than $20m was made available by the Grants Commission during the period 1974 to 1977 on the basis of a claim made for assisting the Brisbane public transport system, not one cent was actually directed to Brisbane public transport?

In reply, the Minister stated:

My colleague the Minister for Administrative Services advises that since 1971-72 the Queensland Government has made applications for, and received grants of special financial assistance from the Commonwealth under Section 96 of the Constitution. These grants were paid on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which has taken the losses incurred by the Brisbane City Council’s transport undertaking into account in making its recommendations since 1973-74.

If the Commission had not taken these losses into account the special grants recommended for payment would have been reduced as follows- 1974-75 $24m to $16.915m: 1975- 76 $35.8m to $29. 178m: and 1976-77 $23.7m to $ 14.048m.

Special grants payable to a claimant State are in the nature of untied general revenue funds designed to supplement the State’s personal income tax sharing entitlements and are not conditional upon the State’s undertaking to spend the funds for any particular purpose. Accordingly, the application of these grants to special purposes within the State (including the Brisbane City Council’s transport undertaking) is entirely a matter for the Queensland Government to determine.

Again, the Australian federal structure has been undermined by the petty politics of a State government. Again, this national government has abdicated its responsibility to ensure that money it allocates goes to that area to which it was allocated. How hypocritical it is of the Queensland Government to delay its contribution to the Kampuchean relief appeal on the basis that it wanted to see for sure that the money went to those who needed it. The Queensland Government’s deceit and duplicity in denying the flow-on from the Grants Commission to the Brisbane City Council must surely be the most eloquent and convincing argument for the type of national-regional co-operation and the sort of urban and regional planning which the previous Labor Administration fostered.

As for this Government, its decision to defer the $20m for public transport expenditure last year and another $20m for public transport this year is yet another blow to the Brisbane ratepayers. The money is much needed. Not only will it assist in the maintenance of a public transport service which will become increasingly important as fuel becomes more costly, but also with that money the Brisbane City Council could subsidise pensioner fares to a greater extent and assist the unemployed by giving them free bus trips for job interviews. There is never any guarantee when working with the Queensland Government that it will pass on such moneys as the Commonwealth intends to the rightful recipients. There is no point in retaining the Grants Commission to assess need objectively if the money it recommends is to be spent in other areas.

I referred before to States as units and made the suggestion that they were artificial units inasmuch as their borders had very little to do with demographic, economic or geographic considerations. They are not units because they are not unified by natural factors. Extensive differences in the economic base do exist within the Statesfor example, between rural and urban areas. Nevertheless, it can be and has been acknowledged that certain States have a broader manufacturing base generally than other States, while some have a broader mining or primary industry base. This generalisation is true of

Queensland, but I hasten to repeat that it is a generalisation. Some Queensland politicians tend to think that Queensland is one enormous quarry or a vast pasture. Queensland also has people who are employed in manufacturing industries and who are, in effect, subsidised by the national government in the same way as employees in manufacturing industries in other States.

We must accept that subsidisation of our manufacturing industry cuts both ways. No State is an economic island unto itself. I believe in the principle of equalisation, on which the work of the Grants Commission is based, and I believe Queensland’s demographic, economic and geographic disadvantage ought to be taken into account. I do not believe that the rest of Australia owes Queensland a living simply because the Premier of Queensland says so. It is an acute case of hypocrisy for the Premier to campaign on the basis that under his Government Queensland has developed in leaps and bounds and, at the same time, to go cap in hand to the Federal Government and its commissions seeking aid.

At present, Queensland is the only claimant State. Even Tasmania is spared the embarrassment of claiming for assistance. Queensland has often been called a branch office State because businesses have branches there but rarely establish their headquarters there. Perhaps it is because the Queensland Government so often assumes the attitude of a mendicant- an Oliver wanting more. The driving force of the Queensland Government is not initiative or even enterprise. It is exploitation- exploitation of our mineral and other resources for cheap short-term gains. We have a shortage of entrepreneurial talent, both in government and in business. If the Queensland Premier waves the banner of States’ rights, he must be prepared to accept responsibility for those rights. The Queensland Government cannot reconcile wild public statements about its ability to reduce taxes on Queenslanders while simultaneously asking for more money from the Grants Commission. This Government’s federalism platform will not stand for it for long. Joh is going to have to eat humble pie very shortly. This Government will soon teach the Queensland Premier and his Treasurer the lessons of fiscal responsibility.

The last two reports of the Grants Commission have clearly stated the Commission’s concern about financing the Premier’s personal political ploys. The Federal Government has indicated that it will not always be around to pick up the tabs for the Queensland Premier’s expensive vote winning gestures, such as the abolition of gift duty. Sooner or later, in one way or another, Queenslanders will have to pay for the loss of that revenue and those doing the paying will be those who can least afford to pay. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard sections 4.S to 4.11 inclusive of the Grants Commission’s Forty-sixth Report 1979 on Special Assistance for States. I spoke to the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) earlier in the evening and he agreed to its incorporation.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Probate and Succession Duty 4.5 Queensland abolished succession duty on estates passing between spouses when the deceased died on or after 25 September 197S and on all estates when the deceased died on or after 1 January 1977. At the Brisbane Hearings in December 1978 Queensland stated that, as a result of the abolition of succession duty, it would be unable to provide the usual statistical data on estates for 1977-78 and future years. It also indicated that it was unable to suggest how the Commission might assess Queensland’s revenue base and the needs arising from succession duty other than to propose that some use be made of Commonwealth estate duty data, as discussed at the Brisbane Hearings in December 1977. Queensland concluded that there was a continuing need for the Commission to exercise broad judgment in this field, and it requested that a taxable capacity of no greater than 70 per cent of standard be adopted for 1977-78. It submitted that such a capacity would be reasonable given the results of recent years and the expectation that increasing rural concessions in other States would have a relatively greater impact in Queensland. 4.6 Application of the Commission ‘s usual methods for the determination of probate and succession duty needs for 1977-78 has not been possible due to the absence of suitable statistical data. Use of Commonwealth estate duty statistics as an alternative measure of the tax bases in Queensland and the standard States has been investigated, but is not considered to be practicable because that duty is also being phased out, In addition, the Commonwealth statistics do not take sufficient account of the distribution of assets among beneficiaries and tend to obscure the effects of interstate differences in administrative procedures. Therefore, on the basis of broad judgment, and after examining the capacities determined for earlier years and recent changes to the probate and succession duty legislation in the standard States, the Commission has assessed Queensland’s taxable capacity for 1977-78 at 70 per cent of standard, which represents needs of$13,63S,000 4.7 The Commission is concerned about the longer term implications of the method adopted for 1977-78 to deal with the problems posed by the different State policies in relation to probate and succession duty. Accordingly, it invites further submissions on this matter from the interested parties.

Gift Duty 4.8 Queensland abolished gift duty on gifts made between spouses as from 28 November 1975 and on all other gifts as from 1 January 1977. For 1976-77, Queensland submitted that details of gift duty assessments actually issued in Queensland during that year were not a reliable guide to its relative revenue base. The Commission accepted that submission and, on the basis of broad judgment, assessed Queensland’s capacity at 70 per cent of standard for 1976-77. In making that assessment the Commission was influenced by: the results of its usual methodology, adjusted for the effects of the more generous exemptions in Queensland and the abolition of gift duty; the relationship between gift duty and probate and succession duty; and the implied capacities calculated for previous years. At the Brisbane Hearings in December 1978, Queensland confirmed that, as a result of the abolition of gift duty, it would not be able to provide statistical data on gifts made in Queensland for 1977-78 and future years. For 1977-78 the Commission has, on the basis of broad judgment, assessed Queensland’s capacity at 70 per cent of standard the same as that adopted for probate and succession duty. However, the Commission is concerned about the problems associated with interstate comparisons in this field and it invites further comments from the interested parties on the methodology to be adopted for future years.

Stamp Duty on General Insurance 4.9 For the 1 976-77 year of review, Queensland ‘s needs in this field were assessed by reference to a capacity determined by the Commission as a weighted average of the capacities to raise revenue from the three groups of general insurance: workers’ compensation; motor vehicle comprehensive and third party; and other insurance, for workers’ compensation insurance, Queensland’s capacity to raise revenue was determined by reference to the capacity assessed for pay-roll taxation. A capacity of 100 per cent was adopted for the motor vehicle comprehensive and third party insurance component. For the other insurance field, the capacity was determined by reference to the per capita premiums paid in each State after making an allowance for the higher storm and tempest component in Queensland relative to New South Wales. The capacities so determined were weighted by reference to the relationship between premiums paid for that field of insurance and total premiums paid in Victoria. 4.10 In its Forty-fifth Report 1978 (paragraph 4.14), the Commission expressed its concern that this approach might not result in a proper assessment of Queensland’s needs in this field of taxation, and it invited further consideration of the matter by the interested parties. At the Brisbane Hearings in December 1978, the Queensland Treasury submitted that compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance should be considered separately and not specifically as part of the general insurance category. The separation was suggested because only a nominal stamp duty is charged on compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance in New South Wales and Queensland and complete exemption exists in Victoria. Queensland concluded that there was no real relationship between stamp duty and premiums or cover provided in either the standard States or Queensland for this type of insurance. It submitted that a separate assessment of needs, based on a comparison of the number of motor vehicles on register in each State, should be made for compulsory third party insurance. The Commission has accepted this submission and Queensland’s needs arising from stamp duty on compulsory third party insurance for 1977-78 have been included in the category ‘Motor vehicle third party insurance taxation’.

1 1 In the absence of data necessary to pursue alternative methods of comparison, the Commission has assessed Queensland’s needs for 1977-78 arising from stamp duty on general insurance, excluding compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, by similar methods to those adopted for 1976-77. For 1977-78, Queensland’s capacity to raise revenue in this field has been determined as 83 per cent of standard, which gives positive needs of $4,638,000. However, the Commission is still concerned about the suitability of the approach adopted and it invites further consideration of this matter by the interested parties.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I thank the House and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee). I want to make it very plain that I do not object to Queensland’s requests for assistance, but I do object to the Queensland Premier’s hypocrisy in proclaiming Queensland ‘s exceptional development under his Government. The clear implication in the section of the Commission’s report which I have incorporated is that the Federal Government will not be coming to the rescue of the Queensland Government unless, of course, it believes that direct political advantage will be gained by it- that is, by the Federal Government.

There is one area of the Grants Commission report which I think shows that perhaps Queensland has been dealt with unfairly. It relates to the effects of diseconomies of scale. Apparently Queensland was invited to make submissions on the use of the factor assessment method, the details of which I shall not bother to go into at the moment. Queensland raised the broad principle of diseconomies of scale. This is the view that because of the existence of indivisible, fixed costs and other factors, smaller organisations incur higher costs per unit than larger organisations offering similar services. This is true in Queensland’s case. Certain standards of health facilities, for example, are required in given population centres, no matter what their size. This was even acknowledged by the Commonwealth Treasury in the Commission’s Canberra hearings. But the Treasury added:

While it is one thing to develop the concept of a scale factor in a theoretical sense, we suggest that it is a particularly difficult task to set about applying a numerical measure to it.

I believe that there exists in the Queensland submission a fundamental truth that should not be denied by the Commission. While the proposals made by the Queensland Government for the determination or measuring of the disadvantages suffered by Queensland because of its diseconomies of scale may have been flawed in certain respects, I hope that a workable formula might be arrived at. Certainly, a reading of the report indicates that the Queensland Government deserves points for trying.

The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We accept the bipartisan nature of the Grants Commission ‘s calculations and we believe that this grant ought to be made in strict accordance with its recommendations, as has been the procedure since the Commission’s foundation. For my part, I believe that there is a definite need to review the form in which the grant is made. Section 96 of the Constitution states that:

  1. . The Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

A grant in the form of a specific purpose payment could be made to a claimant State in order to ensure that the grant goes to the area of need defined by the Grants Commission. Certainly, the experience of Queensland as a claimant State indicates that all the good work of the Grants Commission can be undone too easily by a State government which is not prepared to play by the rules.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– I do not want to cry about the Commonwealth Grants Commission but I hope tonight to make one or two comments in relation to it. I listened to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) for quite a few minutes. I want to make one point to him. Reference to per capita personal income can be a very inadequate way of comparing States. It is much more appropriate to compare household income. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) would immediately acknowledge that point. Household income takes into account so many more items than wages and salaries; for example, the returns of incorporated and unincorporated business, rural enterprise, dividends and so on. I make that point only in passing; I do not dwell on it because time is fairly short.

The Grants Commission is a unique body. If it had a coat of arms it should have emblazoned upon that coat of arms the principle of equality in terms of public services, and only public services, among the various States. I am always delighted when a Grants Commission report comes into this place because for half a dozen years before Queensland became a claimant State I pressed for her to become such before the Grants Commission. The arguments which acted as an impediment to that application were gradually stripped away. It is interesting now to note that Queensland was the last State to come before the Grants Commission. It is now the only State which is a claimant State before that Commission. It is not a matter of Queensland demeaning itself; it is not a matter of Queensland becoming a mendicant State; it is a matter of making a rightful claim, given the nature of the public market within Australia. It is useless to say that Tasmania and South Australia do not go before the Grants Commission and that they have inherent virtue in not being claimant States before the Grants Commission because everybody with one ounce of sense knows that both States were bought off. Each State gets a subsidy of something like $50m a year from the

Commonwealth Government through the Australian National Railways Commission which took over their respective deficit non-paying State railway systems. Let us have a look at the broad picture and be fair in respect of this matter.

The Grants Commission is also useful in another way. By analysing what are often perceived to be State issues it is able to strip away many of the false campaigns that accompany the subject of federalism. There is always a wonderful opportunity to pursue a campaign that something should be done or not be done to forget the relative cost of doing it and how resources may be spent that otherwise ought to have been spent on any issue or any campaign whatsoever. It has been said that federalism has been likened to a contest involving clever political footwork indulged in by adversaries and supported most strongly by he who hopes to vanish across the skyline carrying off the booty. Given that definition of federalism, the Grants Commission enables that precise carrying off of the booty to be exposed.

I think one or two points of the history of the Grants Commission are always worth recapitulating. The Commission has had its troubles and its difficulties. Some of its great difficulties, which were political, applied in respect of Tasmania, which was an original Grants Commission State. In the olden days of its determinations the Grants Commission used to examine State Budgets and make adjustments to State Budgets. It gave a grant or a negative grant to a State after comparing Budgets and the efforts made by the State in raising revenue to fund those Budgets, et cetera. There used to be a Treasurer in Tasmania who waged a campaign every time the Grants Commission went to Tasmania. He was always able to blame the Commission for every State fault that there was. If Tasmania was not getting enough money for hospitals, education, forests or anything else, it was pointed out that this dreadful Commonwealth Grants Commission was dictating to the State as to how it should raise the money for its Budget. The Grants Commission would be held responsible were there a subsequent rise in any form of State taxation. He was responsible on a number of occasions for forcing the Grants Commission to leave the State and to make deliberations outside it. So since 1974-75 that precise technique of calculation which enabled that kind of false charge to be made has been abandoned by the Commission. It now has a method of calculation which looks at the assessed taxation and the assessed expenditure and subtracts from that the assistance which the Commonwealth gives by way of the Commonwealth ‘s support for the State’s activities. From that the amount of the Grants Commission recommendation is calculated.

One interesting thing about this year is that the advance grant, that is the grant which applies to the current year, is the smallest one that has ever been provided. One might be moved to the proposition: Is Queensland likely therefore to remain a claimant State before the Grants Commission? For most of the 1970s Queensland has been the only State; it is certainly now the only State. I thought some time ago that Queensland may be coming to the end of the days when it is a claimant State before the Commission. Two parts of the report might give rise to that kind of worry. I refer to the parts of the report which deal with the revenue on railways. It is well known that in Queensland a number of special railway systems have developed. They have developed in relation to the mines. The capacity of those railway systems for raising revenue has never quite entered into the calculation. Here I am talking about the great exporting coalmines of Australia. I refer to page 36 of the Grants Commission report. It states:

The Commission therefore intends to review its procedures in this regard for 1978-79, and it proposes to treat some of these profits as accruing from greater capacity for railway revenue in Queensland rather than from greater mining revenue-raising effort.

In that there is a slight warning. There is a slight warning that the railway system upon which the revenue was able to be raised and which becomes part of the State revenue to be used for public purposes is going to be judged to have a greater capacity than it has now. That could give rise to a negative grant. The second interesting point is that the method of calculation with respect to land revenue is to be altered and capacity which may be forgone because there has been a different land tenure system in that State compared with the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria could be put aside. That could have some interesting results too.

This is the forty-sixth report of the Grants Commission. It is a body which has continued since 1 933. It was set up by a Tasmanian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Lyons. It has continued on. The very worthwhile part of this body is that its reports and its deliberations have never been contested. They have always been accepted. So, given the definition of federalism that is applied here and the definition of equality and equity which is the unstated assumption of the Grants Commission’s calculations, all States which have appeared before that body have received fair and just treatment and are not able to pursue false campaigns in relation to their own revenues.

I want to go beyond the Commission and look at some of the matters which it has referred to in past years. In a word, the Grants Commission- I fear that the honourable member for Griffith may not have quite referred to this in the way he would have preferred- accepts the market which exists in Australia concerning resources, the distribution of those resources and the capacity to raise revenue and to develop standards of living from those resources. It does not question the market in Australia. That is accepted. For a State such as Queensland and a State such as Western Australia, which was a claimant State before the Commission for many years, there are three parts of that market that could be considered and ought to be considered in the future. Those three parts affect living standards and cannot be ignored.

One of them is known as the centralisation of private enterprise. It is going on apace and nobody can ignore it. It is having absolutely enormous consequences. The second part of the market which is unmeasured is the distribution effects of tariffs and quotas. The Grants Commission referred to this in a report in 1937 as being very difficult to measure. When people say that a free market operates in Australia one has to remember- I do not intend to embarrass the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) who is sitting at the table- that through that means, for example, there is a subsidy equivalent given to each person in Victoria of about $550 per person per year. In Queensland and Western Australia, both old claimant States before the Grants Commission, that subsidy equivalent comes to something between $215 and $250 per person per year. So it is not a free market operating in Australia. It is a very subsidised market in various parts of the country. South Australia has a larger amount of subsidy equivalent per person. So the capital market so far as it is built upon that kind of net subsidy does indeed receive a disproportionate boost in various parts of the country.

The third point- I just mention this in passing- is the monetary system. So long as the Reserve Bank of Australia pays little heed to the States’ specific monetary obligations, the monetary system has to operate against any State that does not have within its boundaries any policymaking or decision-making bank or financial institution. That applies to my State, par excellence, in Australia. It is more a branch office

State in that respect than any other part of Australia.

Mr Humphreys:

– Tell us about Tasmania.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-Tasmania does very well indeed. It conned the Commonwealth Government, a friendly Commonwealth Government at the time, to buy its railway system. It has meant a net subsidy to the State of tens of millions of dollars per year as it is for South Australia. I return to this point concerning the centralisation of private enterprise. It worries me because ultimately if we are going to look at equity or equality between the States this is one way in which it is not being observed in Australia. This is not to criticise any Government. I merely make two points to illustrate what I am saying. It is well known in Australia that over the last decade or so the most quickly developing States in the Commonwealth have been the outlying States. Nobody disputes that. The two States are Western Australia and Queensland. We see it in terms of the numbers of seats in this place which are attributable to both States. They continue to develop more quickly than the rest of Australia. It may be like the west coast of the United States compared with the east coast of the United States in the late nineteenth century and for a lot of the twentieth century. But a disparity has developed because the quicker rate of development is not being reflected in the household income from all sources available per person in those States. I am very troubled about this. For example, Queensland, for the last 10 years, has been the quickest or second quickest developing State in Australia. Yet the household income available per person has either been the lowest or the second lowest in Australia. There is obviously a disparity in the market system if that situation occurs. I say that it is overwhelmingly due to the fact that there are no head offices in that State. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the head offices of companies in Australia looking for takeovers.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-Of 22 companies in Australia which are reputed in the financial markets to be looking for takeovers, all of them are in New South Wales and Victoria. Not one is outside those two States. So unless there are head offices in a State that cluster of abilities and of skills that is appropriate to head offices will not occur, especially in these days when there is a far greater amount of capital employed per worker; there is a far greater proportion of people employed in head offices and in administration than there is at the mine face or on the factory floor or at the precise area where the production occurs. It is just a simple fact of life. Unless head offices are obtained, no matter what wealth is produced in particular States of Australia, it will not reflect itself in opportunities for people desiring work. I give one example. People who graduate from universities might graduate as economists. Economists are employed either in teaching, public enterprise or in private enterprise. Very few people who graduate with those skills from any university in Queensland will find employment in private enterprise. They all have to leave. That is an example par excellence. Unless something is done to make Australians aware of the centralising effect of private enterprise and the way in which computers have been utilised to misuse the location of head offices, the outlying States will continue to find it enormously difficult. So skills, people and employment opportunities go with the nature of the officers who want to employ those people. I believe that this matter ought to concern the Government.

I refer to a splendid article which appeared in the Financial Times of 30 October this year. The article was about the results of a 10-year study by some people belonging to the International Institute for Management Administration in Berlin. It involved six countries, including some Common Market countries. The countries were the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United States. The Institute examined the merger programs that had occurred over 10 years. There had been 750-odd mergers and these involved 3,000 companies. On looking at the reasons for these mergers, this study makes it quite clear that there was no perceptible increase in efficiency as a result of the mergers and that only for a short time was there a perceptible increase in profitability. In fact, it dropped back very quickly. There were no perceptible effects from those mergers in terms of prices being lower than they would otherwise have been. What is known as the large scale operation principle for having a merger did not apply in most cases. The researchers concluded a very splendid study by saying:

  1. . these latter-day mergers often seem akin to empire building with no demonstrable social benefit to compensate for the inherent reduction in competition.

