House of Representatives
8 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 2759

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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. byDr Blewett.

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:

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, Qantas, Australian Shipping Commission, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Fawnmac, 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 Fawnmac would be contrary to the Nation’s interest.

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 drug companies.

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

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 operating 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, Trans Australia Airlines, and other publicly owned enterprises.

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

Petition received.

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 Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 11.2 per cent, while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

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

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

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

Thatthe compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Petitions 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. 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 persons, 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.

Overseas Students

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your humble petitioners, the undersigned citizens of Australia and overseas students respectfully express opposition to the recently announced Government’s decisions to:

  1. Impose tuition fees ($1,500 to $2,500 annually) to overseas students undertaking tertiary education in Australia.
  2. Repatriate overseas students immediately after completion of studies.

We urge the Australian Government to withdraw the above policies on the grounds that:

  1. The imposition of High Tuition Fees would cause hardship to the majority of the poor people of the Third World. The proposed increased intake of overseas students into Australia in the future would be an added advantage to the rich who in the past have faced little difficulty in sending their children for further studies. It is the poor who would be unjustly discriminated against. Education would, thus, be a privilege not a right.
  2. The forced repatriation of overseas students immediately after completion of studies without the necessary working experience would render them inadequate in the proper discharge of the acquired knowledge in the development of their countries. by Mr Scholes.

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefit

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment,
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson,
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week,
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits,
  5. That the 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 Armitage.

Petition received.

Refugees

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

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

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

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

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year. mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China State. 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 Chapman.

Petition received.

Brisbane Airport

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 proposed re-development of the Brisbane International Airport as shown in the Statement of Evidence and Supporting Drawings presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works will cause undue hardship to large numbers of Southside Brisbane residents.

That as a result of this development, noise and air pollution in the Cannon Hill, Morningside, Balmoral, Norman Park and Bulimba areas will increase, adversely affecting private residences, schools, churches, clubs, businesses and sports.

That the approximate $100m allocated for the new Airport will be wasted, as the proposed new runway will be subject to noise abatement restrictions from its first day of operation.

That Brisbane residents, whose taxes will be used to transfer the noise problem from one area to another, seek a postponement of the initiation of any works until such time as proposals by Air Traffic Controllers and Air Pilots for a cross runway, which will reduce noise and increase safety, can be considered.

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

Petition received.

Australia-Japan Fishing Agreement

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

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

That the agreement between the Commonwealth and Japanese Governments granting Japanese long line fishing boats access to Australia’s recently declared two hundred mile fishing zone for a fee of $1.4 million will seriously imperil the world’s largest population of black marlin which inhabit the north Queensland waters and consequently endanger the invaluable tourist and ancillary industries in that area which depend on big game fishing.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will declare:

  1. How many Japanese long line boats will be allowed to enter the Australian fishing zone in the year of the agreement;
  2. how many tonnes of black marlin the Japanese will be allowed to catch;
  3. what is the composition of the overseas interests, referred to by the former Minister in his Ministerial Statement of 25 September, which have expressed interest in carrying out feasibility fishing projects;
  4. whether the Japanese- Australian fishing agreement includes provision for a portion of the foreign catch to be processed in Australia;
  5. what assurances on access to the Japanese market for Australian fish and fish products have been given by the Japanese;
  6. what was the basis for the calculation of the fee which the Japanese will pay for access to the AFZ;
  7. were any guarantees given by the Japanese for the protection and conservation of black marlin numbers in the AFZ;

And asks that the Government undertake not to re-issue the licences to the Japanese fishermen next year when the terms of access are again reviewed.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose any expansion of the facilities of Kingsford-Smith Airport which entails the building of a new runway as it would have the following detrimental effects. ( 1 ) The loss of one mile of waterfront including Lady Robinson’s Beach and a huge part of Botany Bay (2) The loss of up to 1,230 houses and a drop in value of remaining neighbouring properties (3) The creation of more noise pollution in the area (4) The creation of more traffic congestion on streets leading to and from the airport (5) The forced diversion of Cook’s River and further damage to the ecology of the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will not consider satisfying the airport needs of Sydney by extending Kingsford-Smith Airport and that any decisions related thereto are not taken before there is an opportunity for adequate consultation with any community particularly affected.