Clearly this is occurring in Australia. If we are on a merger binge, as Gottliebsen pointed out the Australian Financial Review yesterday, the most vulnerable parts of Australia are the outlying States. The cluster of skills and opportunities that accompanies officers able to make policy decisions will be increasingly lost to children leaving schools and wanting to obtain jobs in the outlying States. That is happening now. I hope that the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and a number of public authorities are aware of the fact that mergers also involve social obligations. I have been able to get the Myers Committee on Technology to take an interest in the matter of the centralisation of private enterprise. I believe that it is one of the enormous problems in Australia. If we are to construct a federal system with some semblance of equality of opportunity for people in various parts of the country, the matter of what is happening in private enterprise cannot be ignored.

I am not a person who says merely that the market is free and that it is free to the detriment of everything else. Adam Smith never meant that. There always have to be social obligations. As soon as anybody talks about social justice, equality, fair shares or a return for work commensurate with what others get for a return for work he is talking about some intervention in the market system. The position that we on this side of the House take is that any intervention has to be as low as possible and taken as a last resort, not taken as the first resort or the first response to any situation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see that you have followed this argument. I know that you follow these things with a great deal of interest. The work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission has been enormously useful for Australia. It is a product of the federal system in this country that has not been emulated anywhere else in the world. That needs to be realised and appreciated. I am delighted to support this Bill. I am delighted to support the deliberations and the calculations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As long as it continues, this country will benefit. But I would request that wider interest be taken in the matter of the centralising effects of private enterprise.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I congratulate the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) for joining the philosophy of democratic socialism and establishing for us this evening that the biggest influences on centralism and dehumanising the economic system under which we live are to be found not in the public sector but in the private sector. I want to follow up several of his points because I think that they are relevant to the system of grants to Queensland, to the future of Queensland and to the philosophy of the Queensland Government, which is an extreme example of the philosophy of this Federal Government.

The honourable member spoke of the handing over to the Federal Government of the rail systems in Tasmania and South Australia. Of course, the metropolitan rail system in South Australia is still a State function. The Queensland Government could have handed its losing proposition- its losing enterprise in the railways- to the Federal Labor Government at the same time if it so wished, but it chose not to do so. It may well be that that sort of preservation of a decentralised control of railways may have been productive. I will not argue for or against it at this stage, although Australia would have been enormously better off if we had had a unified railway system from the beginning, particularly uniform rail gauges. I want to take up the honourable member’s point about the mining railways, the new rail systems that have been put down to take enormous tonnages of coal in particular for export to Japan and mainly from open cut mines in the Bowen Basin in Queensland. These mining revenues are enormous and are growing faster than those of any other mining enterprise in this country.

I believe that the Federal Government was correct in putting a higher levy on the open cut mines than it put on the underground mines, that is, the deeper coal recovery that occurs particularly in New South Wales. After the cream has been skimmed off, as it were, and the more accessible edges of the basin have been taken by open cut mining, one then gets into a more expensive operation. This is what will happen eventually in Queensland. I think that it is fair enough to put a loading on the open cut mines so that it becomes more economic and more reasonable to exploit the deeper coal deposits from the older established coal mining areas. I am not arguing for my own State in this regard; I am arguing for a sensible and rational policy that spreads the burdens and benefits as evenly as possible.

When we talk of the enormous burst of prosperity in Queensland, Western Australia and to a lesser extent the Northern Territory, where uranium and other projects have been boosted to the skies as the great saviours of our economy, I think that we ought to look a little further ahead and ask ourselves what will be the eventual outcome of this sort of emphasis, this sort of stress. Are we really going to restore self-reliance, a permanent security and prosperity to this country by concentrating on getting our limited resources, our finite resources, out of the ground at a faster and faster rate? Certainly it has a snowballing effect and a multiplier effect. As the coal is taken out by bigger and bigger machines using more and more imported capital machinery, meaning fewer and fewer jobs for every $lm invested, Australia becomes a cheaper energy country. This cheap energy attracts other industries. In particular, it attracts aluminium smelting, which is now going ahead at a faster rate in my electorate than it is anywhere else in Australia.

The construction of the biggest aluminium smelter in the world is now commencing at Gladstone. It already has the biggest alumina refinery. One or two other companies are hopping on the band wagon to smelt their aluminium in central Queensland, which has the cheapest power in Australia. It is cheaper than the power from the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. The aluminium will be exported in much lower tonnages than would the coal if the smelting were to occur overseas. The enormous savings in freight by exporting refined aluminium rather than coal and alumina are the only factors which determine that the big producers of aluminium are coming to Queensland and to this country.

The Queensland Premier in particular, the Queensland Government and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth Government, have made much of the enormous wealth that this brings to Australia. What they do not tell us is who gets that wealth, where it goes in Australia and how much of it goes straight out again. They do not stress the fact that most of the capital equipment involved is imported and has to be paid for with Australian dollars. They do not stress the fact that because of the enormous mechanisation in mining as compared with any other industry a comparatively trivial amount goes into labour costs and into providing jobs for Australians. They do not stress that the companies which invest in these mines also invest in or have associates in shipping, insurance and manufacture overseas and in buying the aluminium overseas. They can so manipulate the costs and charges that they can make no profits or minimum profits in this country from the exercise of turning bauxite into alumina and alumina into aluminium.

For at least 10 years I have been saying publicly in my electorate and in this Parliament that the people who produce alumina do not disclose their cost structure. They are overwhelmingly foreign-owned firms. They sell overseas most of their alumina or the aluminium which is produced from their facilities at Bell Bay and which will be produced from their facilities in Queensland as well as at smaller facilities in New South Wales and elsewhere. They do not have to make any profit on that exercise at all; so they do not have to pay any company tax. If they were genuinely showing the costs and market prices that would exist in a free enterprise system they would be paying substantial company tax. Something like half their profits would be going to the general public. That is not the case. They do not disclose these figures.

Years ago when I first raised this matter, the manager of Queensland Alumina Ltd in Gladstone wrote me a letter. He said that he noticed that I had made public statements about this matter. He asked: ‘Do you not realise that the Federal Treasurer has the authority to declare what he thinks is a fair proportion of tax, what he thinks is a fair assessment of the profit made in this operation, and he can tax us accordingly?’ I wrote that I was not terribly concerned about what power he has. What I am concerned about is whether he is doing it. Does he take that tax off the company? Years later I am still waiting for a reply to that letter. There are enormous resources in Queensland. Some of them are far more renewable than coal and alumina. There are enormous water resources, but they will be much more costly to harness comparatively, than the waters of the Snowy scheme because of the highly irregular seasons and rainfall on the Queensland coast. If we are to have an industrialised community which will use enormous quantities of water in industry as well as a bigger population in this country, I believe that that is where the increased population will have to go.

I do not think it has been stressed enough that when the last large dam was being built in the Murray-Darling system- I am speaking of a time within the last decade- there was great debate, dispute and acrimonious argument between the farmers of Victoria and the Melbourne water authority as to who was to get most of that water. Melbourne was suffering severe water restrictions. It was going through a bad drought and the farmers were having a bad time. In my view, there is no case for increasing the population of Victoria while we have to get our water in the sorts of ways we get it now- without taking it out of the sea or through some other very costly system. The only place where more people could be put if we are going to need water on the scale on which we use it is coastal Queensland. But it is going to cost.

Many cost benefit analyses have been done on the main water systems of coastal Queenslandthe Burdekin, the Burnett, the Fitzroy, the Herbert and two or three other rivers. These water systems certainly offer potential but there is no long range proposal coming forward from this Government to give money to or to assist planning in Queensland to develop that sort of permanent and renewable resource for permanent and renewable settlement and industry. I believe that cost benefit analyses have been doneparticularly those initiated by Dr Rex Patterson who was Australia’s first Minister for Northern Development- to assess whether it is worth while to implement the Burdekin scheme and the Bundaberg region. It was proposed that similar cost benefit analyses be provided on other proposals. I do not know whether this Government has followed up the proposal sufficiently. Even to this day I do not think that it has done a thorough assessment of the costs and benefits of the Burdekin proposal. This is an urgent need. Unless we are prepared to look at such long range planning on which all private industry depends- it depends on the public sector to do this basic planning- I believe that State and Federal governments are copping out. They are not meeting their obligations with regard to Queensland’s development. It is the north of Australia where development must occur. Industrial and social development must be planned on a large scale with Federal assistance not only in Queensland but also in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory.

The honourable member for Lilley said that he is concerned that the quicker development that is occurring in the north, particularly in Queensland, is not reflected in household incomes. This is a concern that members on this side of the House have been expressing for a long time. It is the first time that I have heard it expressed from the other side of the House. The Premier of Queensland for months and years has been claiming: ‘We are the greatest. Queensland is the State that is carrying Australia on its back. It is the State that year after year has its budget in the black while Canberra is going into the red. ‘ Why is it that he can get away with those sorts of statements when Queensland has the lowest standard of living? As the honourable member said, if it is not the lowest, it is the second lowest in recent years in the whole of Australia. The honourable member gave us what I believe is a simplistic explanation. He says that all we have to do to solve that problem is to make the big companies smaller, spread the head offices and put more head offices in Queensland. To an extent I agree with him. I agree that there needs to be decentralisation in the private sector and in the public sector. I am not very enamoured of the sort of decentralisation that Fraser federalism implies, where one hands over one’s responsibilities entirely to the States, which are acting very irresponsibly in some of the areas in which they have had responsibility given to them. I do not have to go past Aboriginal affairs, which was discussed in this House today, to give an example of that sort.

It is certainly a good move to have head offices and management skills spread around, to get the management a little closer to the people to whom the honourable member referred- the people at the coal face, on the factory floor, and so on. I am all for it. Honourable members on this side of the House are all for it and always have been. We have always stressed the need for more participation, more co-operation, more collaboration and more discussion between the employees, the employers and the Government- a tripartite approach. We can make that a four-way discussion by bringing in the consumers as well. Governments are concerned primarily in representing consumer interests, and consumers are becoming better organised and more vocal as time goes on, just as unions in past decades have become more organised and more vocal in representing the work force.

Unless we can get decentralisation and genuine participation in all those senses- with a sharing of the control of industry between not just the investors and the bureaucrats employed by their money, where the manipulators who sit on the company boards manipulate their bureaucrats in the private sector and manipulate the workers and the consumers through advertising and otherwise, as puppeteers might- and unless we get interest and concern from consumers and employees, then we do not have industrial democracy and we are going to have all the evils of the centralisation of the private sector which has been stressed by the honourable member for Lilley. Those evils will include increasing industrial disputes, increasing industrial confrontation and increasing dislocation of essential services in this country. The Government’s solution is not to decentralise and to facilitate discussion between those sectors. The Government’s solution is to use the big stick, to put in restrictive laws aimed at one side only in the dispute; namely, the side which does not have the control of market decisions, which does not have the control of the monopoly interests which are increasingly taking over the coal, alumina and other industries that are getting so big so fast.

The honourable member also did not tell us what happened to the money that goes into these huge developments. I could perhaps draw to his attention countries such as Bolivia, which rode on the backs of the tin mines, and Chile and the Congo, which made their export wealth out of copper. Are we to go the way of those countries? Is that the sort of wealth Bjelke-Petersen is offering us? It is the sort of argument that he is using. We are getting more and more coal and bauxite out. We are going to have more and more steel mills. We are going to put a railroad across to Western Australia to enable Queensland and Western Australia to exchange their coal and iron ore. That is the approach of Bjelke-Petersen. That is the approach of” Congo, Bolivia and Chile development. It is not an approach for a better standard of living for the people who have to do the mining and the people who have to live at the ends of those great railroads.

Finally, I stress that the worst centralisation in the public sector in this country is not the centralisation that was alleged to have been initiated by the Federal Labor Government. We did a lot of decentralisation with the Australian Assistance Plan, our community health schemes, our school dental schemes, our urban and regional development schemes and many other schemes. The biggest and the most inhibiting centralisation is occurring in the State of Queensland where one cannot even order a new brand of syringe for a hospital without consulting Brisbane; where there is such secrecy and such a centralised dictatorship developing that Queensland has been compared not only to the deep south of America but also to some of the central and south American republics; where, if things were allowed to develop that way for too long, we would have a change of government with guns.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-In speaking to the Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill, first of all let me make some comments on the speeches that have been made already. I was very disappointed with the speech made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) when he denigrated his home State in a manner that was not justified. I am very proud of the progress and development that are taking place there. The population growth and the progress that is being made are contrary to the comments that he made. I regretted very much hearing that from a representative of our State of Queensland. I believe that it was done largely from a party political point of view. Of course, Queensland is a very large State and has a decentralised population. That increases the cost of transport. There are a number of other reasons why Queensland would make application to the Grants Commission for assistance. Apparently honourable members on the Labor side of the House do not want Queensland to get money that it is entitled to receive through the Grants Commission. I do not know why they would want to take that attitude. The Grants Commission is an impartial body. It looks at the claims before it and sits in judgment on those claims. If Queensland is entitled to funds under the Grants Commission, I for one will say that Queensland should get those funds.

Another point which was made with regard to Queensland was that one of the reasons why it has attracted people is the abolition of death duties. I take it from what the Labor representative said that if Labor got into power in Queensland it would reimpose death duties. That is the answer. It must be the inference that is drawn from that.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have they abolished death?

Mr CORBETT:

-That is a marvellous idea. But let me remind members of the Labor Party that one of their most successful leaders in the State sphere, Mr Wran, is going to abolish death duties if he can. That is his aim and objective. He would like to follow the lead of Queensland. He is doing his very best to do that. Recently, there was a report that an area in northern New South Wales would like to become a part of the State of Queensland. The people there would like to have the boundary moved south so that they can be a part of the great State of Queensland. Contrary to what my friend, the honourable member for Griffith, has said, I am a great supporter of the progress and development of Queensland. I will argue always that it should be the State that gets all the benefits that are available to it, and it will use those benefits very well.

This has been a wide-ranging debate, but let me get back to the Bill. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) said in his second reading speech:

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment to Queensland of $ 12.4m in 1 979-80 as a special grant.

In accordance with normal practice, the Bill also seeks authority for payment of advances to Queensland in the early months of 1980-8 1 -

Apparently the Labor Party thinks that Queensland should not have them- pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendation for that year and enactment of necessary legislation to provide for any special grant that may be payable to the State in that year.

Queensland’s estimated entitlement in respect of 1979-80 under the personal income tax sharing arrangements is $947.8m, representing approximately $431 per head of population compared with an estimated average of approximately $323 per head for New South Wales and Victoria. Accordingly, the assistance provided by way of the special grant should be seen as supplementing the special compensatory assistance of $109 per head, or some $239m, provided to Queensland by way of its tax sharing entitlement

I just hope that Queensland will be able to get these funds. It has not got all that it is entitled to under the income tax sharing arrangements, because of the wrong estimate of its population. It has been getting some of it back through the Grants Commission, to which I will refer later. Including this grant, total figures should ensure that the States will be able to continue their works program- Queensland is included in that- insofar as the total Commonwealth payments to the States, plus borrowing entitlements, are concerned. Borrowings with Commonwealth Government underwriting are an important source of funds for the States and must be considered when looking at the capacity of the States to finance their undertakings.

In regard to the tax sharing arrangements, as I have said before Queensland has claimed that owing to a short counting of its population it has received less than it should have received. I believe it is a justifiable complaint. However, my understanding is that although Queensland has received less from the tax sharing arrangements than an accurate assessment of its population would have entitled it to receive, some of the shortfall in revenue has been made up by the Grants Commission taking that factor into consideration. So it is a good thing that the Commission did look at the Queensland situation, if only to rectify that error. I hope and expect that any outstanding entitlement will also be made available to Queensland. Even allowing for these facts the position is most unsatisfactory to Queensland. To get the funds it is entitled to and which other States get as a right, Queensland has to make an approach and is dependent on the Grants Commission to make up the shortfall of its full entitlement. But according to honourable members on the Opposition side, Queensland should not go to the Grants Commission. It would therefore miss out on receiving those funds it was denied because of the short count in population.

Mr Katter:

– Why do you think they hate Queensland?

Mr CORBETT:

– I would not know; they should not. Because the present scheme for capital assistance and States grants is due -

Mr Willis:

– I raise a point of order. On a number of occasions the honourable member has said that the Opposition is opposing this Bill. We are not opposing this measure.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did not hear the honourable member for Maranoa say that. It is not a point of order.

Mr CORBETT:

– I did not say it, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I complained about was the denigration of Queensland by honourable members on the Opposition side. Not only should they not do it but also they should not do it in a debate on this Bill. I sincerely trust that a satisfactory replacement scheme -

Mr Humphreys:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member said that I was denigrating my State of Queensland. That is completely untrue. I was denigrating the Premier of that State; not my State. I am very proud of my State.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I remind honourable members that they are raising points of order which they know are not points of order. They are frivolous points of order. If they continue to raise them, I shall have to take action against them.

Mr Humphreys:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented. The honourable member said -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented he can make a personal explanation at the end of the speech of the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr CORBETT:

-I just say that that was my interpretation of what the honourable member said. I had said that, under the income tax sharing arrangements, Queensland was not getting its full entitlement because of a shortfall in the population count. I sincerely trust that a satisfactory replacement scheme will be devised and that Queensland will have correct population figures applied to such a scheme.

Another main area of payments to the States is that of specific purpose funds. One specific purpose payment is the local government tax sharing entitlement which is passed on to local authorities. The funds from this source provide very substantial assistance to local government revenue. Local government’s share of last year’s net personal income tax revenue is to be increased to 1.75 per cent in 1979-80. As a result the local government benefit from this measure will amount to about $22 1.1m, which is an increase of 23.6 per cent. The Government has agreed to increase this percentage to 2 per cent of net personal income tax revenue during the life of this Parliament. So there should be another substantial gain from this source to local government revenue in 1980-81. 1 hope that the Labor Party will not oppose that increase. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations has endeavoured over a period of years to get a share of net personal income tax revenue paid directly to local government. The Government deserves credit for accepting this well justified claim. The Council was strongly supported by State local government associations and by district associations, including the one that serves my area of Maranoa. In many rural areas, and maybe elsewhere, local government revenue raised by rates on property had become a heavy and inequitable burden on ratepayers, so the provision of funds from net personal income tax revenue was a welcome and equitable addition to local authority funds.

It should also be noted that in recent years some States have been able at least to achieve balanced budgets and at the same time have reduced or abolished some State taxes. This has to be compared with the deficits that the Commonwealth Government has had to contend with despite the fact that the Commonwealth Government has made greater efforts to restrain expenditure than have most States. The Queensland Government has made very good use of the funds made available to it by the Commonwealth Government. One aspect of the granting of Commonwealth Government funds to the States that should be noted is the reluctance on occasions of the States to acknowledge funds being applied by the States which come from Commonwealth Government sources. It would contribute to the goodwill that should exist between the Commonwealth and the States if members of the Commonwealth Government were given the prominence they deserve and were invited to speak at celebrations marking the completion of projects financed wholly or in part by Commonwealth funds. I acknowledge that this practice occurs sometimes but harmony would be engendered to the advantage of both the Commonwealth and the States if it were followed on all occasions.

The payment to Queensland in 1979-80 of $ 12.4m provided for by this Bill comprises an advance payment of $1 Im in respect of 1979-80 and a completion payment of $ 1.4m in respect of 1977-78. The advance grant for 1979-80 will, in accordance with normal practice, be subject to adjustment in two years’ time. The Commission’s recommendations in relation to the special grants arrangements have been adopted by the Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I stress that, viewed from the overall responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to maintain a stable national economy, the States have been well treated financially by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr HUMPHREYS (Griffith)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-Yes. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) stated that I was denigrating my State of Queensland and that I was not proud of my State. At no stage did I say that in my speech. I did say that the Premier of Queensland kept $20m that the Grants Commission gave to the Queensland Government for allocation to the Brisbane City Council for the transport system. That is what I said about the Queensland Premier.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2634

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1979 is, as outlined by the Minister for Transport (Mr

Nixon) in his second reading speech, a machinery Bill to amend the 1952 Act. This Act imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airways facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services provided by the Commonwealth. Briefly, the purposes of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1979 are: Firstly, to increase, with effect from 1 December 1979, the rates of air navigation charges payable by the domestic airline operators by 25 per cent. Secondly, to increase by 20 per cent the rates of air navigation charges payable by general aviation operators, effective from a date to be fixed by proclamation. Thirdly, to align the assessment of rates of air navigation charges payable by international charter operators with those payable by international airline operators. Fourthly, to amend the rate of interest payable, in respect of those air navigation charges which are unpaid after 45 days from the date on which they fall due, from 10 per cent per annum to one per cent for each month or part of month of the amount unpaid. Fifthly, to increase the rate of weekly air navigation charges for foreign, private and aerial work aircraft; and, to correct an inequity in relation to the payment of refunds of air navigation charges associated with changes in ownership of aircraft.

Whilst the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill I will move at a later stage that it be withdrawn and redrafted so as to exclude application of any increases in air navigation charges to general aviation until receipt and consideration of the report of the inquiry into general aviation now under way. This inquiry aims, firstly, to provide a better understanding of the structure, operations and economics of the various sectors of the general aviation industry. Secondly, it aims to provide a better basis for government consideration of the provision of services and airport facilities for general aviation and of regulatory matters. Thirdly, it aims to achieve an appropriate level of recovery of aerodrome and airways facilities’ costs attributable to general aviation on a more equitable and efficient basis. Such an inquiry is long overdue, particularly in view of rapidly rising costs in the aviation industry generally in view of the growth in the general aviation industry. An example of how costs are increasing in the aviation industry can be seen from the following figures. In 1972-73 costs of services provided to aviation by the Commonwealth totalled $116m. By 1977-78 costs have reached $229m. In real terms, the increase in costs was 6.3 per cent. During the same period, Federal revenue from aviation rose from $57.6m to $ 139.7m- an increase in real terms of nearly 3 1 per cent. Clearly, there is a need to look into the wide difference between the costs of services provided and the amount of revenue being returned to Government.

The past decade has seen a boom in the general aviation industry. Because of the extent and growing importance of the industry, the Opposition believes that the current inquiry should be a public inquiry where submissions and evidence can be publicly scrutinised. It is against the public interest for the present inquiry to be private to departmental officers only. For too long decisions affecting all aspects of aviation in this country have been carried out in secret. The people involved in the industry have a right to know how decisions affecting their livelihood are arrived at and users of air services are entitled to have an input into and an examination of the decision-making procedures that determine the charges they must pay.

Since 1969 the number of flying hours has increased from 1,034,000 to an estimated 1 ,650,000 in 1 978, an increase of some 65 per cent. The number of general aviation aircraft on the register has also grown from just over 4,100 on the register in June 1975 to more than 5,000 today. At the same time, there is a significant over-capacity in the industry aggravated by sideline operators and tax avoidance companies, many of which I understand are owned by medical practitioners. Despite this growth, there is little detailed information on the structure, operations and economics of general aviation in Australia. This lack of information makes it difficult for the Parliament to enable an appropriate level of cost recovery to be ascertained on a basis which is both reasonable and equitable to all sub-sectors of the industry, particularly in respect of operators whose primary activity is the provision of air services. In light of this, the Government’s decision to increase air navigation charges for general aviation by 20 per cent is all the more surprising. It smacks of a further grab by a government desperate to extract what it can from the transport sector to fund the Budget deficit, regardless of the long term cost to the Australian economy, the impact on the general aviation industry or the price of air transport services to consumers. This Government must be made to realise that general aviation is an essential part of the national aviation industry, providing a livelihood for a significant part of the population engaged in a wide variety of economic and essential services critical to the development and prosperity of Australia.

In recent times, few industries have suffered more than general aviation. This year alone has seen a doubling of avgas prices, acute shortages of the fuel and a 2 per cent excise imposed on the import of aircraft and components. Together, these have had a devastating impact on commuter air services, charter operations and agricultural activities and have threatened jobs and living standards, especially in remote areas. Even before the avgas crisis, the general aviation industry was beginning to suffer the effects of the Government’s oil import parity pricing policy. Before the introduction of the import parity pricing policy, general aviation operators were paying 19. lc excise on an imperial gallon of aviation fuel- avgas. The introduction of the import parity pricing policy means, in effect, that general aviation operators are being taxed twice on fuel. On top of this, there is considerable doubt in the industry over future fuel prices. Last month, the Melbourne-based commuter airline, Bizjets, after four years of service, cut out flights to the Tasmanian west coast and Smithton because it could not be assured of a regular supply of avgas. The month before, the New South Wales charter operator, Katoomba Air Services Pty Ltd, claimed it was forced out of business, also because of the avgas shortage. No doubt there are many more casualties of the Government’s failure to produce an equitable fuel policy and properly to allocate available avgas supplies.

The general aviation industry is being squeezed to death by a government which has a callous disregard of what is happening. The Government’s approach to the whole avgas catastrophe has been extraordinary, to say the least, and a mass of contradictions and deceptions. It has also been party to the exploitation of Australians dependent on the fuel, by international oil companies. Australian avgas users are paying prices three or four times higher than those being paid by the international oil companies which import avgas. Between October last year and June this year, ‘spot’ prices of avgas to the oil companies rose by roughly 5c to 5 Vic per litre. Yet the increases in Australian prices of avgas approved by the Prices Justification Tribunal have, in some cases, gone above 17c per litre. The Government’s only reaction to this problem has been to say to avgas users: Well you must abide by the decision of the umpire’. At a time when Australian general aviation services were being crippled, the Government allowed huge exports of avgas to Fiji and, of all places, the United Arab Emirates. The hike in avgas prices has also jeopardised or destroyed the hopes of many young people looking for a career in aviation. In the past year, the fuel cost associated with the flying hours that trainee pilots must log to reach a basic commercial licence has jumped by a thousand dollars. On top of this, the Government now wants to increase air navigation charges by 20 per cent.

The Opposition acknowledges the need for a reasonable rate of cost recovery in the aviation industry and is aware of the significant rate of under-recovery, particularly in the general aviation sector. But it is also aware of the need for cost recovery to be achieved on a basis which is equitable and reasonable. The Minister, too, if we can take him at his word, used to believe this. Last November he told a seminar in Sydney:

In the past, attempts to raise the recovery rate of attributable costs have been on a basis of fixed percentage increase in the rate of air navigation charges for all sectors of the industry. It is recognised that this method of increasing the level of cost recovery can lead to anomalies, particularly in respect of general aviation where air navigation charges are levied by aircraft types and not by the use of facilities provided.

He went on to say:

The position is further complicated in that both the number of aircraft operated in the general aviation sector and the level of activity in each sub-sector are increasing in some cases markedly, and at different rates.

The Minister’s assurances that when the cost recovery matters flowing from the general aviation study are being studied, the Government will give consideration to the ability of operators to pay, are unlikely to reassure the industry, given the Government’s record on cost recovery. The Minister himself, when in Opposition, promised in 1 975 that he would put a halt to the cost recovery program to assess the criteria on which it had been established. Four years later, the Minister for Transport has brought before us this Bill seeking all-time record increases in air navigation charges.

Mr Nixon:

– Excuse me, but you have forgotten that it was 300 per cent in the 1 975-76 Budget.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Minister should contain himself. In another speech to this House, on 26 August 1975, the Minister lamented that the user pays principle had almost wrecked the general aviation industry throughout Australia. These were the words of the very same Minister who, in his second reading speech a fortnight ago, said that with the increasing gap between costs and revenue and against the background of our economic structure, the Government had decided that the burden of these costs in the major sectors of operation should be transferred from the general taxpayer to the users of the infrastructure. The Minister further professed concern for the general aviation industry in another speech to this House on 11 November 1974. While the phraseology is a little convoluted, it is verbatim and I ask the House to bear with me as I quote what the Minister said. He said: lt is quite paradoxical that the Government should, when it is talking about the problems of inflation, so increase charges for those services it provided to general aviation, which must then pass on the charges at another point. Of course, the higher cost to general aviation has to be passed on to the consumers.

The Opposition asks: What has happened to the Minister’s pretence of concern for the general aviation industry since 1974? Furthermore, what has happened to his pretence of concern for the consumers of services provided by general aviation since 1974? Certainly this Government did not have the interests of the general aviation industry in mind when it proposed a 20 per cent increase in air navigation charges for general aviation. Certainly the interests of the consumers were not close to its heart when it decided to increase air navigation charges for the domestic airlines by 25 per cent- the biggest increase in history. Nor, it seems, did the Government have in mind the recommendations of its own Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee, which concluded last year that, given the experience of cost increases in the air transport industry and the significant degree of under-recovery, the maximum permissible annual increase in air navigation charges should be retained at 1 5 per cent. Despite that very fine, logical background, this Government then proceeded to increase air navigation charges by 25 per cent.

The two major airlines have, under the twoairline agreement, the right to limit increases in air navigation charges payable to 10 per cent in any year. The Minister has told us that the airlines have magnanimously agreed to accept the 25 per cent increase. We wonder what sort of trade-off was agreed to that they should accept with such alacrity. Perhaps the Minister has agreed to rubber stamp the next air fare increase application, just as he has rubber stamped the seven applications since 1976. The Minister told us in 1974- again when he was in oppositionthat the higher costs to aviation had to be passed on to the consumer. In 1974 air navigation charges were increased by 15 per cent. In 1979-80, when this Government wants to increase air navigation charges for general aviation by 20 per cent and for domestic airlines by 25 per cent, he tells us that the effect on the consumers will be negligible if the airlines care to pass on the increases.

In reply to a question without notice in this chamber on 22 August this year the Minister dismissed speculation that the -increases in air navigation charges- the increases contained in this

Bill- would put up the fares from Sydney to Melbourne or from Melbourne to Perth by amounts as high as 10 per cent. The Minister said that he was staggered by such suggestions and then gave examples of what the 25 per cent increase in air navigation charges would mean to the travellers of this country. He told us that air navigation charges were not overtly significant to the total costs of an airline and that they added up to about 5 per cent of these costs. He told us that on the Sydney-Perth route the increase in air navigation charges on a one-way economy fare would be $2.45, that on the Melbourne-Hobart route it would be 60c and that on the CanberraSydney route it would be 33c. Somehow, if the Minister is to be believed, the effect of a 25 per cent increase in air navigation charges in 1979 will be negligible; it will be much less hard on airline travellers than was a 15 per cent increase in 1974 on a considerably lower base.

The Minister’s professed concern for the consumer is admirable, but we have seen very little evidence of it. He showed no concern for airline users during the massive speculation in Ansett Transport Industries shares in recent months. He remained mute, stonily endorsing the share trafficking. The interests of air travellers were totally ignored by this Government during the takeover battle despite the fact that Ansett Transport Industries’ shares derive their principal value from its airline’s guaranteed half share of capacity under the two-airline policy. Who will meet the enormous profits made by all the principals involved in Ansett share trading? Clearly and inevitably air travellers will face pressure for higher air fares to service the wildly inflated prices paid for Ansett shares. Since April 1976 the major airlines have been granted seven increases resulting in a cumulative increase of 40 per cent. The air navigation regulations empower the Minister for Transport to call for all accounts of the airlines for examination when a fare increase is being sought.

From information provided to the Parliament by the Minister in answer to a question on notice we can see that, despite the extensive non-airline activities- I emphasise ‘non-airline activities’carried out by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett, it appears that the only data examined by the Department of Transport in consideration of increased air fare applications is airline revenue and cost data. The maximum time for consideration of any of the seven applications was 24 days. If we take out the weekends that leaves only 15 or 16 working days. The shortest period was eight days- probably six working days.The assessment was carried out in private by three departmental officers. I put it to the House that, given the complexity of TAA ‘s and Ansett ‘s airline and non-airline activities, these officers must be super sleuths. Obviously the non-airline costs of TAA and Ansett were not considered. That is on the parliamentary record. The airlines argue against lowering their fares but we have seen that they are quite capable of doing so if they feel the need. They had no trouble dropping their fares on the Melbourne to north-west Tasmania run to meet competition from a small commuter airline. At the same time they increased fares by 10 per cent for the rest of Australia. If TAA and Ansett can so readily respond to the threat of competition the Government should be moving to create a more competitive and innovative aviation environment. Instead, the Government prefers to prop up the two-airline agreementthat enduring and increasingly irrelevant monument to conservative government and philosophy which has long served the interests of the industry rather than the consumers of airline services.

The two-airline agreement in its present form has clearly outlived its usefulness. It is the cause of widespread resentment throughout Australia. It severely disadvantages people living outside the more populous eastern States. Constantly rising fares are pricing air travel beyond the reach of many Australians. In Tasmania there are fears that the tourist trade is being placed in jeopardy. Following the latest fare increase in June, for example, the price of flying from Hobart to Melbourne rose from $53.20 to $59.20, an increase of more than 1 1 per cent. The Western Australian Government has complained that the Fraser Government is showing little interest in Western Australia’s airline needs. There is an urgent need to look at the formula governing air fares to and from areas away from the more populous south-eastern States to approximate the relationship between operating costs and distance travelled. There is also a need to bring Australians closer together rather than keep them apart through cost structures that serve the interests of the airlines, not those of consumers.

As I said earlier, aviation decisions have been left to the private club of the industry and departmental bureaucrats for too long. Their deliberations have been shrouded in secrecy to the exclusion of air travel consumers. The airlines, like other major industries, must be called on to justify publicly their costs. There should be a public analysis not only of the basic fare structure but also of each application for a fare increase. These tasks could be undertaken by the Prices Justification Tribunal. Only in this way can the public be assured that fare levels are justified, that fare schedules are equitable and that the twin components of flagfall and distance travelled are given adequate consideration. Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States of America, no formal provision exists for the consumers of air services in this country to participate in aviation decision-making. The formation of bodies such as the Fair Internal Air Fares Campaign in Western Australia indicates the desire of air travellers to have a say in the quality, price and availability of domestic air travel. There is little doubt that many air travellers would prefer lower air fares with fewer amenities as long as the services are safe and convenient. To use an old analogy, if I may put it this way, air travellers in Australia in many cases are being forced to buy fillet steak when they would be quite happy with mince as long as the price was right.

The Opposition believes that encouragement should be given to the formation of airline user groups to advise government on the interests of passengers and to investigate individual complaints against airline operators. In contrast, the recommendations of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee were produced by departmental officers led by a steering committee of senior departmental officers. No one was invited or allowed on that committee to represent the interests of those who are paying the bills- private and business air travellers and air freight forwarders in Australia. The Opposition recognises that there are difficulties in improving the efficiency of our airline services. We acknowledge that domestic airlines have heavier cost burdens to meet than international airlines and that their cost structures are not strictly comparable. However, it is time that the matter was taken out of the too-hard political basket. It is time that the interests of air travellers were given precedence over the interests of airlines and stock exchange speculators.

The Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee concluded that the present domestic air fare structure should be revised. It recommended that the airlines should be encouraged to explore a wider range of fare types. It also concluded that there should be greater exploration of the feasibility of and experimentation with innovative on-demand fares on new types of air services, such as shuttles on selected high density, relatively short haul routes. Furthermore, the Committee noted that there was a lack of the appropriate data required to assess the need for greater passenger welfare generally.

Although additional costs would be involved in the provision and evaluation of such data, the Committee judged that the potential benefits to consumers would justify the costs. Since the publication of that report we have seen little more than a tinkering with the fare structure. The introduction of Advanced Purchase Excursion fares and super-APEX fares and the extension of stand-by fares, whilst welcome, fails to come to grips with the core problem- the need for a public revision of the basic fare structure as recommended by the Review Committee. On the whole, the new concessional fares in which the Minister for Transport takes such pride are restrictive and discriminatory. They are unavailable during holiday periods when most Australians and families in particular want to travel. The APEX fares are unavailable for 79 days of the year while the super-APEX fares are unavailable for 196 days of the year. Outoftown families cannot afford to wait around airline terminals in the hope that they may get stand-by seats on an aircraft.

The Parliament is still anticipating the Minister’s long awaited statement on domestic aviation which he promised to bring down this session. It is hoped that it will be more adventurous than his approach to the industry so far. If his moves on parallel scheduling- one of the most absurd features of the two-airline agreement and the cause for greatest consumer complaint- are any indication of the changes we can expect, we are in for no surprise. The Minister, of course, has specific power in this area but he seems relucant to use it. He has also allowed an increase in recent years in the frequency of parallel scheduling. Let me emphasise that all airline timetables must be approved by the Minister before they become operative. It is interesting to note that the Minister is not making the decisions about parallel scheduling, as he has the authority to do, but the airlines themselves.

Recently we had the much heralded decision by Ansett to de-parallel flights on the SydneyCanberra, Canberra-Melbourne routes- hardly a bold start to overcoming a very serious problem. Parallel scheduling is a pervasive feature of the two-airline agreement and its incidence is very high. In October 1977, approximately seven out of eight flights were scheduled in parallel. It is interesting to note, therefore, that between 1972 and 1975, the period of the last Labor Government, the relative incidence of parallel flights decreased to approximately two flights in three. The Opposition again acknowledges that there is no simple solution to the problem of parallel scheduling. In the words of the Domestic

Air Transport Policy Review Committee, it is a product of the institutional arrangements underlying Australia’s two-airline policy. The Committee stated that a government directed selfregulation by the airlines is the best way to deal with the problem of parallel scheduling, but this approach has produced little result so far, and there is no indication that it is likely to do so to any degree in the future.

As I said earlier, direct responsibility for the incidence of parallel scheduling in Australia lies with the Federal Minister for Transport of the day. All timetable schedules must receive his approval before they become operational. Apart from the period 1972-75, that power has not been exercised to reduce the incidence of parallel scheduling. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, under this Minister for Transport, the incidence of parallel scheduling has increased. Last May, the Federal Opposition called on the Government to give immediate notice of termination of the twoairline agreement. Under the agreement, five years notice must be given by the parties. We have argued that, until notice is given, no realistic steps can be taken to improve significantly the domestic aviation industry. However, the Minister for Transport claims that such a step is unnecessary, that significant changes can be made with the co-operation of the airlines. Again, he acts as the Minister representing the airlines, rather than as the national Minister for Transport. He has repeatedly shown that he is not prepared to stand up to the airlines on any matter and it is unlikely that they will readily relinquish their privileges.

The airlines have stated on many occasions that they are quite happy with the two-airline agreement, that it is the only viable system for Australia providing the best possible services at the lowest possible prices. We would expect them to say that, but Australians throughout the country can tell them differently. They will tell the airlines that their services are too costly and, in many areas, inconvenient or inadequate. Airline services in Australia could be improved significantly even within the context of the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee which was described in one newspaper editorial as ‘ more of the same ‘.

Some of the immediate steps that should be taken include greater sharing of routes by the airlines to raise load factors; revenues could be pooled on carefuly selected routes, a practice followed by international airlines for many years; there should be more direct city pair services; consideration should be given to joint investment and use of expensive maintenance and crew training facilities; and wasted Qantas capacity across Australia could be utilised by Ansett and TAA. At present, Qantas operates five Boeing 747 services a week between Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, and vice versa. On an average, the services between the east coast and Perth are less than half full with an average of 1,000 empty seats a week in each direction. In 1976-77 on the Melbourne-Perth run, Qantas had an unutilised seat capacty of 56 per cent. On the Sydney-Perth run, about 55 per cent of the seats were unused. Qantas had indicated that these seats could be sold at almost half the existing fare rates. Last November, I called on the Government to make this unused capacity available to the domestic airlines. Unfortunately, it has not acted, but heightening energy considerations could hasten the utilisation of those seats.

That more people are using and coming to depend on air transport is evidenced by statistics showing passenger movements throughout Australia. The statistics show that passenger movements have risen from 4.1 million in 1972-73 to 10.5 million for the year ended September 1 979. Much of that has been due to the introduction of new, lower international air fares, but no agreement has yet been signed for lower international air fares with Italy nor, I believe, has any date been set for the resumption of talks with the Italian Government. There are 700,000 Australians of Italian descent in this country, the largest ethnic group in Australia. Yet they are being subjected to this most utterly cavalier treatment by this Government.

The Minister has given repeated assurances that an agreement providing lower air fares between Australia and Italy would be concluded soon. His latest reassurance was at the Appia Club where he said that an agreement would be concluded with Italy by 15 September. It is now November and still there is silence, no agreement, no action and no date set for a resumption of talks with Italy. The Italian community is still waiting, and the Government has lost all credibility with this significant group. The presentation of a petition containing almost 30,000 signatures to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) last week indicates their grave dissatisfaction at what is effectively discrimination against 700,000 Australians of Italian origin. The Government must sign an agreement with Italy as soon as possible and that agreement must take into account the special needs of families of Italian descent.

Similarly, the Government must reach agreements quickly with other groups in Australia which are being denied the advantages of lower air fares to their countries of origin. The Lebanese community has also made representations to the Government to sign lower air fare agreements. The Government has chosen to ignore the interests of these groups while it sorted out its position with the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations, a position that arose through the ineptitude of the Government in its handling the matter and in implementing its international civil aviation policy. The Opposition is pleased to see that agreement has now been reached with the ASEAN countries and we earnestly hope that positive steps will now be taken to repair the enormous damage done to Australia’s standing and reputation among the ASEAN countries. The Government now has no excuse for not expediting agreement with Italy and with other countries of origin of ethnic groups in Australia as a matter of urgency.

In conclusion, if the Government is genuine in its concern for general aviation, I ask that it heed the Opposition’s amendment in the interests of the many Australians who depend on the general aviation industry for their livelihood and for the general wellbeing and viability of the industry. As indicated earlier, I move:

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

Whilst not opposing the Bill the House is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted so as to exclude application of any increases in Air Navigation Charges to general aviation pending receipt and consideration of the recommendations of the current inquiry into general aviation.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Humphreys:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later hour this day.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-This has certainly been a very wide-ranging debate on what is no more than a machinery Bill which comes before this House year after year. I wish to take up a couple of points following the comments of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I was interested to hear some of the statements he made about general aviation, particularly the situation regarding the supply of avgas. I do not think anyone in this House is denying that certainly there have been problems in certain areas with the supply of avgas. But nobody could have reasonably expected the Tehran situation to develop. Australia has only one refinery producing avgas but I am pleased to note that at least one other major refinery in Australia is undertaking experimentation for the production of avgas. I am sure that is going to help the situation.

I take up also the statements of the honourable member on general aviation and the crippling increases in air navigation charges levelled at general aviation in this Bill. We should take our minds back to 1973 when under the Labor Government the increase in air navigation charges was 10 per cent across the board plus a 100 per cent increase on all general aviation of 9,000 kilograms or less, with a 300 per cent increase on general aviation aircraft over 9,000 kilograms.

Mr Nixon:

– He has got a short memory.

Mr JULL:

– He has a very short memory indeed. I can take him back also to 1974, the following year, when there was a 15 per cent increase plus another 50 per cent increase on all general aviation of 9,000 kilograms weight or less. Yet we are looking at a 20 per cent increase this year. Proportionately, certainly, there are going to be some pressures forced on some areas of general aviation, but to lay all the blame on this Government for its moves is not a practical proposition. I think I should point out also- the honourable member for Shortland did not really mention this in his speech- the tremendous contribution that is being made by the international operations. I understand that this year the recovery rate will increase from something like 1 14 per cent to 128 per cent. There is a figure of between 75 per cent and 80 per cent in the recovery program on the domestic trunk routes as well.

The cost of providing aviation facilitiesaerodromes and the technical facilities that go with them- is immense indeed. Obviously, throughout Australia in coming years the demand will become more and more heavy. When we think of some of the projects that are under way- whatever development might ultimately take place in Sydney, the new international airport for Brisbane, work that has to be done in Canberra, Adelaide and other areas around Australia- we realise that obviously we are going to be in for some tremendous costs during the 1980s. After all, it was the Labor Party Government which introduced this particular scale. I was pleased that the honourable member for Shortland did not condemn it out of hand. It was the invention of his government and it is something that has been continued as an equitable way of recouping some of those costs.

I was interested to hear the honourable member’s comments about the provision of domestic air fares on some Qantas services, on some of its unused capacity. I think it is probably worth making a closer examination of that question. There is no doubt about it- Qantas is flying something like 109 hours or 1 10 hours a week over domestic services. It is true that it is working at only about 56 per cent of its capacity. But I wonder whether it is really a practical proposition to allow Qantas to have access on the domestic market. I say that for two reasons. Firstly, and probably most importantly, it will do tremendous damage, I believe, to our domestic aviation reserves. Obviously, that is something that we cannot afford to do without. Secondly- I speak particularly to the people of Western Australia who are saying quite a deal about the provision by Qantas of seats from Perth to the eastern States- the problem arises that virtually every aircraft that goes through Perth is on a long haul route. The facts of life in the aviation industry are simply that it is very hard to run to a timetable when an aircraft is making three or four touchdowns between here and Britain. Indeed, many of those aircraft that go through Perth come in some hours late. I wonder whether the people of Western Australia would be prepared to accept a service that would not give them scheduled on-time departures to the extent that has been elaborated on by the honourable member for Shortland.