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

Petition received.

National Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme

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

The petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:

That the Government’s decision not to proceed with a National disaster insurance scheme will cause financial and personal hardship to people living in the country and city who are victims of natural hazards such as floods, land slip and tropical cyclones. That it is impossible to obtain adequate insurance cover for natural disasters from existing private insurance companies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that-

The Federal Government reconsider its decision and honour its promise made in March 1976 to establish a National Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme

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

Petition received.

page 2762

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

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

That this House-

recognising that in Mildura there are 779 registered unemployed young people for every job vacancy, 2 15 in Swan Hill, 63 in Echuca,53 in Bendigo,53 in Hamilton, 50 in Sale, 47 in Wangaratta, 45 in Ballarat, 44 in Colac and 42 in Warrnambool, is of the opinion that the Liberal and Country Party Government has failed to create jobs for Victorian provincial cities and rural areas, and

accordingly, calls on the Government to urgently provide financial assistance to State and Local Government for youth job creation, training and retraining schemes in Victoria.

page 2762

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2762

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that Australia’s membership of the International Energy Agency- a membership which the Opposition vigorously opposed and continues to oppose- will spread the burden of world oil cutbacks from Iran upon Australia as a member country of that organisation, even though Australia relies upon Iran for only a very small proportion of its oil requirements? In other words, will Australian supplies of imported oil from countries other than Iran be jeopardised because of Australia’s IEA oil sharing arrangements and its membership of the organisation? Does the Government now concede that it was sold a pup with membership of the IEA and that we should pull out of it forthwith?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I say categorically that we have not been sold a pup by joining the International Energy Agency. In fact, our membership of the IEA has had very important spin-offs to the nation. I instance just a few: For example, our ability now to tap into the very important energy research and development programs that are conducted by the IEA and our ability to speak to the other 19 or 20 countries in the LEA, which allows us to have a very full understanding of the international oil situation. Perhaps a third point is the access to statistical information which allows us to ensure that we are doing proper audits of the information that is available to us in this country through the oil companies. For all those reasons I say again that our membership of the International Energy Agency has been a very important and significant step that this nation has taken through this Government’s policies in developing our energy policy.

As to what may or may not happen with any impact that may occur from cutbacks of oil from Iran, I state that we are not yet certain that there will be cutbacks. As I understand the Press reports this morning, it would appear that Iran has not cut back oil exports. As to the impact if that were to happen, I would refer the honourable member to what happened earlier this year when there were similar problems. Of course, the IEA contingency plans were not put into action. I think that sometimes the comments we hear about what would happen under the IEA sharing scheme are totally exaggerated.

page 2763

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister for Post and Telecommunications recall David Hookes hitting five fours in succession at the centenary test on the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 1977? Is the Minister aware that many rural cricket lovers were prevented from viewing the same David Hookes when he almost set a new record for a succession of centuries in Sheffield Shield cricket in Tasmania this week because the Australian Broadcasting Commission apparently continues to refuse the offer made by Channel 9 to allow the ABC to televise such matches? Further, is it true that such offer by Channel 9 to the ABC is free of charge to the Commission? Finally, has the Minister received the petition from hundreds of my constituents seeking to view such cricket matches and will he use his office to encourage the ABC to review its policy?

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

-Mr Speaker -

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order. Cricket is a game that should be watched in silence, and the Minister’s answer ought to be heard in silence. I call the Minister.

Mr STALEY:

– I certainly recall, as I am sure all honourable members do, those days when Hookes disposed of the English captain with such disdain. Those were indeed the days of Australian cricket and all of us hope that now that we are to have one top test team again we shall resume our former glory in that great sport. Of course, the one big win out of the recent broadcasting of cricket arrangements is that we will have a test team again. The Packer organisation’s scooping the pool of players was the act which led to so many changes in the sport. Now that the players are back together, there are different sporting telecast arrangements. They have created awkwardness, inconvenience and distress for a number of people in rural areas. The ABC, along with the Packer organisation and the cricket authorities, has been considering how best to handle these difficult circumstances. With respect to the Sheffield Shield situation, it is true that an offer was made to the ABC which would have enabled the Commission to take the cricket free of charge from the Channel 9 organisation. At this stage it has not taken up that offer. I will inform the ABC of the concern of the honourable member and ask it to have another look at the matter.

page 2763

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Mr KEATING:

– I refer the Minister for National Development to his remarks to the Australian Institute of Energy on 12 October this year when he stated:

Foremost amongst the decisions that have had to be taken by the Commonwealth is the move to price crude oil at the import parity price . . . A return to lower price levels is simply unrealistic.

I also refer the Minister to the statement of the Prime Minister in his energy policy statement of 27 June. He said:

The Government reaffirms its policy of import parity pricing for domestic crude oil based on the official OPEC price.

I ask the Minister Does the Government still stand by this policy?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– The policy is unchanged and it is very clear. I say this to the honourable member: The Government has a view that import parity pricing is absolutely essential to this country if we are to have a viable and vigorous energy policy. For people to suggest- the honourable member for Blaxland is one who does so- that we should reduce the price of oil now in the sort of situation that the world faces is utter madness. The honourable member for Blaxland is saying: ‘Let us reduce the price of oil, and therefore oil products; let us encourage people to use more petrol, distillate and all the other things required to keep industry and commerce moving in this country’. When he suggests that we should reduce the price of oil he is suggesting that the movement for people to substitute natural gas, coal and electricity for oil be put back even further. People will not take that economic decision if we reduce the price of oil. If the honourable member for Blaxland is suggesting that we should reduce the price of oil he is putting back the day when people will take decisions to go into liquefaction- oil from coal; he is putting back the day when people will take commercial decisions on producing oil from shale.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Can I take it from the Minister’s comments that the Government will pass on the December OPEC price increases? I ask the Minister whether the Government will pass on the December OPEC price increases no matter what they are.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr NEWMAN:

– As I said, not only is he putting back proper conservation, proper substitution and the development of the alternative energy sources which I have mentioned- I mention also ethanol from agricultural crops and methanol from natural gas- but he is also saying that we should reverse a decision which has led to an increase in oil exploration in this country. That decision has taken us back to the level of oil exploration in the days before the period 1972 to 1975 when the Labor Party was in office. He is putting aside the fact that tremendous commercial reserves are now being defined because of the pricing regime. Those oil reserves have been defined not only in Bass Strait but also at Barrow Island and Moonie. That would be the effect of the reactionary member for Blaxland ‘s suggestion that we should revert to a policy of reducing the price of oil. I finish by saying this: Although the Labor Party, in its so-called discussion paper on energy, has advocated in very clear terms that natural gas and oil should be priced at opportunity costs, we still have not had from the honourable member for Blaxland a clear definition of exactly what that means. I offer again the invitation which I have offered on many occasions: What is the Labor Party’s pricing policy for oil?

page 2764

QUESTION

AID TO EAST TIMOR

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Having regard to the conditions existing in East Timor and the assistance rendered by the East Timorese to our Army during the tragic early days of World

War II, can the Minister inform the House of Government actions to stimulate financial and physical assistance for the people of East Timor in their present tragic circumstances beyond the additional $A2m which has already been announced by him? Has he been able to arrange for effective distribution of aid in East Timor?

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

-I thank the honourable member for his question because I am aware, as he is, that there is a great deal of concern within the Australian community about the situation of people in East Timor. As the House will be aware, I announced that following consultations with the Indonesian Government the Government had decided to offer, as the honourable member mentioned in his question, an additional $2m in response to an appeal by the Indonesian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross which has been carrying out relief operations in East Timor. Detailed arrangements are now being made with those two bodies for the most effective implementation of this offer. It appears that the chief need is for effective transportation of relief supplies within East Timor and that problem is being addressed at the present time.