I just wonder whether we should be looking at the reverse situation. I wonder whether we should be looking at Qantas scheduling over the domestic aviation routes and whether we should be putting the cart before the horse in the other way by having more connecting services by more domestic airlines to meet some of those international arrivals at Perth. Certainly, in some of the rescheduling we could possibly get a greater utilisation out of the 747 aircraft in the Qantas fleet if we looked at the situation in that way. The 747 is an aircraft that is really quite remarkable. It needs a major overhaul only once every 1 ,000 hours, with minor overhauls at, I think, about 250 hours. Whether or not we should be bringing all Qantas aircraft with that low load capacity back into Sydney merely to kick the tyres when they hit Perth or some of the other ports is a question that could well be looked at. Whether or not they should be rescheduled back overseas and whether we could provide a greater number of feeder services to utilise the domestic aircraftthis would be especially applicable when the wide bodied jets come into force- is an interesting proposition. Perhaps some more study could be done on that.

I sincerely believe that the only way in which we are going to get any major reductions on the trunk routes is by the introduction of wide bodied jets on some of those trunk routes. Whether they be airbuses or Boeing equipment is obviously not within my expertise to say, but I believe that the sooner the decision is made by the domestic airlines to move into wide bodied equipment the better it will be for all Australians, and the greater assistance it will be to help relieve some of the pressure points that are developing at some of the airports around Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I promised to keep my comments brief. I reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Shortland and I support the Bill.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– I just want to say that the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). He knows the reasons as well as I do. They have been properly recounted to the House by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) who has done a service to the House in bringing out the truth. I think the honourable member for Bowman has displayed the sheer hypocrisy of the Opposition in moving the amendment. The Government rejects the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. - Bill (on motion by Mr Nixon) read a third time.

page 2642

CANNED FRUITS MARKETING BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Canned Fruits Levy Bill 1979, the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1979, the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Amendment Bill 1979, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 and the Excise Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose the Bills. I will be relatively brief as there are other people who wish to speak in this debate and I understand that time is fairly limited. The Canned Fruits Marketing Bill seeks to establish a statutory marketing authority to acquire and sell at home and abroad canned deciduous fruits produced in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. I understand that complementary legislation will be required in the States and that Tasmania, which produces no canned fruit, and Western Australia, which produces a small amount, will not be participating in the scheme. It is a scheme which follows a number of similar schemes with regard to other primary products and which will, if it works as anticipated, bring about a degree of stability in the industry, something which has long been needed. I think it will correct some of the problems which have arisen in the canned fruit industry over a number of years.

Not all of those problems have been the responsibility of the growers. Some have been as a result of political decisions taken outside of Australia, such as the formation of the European Economic Community. Some have been as a result of bad advice given to growers, especially in Victoria, by those whom they would see as their political representatives. I point out that in the early 1960s, for instance, political spokesmen, believing they were gaining some political kudos, were advising growers in Victoria to plant additional pear trees. At that time Britain had not achieved entry into the European Common Market. A considerable amount of investment by growers in this area proved to be, to use a pun, fruitless. This Government has spent considerable amounts of money to correct the bad advice given to fruit growers at that time by members of the then Government.

There is also in this industry a problem which has existed in a number of other areas of primary production. State governments have preferred to take the popular position almost without question, and without taking any account of the consequences for the growers themselves, by seeking to expand their own segments of industry or encouraging expansions where such expansions were economically not viable. In many cases this has resulted in very serious hardship to people who have taken the advice of political popularists not prepared to face up to realities and to accept responsibilities.

A considerable section of Australian primary producers is, in fact, dependent on this industry and the stability of this industry for their incomes. These Bills will, as I indicated before, if they work in accordance with the hopes of the industry, correct some of those anomalies. It remains to be seen whether or not this arrangement can withstand the onslaught of any temporary shortage or market upsurge which may take place in the industry in the future. That is the greatest danger that exists to stabilised or organised marketing. This industry is moving into an area where a number of other segments of primary industry have successfully and unsuccessfully attempted to move over some considerable time. Some of the schemes which have operated successfully have, in fact, fallen before the altars of temporary shortages or temporarily high prices where growers or other entrepreneurs have chosen to move outside the organised marketing system to an extent that they have wrecked the long-term prospects of organised marketing and stability of an industry. We have a situation at the moment where, for instance, egg growers, being producers, are extremely concerned about the by-play between the marketing schemes in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister may look at those at some stage, as well as those which exist in the States.

With regard to this particular legislation, the Opposition’s position is fairly clear. We have always supported organised marketing. We recognise this as an improvement. We would indicate that it is somewhat late on the scene but acknowledge that it usually takes some form of crisis or some threat of long-term and continual political damage to political parties in order to have action of this nature taken. That is especially so where it is necessary to obtain the agreement of a number of governments. Unfortunately, conservative governments tend to want to take the popularist view. Rarely are they prepared to sit down and take the hard decisions that are often necessary in the best interests of the long-term position of people who depend on fluctuating incomes and fluctuating price structures within industry for their incomes and livelihood. The Opposition is not opposed to the measure and indicates to the House that it will be looking at the working of this particular scheme. It will be bringing forward to the House, if necessary, recommendations for modifications or changes if it is seen not to be working in the best interests of all concerned.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– I welcome the introduction of the Canned Fruits Marketing Bill. In so doing might I say that apart from my own electorate, the significant electorate that is concerned with the canning fruit industry is the electorate of the secretary of my rural committee and my friend, Bruce Lloyd, from the electorate of Murray. His input as this scheme has been developing has been a very real one as, in a less important way, I believe has mine. The canning industry itself and the growers in particular are very delighted indeed with the Government’s action in introducing this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), a tardy matter, not in relation to my electorate anyway. The matter has been debated over the last 1 8 months and, from step to step, this particular project has gone along very well.

The industry is worth $70m to the nation. It has been bedevilled for some period of time by price cutting. Whereas one could argue, I suppose, against any stabilisation scheme, it may be that the consumers’ interests are not taken into account when we get a scheme such as this to stabilise returns. The fact is that the price warfare that has gone on between two States in particular and maybe three States, has kept the market short of some particular commodities. I refer in particular to canned apricots. This is because it is a difficult and expensive crop to grow compared with pears and peaches. Quite frankly, with such price cutting going on every now and again over a seven-year period, it has had its effect on the supply of canned apricots, in particular, to the Australian consumer. The consumer required these commodities and the prices tended to soar on that particular line. I believe the scheme put before the Government today is another instance of the Government’s listening to rural organisations, tempering the producers’ ideas perhaps in a more realistic fashion and producing a situation where those growers who are currently experiencing huge inputs of investment capital into this area without any possibility of a consistent return from year to year with the price cutting that has bedevilled it, have an income. The consumer on the other hand will get an assured supply.

I want to make one only other comment. Not only is this scheme an efficient scheme from the point of view of very little overhead in relation to the compiling of statistics to enable the scheme to take effect- it has a very small component of increased labour to do that- but also it has within it a similarity to the early suggestions put forward in regard to the dairying industy. In other words they have taken their assured market and they will proportion amounts of fruit to that. On returns from those assured markets will come the equalised returns. But there is nothing in this Bill to stop those canneries that wish, to produce above that quota. I think it is important for the House to recognise that this is so because if on risk markets they wish to produce a bigger amount of fruit, at a risk price, and they consider it would pay the grower to do so because a market might open up- in fact, there are one or two quite promising ones outside the area of the assured market- then this Bill allows that to happen. I am quite certain that in some years that will happen. There are, therefore, built into the scheme some checks and balances that are not always in similar schemes that have been put before this House. I congratulate the industry. I congratulate the grower section of it. Growers have been a very important factor in suggesting this reform to the Government. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), who has taken such great note of this very important debate.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) ( 10.13)- I have been thoroughly briefed by deciduous fruit growers and members of the cannery board in my electorate on the implications of this Bill. I hope they understand that the only reason I do not raise all the matters that they have put before me is because of the lateness of the hour. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills- because the situation in the deciduous canned fruit industry has become more critical, not because of any seasonal marketing conditions or lack of efficiency, but simply because of adverse marketing controls including the European Economic Community trade regulations and some adverse buying procedures within Australia. The Bill will give the Australian deciduous canning fruit industry the chance of standing up against some of these market forces by enabling the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation to be vested with ownership of production of canned apricots, peaches and pears and to manage the selling arrangements within Australia and overseas. I believe that an article in the Mumimbidgee Irrigator of 2 October 1979 gives a clear indication of the concern felt by the New South Wales Government and the Victorian Government about the present situation. I refer to an article that appeared under the heading ‘Tax rebate for Letona’. Letona is a canning factory in my electorate. The article states:

Letona Cannery has received a payroll tax rebate of more than $200,000 from the State Government.

Cannery Chairman, Mr R. E. Taylor, was presented with a cheque for $266,089 by the Minister for Decentralisation, Mr Jack Hallam, last Friday.

As well, the Government has announced approval of $60,000 housing loan to the company.

The latter is to assist with the housing of employees.

Mr Hallam presented the payroll tax rebate during a visit to Leeton.

Mr Burns:

– I raise a point of order. Is the honourable member allowed to read a speech?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

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

Mr Burns:

– I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but is he allowed to read a speech?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will resume bis seat.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member for Isaacs to consider the lateness of the hour. I am only reading a report from a newspaper. I want to quote it correctly. The article goes on to say:

Accepting payroll rebate, Mr Taylor, said it would bring the cannery into line with Victorian operators, who had been receiving similar rebates for the past 20 years.

I point out that Mr Taylor did have some grounds for complaint because a New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government had starved them of these funds for all that time. I do not want to make a political speech. I only mention these things in passing. The dried vine fruit industry has a two-price scheme which has been of great benefit to the industry. It is of some satisfaction to me to know that the citrus canned fruit industry is adopting such a system. The citrus canned fruit industry has been experiencing difficulties for a number of years through increased costs, depressed international market conditions and the loss of sales in the traditional markets of the United Kingdom and Europe brought about by the effects of the European Economic Community’s agricultural policy. It should be remembered that the canned deciduous fruit industry is wholly located in decentralised areas and is the basis of the economic and social foundations of the important irrigation areas, which have a total annual production of $20m. I believe that with the present tragic employment situation it would be criminal to let our canned deciduous fruit industry collapse.

After speaking to growers and cannery officials in my electorate I am of the opinion that a statutory marketing scheme is the only channel of survival open to the Australian canned deciduous fruit industry, which relies on export markets to dispose of 60 per cent to 70 per cent of its annual production. Of course it will be necessary for the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to monitor closely the operation of the

Australian Canned Fruits Corporation to see that the domestic price does not move too far from the overseas price. The same caution was expressed in regard to our wheat industry. It should be noted that at times the export market was subsidising the local market because the overseas price of wheat was higher than the domestic price. The industry canners and growers have unanimously agreed that initially the equalisation market will comprise Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Scandinavia and Japan. The Minister said in his second reading speech that there was some controversy amongst the canning groups about whether the countries forming the equalisation market should be changed during the lifetime of the scheme except by a unanimous decision of the canners. He went on to say:

The Government is confident that the Corporation on which the canners will be represented will act responsibly to resolve differences of views.

From talking to the growers in my electorate I have some doubts about that because on reading the minutes of the industry meeting it appears to me that the Minister’s statement does not go far enough. Although the industry’s meeting agreed that certain things should be included in the Minister’s second reading speech, it also asked that certain matters of agreement be included in a letter from the Minister to the President of the Corporation. One of them was that the Corporation, in legal terms, would determine all aspects of the working of the scheme by a majority decision. The countries to form the equalisation group is a matter for the Corporation to decide by a simple decision, but the equalisation market will not be changed except by the unanimous support of all the canneries. I think that the industry expects these things to be included in a letter from the Minister and I think that there will be some problem in this area if it is not carried out.

I want to mention also something about the quotas. The Letona cannery is of the belief that it is entitled to 19 per cent of the domestic market. It is nice to see the Minister nodding his head. I hope that this will be included also in correspondence to the President of the Corporation. It is very pleasing to note that the Corporation will be empowered to borrow frunds from the Reserve Bank because at present there are problems with the payments to growers. I do not want to hold up the honourable member who will be speaking after me, so at a later date I will, I hope, raise another matter which is interrelated with the situation in the deciduous canned fruit industry. I speak about sweet corn, which has been traditionally the bread and butter of the canning industry and the growers in that area.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I rise to support these measures, which are aimed at bringing about ordinary marketing in the canned fruit industry. In particular, I rise to mention and give some recognition to the work of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in the development of this legislation. The canned fruit industry has made several attempts over many years, particularly through the growers sector, to obtain an ordinary marketing scheme and they were either rejected or criticised by industry leaders. In December 1979 a deputation, supported by the honourable member for Murray, saw the then Minister for Primary Industry and requested his support for an investigation into the feasibility of such a scheme. In April 1977 this matter was referred to the Canned Fruits Board and it, in turn, established a committee which was responsible for looking at the feasibility of this proposal and other proposals that were developed at that time. Finally, a proposal was developed which was basically along the lines of the dairy industry scheme; that is, using the Commonwealth’s power to levy production and use that as a stabilising mechanism.

After considerable discussion and communication throughout the canning fruit areas of Australia, particularly the Goulburn Valley, the proposals as laid down were successful. Once the concept of the scheme was studied by the people in that area and the then Minister’s determination for a decision to be reached was made known to these people, action was fairly swift. Eventually an acquisition scheme similar to that of the wheat industry, rather than a levy scheme, was accepted by the industry. But the proposal remained the same- that is, the Canned Fruit Board will acquire the fruit crop and sell it back to the individual canners who will market the fruit in their own names. However, there will be certain pricing arrangements that will prevent unnecessary price cutting. Returns will be equalised within two pools. Because of the more orderly marketing which will result the Reserve Bank of Australia, with a Government backed guarantee, will improve the advance rates to growers so that both grower and cannery liquidity will be improved. Of course, the scheme will also bring a number of other improvements to the industry.

I think it is fair to point out that there has been some disagreement over the membership of the Canned Fruits Corporation, particularly grower membership. I believe that this has now been resolved satisfactorily as far as the canning fruit industry is concerned. I should also mention that the States have been critical of the Commonwealth for not including them in earlier discussions on the development of these proposals. However, the sad record of the States in negotiating sensible Commonwealth-State agreements for agricultural commodities as distinct from point scoring, one off the other and off the Commonwealth, meant that the Commonwealth was not prepared to put the proposals to the States until it had complete agreement of all sectors of the fruit industry. As I have mentioned, great credit is due to all those involved in the industry- particularly the honourable member for Murray. Once they became convinced of the practicability of the scheme, the sincerity of the Government and a need for better marketing and financial arrangements, they gave it their support. Two Labor speakers tonight have mentioned a few -

Mr Burns:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member said that the States had disagreed. Which States disagree?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! I warn the honourable member. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr FISHER:

-Two speakers from the Australian Labor Party Opposition mentioned a few things in passing which I think should be referred to. I do not believe that the Opposition had a very good record of assistance to the canning fruit industry when it was in Government. For instance, prior to the 1972 election campaign the Labor Party, particularly its spokesman on agriculture, Dr Patterson, said in this House in a debate on the fruit growing industry that Labor would ease the means test on the tree pull scheme to make it easier for people to remove fruit trees. What happened after Labor was elected in December 1 972? Absolutely nothing. I suggest that the Labor speakers tonight might do well to remember that the Labor Government ignored the requests of fruit growers for an easing of the means test so that fruit acreages could be reduced in the Goulburn Valley. It reneged on that promise made prior to the 1 972 election.

I refer also to the diversification in which the Labor Party suggested it was interested at that time. The Ardmona Fruit Products Co-operative Limited spent more than $2m in installing a fruit juice plant of the most modern type in the world to concentrate a variety of juices, particularly pear juice. This was to enable more pears to be utilised. That cannery had signed a contract with a well known soft drink manufacturer to use pear juice in soft drinks. But in its 1973 Budget, the Labor Government abolished the sales tax exemption for aerated waters in which 5 per cent fruit juice was added. I do not intend to develop the detail of this legislation as it is well known. But I think I should point out that the Corporation will not at any time undertake the marketing of canned fruits. As part of the overall arrangements made with the industry the Corporation, as owner of the fruits, will always appoint agents nominated by canners to sell the fruit on its behalf at prices and on terms and conditions of sale set by it. Perhaps the most important advance for the canning fruit industry is that the Corporation will also be empowered to borrow from the Reserve Bank under Commonwealth guarantee. This will be done to finance purchases of canned fruit.

Mr Burns:

– They ought to abolish it.

Mr FISHER:

-I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his support. The guaranteed Reserve Bank advances will initially be limited to 70 per cent of average estimated realisations. It is a major objective of the scheme that with better marketing arrangements and Reserve Bank funding, payments by canners to growers for their fruit will show a considerable improvement both in respect of earlier payments and increased returns.

We support this Bill. I believe that it will bring great stability to the canning fruit industry and in particular will remove some of the difficulties that developed in 1975. At that time we saw a major collapse in the industry’s overseas markets and it lost $3m to $4m. Of course, there were many reasons why the canning fruit industry ran into very serious problems. Perhaps one of the main reasons was the loss of overseas markets during the 1970s. The first and most important reason was Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community. At that time Australia changed from a situation of tariff preferences in our favour to preferences and levies against us. The second reason was increased freight rates and the third was devaluation. As a result, in a little over three years the price at which South Africa could sell its fruit on the United Kingdom market dropped in relation to our price by over 30 per cent. During the early 1970s there was another reason why the canning fruit industry was placed in severe danger; I refer to runaway inflation in Australia. This was fuelled and stoked by the Labor Government. Australia’s inflation rate was particularly high compared with the rates of inflation of our two major competitors, South Africa and the United States of America.

Complementary State legislation will enable the new Australian Canned Fruit Corporation to assume ownership of production and to manage marketing within the State of production. The Commonwealth Bill empowers the Corporation to manage the marketing of canned fruits in export and interestate markets and in the Territories except in Western Australia and Tasmania. As the Minister assisting the Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Adermann) said in his second reading speech, the canned fruit industry is an important horticultural industry. Of course, it is wholly located in decentralised areas and provides the basic economic and social foundation of the population, particularly in the Goulburn Valley region of Victoria. As the honourable member for Riverina said, it is also an important component of the economic basis of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area of New South Wales and the Riverland region of South Australia. The value of this very important industry in Australia exceeds $70m. I support this Bill. I recognise the work done by many members of the rural committee of our joint parties in assisting to develop this legislation, particularly the work carried out in co-operation with the industry by the honourable member for Murray.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2647

CANNED FRUITS LEVY BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2647

CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2647

ADJOURNMENT

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2647

CANNED FRUIT (SALES PROMOTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2647

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2648

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2648

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Let me at once say that I fully support the decision of the Government announced by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). The drug menace is a real problem and there is a continuing need to upgrade and improve the effectiveness of our law enforcement effort.

When I first became Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in July 1977,I called for a report on drug enforcement strategy from the Department and I also had discussions with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Shortly after that, I was strongly identified with the Government decision to set up the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. A central objective of establishing the Royal Commission was to seek advice on the adequacy of existing law enforcement, including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies. The Commission commenced its operations in November 1977. Later in January 1978, I announced certain initiatives which the Government had decided were immediately necessary to counter drug trafficking pending the outcome of the Royal Commission. Briefly these were to upgrade the strength and status of the Narcotics Bureau; to acquire highly sophisticated equipment to increase the communications and surveillance capacity of the Department; to upgrade air and sea surveillance in the north and west of Australia; to review the penalties for drug trafficking; to provide for forfeiture of bank and similar accounts and real estate acquired from the proceeds of drug trafficking; to change the Customs Act to provide for the scope of the Act to be broadened to include a specific offence of conspiracy and to strengthen existing provisions in relation to attempts to import, and for the use of listening devices to investigate drug offences; to change the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act to authorise, subject to proper safeguards, lawful eavesdropping of telephone communications suspected of being related to drug trafficking; and to strengthen liaison offices already established overseas in the Golden Triangle and associated areas. I am able to report to the House that action has been taken on all these matters.

This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) made much of a letter dated 23 June 1978 which senior counsel assisting the Royal Commission sent to the permanent head of my Department. That letter was confidential. This raises in my mind the manner in which it came into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. The letter was brought to my attention, as indeed was the Department’s third submission of September 1978 to the Royal Commission which dealt with the various points raised in Mr Hampson’s letter. In dealing with Mr Hampson’s letter my Department had some difficulties. The source of the criticisms levelled against the Narcotics Bureau was never made clear, and has not yet been made clear. In his opening statement to the Royal Commission during its sittings in Brisbane in September 1 978, Mr Besley said:

We do not have available to us a clear indication of the strength or source of the issues raised, which the submission attempts to answer. This has not made our task easy.

The Department did not know whether the body of evidence’ given to the Commission, no doubt in good faith, was backed by real knowledge of the illicit drug trade or was merely the hypothesising of those claiming to have intimate knowledge or expertise. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Sydney Harbour in particular. The priorities for drug interdiction around Australia had been assessed on the information available to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In its submission to the Commission which addressed the points in Mr Hampson’s letter of 23 June 1978 the Department said:

There is no evidence from departmental assessments or any other source to suggest that the existing priorities in these areas have been wrongly assessed. If the Commission has any such evidence the Department would be anxious to receive it.

I am advised by my Department that it has not received any such evidence. The Leader of the Opposition inferred corruption on the part of officers of the Bureau. The Royal Commission does not suggest, in its interim report, that there is corruption in the Narcotics Bureau. It is true that one bad apple was identified by the Bureau in 1975, which then spared no effort to track him down and bring him to justice. Apart from this, an investigation confirming an alleged leakage of information is being undertaken by a combined police task force under the leadership of Assistant Commissioner Hall of the Victoria Police. The Government is awaiting the report of this task force.

The Leader of the Opposition also made reference to the lack of co-operation with other agencies. He must surely be aware of the initiative taken by the then Government in 1969 when it established the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. I have chaired ministerial meetings involving representatives of all States, and the permanent head of my department has chaired meetings of officials. This Committee has had, as one of its tasks, to improve the co-ordination at operational law enforcement level and between States. It has been successful to this end. Further improvements can be made; but to suggest, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that no action has been taken is not to acknowledge the facts or the views of State governments.

In my statement in June of this year following Mr Bates’ resignation, I said that Mr Bates had contributed a great deal to narcotics enforcement in this country. I do not resile from that position. The plain fact is that Mr Bates brought the Narcotics Bureau from nothing in 1968 to an organisation which has achieved considerable success over the years. Successes in this field are not, I suggest to honourable members, solely measured by the quantity of drugs seized. Often there have been successful conspiracy prosecutions in respect of which there have been absolutely no seizures of drugs at all. Additionally, there have been arrests, both in Australia and overseas, following seizures which would not have occurred but for the efforts of the Narcotics Bureau. Despite what was said in this House this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bates is not a headline hunter. On the contrary, he has sought, on numerous occasions which he has reported to me, not to speak to the media when they have pressed him for comments.

The Leader of the Opposition claims the Bureau acts in secrecy. Of course it does. It is in a business which requires secrecy. Information is passed on a need-to-know basis. But it is accountable. His comments on rewards to informers were made without foundation. Rewards are paid as he suggested, but firm procedures which have been established in concert with the Auditor-General exist to ensure that funds are not misused in any way. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that, following the report of the Law Reform Commission which recommended the establishment of a mechanism for checking complaints against officers of the Narcotics Bureau, nothing was done. This assertion is incorrect. The facts are that there is now in place in the Department an internal Affairs Unit which is headed by a former commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police. It was established in June of this year. Its task is to consider allegations made against any officers of the Department, not just the Narcotics Bureau, which could lead to criminal charges.

The Leader of the Opposition also alleged that the Narcotics Bureau has intercepted telephone calls without authority. He refers specifically to two instances. The first he takes from an article in the Bulletin by Mr Delaney, a former Narcotics Bureau officer. Following publication of that article the Department informed me that there was absolutely no knowledge in the Department of Mr Delaney ‘s claims. This type of action has not been countenanced and Mr Delaney, in his book, makes that absolutely clear. The second claim is based on evidence by a Mr Shobbrook to a confidential hearing of a wages claim in 1977. 1 have been informed that there were only four copies of the transcript of those proceedings. They were confidential. The court kept a copy, the staff association concerned has a copy, the Public Service Board has a copy and my Department had a copy which it passed to the Commonwealth Royal Commission in January of last year. The eavesdropping referred to by Mr Shobbrook related to the use of listening devices which were properly authorised under the relevant New South Wales Act.

There has been some reference to our standing at the international level. The facts speak for themselves. The Narcotics Bureau has five officers stationed overseas. Regular meetings of heads of narcotics law enforcement agencies in South East Asia and the Pacific region are held. Narcotics Bureau officers have visited several countries in the region to assist with the training of drug enforcement personnel and many other officers have been sent to train with the Narcotics Bureau in Australia. The Bureau has received and acceded to many requests for its officers to undertake undercover operations in several overseas countries. Grants in aid are provided to some countries. There is a regular fruitful exchange of information at the international level.

Finally, I must say that officers of the Narcotics Bureau and my Department have been subjected to an almost unprecedented constant attack through the media. Allegations of corruption, leaked documents and personal attacks have been paramount. The Bureau has been developed from conception in 1968 to a force today that has gained international recognition in narcotics enforcement. The Government decision today, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, should be seen as a further development by Australia in its fight against illicit narcotics trafficking. I make no apology for defending officers of the Bureau. The Royal Commission itself has acknowledged there are many hard working and dedicated officers in the Bureau and has recognised their efforts. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition cannot do likewise.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– by leave- In responding this afternoon to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) on this subject of the Narcotics Bureau I took the opportunity to place on record my regard for the hard working, dedicated officers who faithfully discharge their duties within the Bureau. On that issue there is no dispute between the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and me. The dispute centres around the matters of substance which demolish the Bureau’s reputation and which are outlined in the report of Mr Justice Williams of the Supreme Court of Queensland who headed the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. What he says boils down to this: The Narcotics Bureau is amateurish; it is incompetent; it is inefficient; it is dishonest; it takes credit for the results that others achieve and it has been uncooperative with other law enforcement agencies. Those are matters of fact which are on record produced by the royal commissioner appointed by the Government, supported by the Minister. If the Narcotics Bureau is so faithful in the discharge of its duties and so successful in the achievement of the objectives set before it, then I find it remarkable that there should be such a devastating report upon its conduct and general functioning and that the Minister should confirm the substance of those findings by terminating, rather promptly, its existence. If the Bureau were anywhere near as successful and as faithful in its service to the community as the Minister would have had us believe, then let him explain why the Government quite peremptorily this afternoon moved in behind the findings of the royal commissioner and endorsed them by terminating the existence of the Bureau.

But let me move on. The Minister extols the virtues of Mr Harvey Bates. He says that Mr Harvey Bates took the Bureau from nothing to considerable successes; to where it is today. Let us look at where it is today in the words not of the Opposition, not of some ‘cheap scribbler in the media’- and I put that in inverted commas as the implied attitude of if not the Minister then spokesmen of the Government-but rather the royal commissioner of the Government, appointed by the Government, with terms of reference laid down by the Government, who properly and fully investigated the aspects of the Bureau upon which he has reported to this point. Look at the brilliant achievement of Mr Harvey Bates. Let me outline it. The Royal Commission found: “The Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient enforcement agency’.

Mr Bates certainly took the Bureau a long waydown the road of inefficiency. The Royal Commission found:

Increases in arrests, prosecutions and seizures of drugs have often occurred with little or no Narcotics Bureau assistance’.

Some fine achievement on the part of the Bureau of Mr Harvey Bates and extolled by the Minister! The Royal Commission found:

Some of the largest seizures in recent years attributed in the media to the Narcotics Bureau have in fact occurred without any real assistance from the Narcotics Bureau’.

That implies two things- the extensive media campaign to sensationalise and promote the Bureau and the dishonesty of the Bureau in presenting its activities and the results of them. The Royal Commission found:

There is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement bodies ‘.

That is Mr Justice Williams’ reporting to the Government, at its request, within the authority of the terms of reference laid down by the Government. Some fine result on the part of Mr Harvey Bates! One must raise questions about the judgment of the Minister when he finds virtue in those sorts of findings. The Royal Commission found: “The Bureau spends too much time defending itself and its image’.

The Commission found:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a cohesive force with high morale and pride in its accomplishments ‘.

The Commission also found:

The training of Narcotics Bureau officers leaves much to be desired’.

It also found:

Too much centralised control impairs the bureau’s operational efficiency’.

They are merely some of the findings which are devastatingly presented by Mr Justice Williams.

His report demolishes any pretence to credibility that the Bureau might have once had, any pretence to credibility that its head, Mr Harvey Bates, might have once had, and any pretence to credibility on the part of the Minister in relation to this topic whenever he has discussed it before or while he has been discussing it during this current sitting day.

Let me look at some of the things the Minister raised in his statement. He referred to my alleged complaint that the Bureau acts in secrecy. I recognise that a great deal of its work has to be conducted in secrecy. My complaint was, however, that it used secrecy as a shield to cover up its own incompetence and all those other glaring defects which have been outlined by the royal commissioner. The Minister objects to my claim that there is evidence of corruption within the Bureau. There is evidence of corruption. The Queensland Police Force, among other law enforcement agencies, has said that. For the last two to two and a half years it has been a frequent complaint by law enforcement officers in State police forces that the Bureau has been heavily infected with corruption. I will not dwell on the Minister’s rebuttal of my allegation that there is, or has been, a lack of co-operation with other law enforcement agencies. Why should I? Here it is in black and white in the report of the royal commissioner.

The Minister is concerned about my reference to ‘a confidential letter’ from Mr Hampson. For the information of the Minister, that had appeared in a number of newspapers, I believe, yesterday. It certainly was quoted on the PM program last night and, I understand, went out in the Australian Associated Press wire service. So much for the confidentiality of that letter. The Minister referred to the international standing of the Bureau, disputing my claim, which is based on reports to me from members of State law enforcement agencies, that the respect of the Bureau and the capacity for it to attract cooperation internationally have been enormously impaired because of these sensational disclosuresscandals, more appropriately- related to the inefficiency and the incompetence and other matters of complaint as well as the alleged corruption of the agency. I stand by those allegations and I repeat that it is on public record that the Queensland Police Force has said as much.

The Minister in the course of his comments to the House, talked about how effectively he had arranged for the Bureau to function overseas and in doing so, cited the case of South East Asia. Let me remind the Minister that I was in South East

Asia on an extended visit last year and one of the areas where I paid particular attention to Australian Government involvement, specifically amongst other matters in relation to drug investigation enforcement practices, was in Bangkok. Let me tell honourable members about the brilliant contribution of this Government towards support for our sole drug enforcement officer- one man- who was operating there then. He pointed out that he needed a motor vehicle to move around to fulfil his obligations effectively. He was advised by the Government- one presumes by the Minister- to find out how much it would cost to purchase a motor cycle. If that was too expensive, he could hire a taxi cab. So I suppose that in those circumstances it is a case of whistling up the suspect whom one is shadowing and saying: ‘Hey, wait a minute. I have to get a taxi and there is not one around at the moment’.

More likely, on the basis of certain things that I outlined today- the problems of the Narcotics Bureau operating within the constraints of the Public Service Board- he could say: ‘Hey, you can’t do that here today or next week because I can’t follow you because I do not have enough allowances left to hire a taxi. I have to write back to the Public Service Board in Australia and get authority’. So they are running their international operation on a shoe string. It is not a matter of gumshoes but shoe string narcotics enforcement. That is the record of this Minister. A lot more will be raised about this report in questions in the course of the remainder of the sittings of this Parliament. It is a scandalous report. No one in this country can any longer feel secure or assured that the appropriate law enforcement agency had been discharging its responsibilities effectively because as a proposition, that is totally demolished by this report.

What are we presented with now? We are presented with a situation where there is not an effective federal narcotics bureau functioning. Quite simply, that means that the State law enforcement agencies have to pick up the strain and given the problems of non-co-operation and distrust developed by the attitudes of the Narcotics Bureau in the past, one can recognise the lag that will be involved there and the effectiveness that will be lost in law enforcement operations. Furthermore, in the meantime we will have to wait for the Austraiian Federal Police to set up its unit and have it functioning properly. A transmission exercise is involved in this and in the meantime there will be a serious vacuum in the functioning of narcotics enforcement operations at the Federal level. That man there, the

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, is guilty. He is the man who is responsible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to the Minister by his title and not as ‘ ‘ that man “.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is the responsible Minister. He must be made answerable, accountable, for these serious defects. He is the man who has been well aware of these defects for some time. In the course of the last six weeks we have debated with some passion in this House proposals to amend the appropriate legislation to extend authority for telephone tapping to the Narcotics Bureau. Six weeks ago, this Minister knew that royal commissioner Williams had recommended the demolition of the Narcotics

Bureau in Australia because it was incompetent, because it was inefficient, because it was dishonest and because it could not be relied on any longer. Yet the Minister proceeded with this fiction in the Parliament that the Narcotics Bureau was going to fulfil &u effective function on behalf of the people. He sought to propagate a case in defence of these extended powers to an organisation that he knew already was totally discredited and had been properly discredited by a royal commission set up by the Government. He is the man who is guilty. He is the man who is answerable and he is responsible for these shortcomings. He will have to answer a lot of questions on this matter in the course of the sittings of this Parliament.

House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

page 2653

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Oil Supplies (Question No. 3367)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 7 March 1 979:

  1. Did he state on 7 November 1977 (Hansard, page 2559) that prevailing forecasts indicated that a desirable timing for oil stockpile establishment, if this is necessary, would probably be the early to mid 1980’s: if so, and in the light of events in Iran, is he still satisfied with these forecasts.
  2. If he is not satisfied with these forecasts, when did he change his mind, and what action has been taken by the Government in relation to the matter.
  3. Did he also state in answer to question No. 988 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 986) that it is not the Government’s policy to become directly involved in commercial import or export transactions or to give any direction to Australian commercial interests as to where they should source imports, and that the Government’s policy as outlined has been explained on any occasion when the matter of crude oil imports into Australia has entered into discussions with representatives of foreign governments; if so, is the position still as stated.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to statements made by the Prime Minister in discussions in India with Indian officials, that the Government would investigate diversifying some oil supplies from the Middle East to China because of uncertainty about future supplies from Iran; if so, were these statements in accordance with the stated attitude of the Government.
  5. In what way will the Government diversify the source of oil supplies, and will negotiations remain in the hands of oil companies.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5 ) The impact on Australia of the international oil situation arising from events in Iran earlier this year and the comprehensive measures taken by the Government to deal with it were announced by the Prime Minister in a major statement on Energy Policy on 27 June 1979 and in subsequent statements by Ministers. I have nothing to add to them or to statements made in earlier periods in different contexts.

Motor Spirit Prices (Question No. 3665)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does his Department monitor the retail price of motor spirit sold throughout Australia.
  2. If so, how frequently and how extensively is monitoring carried out.
  3. Does any monitoring include the estimation of the extent of discounting.
  4. What was the (a) extent of discounting, (b) fraction of motor spirit sales affected and (c) level of discounts available in (i) Brisbane, (ii) Sydney, (iii) Canberra, (iv) Melbourne, (v) Adelaide, (vi) Hoban and (vii) Perth during (A) December 1978, (B) January 1979 and (C) February 1979.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. ),(3) and (4). See (1) above.

Distillate for Agriculture (Question No. 3794)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

What planning is being done for the introduction of a priority liquid fuel distribution system, particularly distillate for agriculture should this become necessary.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Following the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting on 26 July 1979, 1 announced, with endorsement from State Ministers, the formation of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee (NPAC) which, through me, will advise Governments on appropriate arrangements for the equitable allocation of liquid fuels during any period of supply shortage and on priorities for allocation in accordance with Australia’s overall national interests. NPAC has now been formed and contains wide-ranging representation from the States, industry and consumer groups. Details of membership and terms of reference were released in my statement of 6 September.

The Commonwealth also maintains close contact with the oil companies individually and through the Oil Supplies Advisory Committee obtains information to monitor the supply, consumption, stocks and exports of petroleum products.

I can assure honourable members representing rural electorates that the fuel needs of agriculture are well understood and will be accorded their proper importance in any assignment of priorities that might be necessary.

Crude Oil Consumption (Question No. 3821)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. Has the Australian Government agreed to comply with the International Energy Agency request to members to cut their crude oil consumption by S per cent.
  2. If so, what measures are under consideration by the Government to implement its decision and from what figure, and to what figure, will crude oil consumption in Australia be reduced in 1978-79 and 1979-80.
  3. Would any of these measures result in restrictions in the supply of motor spirit.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My press statment of 23 May 1979 releasing the text of an IE A Communique referred to this request. IEA countries, including Australia, have agreed to contribute to a stabilisation of the world oil situation by reducing their demand for oil on the world market in the order of 2 million barrels per day which would correspond to about 5 per cent of IEA consumption.
  2. Australia has already implemented a number of significant measures; these were outlined in the Prime Minister’s energy policy statement on 27 June 1979. The measures may be summarised as follows: a realistic pricing policy for indigenous crude oil, which has led to increased local production and a corresponding reduction in our demand on the world oil market; encouragement of oil exploration; encouragement of extensive electricity generating capacity based on coal; active pursuit of opportunities for interfuel substitution, particularly in relation to natural gas and LPG; stimulation of energy research and development; and a national energy conservation campaign.

The Government is currently reviewing the impact of these initiatives on petroleum and petroleum product consumption. However, the results are not readily quantifiable in the short term.

  1. No. The measures pursued by this Government are designed to encourage both increased domestic production and a moderation of domestic demand without resort to the imposition of supply restrictions.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 3823)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can he say which countries have established incentive schemes to encourage industry and business to install energy conservation equipment, or to substitute liquid fuel burning plant with other energy sources.
  2. If so, when was each scheme established.
  3. What is the nature of current schemes, and what level of support is provided by government in each case.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l), (2) and (3) Many countries have adopted various incentive schemes to encourage industry and business to install energy conservation equipment or to substitute liquid fuel burning plant with equipment using other energy sources. Canada and the United Kingdom are considered to be representative examples.

Canada:

June 1975: removal of federal sales tax from energy conservation items (e.g. insulation material);

December 1976: introduction in some provinces of onsite energy audits by computer-equipped energy buses, and subsidies for energy consultancy services; these programs later extended to all provinces;

July 1978: capital grants announced for use of wood wastes as an energy source in the forest industry;

July 1978: loans made available to industry for establishing biomass electricity generation;

Tax incentives on equipment for conversion of lowgrade (e.g. waste) energy to useful heat production or electricity generation; and

Up to 50 per cent grants to industry for energy R and D.

United Kingdom-

December 1976: Government subsidies for energy consultancy services;

September 1977: introduction of free telephone information service for non-domestic energy consumers;

June 1978: introduction of grants to industry and commerce for energy conservation schemes; and

June 1979: introduction of free telephone information service for non-domestic energy consumers;

June 1978: introduction of grants to industry and commerce for energy conservation schemes; and

June 1979: introduction of improved standards for energy efficiency in new non-domestic buildings.

Oil Stockpile (Question No. 3828)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon, notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the current oil stockpile recommended by the International Energy Agency.
  2. 2 ) What is Australia ‘s current oil stockpile.
  3. Will the Government ensure that the IEA target is maintained in Australia; if so, what measures will the Government take to do so.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The stockpiling obligation for IEA members is currently that they hold supplies equivalent to 88 days imports with this obligation increasing to 90 days by 1 980.
  2. 2 ) Australia ‘s oil stockpile, as defined by the IEA was calculated to be equivalent to over 155 days imports as at July 1979.
  3. Australia intends to continue to meet the IEA’s requirements. The size of Australia’s current stockpile precludes the need for any special measures in the immediately foreseeable future.

Irrigation Plants (Question No. 3973)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that millions of gallons of distillate fuel are being used by farmers in diesel engines for irrigation purposes.
  2. With the huge coal deposits and generation of electricity at our thermal stations, would it be possible for these irrigation plants to be changed to electrical power.
  3. If so, and in order to save valuable fuel, will the Government investigate the situation with a view to a drive in this field and possibly provide financial assistance for such a changeover to take place.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 have no statistics on this matter, however the honourable member’s estimate would appear to be reasonable.
  2. and (3) It may be possible for irrigation pumping equipment to be convened to electricity but in some cases the cost of using electricity could be prohibitive.

The Government has acted to encourage such substitution by ensuring that crude oil prices are realistically based. The question of changeover is one which the Government would expect users to consider in accordance with normal commercial principles.

Distillate for Agriculture (Question No. 3994)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1979:

  1. Does the Commonwealth Government, or do State Governments, possess the constitutional power to introduce petrol rationing.
  2. In the event of a fuel shortage in Australia, will distillate for agricultural use be given a high priority in any rationing or priority distribution system.
  3. If so, is any work being undertaken on a system which would guarantee adequate supplies of distillate for agriculture.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Power to introduce petrol rationing resides essentially with the States.
  2. and (3) At the last meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council (AMEC) on 26 July 1979 State Ministers and I agreed to the formation of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee (NPAC), the terms of reference of which were announced following the AMEC meeting.

On 6 September I announced details of the membership of NPAC. Primary industries are directly represented by Mr D. P. Eckersley, OBE, President of the National Farmers’ Federation and Mr F. A. L. Connell, AM, President of the Australian Fishing Industry Council.

I have indicated on several recent occasions that every effort will be made to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to agriculture and I feel sure that that priority will be protected by the members of NPAC.

Income Test on Pensions (Question No. 4111)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the (a) 65 to 69 and (b) 70 to 74 years age groups were (i) there in relation to total population based on census projection, (ii) qualified by residence for age pension, (iii) full pensioners (including age, service, widow and invalid), (iv) pan pensioners and (v) qualified by residence but not in receipt of a pension, for each of the last 5 financial years and the period 1 July ) 978 to date.
  2. What percentage of persons in the 70 to 74 years age group are qualified by age to receive a pension but do not receive any pension.
  3. What was the cost of all pensions for the 65 to 69 years age group during each of the last 5 financial years and the period from 1 July 1978 to date.
  4. If the income test had been abolished to meet the Government’s commitments, what would have been the (a) additional pension cost, (b) additional income tax collected and (c) total net cost of abolition including allowance for those persons qualified by residence to age pension but who did not receive one, in respect of the same age group of pensioners and for the same years and period referred to in pan (3).
  5. ) What is the estimated net and gross cost of abolition of the income test for pension increases for the over 70 years age group.
  6. What would be the estimated cost if the income test were not fully abolished but simply aligned with the current situation for the over 70 years age group.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. In the following table, estimates are provided in respect of the end of each of the last six financial years.
  1. It is considered that there would be very few people residentially qualified for age pension in the age group 70-74 years who do not receive a pension. (See answer to part ( 1 )).
  2. Details of expediture are not available by selected age groups. However, as a broad indication of the order of magnitude of the cost of pensions the following figures show the estimated annual liability for pensioners (including age, invalid, widow, wives and service pensioners) aged 65-69 years at 30 June.

These amounts represent the annual liability for the basic pension for age pensioners and other pensioners who are residentially qualified for age pension. There would be some additional liability in respect of supplementary assistance, mother’s/guardian’s allowance and additional pension for children.

(4)-

  1. The current gross cost of abolishing the income test for pension increases for age and service pensioners aged 70 years and over is estimated to be of the order of $23m in a full year. The net cost excluding additional income tax payable is estimated to be about $ 1 5m in a full year.
  2. If the income test on age and service pensioners for persons aged 65 to 69 years were not abolished but aligned with the current situation for age and service pensioners aged 70 years and over, the additional gross cost at 30 June 1979 is estimated to be of the order of $3 10m in a full year.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 4269)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

How many Community Youth Support Scheme projects have received continuation grants of (a) 26 and (b) 52 weeks in the periods (i) 1 July to 31 December 1978 and (ii) 1 January to 7 June 1979.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I July to 31 December 1978:
  2. 26 weeks- 149 projects.