This is not, of course, the first occasion that the Australian Government has provided relief for the situation in East Timor. In fact, the total value of Australian relief to this area since 1975 is of the order of $4m. The Australian Red Cross announced a contribution to the appeal and has launched an appeal throughout the Australian community. In addition to the $2m that has been made available, the Government has decided that donations of $2 or more to that appeal during the current financial year will be tax deductible. I hope there will be a very ready response and I anticipate a very good response from the Australian community to that appeal.

Final plans are being made for the dispatch of an initial consignment of vitamin-enriched biscuits direct to Dili by air and I hope that that consignment will go to Dili next week. I expect that an officer from our embassy in Jakarta will be in Dili at that time to receive the shipment and to ensure its transfer to the IRC and to the ICRC program. Arrangements are being made for the shipment from Australia to Dili of a consignment of 1,200 tonnes of corn, 40,000 square metres of plastic sheeting and the balance of the vitaminenriched milk biscuits for distribution to the people of East Timor. In summation, the Australian Government has recognised the plight of people in East Timor. There have been effective consultations with the Indonesian authorities and the relief agencies which are making these materials available to people in very great need.

page 2765

QUESTION

AID TO EAST TIMOR

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for North Sydney, is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister- not in any way to try to bypass the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs but because I think honourable members on both sides of the House are concerned about the situation in East Timor. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the report of a Sydney Morning Herald correspondent which showed widespread suffering and in some cases starvation among the people of East Timor? Recognising that the Government has made an additional $2m available for aid to East Timor but that there is no guarantee that the aid is being distributed to protect those most in need, I ask: Will the Government seek to arrange for an all-party parliamentary delegation to visit East Timor and report on the situation?

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

– I think everybody is shocked by the news that is coming out of East Timor and a good deal of credit for informing the Australian public must go to the Sydney Morning Herald reporter who first released stories and photographs on the tragedy in that country. The Commonwealth Government responded immediately with funds that were appropriated by making $333,000 available for the supply of vitamin-enriched biscuits to East Timor. Upon further consideration of the matter the Government has now appropriated another $2m to give immediate help to the people in East Timor.

Mr Uren:

-i am concerned about the distribution of it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am well aware of the honourable member’s concern about the distribution. We have made arrangements so that supplies can go directly to Dili and we will be working through various international charitable organisations to ensure that the distribution is as thorough as possible. The honourable member raised the question of a parliamentary delegation. We have before us also a request for a parliamentary delegation to go to Kampuchea. However, I am very happy to take on board the request that has been made by the honourable member and to see that it is examined by the Government. I will report back.

page 2765

QUESTION

HANOI TRADE UNION OFFICIALS: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs received an application from three so-called trade union officials from Hanoi for entry permits to visit Australia this weekend? What has been the Minister’s decision in relation to this request? Does the Minister recall that in August, when another group of three Hanoi trade union officials visited Australia, they contributed greatly to disharmony among Indo-Chinese refugees by claiming that all refugees who had fled their country were either former prostitutes or former millionaires?

Mr Innes:

– Ha, ha!

Mr MARTYR:

– I do not know why the honourable member for Melbourne should be upset about this. If the Minister has approved the entry of this further group of so-called union officials, will he assure the Indo-Chinese refugees in Australia that the visit has been organised by Australian communist union officials and their fellow travellers? Will he also assure the Australian people that the visit was not organised in any way by the Australian Government and recommend that, despite whatever provocative insults are repeated by these Hanoi apologists, local refugees from communism should ignore them?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I have received a request for entry permits for some trade union officials from Vietnam to attend a conference in Sydney organised by the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia which is to be held, I think, from 12 to 14 November. I point out in passing that the leading officials of the Building Workers Industrial Union have a very close association with the Soviet Union and strongly support the policies that that country pursues. I am concerned that any visits to Australia should not result in violence within the Australian community. I can well understand the feeling of people who have been forced to flee from their homelands because of persecution of themselves or thenfamilies and who have risked their lives in order to seek for themselves and their families a new, secure and democratic future. I can understand their reaction to the visit to Australia of people who, in the past, have offered provocative comments.