    1. 52 weeks- 92 projects.
    2. 1 January to 7 June 1979:
    3. 26 weeks- 107 projects.
    4. 52 weeks- 49 projects.

Hospital Accreditation Program (Question No. 4271)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What progress is being made with the hospital accreditation program.
  2. How many private and public hospitals in each State (a) have been visited by the accreditation committee, (b) did not receive automatic accreditation and (c) were still without accreditation after (i) 3 and (ii) 6 months delay.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Over the past five years the Australian Council on Hospital Standards has developed as an organisation in which professional, consumer and government representatives come together in a single body to deliberate on an Australia-wide basis concerning hospital accreditation.

The unified national approach to hospital standards and accreditation which thus has been made possible, has been accompanied by the extension, this year, of ACHS Educational programs to all States, through Clinical and Professional Review Workshops.

  1. As at 30 September 1979

Government Departments: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4328)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Newman:
LP

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

The honourable member has asked similar questions of all Ministers and my Department has collated the information provided. Vehicles hired from the Department of Administrative Services comprise the entire fleets operated by eleven portfolios, and at least pan of the fleets of several other departments Fuel consumption and cost data for these vehicles could not be made available on a departmental fleet basis without a costly and time-consuming search of the records; consequently they are incorporated in the totals for the Department of Administrative Services.

For portfolios which operate their own vehicle fleets, the information is provided for either the 1977-78 or 1978-79 financial year. For some portfolios consumption data only was available, and total fuel costs were imputed using an average retail price (free of excise) for petrol.

Social Security Payments (Question No. 4349)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. What would be the cost to revenue of restoring twice yearly indexation adjustments to pensions.
  2. What would be the cost to revenue of raising:

    1. age pensions;
    2. invalid pensions;
    3. widow’s pensions;
    4. single parents’ benefits, and
    5. unemployment benefits to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.
  3. What would be the cost to revenue of reducing the eligibility for a means test free pension from 70 years and over to 69 years and over.
  4. What would be the saving to revenue if family allowances were included as income for the purposes of income tax assessment.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The additional cost of increasing social security pensions and benefits in May 1980 by the increase in the Consumer Price Index from June quarter 1979 to December quarter 1979 is estimated to be of the order of $51m in 1979-80.
  2. The full year cost of raising the current single rate of pensions and benefits to 30 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings for June quarter 1979 is estimated tobe:

    1. age pensions $ 1,030m;
    2. invalid pensions $2 10m;
    3. c) widows pensions $ 1 40m;
    4. supporting parents benefits $50m;
    5. unemployment benefits $380m.

In estimating these costs it was assumed that the married rate would maintain the existing relationship to the single rate.

The above estimates relate to all existing pensioners and beneficiaries. If pensions and benefits not currently subject to indexation were not increased (i.e. some age pensioners aged 70 years and over, single unemployment beneficiaries aged 18 years and over without dependants and single beneficiaries aged less than 18 years) then the estimates for (a) and (e) would be $870 and $ 100m respectively.

  1. The cost of reducing the eligibility for the income test free component of the pension from 70 years and over to 69 years and over is estimated to be some $45m in a full year based on November 1979 rates. Part of this additional expenditure would be incurred by the Department of Veterans ‘Affairs.

The costs shown in parts (1) to (3) are gross costs, that is they make no allowance for any additional revenue which may be gained from taxation of the payments concerned.

  1. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the saving to income tax revenue that would result if family allowances were included in the assessable income of the recipient (generally the mother) and if they were to qualify as separate net income, for the purpose of determining the amount of the spouse rebate, is estimated at an amount of the order of $220m in a full year.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 4353)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. How many officers of the Department of Social Security in each occupational classification have been involved in the apprehension of persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits in Australia, during each year since 197S.
  2. What have been the (a) salaries; (b) administrative costs; (c) court costs and (d) other costs to the Department of Social Security for the apprehension of persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits in Australia during each of the same years.
  3. What was the total sum defrauded by persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits in Australia during these years.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Department of Social Security does not employ any staff on the apprehension of persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits. There are a number of staff in the Department, in various occupational categories, whose duties are in some way connected with the identification and investigation of persons who may be receiving social security payments illegally. These staff are invariably also employed on a number of other duties.

Field Officers comprise the category of staff whose duties are most related to the identification and investigation of illegal recipients of unemployment benefits. However, these Field Officers are also employed on other duties associated with determining the eligibility of persons generally for unemployment benefits and the other forms of pensions and benefits administered by the Department. In addition, Field Officers perform a welfare role in advising departmental clients on payments and services to which they are entitled and concerning which they may be unaware. Details of the number of Field Officers employed in the Department are listed below together with an indication since 1972 of the percentage ratio of Field Officers to unemployment benefit recipients which gives an added perspective to the Department’s activities in this area:

Since 1977 the Department has established Benefits Control Units in all States and in Central Office. These Units are responsble for introducing and maintaining preventative and detection procedures and establishing the incidence of fraud and incorrect payment in respect of all benefits and pensions administered by the Department. These Units are also involved in identifying the causes of incorrect payments, evaluating existing departmental procedures and systems and developing systems and policies to ensure that correct payments are made to those persons entitled to receive them. The numbers and designations of positions established in these Units are as follows: (Positions of Field Officers included in the Benefits Control Units have also been included in the total numbers shown for the years 1972 to 1979 above).

There are, of course, other staff within the Department who spend, from time to time, a small proportion of their time in identifying, investigating and arranging for the prosecution of persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits.

  1. (a) Estimated salaries costs for Field Officers and the staff employed in the Benefits Control Units are set out below:
  1. Estimated administrative costs associated with Field Officer and Benefits Control activities are:
  1. Not available to the Department of Social Security.
  2. d ) Other costs such as telephones and other departmental overheads are not readily available.

    1. It is not possible to state with certainty the total sum overpaid to persons illegally receiving unemployment benefits. Despite its best endeavours, the Department cannot presume to have detected all instances of misrepresentation by claimants for benefit.

Information is available concerning over-payments raised in each year which include not only cases involving deliberate imposition but also excess payments caused by such factors as delays in notifying changes of circumstances and inadvertent breaches of the Social Services Act, i.e. all amounts overpaid for any reason, recovery of which is required by law to be pursued.

Total expenditure on unemployment, sickness and special benefits in each year from 1972 and amounts raised as overpayments are:

Youth Medical Services (Question No. 4361)

Mr Young:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

What impact will the elimination of the Commonwealth medical rebate have on young persons?

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

Commonwealth medical benefits have not been eliminated for medical services provided to young persons or anybody else in the community.

Under the new health insurance arrangements introduced from 1 September this year, patients are responsible for meeting doctors’ fees for services costing $20 or less per service. For services in excess of $20, Commonwealth medical benefits meet the whole of the excess up to the limit of the Schedule fee, leaving the patient to meet the first $20 and any charges in excess of the Schedule fee. Private health insurance coverage is available to cover medical costs not covered by Commonwealth medical benefits up to the level of the Schedule fee.

However, in cases where a patient is not privately insured and is identified by a medical practitioner as being disadvantaged, treatment can be provided without payment on the part of the patient. This facility is available under an arrangement whereby the doctor bulk bills the Commonwealth Department of Health, and accepts 75 per cent of the Schedule fee for each service as full payment The doctor is not permitted to recover any additional moneys from the patient.

Although the decision as to who is to be regarded as disadvantaged has been left to individual doctors, the Minister for Health has suggested to all doctors that persons on low incomes, including social security, unemployment, sickness or special beneficiaries could be included in this category. In this way unemployed young people have the opportunity to obtain medical care without charge.

Youth Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 4365)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

Will the Minister give definite assurances that the Government is not considering the elimination or reduction of unemployment benefits for young persons under 18 years of age.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Government has made no decision to change the rates and conditions for unemployment benefits as they apply to persons under 18 years of age. The conditions of eligibility are contained in the Social Services Act and therefore any decision to amend these rates and conditions requires the approval of the Parliament.

Taxation and Insurance Offices (Question No. 4373)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does he recall my question without notice on 22 May 1979 requesting increased staff for the Taxation Office to handle the workload necessary to minimise tax avoidance, and also the need to increase staff in the Insurance Office to minimise the level of liquidations.
  2. Does he also recall his supplementary answer on the same date when he intimated that additional staffing provisions have been allowed to the Taxation Office for 1979-80 and that he was working on the insurance question.
  3. What has been the increase in the number of officers in the Taxation Office during 1 979-80.
  4. Have his investigations into proposals to increase staff in the Insurance Office been completed; if so, when and how many additional staff will be allocated; if not, why not.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. An increase of 400 in staff ceiling has been approved for the Australian Taxation Office in 1979-80.
  4. A comprehensive review of operational procedures in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner was undertaken over the period March 1977 to March 1978. As a result, operational procedures within the Office were improved.

A joint Public Service Board/Department of Treasury Staff Utilisation Review was then undertaken over the period March to June 1978. This resulted in an overall reduction of 1 in the establishment of the Office; from 60 to 59 (excluding the Insurance Commissioner who is a Statutory Officer). The establishment of the Company Examinations and Investigations area was increased by 2 and a number of positions were classified at a higher level to enable more experienced staff to be recruited. The establishment of the Planning and Special Projects area was also increased by 2. Reductions in establishment were effected in other areas.

A follow-up review to assess the effects of the implementation of the Staff Utilisation Review is currently underway.

The current staff ceiling for the Office is 55.

Antarctic Icebergs (Question No. 4374)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his answer to Question No. 1474 (Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3124) what is the exterior limit to the Antarctic Territory at the edge of (a) the continental landmass or(b) the ice mass.
  2. Who owns unattached icebergs within in (a) the territorial sea, (b) the economic zone and (c) the high seas.
  3. Does it make any difference whether the territorial source of the iceberg is, or is not known.
  4. What aspects of international maritime law apply to the towing of icebergs.
  5. What are the potential international liabilities for any ecological or other damage due to the harvesting or transporting of icebergs.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

I am bound by the nature of the question to say that I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the honourable member on 8 November 1977 in answer to Question No. 1474.

Trade with Ethiopia (Question No. 4398)

Mr Shack:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

  1. What is the

    1. type,
    2. volume and
    3. value of Australian
    1. exports to and
    2. imports from Ethiopia.
  2. Which Australian companies are engaged in this trade.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Statistics of Australia’s trade with Ethiopia in recent years are contained in the attached tables compiled from figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  2. I am advised that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is unable to supply any information relating to individual companies as these details are regarded as being commercial-in-confidence ‘.

Cultural Agreements (Question No. 4412)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foriegn Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

Will he bring up to date his answer to question No. 215 concerning cultural agreements (Hansard, 5 April 1978, page 1060).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. No change.
  2. Negotiations between Greece and Australia have reached the exchange of final texts.
  3. (a) Additional proposals offered by countries with which Australia has cultural agreements are:

Korea

Korean National Classical Music Institute Troupe.

Thailand

Thai Folk Art Group.

Yugoslavia

Exhibition of Yugoslav Icons.

  1. Additional proposals sought from countries with which Australia has cultural agreements:

Korea

Exhibition 5000 years of Korean art.

India

Exhibition of Buddhist art

Historical exhibition from National Museum, Delhi.

Rampur Moghul Collection of Miniatures.

Festival of Indian films.

page 2662

USSR

Exhibition of master European paintings

Visit to Australia of Soviet writers ‘ delegation

Exhibition of master drawings and watercolours

Exhibition of Soviet art

Exhibition of French Impressionists from Soviet museums.

Japan

Exhibition of Tokugawa Collection.

Italy

Exhibition of Australian Aboriginal Artefacts.

Yugoslavia

Exhibition of Australian Aboriginal Artefacts.

Overseas Territories (Question No. 4425)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which of Australia’s overseas territories do not have resident populations.
  2. Which of them have other populations and what is the size of those populations.
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

1 ) Of the overseas territories that come within my portfolio responsibilities only the Coral Sea islands and Ashmore and Carrier Islands do not have resident populations, i.e. populations either temporarily or permanently resident.

The other overseas territories that come within my portfolio responsibilities had the following populations as at 30 June 1979:

Christmas Island- 3,264

Cocos (Keeling) Islands-392

Norfolk Island ( approximately)- 1,700

Overseas Territories (Question No. 4426)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

Do laws in the overseas territories with non-resident populations conflict with the requirements of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 65- Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939; if so, which laws.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department that there are no laws in these territories which deal with matters coming within the scope of ILO Convention No. 65- Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939.

Asbestos Mining: Health Risks (Question No. 4455)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 June 1979 by Shaun Mcllraith stating that there is a 75 per cent higher chronic bronchitis rate and 100 per cent higher death rate among Aboriginal asbestos miners than non-miners and a 40 per cent lapse in health standards at the Baryulgil asbestos mines detected by the New South Wales Department of Mines.
  2. Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs suspended housing grants to the district pending a decision on the health risks of living there.
  3. ) What steps have been taken to obtain a prompt assessment of that risk so that the appropriate advice on living sites can be given to those urgently in need of housing.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the report referred to by the honourable member, which in fact appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 June 1979.
  2. 1 understand that housing grants have been suspended by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. The Health Commission of New South Wales has conducted an enquiry into the health of the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil and the release of the report of the enquiry is imminent. I do not propose to forecast the findings of this report. However, I am informed that my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is to examine the report when it is available with a view to determining what appropriate action will be taken in respect of housing for Aboriginals living in the area.

Miss Universe Contest (Question No. 4468)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Which Government issued passports to the 2 entrants known as Miss Transkei and Miss Bophuthatswana in the Miss Universe contest held in Perth in 1 979.
  2. Was there any definition of their racial, geographic or representational status on either their passports or other travel documents; if so, what was the definition.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question put to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is as follows:

  1. It is understood that Miss Transkei and Miss Bophuthatswana were issued passports by the authorities of the so-called ‘homelands’ created by the South African Government. However, as Australia does not recognise these homelands visas could not be inscribed in the passports available to them. Instead each contestant was issued by the Australian Government with a ‘letter of authority’ which enabled them to travel to Australia.
  2. Such letters of authority do not define racial, geographic or representational aspects pertinent to the grantees. Only the following data are included:

Full name, date and place of birth, identifying number and type of authority, date of issue and expiry, number of entries to Australia allowed, number of persons included, authorised period of stay, category of traveller, and place of issue of document.

Provision is also made for the photograph and the signature of the grantee to be included in the document.

Miss Universe Contest (Question No. 4470)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was he and his Department involved in arrangements for the Miss Universe competition held in Perth during 1979.
  2. If so, did this involvement extend to facilitating the arrival and stay in Australia of the candidates known as Miss Transkei and Miss Bophuthatswana.
  3. Did he or his Department have any contact with the South African Government or its representatives in Australia in relation to the entry into Australia of Miss Transkei and Miss Bophuthatswana.
  4. Is he able to say who these two candidates represented during the competition and whether they had been officially endorsed or supported in any way by the South African Government.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The Miss Universe Pageant was staged by private enterprise as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations for the State of Western Australia. The Commonwealth Government was not a party to any sponsorship of candidates and the involvement of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was related only to the grant of visas for persons associated with the staging of the event.
  2. The passports presented by the two candidates known as Miss Transkei and Miss Bophuthatswana were issued by the authorities of the so called homelands of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. However, as Australia does not recognise these homelands, visas could not be inscribed in the passports issued by them. Letters of authority to enable travel to Australia were issued to the two candidates.
  3. No.
  4. The two contestants purportedly represented the areas whose names they bore just as Miss England, Miss Wales and Miss Scotland represented those particular areas. There could be no suggestion that the separate representation of these three regions of Britain indicated that Australia regards each as a separate country. The degree of official endorsement or support by the South African Government is not known nor relevant to the question of their admission.

Age Pensions (Question No. 4480)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. How many persons (a) aged (i) 65, (ii) 66, (iii) 67, (iv) 68 and (v) 69 years, (b) for the age group 65 to 69 years are there (A) in the total population based on the census projection, (B) who are qualified by residence for age pension, (C) on full pensions (i.e., including age, service, widow and invalid), (D) on part pensions and (E) who are qualified by residence but not in receipt of a pension.
  2. What is the corresponding information for the 70 to 74 years age group.
  3. What is the percentage of people in the 70 to 74 years age group who are qualified by age to receive a pension but who do not receive one.
  4. What will be (a) the estimated cost in 1979-80 of (i) payment of all pensions, (ii) payment of pensions if the income test is abolished and (iii) the abolition of the income test and (b) the estimated income tax derived from the abolition of the income test for persons aged (A) 65, (B) 66, (C) 67, (D) 68, (E) 69 years and (F) 65 to 69 years as a group.
  5. What is the estimated net and gross cost for 1979-80 if the abolition of the income test for pensioners in the over 70 years group.
  6. What would be the cost estimates for part (4) if the income test were not fully abolished but simply aligned with the current situation for the over 70 years group.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) The information sought is basically the same as that provided in response to question 4111, except that a further dissection by one-year age intervals is sought. Information in this degree of detail is not readily available.

Middle East (Question No. 4501)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 August 1 979:

What action has the Government taken on a number of recommendations in the report presented in June 1977 by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Middle East reference, which urged the Government to make Australia less dependent on Arab oil supplies and on the unpredictable Middle East situation.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Government’s prime energy policy objective is to achieve the highest practicable level of self-sufficiency in liquid fuels. The measures introduced to achieve this broad objective cover the substantial energy recommendations in the report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Middle East. The crude oil pricing policy, the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration program, the National Energy Conservation Publicity Campaign, the energy conservation and substitution measures announced in the Prime Minister’s statement on

Energy Policy of 27 June and the measures’ outlined in my statement of 2 1 August 1 979 on Liquid Fuel Initiatives in the 1979-80 Budget substantially fulfill the Joint Committee’s recommendations.

Supporting Parent’s Benefit (Question No. 4519)

Mr Willis:

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

  1. What is the current supporting parent’s benefit for a parent with (a) one child, (b) 2 children, (c) 3 children and (d) 4 children.
  2. By what sum do these benefits exceed or fall short of the current poverty line calculated as proposed in the Henderson Report for a supporting parent who is not in the work force.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The rate of supporting parents benefit does not represent the full value of income support available to a supporting parent through the social security system. Family allowances are also available and supplementary assistance may be payable. The following table shows the maximum rates of social security payments available to a supporting parent beneficiary:
  1. The following details are based on the simplified Henderson poverty une for ‘bead not working’ single parent families for the June quarter 1979 (the latest available).

Whether an individual beneficiary’s total income is above or below the Henderson poverty line depends not only on the level of income support from the Depanment of Social Security but also on the amount of income derived from other sources. In addition, the above figures take no account of the fact that rates of supporting parent’s benefit are to rise in November 1979 by $4.70 a week; in addition recipients of supporting parent’s benefit are also to become eligible for Pensioner Health Benefits from November 1979 under the same conditions as pensioners with children, thus increasing substantially the total value of their fringe benefits.

Service Pensions (Question No. 4550)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What hostile or warlike action in which Australian servicemen have been involved will be accepted as qualifying those servicemen for basic service benefit payments.
  2. Will persons who assisted Australian forces in (a) Timor, (b) Malaysia, (c) Indonesia, (d) the Middle East, (e) Papua New Guinea and (f) other areas where Australian forces were involved, qualify for the benefits.
  3. Will persons who were involved in organised opposition to enemies of Australia after the dissolution or defeat of their national forces qualify for benefit.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 assume that this question refers to eligibility for the service pension. An Australian veteran may qualify for a service pension if he served in a theatre of war or in a special area in: the Boer War; World War I; World War II; the Korea/Malaya operations; or, the Vietnam conflict
  2. Members of regular allied armed forces who served during the 1939-45 War in Timor, Malaya, Indonesia, the Middle East, Papua New Guinea and other areas where Australian forces were involved will qualify for benefits.

In addition, persons who served, subsequent to the 1939-45 War, in Malaya, in an operational area on or after 29 June 1950 until and including 31 August 1957 and in certain other Malaysian areas on special overseas service after 28 May 1963 may also be eligible.

Persons who served in areas where Australian Forces were not directly involved, but who were supporting the allied cause will also be eligible provided that such service would extend eligibility to an Australian veteran who served in similar circumstances.

  1. Provided such persons continued to serve in formally raised allied armed forces, whether of the country of their original enlistment or otherwise, eligibility will be conceded.

Oil Stockpiles (Question No. 4555)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. What are the recommendations of the International Energy Agency to member countries regarding oil stockpiles.
  2. Do stocks of crude oil and refined products in Australia satisfy IEA recommendations; if not, when will the Government increase stocks to appropriate levels.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The stockpiling requirements of the IEA are that members currently hold supplies equivalent to 88 days imports, with this requirement increasing to 90 days by 1980.
  2. ) Yes. Australia ‘s oil stockpile as defined by the IEA was calculated to be equivalent to cover 155 days imports as at July 1979.

Fraser Island: Employment in District (Question No. 4595)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

Can he say what jobs have been created by the Queensland Government in the Maryborough district with the $7m which the Commonwealth agreed to pay following the closing down of rnining operations on Fraser Island.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government in fact provided the State of Queensland with a grant of $10m for the creation of employment opportunities in the Maryborough region following the cessation of sand-mining activities on Fraser Island. The grant was to be spent over 4 years: Sim in 1976-77 and $3m in each of the 3 successive years. It was a matter for the Queensland Government to determine the manner in which these funds would be allocated. Details of the total number of job opportunities created by the grant are not available.

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit (Question No. 4603)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were receiving domiciliary nursing care benefits in each State and Territory at the latest date for which the information is available.
  2. Are figures available for domiciliary nursing care benefit payments on the basis of postcodes; if so, what are they.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. It is necessary to distinguish between the number of persons receiving domiciliary nursing care benefit (the beneficiaries) and the number of patients in respect of whom the benefit is paid as some beneficiaries are approved for the care of two patients (two patients being the maximum permitted for any one beneficiary).

The following tables specify the number of persons receiving the domiciliary nursing care benefit (beneficiaries) and the number of patients approved in each State and Territory as at 3 October 1979:

  1. The figures are not available on the basis of postcodes from current computer programs.

Road Haulage Industry (Question No. 4615)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the suggestion contained on page 82 of the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled The Long Distance Road Haulage Industry that further research be carried out on the level and pattern of freight rates in the road haulage industry; if so, what action does he propose to take in respect of the suggestion.
  2. Did the Bureau express doubts about the viability of the research; if so, would these doubts be overcome if analysis of freight rates was made a regular, ongoing procedure.
  3. Would this information also prove valuable in (a) assessing the road haulage industry and (b) the process of decision making.
  4. Did he support in the Parliament during April-May 1975 legislation to set up an Interstate Commission; if so, would the task of analysis of road haulage freight rates be suitable for such a commission.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Bureau of Transport Economics report entitled The Long Distance Road Haulage Industry contained the suggestion that further research on the level and pattern of freight rates and the whole pattern of road transport in Australia would permit a more detailed outline of the industry. However, the Report goes on to say that such a research program would consume a considerable quantity of the Bureau’s resources and yield little more than a detailed description of flows and prices. For this reason the Report found that it would be difficult to justify the resources that would be required to produce a reliable description. The Report further stated that the BTE would therefore be reluctant to undertake such a task for the reasons stated and no action is proposed on the suggestion at this time.
  2. The BTE expressed doubts about the viability of such a substantial survey and made the point that a more useful approach would be to develop a statistical system of collecting market freight rate and operator cost information on a regular basis.
  3. and (4) The availability of statistics, on a regular basis, covering freight rates and operating costs obviously could assist Governments in their assessments of road haulage industry problems and such information would also be valuable to operators in the industry.

The collection of such information is now being examined, following ATAC consideration of road transport problems. However, I do not accept the assumption, which appears to underly the question, that the Inter-State Commission Act should be proclaimed in order to address the problems of the road transport industry. I should also comment that, as Hansard shows, I opposed the Inter-State Commission legislation in April-May 1 975 in its then existing form.

Lead in Petrol (Question No. 4623)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the report of the study Lead Burden of Sydney Schoolchildren (January 1979) by V. P. Garnys, R. Freeman and L. E. Smythe.
  2. If so, was the Minister’s attention drawn to the findings and recommendations of the report, particularly those which related to automotive exhaust and levels of lead.
  3. In view of the findings of this study on the adverse effects of lead in petrol on the health of schoolchildren, what action has the Minister taken or will the Minister take to ensure the implementation of each of these recommendations.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)and (2)Yes

  1. As indicated by his answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4621, the Minister for Health has asked the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) to examine the health problems of lead urgently. The NH&MRC ‘s advice will assist the Minister to indicate desirable goals and appropriate guidelines designed for the protection of health. The Minister for Science and the Environment will consult with his colleague, the Minister for Health, on these matters when the NH&MRC’s advice has been received.

The National Air Quality Data Centre (NAQDC) is established within the Department of Science and the Environment to collate air quality statistics, including data of atmospheric lead levels, in collaboration with State authorities. Such data will assist in the evaluation of the atmospheric lead problem and the development of appropriate responses.

Japan-Australia Uranium Enrichment Study (Question No. 4632)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Government considered the report of the first stage of the joint Japan-Australia uranium enrichment study.
  2. What were the findings and conclusions of this part of the study.
  3. Will further studies be undertaken.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. A report on the joint Japan/Australia study on uranium enrichment was presented to the Government in October 1 978. It is under study.
  2. The broad conclusion of the report was that there could be an export market for the output of a commercial enrichment plant in Australia coming into initial operation at some time in the period from the mid 1980s onwards. However, it was agreed by the Governments of Japan and Australia that details of the findings and conclusions would not be made available to third parties without the prior agreement of both Governments.
  3. In the context of the Government’s announcement on 23 January that the Government will be proceeding to study the feasibility of the establishment of a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia, discussions are continuing between Australia and Japan.

Australian Opera (Question No. 4640)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Since the establishment of the Australian Opera, who have been the (a) musical directors and (b) General Managers (or chief administrators, however described) indicating in each case the period served in office and the circumstances of their removal.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been advised by the Australia Council that since the incorporation of the Australian Opera as a Company limited by guarantee on 28 September 1970, the Musical Directors and General Managers of the Company have been as follows:

Musical Directors-

Carlo Felice Cillario- 1 970-7 1 .

Edward Downes- 1972-75.

Richard Bonynge- 1976-

General Managers-

Donald McDonald- 1970-72.

JohnWinther-1973-77.

Peter Hemmings-1977-79.

As the Board of the Australian Opera is solely responsible for the employment of the Company’s administrative and artistic personnel, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of the retirement of such personnel from office.

Public Service Wage Rises (Question No. 4651)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. What sum was allocated in the (a) 1978-79 and (b) 1 979-80 budgets for Public Service wage rises.
  2. Should the allocation for 1979-80 be exhausted before the end of the financial year what options has the Government open to it.
  3. Do these options include further staff reductions, further reductions in the provision of services to the public, further delays to scheduled projects, or a decision confirmed by a vote in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to disallow any increases granted to public servants by the Public Service Arbitrator.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) $50 million.

    1. (i) defence-$30 million.
    2. non-defence- $35 million.

These sums are the allowances included in the Budget estimates of outlays for the costs of prospective wage and salary increases of Commonwealth employees, including defence force personnel, paid from appropriations for salaries and payments in the nature of salary. The allowances do not distinguish between those employees employed under the Public Service Act and others.

  1. and (3) The allowances for prospective wage and salary increases referred to in answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question are not particular amounts appropriated by the Parliament at Budget time. Instead, they are estimates, the calculation of which is necessarily approximate, which are included in the Budget figures of outlays (as distinct from appropriations) to provide Parliament and the public with a better indication of the likely order of total outlays during the year. The allowances are not, therefore, specific provisions which may become exhausted before the end of the financial year.

Proposed appropriations for public service wages and salaries included in Schedule 2 of Appropriation Bill No. 1 are based on wage and salary rates applying at the time the Budget estimates are prepared. They do not include allowances for future wage and salary rate increases.

Section 5 of the Appropriation Act No. 1 provides a special appropriation authorising the Minister for Finance, during a particular financial year, to issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund such amounts as he determines not exceeding amounts estimated to be necessary to meet increases in salaries and wages and payments in the nature of salary for which provision is made in Schedule 2 to the Act and which become payable during that year in accordance with a law, or an award order or determination under a law. Amounts payable from section 5 are, where possible, covered by later annual appropriations approved by the Parliament, namely in the Additional Estimates appropriations. Increases arising out of awards etc made after the preparation of the Additional Estimates stand as a charge against the special appropriation and are reported to the Parliament by means of the Financial Statements presented by the Minister for Finance pursuant to section 50 of the Audit Act 1901.

In addition to section 5 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, a number of other special appropriations exist for the payment of salaries and allowances for Senators and Members, Justices of the High Court, Federal Judges, First Division Officers and Holders of Public Office, eg the appropriations contained in section 12 of the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952 and section 7 ( 13) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act.

I should nevertheless add that the Government is determined to maintain maximum restraint on outlays in 1979-80 and aims, in particular, to hold total outlays in 1979-80 within the total Budget estimates. To that end economies in expenditure will be achieved to the maximum extent that is practicable without unduly impairing services provided to the public or the Government’s other expenditure policy objectives. The methods by which such economies will be achieved include absorption of cost increases wherever possible and the financing of new expenditure requirements through offsetting savings in other expenditure items of lower priority.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 4676)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. Who was the recipient and what was the sum of each grant made under the Community Youth Support Scheme in the Electoral Division of Shortland in each year since the Scheme ‘s inception.
  2. What was the address of each recipient.
  3. 3 ) For what purpose was each grant made and how many persons were employed in the expenditure of each grant.
  4. How many (a) males and (b) females who attended activities conducted under each grant gained employment within 3 months as a direct result of those activities.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Gateshead/Windale CYSS has received six grants:

September 1977-$ 1,004.00.

January 1978- $14,764.86.

March 1978-$ 15,000.00.

August 1978-S16.264.60.

February 1979-516,987.28.

July 1979-$17.797.41

Eastlakes YWCA CYSS has received five grants:

July l979-$2,997,28.

January 1978- $3,7 19.24.

March 1978-$4,280.O0.

October 1978-83,582.45.

April 1979-$3,488.77.

Caves Beach Uniting Church CYSS has received four grants:

April 1978- $1,032.78.

June 1978-$ 14,946.26.

December 1978-$ 18, 106.00.

July 1979-$ 19,546.69.

  1. Gateshead/Windale CYSS, 22 O’Brien Street, Gateshead.

Eastlakes YWCA CYSS, YWCA Hall, Narla Street, Belmont North.

Caves Beach Uniting Church CYSS. Corner Park Avenue and Scenic Drive, Caves Beach.

  1. Each grant was made for the purpose of running a CYSS project. Gateshead/Windale and Caves Beach projects employ two Project Officers each, Eastlakes YWCA project employs one Project Officer two days per week.
  2. Information is not available.

Migrant Centres (Question No. 4724)

Dr Cass:

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

What proportion of the cost of maintaining migrant centres, providing food services, temporary accommodation assistance, building and equipment for migrant centres, can be attributed to (a) caring for refugees (b) caring for immigrants in the family reunion category and (c) caring for independent immigrants arriving under the occupational eligibility category.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

I take it that the honourable member’s question draws upon the headings shown in Division 155 in Appropriation Bill No. 1 and Division 817/5 in Appropriation Bill No. 2. The item 155/04 ‘Contribution to operating expenses- Food Services’ concerns cafeterias conducted by Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd in Government departments and does not deal with food services in migrant centres.

For the other three items mentioned, approximately 75 per cent of the costs in the current financial year can be attributed to caring for refugees, and the remaining 25 per cent to caring for sponsored migrants selected under NUMAS. Negligible numbers of migrants in the family reunion category are accommodated in migrant centres.

Parliamentary Salaries (Questions No. 4756)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. What were the basic salaries for Ministers and Members of the Commonwealth Parliament for each financial year from 1970-71 to 1979-80.
  2. For what period was each salary level effective and what was the percentage increase for each period over the previous period.
  3. On which occasions did the Government accept the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal without modification.
  4. What were the details of the Tribunal’s recommendations and the subsequent decisions taken by the Government on those occasions where modifications were brought in.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The basic salaries for Ministers and Members of the Commonwealth Parliament since 1970-71 have been:

Note: (i) Ministers receive in addition to their Ministerial salary their basic salary as a Senator or Member of the Parliament.

  1. Pursuant to section 6(1) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, the Tribunal may only inquire into and report on the salaries payable to Ministers of State. The rates shown are those implemented by legislation (i.e. Ministers of State Art 19S2).
  2. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1979 (presently before the Parliament) is designed to provide for increases in Ministerial salaries.
  3. The period each salary level was effective and the percentage increase for each period over the previous period are as follows:
  4. The following Reviews have not been disallowed by either House of the Parliament:

The 1975 Review of 3 March 1975

The 1976 Review of 29 June 1976

The 1977 Review of 20 June 1977

The 1978 Review of 19 June 1978 (except for Report 1 of 1978 on Ministerial Salaries which was not implemented and Determination Numbers 6 and 7 of 1978 which were disallowed on 17 August 1978).

The 1979 Review of 5 June 1979 (except for Report 1 of 1979 on Ministerial Salaries which is the subject of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1979 and Determination Numbers 6, 7 and 8 of 1979 which are the subject of the Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1979 which is presently before the Parliament).

  1. The following Reviews were either disallowed or modified:

The 1 974 Review of 1 9 July 1 974 was disallowed in toto by the Senate on 25 July 1974.

The Report and Determinations presented on 14 August 1975. The Report on Ministerial Salaries was not implemented and the Determinations were disallowed by the Senate on 9 September 1975.

Report Number 1 of 1978 on Ministerial Salaries was not implemented and Determinations Numbers 6 and 6 of 1978 were disallowed on 17 August 1978 by the Senate.

Report Number 1 of 1979 on Ministerial Salaries will not be implemented and Determinations Numbers 6, 7 and 8 are subject to modification by the Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1979 presently before the Parliament. Details of the Remuneration Tribunal’s Reports and Determinations are to be found in the Tribunal’s Annual Reviews.

Consultancy on Oil Economics (Question No. 4868)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the nature of the consultancy on oil economics referred to on page 103 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 9 October 1979 (G 40) and what aspects of the subject will be reported on.
  2. When will the consultancy commence and when is it expected to be completed.
  3. What were the reasons for his Department commissioning this consultancy.
  4. Will the results of this consultancy be made public.
  5. To what specific officers or authorities will the results of the consultancy be directed.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Nicholas Clark and Associates has been engaged by the Department of Transport to work with Bureau of Transport Economics staff in developing a paper on oil economics with particular emphasis on:

    1. the price of fuels in short supply (rationing versus market mechanisms, substitution, etc.)
    2. the time required for the transport system to respond to a changed supply situation and to develop an economic framework for determination of priorities for fuel allocation in transport.
  2. The consultant commenced work early in September and is expected to complete his work in November of this year.
  3. Transport is the sector of the economy most vulnerable to sudden disruptions in oil supplies and the Department of Transport’s role is to assess the impact of such disruptions. This consultant was engaged because of his particular expertise and because he was available to commence work immediately, which was an important consideration in view of the priority which the Government now places on fuel contingency planning.
  4. In the first instance the consultant’s report will be to the Director, BTE. It is envisaged that it would be made available immediately to the Energy Working Group of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and therefore will be available to a wide section of the transport planning community. If the report is of suitable standard, I expect that the Director of the Bureau of Transport Economics will give consideration to subsequent publication in the BTE Occasional Paper series.
  5. As noted in (4), the report will be prepared for eventual submission to ATAC Ministers, and m the process it will be directed to all State Ministers concerned with transport energy matters.

Wind-driven Generators (Question No. 4870)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Where is the wind driven generator referred to in contract NAB2S on page 104 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 9 October 1979 (G40) to be located.
  2. To what purpose will the power generated by the unit be put.
  3. By what means is power presently secured at this location.
  4. Is the installation of the wind generator by the nature of a pilot project; if so, are the results of the installation to be monitored and reported on to him and to other interested persons.
  5. Is the use of wind generators likely to be extended to additional locations.
  6. What is the likely magnitude of energy savings and cost savings if the use of wind power is extended.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) South Solitary Island, New South Wales.
  2. To operate the lighthouse equipment: the light is being upgraded to increase the nominal luminous range from 15 to 2 1 n. miles.
  3. The present light is operated from primary cell batteries.
  4. No. Wind generators are used at three other marine navaid facilities.
  5. 5 ) Consideration is being given to operating two other remote lighthouses on power provided by wind generators.
  6. The energy requirement would not be altered. Cost savings from more extensive use of wind power are still being studied.

Road Traffic Accident Statistics (Question No. 4878)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

In what ways and for what reason will the tabulation and publication of road traffic accident statistics by the Office of the Commonwealth Statistician be altered in respect of previous accident statistics.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has advised that, due to the continued lack of uniformity in road traffic accident reporting in the various States and Territories, the ABS ceased compiling and publishing detailed road traffic accident statistics at the national level from July 1978. Currently the ABS only compiles and publishes broad aggregated data at the national level for numbers of accidents, including fatal accidents, and numbers of persons killed and injured in road traffic accidents.

Progress has recently been made in improving the future uniformity of some aspects of reporting of road traffic accident data and by January 1980 it is expected that all States and Territories will be consistently reporting accidents where at least one person is admitted to hospital As a result, the definition of a casualty accident for national statistics purposes has been changed to include only those accidents in which at least one person was admitted to hospital, instead of the previous definition which included all accidents resulting in bodily injury to any person which required surgical or medical treatment.

The ABS will recommence the compilation of a limited range of detailed road traffic accident statistics at the national level from January 1980. A decision to publish this data will depend upon an analysis of the uniformity of the data received during the first few quarters of 1980.

The Australian Statistician has advised that the ABS will continue to monitor progress on the uniformity of other aspects of road traffic accident reporting and will consider the resumption of publication of further detailed statistics as soon as substantial uniformity of reporting of the relevant data items has been achieved.

Self-service Petrol Stations (Question No. 4886)

Mr Humphreys:

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

Further to the answer he gave to my question No. 3333 concerning an investigation of safety requirements and standards in self-service petrol stations in all States and Territories ( Hansard, 22 May 1979, page 2226), what action has been taken as a result of his raising the matter of self-service station safety regulations and standards at a meeting of the Consumer Affairs Ministers in April 1979.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 466 1 (Hansard, 1 1 October 1979, page 2000).

Burdekin River Dam (Question No. 4887)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was a cost benefit analysis conducted on the Burdekin River Dam; if so, what were its conclusions.
  2. Will he make available to the Parliament a copy of the report or analysis.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A cost benefit analysis of the proposed Burdekin River Dam was undertaken by a Queensland Government interdepartmental committee called the Burdekin Project Assessment Committee. Its report dated December 1978 concluded that the project would show an internal rate of return of at least 10 per cent on conservatively based estimates of sugar price, and that the proposed scheme was seen as a highly attractive investment.
  2. I suggest that the honourable member enquire at the Queensland Co-ordinator-General’s Department for a copy of the report.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 4906)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Pitjanjatjara Land Rights Bill introduced into the South Australian Parliament by the former South Australian Government.
  2. Can the Minister say whether the Bill was subject to a select committee inquiry by that Parliament, from which certain amendments were recommended.
  3. Is it a fact that the new South Australian Government has now withdrawn the Bill, with a view to introducing a new Bill with considerably reduced rights for the Aboriginal people, especially in respect of mineral rights.
  4. Are the actions of that Government in the best interests of the Pitjanjatjara people.
  5. Will he ensure that these people receive elementary justice from the new South Australian Liberal Government.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Bill lapsed when the South Australian Parliament was dissolved for the recent election. I understand from my discussions with South Australian Ministers that the South Australian Government proposes to reintroduce the Bill with some amendments.
  4. and (5) See (3) above.

Aboriginals: Federal Government Jurisdiction (Question No. 4915)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

Further to his statement regarding denial by the States of Federal Government jurisdiction or authority over Aboriginals despite the 1967 referendum (Hansard, House of Representatives Estimates Committee A, 26 September 1979, page 83), does the Federal Government propose to take any legislative or other action within the next 12 months to implement fully the expressed wishes of the Australian people, as shown in the 1967 referendum result; if so, what, action; if not; when will the Parliament be informed of any Federal action in this matter.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Bilateral discussions are being held between officers of the Commonwealth and the States to explore differences of interpretation of the existing arrangements with the States in relation to Aboriginal affairs and other issues, as a basis for consideration of the possible need to review those arrangements, which were negotiated some years ago. Should these talks lead to a decision to renegotiate any of the agreements, this will be announced at the appropriate time.

Walter Fire Tenders (Question No. 4936)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Have several instances of an hydraulic pressure line bursting at considerable velocity occurred in the cabin of the Walter ultra large fire tenders.
  2. If so, were there instances at Darwin, Coolangatta and Hobart and was the hydraulic pressure at the time about 250 p.s.i.
  3. Did airport fire officers place a ban on the Hobart unit as a result.
  4. What action has been taken to prevent further bursting of the hydraulic pressure lines. 1
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There have been several instances of failure of an aluminium alloy flange coupling in the monitor feed line, in the cabin. This line carries a mixture of foam compound and water once the pumps are engaged.
  2. Yes to both questions.
  3. Yes, but the ban has since been removed following the fitment of a guard as a temporary measure.
  4. Stronger stainless steel replacement couplings have been designed and are being fitted.

Taxation and Insurance Offices (Question No. 4956)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to my question without notice on 22 May 1 979 and my question on notice No. 4373 of 25 September 1979, relating to the need for increased staff in both the Taxation and Insurance Offices, has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian of 26 September 1979 stating that the Federal Government is hiring 400 special investigators to spearhead a blitz on tax cheats and at least half the investigation force will concentrate on closing down phony, contrived tax-cheating schemes.
  2. Has he completed his investigations into increased staff for the Taxation Office; if so, when and how many additional staff will be allocated; if not, why not.
  3. ) Have his investigations into the need for increased staff in the Insurance Office been completed; if so, when and how many additional staff will be allocated; if not, why not.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4373 in today’s Hansard.

Health Benefits (Question No. 3812)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost to the Government of health insurance cover under the Commonwealth Universal Benefit during the first 6 months of that system ‘s operation.
  2. How many persons received only the C.U.B. and what was the average number of claims per person in the same 6 months.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The total cost to the Government of Commonwealth medical benefits (CMB) paid in the period 1 November 1978 to 30 April 1979 was:
  1. Information on the number of persons who received only Commonwealth Medical Benefits in the first six months of the Scheme’s operation, and the average number of claims per person in the same six months, is not available. However, from statistics received from organisations and from the direct billing payments system up to the end of April 1979, the following estimates have been prepared to indicate the relative magnitude of the costs between the categories of persons receiving Commonwealth Medical Benefits only, and those insured. From estimates derived from membership and coverage statistics provided by registered medical benefit organisations and statistics on persons issued with Pensioner Health Benefits (PHB) Cards, it is estimated approximately 74 per cent of the population were covered by private medical insurance or Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements. However, it is not known which persons, in either category of the population, claimed medical benefits during those six months.

Note: Because of the effect of the normal time lags between date of service and date benefits were paid by organisations, statistics relating to the first few months of operation of the Scheme would contain a higher proportion of the less expensive services (such as consultations and pathology services).

Heat Pumps (Question No. 3844)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

Following his answer to question No. 2460 (Hansard, 1 May 1979, page 1686) which firms in Australia (a) market, (b) manufacture and (c) import heat pumps, and under what brand names.

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

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

Information on firms involved in the marketing and manufacture of heat pumps is included in the business reference Kompass, published by Peter Isaacson Publications Pty Ltd, industrial group number 40-40. Further details may be obtained from the Australian Institute of Refrigerating Air Conditioning and Heating, 191 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria.