It is a difficult situation. But Australia, in its development, must allow the free expression of views, so long as those views do not result in the creation of violence. I appeal, as I have in the past, to all refugees who have been granted permanent residence in Australia to realise that it is in their best interests and in the interests of the Australian nation that they do not react to any provocative statements that may be made by visitors who may put forward a point of view which the people in Australia find totally anathema. I will be making arrangements for officers of my Department to be in contact with the leaders of Indo-Chinese communities in Australia to ensure that they understand that the invitation was extended by the Building Workers Industrial Union, and not by the Australian Government, and that it would be in the best interests of the refugees themselves and the Australian community in general if no action were undertaken which could lead in any way to any violent demonstrations.

page 2766

QUESTION

TACTICAL FIGHTER FORCE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Can he give an assurance that the prices currently being quoted by potential suppliers of aircraft under consideration for the Australian tactical fighter force program represent an accurate projection of the price Australia will actually pay for the aircraft? Are modifications to meet Australian requirements included in the prices quoted? Are the quoted prices for the United States aircraft under consideration substantially below those prices set out for the United States Air Force and other Services’ procurements in their 1980 forward programming budgetary arrangements? Will the companies which are putting forward prices be required by contract to meet those prices or will the Australian Government, as is usual, meet prices for US purchases on the basis of the purchase price of the US forces?

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

-In some journals of record I have noticed prices for competing aircraft in the tactical fighter force program. I would excuse myself from saying whether those prices are accurate or inaccurate because to do so could afford commercial advantages to one or other of the companies. I could not give my honourable friend the assurance he seeks. It would be impossible to determine upon a price rated at, say, X and to say that the re-equipment program for the whole of the TFF project would continue at price X, having regard to the realities of commercial life and of inflation throughout the world.

page 2766

QUESTION

INCOME TAX SCHEDULES

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a brief question of the Treasurer. Will he advise the House when the new pay-as-you-earn tax schedules, reflecting the Government’s reduced tax rates, will be available to the public?

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

-I am pleased to inform the honourable member for Cook and the House that the new schedules reflecting the reversion to the standard rate as from 1 December will be published tomorrow and will be available to paymasters and employers on Monday of next week. Those schedules will contain the details of the increase in the take-home pay of all wage and salary earners throughout Australia as from 1 December. While I am on my feet, I might inform the House that in recent weeks the most uptodate Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of comparative tax rates amongst the 24 member countries has become available. When one examines the figures for all taxation collections, which include personal taxes as well as indirect taxes, one sees that the OECD average, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is 36.19 per cent. It is interesting to note that Australia’s total tax collection as a percentage of its gross domestic product is, according to this most recent survey, only 29.68 per cent, which is about 7 per cent below the average. I point out to the House that Sweden, which is often held up by the Australian Labor Party as the epitome, of how to organise an economic system, has the staggering figure of 53.38 per cent as a percentage of gross domestic product. In case anybody imagines that the Opposition would dissociate itself from these sorts of policies, let me read a very interesting little extract from a speech which was delivered on 2 March 1979 and which was called the ‘F. E. Chamberlain Memorial Lecture’. It reads:

The challenge to traditional democratic socialism has been expressed in a number of deeply dispiriting doctrines.

That is marvellous alliteration. It continues:

One example is the rapid spread of philosophies based on lower taxes and smaller government.

The speech goes on to say:

This sort of approach strikes directly at the conventional democratic socialist notion that equality and equity can only be assured by a stronger public sector.

The author of those words is the present Leader of the Opposition.

page 2766

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION POLICY

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Transport: Does Qantas Airways Ltd, as Australia’s international flag carrier, operate its services and charge fares wholly in accordance with the Government’s international aviation policy and recently concluded international airline agreements? Has his attention been drawn to reports of public criticism of Qantas by a Government back bench committee? What action is the Minister taking to refute these attacks on the Government’s international aviation policy and the Qantas Chairman; or does his silence to date mean that the international airline agreements concluded this year are not in the national interest and should be altered?

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

-I think the very fact that the new international air fares have drawn such an increase in passengers, both incoming and outgoing, demonstrates the success of the introduction of the cheap air fares regime. Nobody can take that away from the Government- not even the honourable member for Shortland, though he might try. The fact is that there has been a 28.4 per cent increase in incoming visitors in the last seven months and an increase of 10.4 per cent in outgoing Australians. The fares have opened up Australia to incoming visitors in a way not known before. The fares have been halved to Europe and to the United States of America. So the opportunities for tourists to come to this country have been opened up for the first time. I do not see the relationship between that position and the great effort by Qantas in putting that policy in place and the first part of the honourable member’s question. No official report has come to me and I understand that no official report has come to my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for tourism, from the back bench committee to which the honourable member refers. If such a report does come, it will be dealt with on its merits.

page 2767

QUESTION

CENTRALISED DRUG INTELLIGENCE UNIT

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Deputy Prime Minister received telexes from the New South Wales Premier requesting talks with the Commonwealth on the establishment of a centralised drug intelligence system and requesting Commonwealth co-operation for a planned visit to Bangkok by Mr Justice Woodward? What action does the Government propose in response to these requests?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-On Tuesday of this week I wrote to all Premiers asking that they react to the report of the Williams inquiry suggesting that closer co-operation should exist between the Commonwealth and the States in detecting drug trafficking and in trying to have greater control over criminal activities. Yesterday I received a reply from Mr Wran of New South Wales expressing willingness to co-operate on a centralised intelligence unit to be established. I am very pleased to get such an immediate reaction. There will, of course, have to be discussions with all the States on this proposal. But I believe it is a very worthy recommendation of the Williams report, as well as of the Woodward report in New South Wales and is something we would want to build on.

Mr Wran also sent me a telegram yesterday notifying me that Mr Justice Woodward was thinking of making a trip to Bangkok to investigate drug matters in Thailand. I think it ought to be known that Mr Justice Williams has already made a trip to Bangkok. I imagine that he will be making reference to that visit in his final report. I believe that the question of controlling drug trafficking and drug abuse is a national issue on which there needs to be full co-operation between all the law enforcement authorities in Australia. Therefore, I think the sensible course at this stage would be for Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justice Woodward to consult each other. I am sure that Mr Justice Williams will provide Mr Justice Woodward with all the information that he has already obtained regarding Bangkok, and give advice as to whether such a trip is necessary and, if necessary, what matters might be looked into, when the visit might take place and what the composition of the visiting party might be. I think that this is the sensible and logical approach. I hope that these discussions can take place immediately between these two people, who have carried out two very important inquiries.

page 2767

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for National Development: Is it a fact that the expected price increases by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the next financial year of some 10 per cent to 15 per cent would lead to potential increases in Government revenue being offset by the share of domestically-produced oil priced at import parity rising from 35 per cent to 50 per cent on 30 June 1980? Would the income from that go to domestic oil producers? Would this mean in effect that there would be no increase in Government revenue from the crude oil levy for the 1980-81 financial year? Does it also mean that there would be a handsome addition to oil producers’ gross profits of some $200m? If the Government is facing a no-growth situation with crude oil levy revenue in 1980-81, is it the Government’s intention to keep its promise to increase the share of import parity priced oil for domestic producers on 1 July 1980 in order to prop up oil producers’ profits handsomely at the expense of the Australian community?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– This is a very familiar tune that the Leader of the Opposition likes to play.