Cocos Island Quarantine Station (Question No. 4008)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

Further to question No. 3489 (Hansard, 22 May 1979, page 2234), when will the expert advisory committee be established to determine priorities for the use of the Cocos Island quarantine station.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Preliminary discussions on the constitution of the expert advisory committee to advise on priorities for the use of the Cocos Island quarantine station have been undertaken within my Department and at the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in Perth on which my Department is represented.

I am awaiting nominations from the Standing Committee and have industry representation under consideration.

I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the committee’s constitution shortly.

Health: Uranium (Question No. 4448)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the cost of administration of his Department devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (b) Two positions have been allocated in my Department specifically for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence. It is estimated that the costs associated with these positions would represent approximately 0.03 per cent of the cost of administration of the Depanment.

In addition, a number of officers of my Depanment undertake from time to time as pan of their normal duties tasks related to uranium matters. It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the cost of their activities.

The Depanment currently has a proposal with the Public Service Board for a number of positions specifically for activities associated with uranium mining and milling. It is estimated that if the proposed staff are approved, the salaries, travelling, equipment and other administrative costs, including current staff and related expenses, would in a full year represent approximately 0.3 per cent of the cost of administration of the Department.

Department of Productivity: Working Environment Division (Question No. 4580)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has a decision been made in relation to the proposed transfer from Melbourne to Canberra of the Working Environment Division of his Depanment.
  2. Has his Depanment assessed the costs, financial, social and in staff, associated with such a move; if so, what was the result of the assessment.
  3. Has he considered a staff proposal that a joint working party be established to examine all these issues and report in 1 980; if so, what was his response to the request.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, a decision has been made for an initial transfer of IS positions of the Division; and in-principle approval has been given to the transfer of the remainder of the policy personnel and essential policy personnel support staff of the Division, subject to a further report from the Interdepartmental Committee on Location of Australian Government Employment (LAGE Committee).
  2. I am informed by my Depanment that there has been an assessment of the financial costs involved in the relocation of the Working Environment Division. The non-recurring cost for each officer transferring would be approximately $8,000. The additional total annual recurring cost is estimated at $25,000. There are estimated consequential annual savings of $42,000 which would arise from the relocation of departmental officers moving from rented accommodation in Melbourne to Commonwealth owned premises in Melbourne. As regards the costs in staff, it is impossible to accurately assess the number of staff who will decline to move to Canberra. Experience has shown that decisions by individual officers are not firmly made until they are notified that their positions are to be transferred.
  3. I am aware of the staff proposal to establish a joint working party but advise that both oral and written submissions on behalf of the staff were put to the LAGE Committee by the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. In addition there have been discussions with officers of the Working Environment Division on the proposal. My Depanment informs me it considered that a joint working party would be unlikely to produce any views or approaches to the transfer different from those already well known to the Depanment.

Department of Productivity: Working Environment Division (Question No. 4609)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. Further to my question No. 4580 concerning the proposed transfer of staff of the Working Environment Division of his Depanment from Melbourne to Canberra, have Laurie Doyle and Graeme Coyle of his Department carried out a survey of the views of the staff involved in the proposed transfer, as well as a study of the circumstances of the section, and its functions.
  2. If so, were the results of this investigation contained in a report which recommends that the section be retained in Melbourne.
  3. Will he make a copy of the report available to me.
  4. In the light of evidence contained in the report, will he reconsider his decision to move the section to Canberra.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed by my Department that Messrs Duke and Coyle were instructed to examine duties and functions of officers of the Working Environment Division (WED) with a view to examining positions for transfer to Canberra. This study was one of a number of studies and consultations made in respect of a proposal to relocate WED.
  2. No report as such was requested or produced but notes for discussion with senior management were prepared.
  3. The notes prepared by Messrs Duke and Coyle represent only a minor portion of material prepared within the Depanment in the examination, review and consultation process leading to a departmental recommendation on the WED transfer. For this reason it would not be a responsible action on my part to make these notes available. The grounds for my Department favouring the transfer of WED were explained at some length by senior officers to CAGEO officers and WED staff.
  4. The decision to transfer WED positions to Canberra was one for Government.

Fishing Agreement with Taiwan (Question No. 4687)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age of 31 August 1979 regarding a Taiwan/Australia fishing pact; if so, is there a new fishing agreement between Taiwan and Australia.
  2. What are the rights afforded Taiwan in the agreement.
  3. When was this agreement signed and who were the signatories.
  4. Were any officers of his Department involved in negotiations prior to the agreement being endorsed; if so, who were they and what part did they play in negotiations.
  5. Do Taiwanese fishing boats now apply for permits to fish in Australian waters.
  6. If so, how much do these permits cost and who collects the fees.
  7. Is he able to say what is the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild.
  8. 8 ) Who operates this Guild.
  9. Will the Guild control the Taiwanese vessels fishing off Australia; if so, how will this be done, and what view does the Australian Government hold on this.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, I have had my attention drawn to the Article in the Age of 31 August 1979. Taiwanese fishing boats represent a substantial foreign fishing presence in waters within 200 miles of Australia. As we do not recognise the ‘Government’ in Taiwan, discussions have been held with representatives of Taiwanese fishing interests and their Australian agents on access to the 200 mile Australian fishing zone. Draft agreements setting out the terms and conditions of access have been initialled and are currently under consideration by the Government.
  2. The agreements will provide the Taiwanese fishing interests concerned with 12 months access on a smaller scale than current operations, to the north and North- West Shelf trawl and gillnet resources.
  3. Draft letters of agreement were initialled by a representative of the Department of Primary Industry and a representative of the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company Pry Ltd, a joint Australia/Taiwanese company comprising M. G. Kailis Gulf Fisheries Pty Ltd and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild, and are under consideration by the Government.
  4. Talks on the conditions of access for Taiwanese commercial interests have been held between members of the

Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company Pty Ltd, Commonwealth Government officials and representatives from the Western Australian Government. The First Assistant Secretary, Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry, chaired the most recent round of discussions.

  1. Taiwanese vessels covered by the draft Agreements will be licensed to fish in the AFZ on application provided the Agreements are accepted by the Government.
  2. The access fees which will be payable to the Commonwealth Government have been agreed and are stated in the draft Agreements, which for the time being remain confidential. Licence fees for each vessel, as stipulated in the Fisheries Act, will be paid from these access fees.
  3. and (8) The Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild is an association of Taiwanese fishing boat owners established in 1963. It comprises deepwater trawlers, gillnet and tuna longline boat companies in Taiwan which have fishing boats of a 100 tons or greater, registered under the City Government of Kaohsiung. Its registered office is at 94 Shao Chuan Street, Taiwan. In 1979, 120 fishing companies with 230 boats and a total tonnage of 70,000 tonnes were attached to the Guild.
  4. Under the terms of the draft Agreement only vessels nominated by the Guild will be licensed. The Guild has sole authority to represent all the trawl and gillnet fishing boats of Taiwan which apply for licences to fish within the Australian 200 mile fishing zone. Under the terms and conditions of access, the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company or the Guild as appropriate, will bear the full responsibility for all Taiwanese vessels, licensed or unlicensed. Assurances from the Company and the Guild have been received that the Taiwanese authorities will exercise strict control over all Taiwanese fishing activities in the AFZ. The Company has been advised that continuation of access for Taiwanese fishing vessels to the AFZ is dependent on effective control being exercised and on the cessation of all illegal activities particularly those by clam vessels on the Great Barrier Reef. Furthermore, the Fisheries Act 1932 has been amended to provide for penalties of up to $230,000 for illegal foreign fishing in the AFZ. In addition to the substantial increases m penalties, a magistrate may order forfeiture of a vessel, including its catch and equipment, upon a conviction being recorded.

Repatriation: Tuberculosis Pension (Question No. 4708)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1 979:

What is the estimated saving to the Government of freezing the 100 per cent disability pension rate for pulmonary tuberculosis sufferers.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

For 1978-79 the estimated saving was $3.0m. However, it was announced in the Budget that eligibility for full free medical treatment would be restored to pensioners who had been in receipt of the 100 per cent General Rate disability pension for pulmonary tuberculosis prior to 2 November 1 978. As a consequence, the savings involved in 1 979-80 will be reduced to an estimated $ 1 .6m.

World Currency Market (Question No. 4744)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that one of the factors affecting the level of world trade and thus the level of economic activity and employment within Australia is the unstable world currency market.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to reports that Finance Ministers of 3 leading Western nations allegedly held summit talks in Paris on about 1 5 September 1 979 on the subject.
  3. If so, what was the nature of these talks.
  4. Is Australia taking any initiatives to improve the present instability.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The instability in world currency markets in recent dmes and the associated policy responses have been among the factors affecting the level of world trade and thus, to a limited extent, the level of economic activity and employment within Australia. However, that currency instability is merely a symptom of much more fundamental economic problems throughout the world, including in particular the effects of rates of inflation that are disturbingly high and which have generally increased sharply in 1 979.
  2. Yes.
  3. The precise nature of the talks is confidential to the nations involved.
  4. The Australian Government is firmly convinced that there will only be a sustainable improvement in world economic conditions, and a return to stability in world currency markets, if individual governments pursue policies which reduce inflation and which encourage structural adjustment (including appropriate energy policies). Since coming to office the present Government has steadfastly maintained domestic economic policies that are designed to achieve these ends. Australian Government representatives have argued at appropriate international meetings in support of the need for more widespread adoption of the type of economic policies required to deal with these problems. In this respect it is heartening to note the general agreement which was reached at the 1 October meeting of the Interim Committee of the IMF, which I attended, on the top priority that needs to be accorded to reducing inflation. The Communique of the Interim Committee stated, inter aiia:

The Committee observed with great concern that inflation throughout the industrial world had intensified. In view of this grave threat to economic and financial stability, the Committee emphasized that the main task of economic policy was to contain inflationary pressures and to reduce inflationary expectations. One of the immediate problems was to prevent the recent surge of price increases for oil and other primary products from adding to the strength of inflationary expectations and thus being built into underlying rates of increase in wages and prices. Accordingly, the Committee noted with satisfaction that reduction of inflation was being given priority in the economic policies of industrial countries, and it reiterated its view that in many countries progress in reducing inflation was an essential precondition for the resumption of vigorous economic growth ‘.

Permanent Building Societies (Question No. 4765)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether the Prime Minister promised in the 1977 election campaign to provide a government guarantee for savings in permanent building societies.
  2. Did the Minister for Finance reaffirm the Prime Minister’s pledge in April 1979.
  3. If so, what progress has been made to fulfil the promise.
  4. Is he able to say when these savings will be as safe as those in savings banks.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. In his election policy speech of 21 November 1977 the Prime Minister stated that “We will co-operate with the States and financial institutions to set up an insurance scheme, protecting savings deposited with building societies”.
  2. I am not personally aware of any public statement made by the Minister for Finance on this matter in April 1979. 1 would, however, draw the attention of the honourable member to an answer given by the Minister, when Acting Treasurer, to a question without notice on 7 March 1 979 (see House of Representatives Hansard, page 684).
  3. and (4) The Government has received a report from a working party of officers on this subject and has given some preliminary consideration to it. I have met members of the Advisory Committee for Permanent Building Societies established under the Financial Corporations Act on several occasions to discuss possible deposits insurance arrangements and I have been in correspondence with them. I have also been in contact with the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System on the handling of the matter. The issues are complex and the Government’s final decision on deposits insurance arrangements will be made after careful consideration of all the issues, including ‘ the views of the States and major finance groups.

Transport Energy Requirements (Question No. 4835)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. What are the projected energy requirements by type and for each mode of transport for each year until 1990.
  2. What is the comparable information for each of the last 3 years.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Forecasts of demand for petroleum fuels by fuel type for the period to 1986-87 are provided in Table 13 of the Report by the Department of National Development, April 1978, entitled Demand for Primary Fuels, Australia 1976-77 to 1986-87.

The transport sector is currently estimated to account for around 60 per cent of the nation’s energy demands supplied from petroleum fuels. These fuels meet over 98 per cent of the energy requirements of transport.

It has been estimated that road transport accounts for 8 1 per cent of the energy used by domestic transport, rail transport 5 per cent, air transport 3 per cent and sea transport a further 9 per cent. This breakdown excludes energy used by international shipping and international aviation.

  1. Comparable information for the period 1960-61 to 1973-76 is also provided in Table 1 5 of the abovementioned report.

Further information released by the Department of National Development indicates that demand for petroleum products in the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 was consistent with the forecast levels of demand for those years.

Indulkana Airstrip (Question No. 4863)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the airstrip at the Aboriginal settlement at Indulkana in northern South Australia is unserviceable on many occasions; if so, in view of the isolation of Indulkana and the importance of maintaining air communications, are there any plans to upgrade the strip to a satisfactory standard.
  2. If so, what are those plans and when will they be put into operation.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The authorised landing area at Indulkana is owned by the Indulkana Community Incorporated and is not eligible for financial assistance from my Department. I am advised that the landing area has been unserviceable for some time and that this is because the equipment needed to keep the landing area serviceable is also unserviceable and not adequate. My Department has advised the Indulkana Community of the equipment needed to maintain ae landing area in a serviceable condition.
  2. I understand that the State Highways Department is soon to do some work to bring the landing area at Indulkana back to serviceable condition and that it could possibly be open again by December.

Overseas Posts: Leased Residential Accommodation (Question No. 4872)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Do Australia-based officers live in leased residential accommodation when at Australian missions overseas.
  2. Are these residential accommodation costs met (a) partially or (b) in full by the Government.
  3. What was the breakdown of costs for leased residential accommodation for each Department represented at all Australian missions as at 1 0 October 1979.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia-based officers posted to Australian missions overseas occupy residential accommodation owned or leased by the Commonwealth except in North America and the United Kingdom where officers are mainly responsible for their own accommodation arrangements.
  2. The Commonwealth is responsible for rental payments on Commonwealth leased accommodation. Officers occupying Commonwealth owned, Commonwealth leased and privately leased accommodation are required to make a rental contribution in accordance with conditions determined by the Public Service Board.
  3. A breakdown of rental costs on a departmental basis is not available. It is estimated however that rental payments in 1979-80 on Commonwealth leased residential accommodation will approximate S9.Sm for 801 accommodation units.

Australian Fishing Zone (Question No. 4875)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. Has any negotiation with any foreign fishing interest taken place regarding fishing or access to the Australian Fishing Zone within the area of the North West Shelf; if so, with which foreign fishing interests have negotiations taken place.
  2. Which Australian authorities and other bodies have been informed of these negotiations.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. Discussions with Taiwanese commercial interests through the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company and negotiations with the Republic of Korea, for access to fisheries resources off the North- West Shelf surplus to Australia’s harvesting capacity, have been held.
  2. The State Governments of Queensland and Western Australia and the Government of the Northern Territory have been consulted during the course of these negotiations and have been kept fully informed.

Repatriation: Disability Pensions Paid into Bank Accounts (Question No. 4895)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to motion No. 72 carried at the 64th National Congress of the RSL.
  2. If so, will he consider the request that disability pensions be paid fortnightly into bank accounts instead of 12 weeks in arrears.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Existing arrangements for Repatriation pensions provide for two methods of payments, fortnightly in advance by cheque or twelve-weekly in arrears by direct deposit to a nominated account in a bank, building society or credit union. The facility of having pension paid to a bank account on a twelve-weekly basis has been available to Repatriation pensioners for many years.

In view of arrangements currently under way to up-grade my Department’s computer capability, consideration is being given to the possibility of paying pensions fortnightly to accounts in banks, building societies and credit unions. The introduction of such fortnightly payments would considerably increase costs as a result of bank charges for handling these transactions.

Repatriation: Loss of Earnings Allowance (Question No. 4896)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to motion No. 48 carried at the 64th National Congress of the RSL.
  2. Will he consider the request that the loss of earnings allowance introduced by the Commonwealth Government be eliminated and medical sustenance payments re-introduced.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to this motion. It was not carried.
  2. The loss of earnings legislation was introduced in October 1978. This followed an extremely thorough examination of the purpose, justification and continued relevance of the previous Sustenance Allowance. As was explained at the time, the provisions applying to Sustenance Allowance had meant that it was payable even when the veteran did not lose earnings. This meant that some veterans received more money when they were sick than they did normally.

The decision to replace Sustenance Allowance with a more comprehensive loss of earnings allowance meant a return to the original concept of Sustenance Allowance, i.e., payment when actual loss of earnings occurs. There is no justification for a re-introduction of Sustenance Allowance payments.

Repatriation: Meal Vouchers for Out-patients (Question No. 4897)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to motion No. 76 carried at the 64th National Congress of the RSL.
  2. Will he consider the request that meal vouchers be reinstated for out-patients at Repatriation centres.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It is not proposed to reintroduce meal vouchers for out-patients as the arrangements for providing meals in Repatriation hospitals are comparable to those available in State hospitals. In some cases, meals are provided free for day-patients at Departmental expense as, for example, to a day-patient attending a hospital at the Department ‘s direction for the whole or major part of the day as part of a prescribed course of treatment

Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital (Question No. 4929)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. Is it a fact that Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital has only one laboratory technician; if so, is a replacement provided when that technician is on leave.
  2. Does Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital treat 1 8.4 per cent of all patients in repatriation hospitals.
  3. What is the percentage of the total allocation of funds to Repatriation General Hospitals for specialised equipment received during the 5 years to 30 June 1978 by Greenslopes Hospital.
  4. When was construction undertaken of a building to replace temporary war-time patient accommodation.
  5. ) Has there been a delay; if so, why.
  6. Will additional staff be provided for the ward block under construction at Greenslopes Hospital.
  7. Will the total number of beds available in Queensland repatriation hospitals be reduced.
  8. Has the repatriation service of the Greenslopes Hospital been downgraded in favour of general patients.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No. Repatriation General Hospital Greenslopes has an establishment of 22 positions of Technical Officer (Medical Laboratory), Technical Assistants and Medical Laboratory Assistants. Normal relief is provided during periods of leave.
  2. No. In the year 1978-79 Greenslopes treated 16.4 per cent of inpatients in Repatriation hospitals.
  3. The information requested is as follows:
  1. The construction of a new multi-storey ward block was commenced in March 1978 and is scheduled to be completed in September 1980.
  2. No. the contract is ahead of time and completion by June 1980 is possible.
  3. and (7) Resource requirements and the total number of beds to be available are currently being assessed.
  4. No.

Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital (Question No. 4930)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. Did Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital (Vic.) treat 10,747 inpatients compared with 10,359 inpatients treated at Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital in Brisbane during 1977-78.
  2. Does Heidelberg Hospital have a staff of 1,483 and Greenslopes Hospital a staff of approximately 1,000.
  3. Does Heidelberg Hospital have approximately 75 per cent more nurses than Greenslopes Hospital.
  4. Does Heidelberg Hospital insist that safe nursing practice requires a rninimum of 3.65 hours of nursing time per patient per day.
  5. What is the minimum nursing time per patient per day at Greenslopes Hospital.
  6. If the answer to pan (5) shows the figure is less than the minimum established at Heidelberg Hospital, does that then place at risk the lives and general safety of patients at Greenslopes Hospital.
  7. Does Heidelberg Hospital have approximately 100 junior medical staff while Greenslopes Hospital has approximately 50.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. However, in 1978-79 Heidelberg treated 12,776 inpatients compared to 1 0,4 1 7 treated by Greenslopes.
  2. No. At 30 June 1979 Heidelberg had a staff of 1,510 and Greenslopes 1,025.
  3. No. At 30 June 1979 Heidelberg had 470 full time operational nursing staff and Greenslopes 361. At the same date Heidelberg had 1 13 pan time staff and Greenslopes 28.
  4. No. At all Repatriation Hospitals nursing hours per patient treated depends upon the nature and intensity of the treatment. A survey conducted by the Department several years ago suggested four hours per patient as a general guide, but it is not practicable to set a firm minimum requirement.
  5. and (6) See (4) above.
  6. No. At 30 June 1979 Heidelberg had 66 junior medical staff and Greenslopes 49.

Australian Design Rules (Question No. 4939)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What aspects of the Australian Design Rules tor automobiles will be investigated under contract C4 89 23 referred to on page 70 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette (G29) of24 July 1979.
  2. Will the results of this investigation be made available to Parliament; if so, when.
  3. When is the investigation expected to be completed.
  4. Will he advise the Parliament of any alterations or amendments to the Design Rules made as a result of this investigation.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Australian Design Rules 2 (Door Latches and Hinges), 22A (Head Restraints) and 29 (Side Door Strength) will be investigated using existing statistical data sources to assess their effectiveness m reducing injury to vehicle occupants.
  2. It is not intended to table the report of this investigation in Parliament. However, the results will be published by the Office of Road Safety of the Depanment of Transport and will be available on request.
  3. The investigation is expected to be completed by June 1980.
  4. Australian Design Rules are developed by the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design (ACSVD) and submitted to the Australian Transport Advisory Council for endorsement. ACSVD will be provided with the results of the investigation. It is not possible to predict whether the investigation will lead to conclusions justifying amendments to the existing Design Rules. It is normal practice for the Council to make a public announcement of the principal decisions taken in each of its meetings including the endorsement of any changes to Design Rules. Such changes are also notified to all holders of the published Australian Design Rules.

Radiation Monitoring (Question No. 4954)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

Are workers in Australian uranium mines subject to whole body radiation monitoring; if not, what kind of monitoring takes place and what are the results of the radiation monitoring at the mines presently in use.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Workers in Australian uranium mines are not subject to whole body monitoring. Under the provisions of the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores developed by my Department, it is required that uranium mine workers shall be monitored to ensure that the radiation protection standards for both external and internal sources of radiation are not exceeded. External radiation exposure is monitored by providing each worker with a thermoluminescent type badge which is worn during working hours. Internal radiation exposure is assessed by monitoring the concentrations of airborne respirable dust, radon and radon daughters in areas within the mine and recording the time spent by workers in these areas. This method of assessing internal radiation exposure is more sensitive and more satisfactory than the use of a whole body monitor.

Records of total accumulated exposures of mine workers to external radiation, radon and radon daughters and airborne respirable dust are made available by the mining companies to the appropriate supervisory authorities in each State or Territory. For those mines at present functioning or under development within Australia, present cumulative exposures are well below the maximum limits permitted under the Code.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791106_reps_31_hor116/>.