Any decision on OPEC pricing will depend first of all on what OPEC decides to do. We and the rest of the world will not know that until December. I have made it perfectly clear on many occasions that the Government has struck what it believes is a proper balance between profits to the oil companies and a proper return to the people of this nation. At present, when we take into consideration the levy, the royalties and company tax, the return to the Australian people is in excess of 80 per cent on the cash flow available to the producers. At the same time this allows the producers adequate returns to enable them to get on with exploration and development of their existing fields. Recent announcements by the producers of our Bass Strait oil have signified investment of about a billion dollars in extra development of the field. That latter point is well and truly made.

page 2768

QUESTION

FLAGFALL COMPONENT IN AIR FARES

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Transport: Is it true that level long-distance jet flights have much lower operating costs per kilometre than short up and down flights? If this is so, why do Perth passengers on the 3,412-kilometre route to Sydney and the 2,702-kilometre route to Melbourne pay exactly the same flagfall and kilometre rate as do Sydney-Canberra travellers on a flight of 248 kilometres? Is this fare structure one of the reasons why Perth travellers are subsidising other domestic routes and airline profits by some $20m per annum? Finally, does the Minister appreciate that the realisation of these inequities is causing increasing public concern in Western Australia?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I saw some extravagant claims made on this very subject in a newspaper article this morning. In fact I met the authors of those extravagant claims. I note that in the article today they are calling for my head. In the years that I have been in public life my head has been called for very often, but it remains on my shoulders. Quite often I notice that my head is called for by people who could not negotiate a cheap train ride, let alone negotiate cheap air fares with 16 countries. The fact is, as the honourable member rightly points out, that the kilometre -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– KIL-ometre.

Mr NIXON:

-I bow to the honourable member for Hindmarsh and say KIL-ometre The per KIL-ometre fare around Australia charged by the two airlines is the same. I like kiLOMetre. I am sorry, but I will have to differ with the honourable member for Hindmarsh and say ki-LOM-etre because I prefer it.

The first change to the flagfall in recognition of the problem mentioned by the honourable member for Tangney was made by me, as Minister. I made a second and subsequent change to the flagfall so that there is a variation now between the flagfalls that affect short-haul and long-haul routes. There is now a recognition that the flagfall is a very important part of the total air fare structure and the true cost of landing and departure ought to be caught up in the flagfall so that the flagfall, as a percentage of the total ticket, is higher on short hauls than on the long hauls. Therefore, if the flagfall rises to its true level, people will pay more accurately the total cost of the trip; that is, not only the landing and departure costs but also for the travel per kilometre. As fares are adjusted further, so it will be that the flagfall will be raised. As an instance, the last fare increase meant a 26 per cent increase from Sydney to Perth and a 48 per cent increase from Sydney to Canberra. It was a 48 per cent increase because we adjusted the flagfall as against the per kilometre charge. When the flagfall reaches its proper level it will mean that people travelling on short hauls will pay a more accurate price for their ticket.

The article also contained one other element that is not true and it ought to be nailed. The article claimed that Perth travellers are paying for the outback services of Queensland and the like. Let me assure the House that within the structure of the airlines’ financing the details of the services on each of these routes are kept accurately by the airlines; they know full well the costs and the revenues obtained on each service. There is no doubt that because of the distance between Perth and Sydney lower costs can be achieved there than on a short haul. These factors are taken into account by the airlines in fixing their total charges on air routes.

page 2768

QUESTION

DRUG SMUGGLING

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of reports that drugs are illegally entering Australia through an airstrip on the northern island of the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands in the Northern Territory? Is this airstrip without effective radar cover to enable detection of light aircraft and without facilities for recording details of cargo? Has the Minister initiated any action to close off this area to drug traffickers?

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

– There is a great number of airstrips in northern Australia, as I am sure the honourable member and other honourable members will be aware. Indeed, they run into hundreds. It would not be right to say that all of those airstrips are under constant day-to-day surveillance, but details of the airstrips throughout Australia- and particularly in northern Australia- were contained within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs until yesterday. Further, the coastal surveillance organisation within the administration of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, has a role in this area. Let me say on behalf of the Government that the effort to keep the coast- particularly the northern coast- of Australia under surveillance has been upgraded during the past two years. The Commonwealth has announced certain initiatives in this area through both me and the Minister for Transport. We will be continuing this effort and will be continuing to strengthen it.

page 2769

QUESTION

LUCAS HEIGHTS NUCLEAR REACTOR

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources aware of reports that the Western Australian Government has asked the Commonwealth to establish a nuclear reactor in that State to replace the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights in New South Wales? Would such a request be considered by the Commonwealth Government? What effect would such a decision have on the consideration of other projects, such as the establishment of uranium enrichment plants in Australia? Lastly, what would be the employment consequences of any such decisions?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– Following remarks that were made last week by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, concerning the closing down of the Lucas Heights reactor for servicing, there was a reaction from the Premier of Western Australia that, if the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was considering putting in a new reactor for the production of isotopes and for research work, his Government would be very willing to have it established in Western Australia. I think most people who know the work that has gone on at the Lucas Heights establishment for some 30 years will appreciate that it has earned itself a very good reputation for the research work that it has done and for the production of medical isotopes and other isotopes for industrial uses. It has fulfilled a very valuable role on the Australian scene. Without it we would have been behind the rest of the world in technical knowledge of matters relating to the nuclear age. However, I felt somewhat disappointed that the Premier of New South Wales had to take a political advantage and create a degree of scaremongering. On the advice that was given to me, there was no leakage of radioactivity. It was a servicing operation. I have received the assurance of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission that that reactor will not be put into operation until it meets all the design specifications to ensure that there are no hazards to anybody working at Lucas Heights.

Regarding nuclear matters, if the Government of New South Wales feels so strongly about any further developments of nuclear plants in that State, certainly it would be of advantage to get its reaction to nuclear enrichment. A good deal of competition is being generated between States as to where a likely enrichment plant would be established. Such an establishment would be a great asset to any State because of the huge capital investment involved and the job opportunities it would make available. If New South Wales is not interested, we can say that the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland are certainly very interested in such a development. In that event there will be no squabble with New South Wales, which apparently is just not interested.

page 2769

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEAN REFUGEES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. It refers to the refugees from Kampuchea in Thailand. Is it a fact that over 100,000 people have found refuge in Thailand from the war in Kampuchea, placing an intolerable burden upon Thailand? Will he see what steps can be taken to take some of the pressure off Thailand and to relieve the hardship of the people of Kampuchea? Will he even consider offering some kind of temporary refuge in Australia for those unhappy people? I would remind him that during the term of office of the Labor Government we were able to evacuate 30,000 people from Darwin in four or five days across the same distance- about 2,000 miles. The fact of the situation is that the neighbours of these people have to carry all the burden while the rest of the world sits by. We ought to be able to make some concrete and positive gesture to help the Government of Thailand and, in particular, the people of Kampuchea.

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I think all Australians, like much of the world, are distressed about the situation in Kampuchea and the flight of those people who are trying to get away from the threats that are being made to them by various regimes. While in Thailand recently I had the opportunity of visiting a refugee camp at Nong Khai. That refugee camp comprised basically people from Laos. At that time most of the refugees in Thailand were from Laos. There were something like 120,000 of them. Since my visit only some weeks ago, there has been an influx of refugees from Kampuchea, so their numbers have swelled considerably. After visiting Nong Khai, I can say with a good deal of pride that Australia’s performance in that camp was better than that of any other country. I saw the names of countries taking refugees and the number of refugees who had been resettled in those countries. Australia had taken from that camp either the third or fourth highest number of refugees. On a per capita basis we were well ahead of any other country.

The policy of the Australian Government has been to put the greatest priority on giving help to the boat people. Whilst we are not neglecting our responsibility of taking refugees who have gone to Thailand, I believe that there is a need to try to help the boat people who, if they do not get some sort of help at an intermediate stage, might try to make the long trip to Australia. If we can discourage people from taking the long trip to Australia on boats I think we are fulfilling a worthwhile purpose. We will keep a close eye on the refugee situation in Thailand to which the honourable gentleman referred, but I think we can take some comfort from the fact that we have taken a responsible share of refugees.

page 2770

QUESTION

COMPANY MERGERS

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I refer the Treasurer to the prestigious 10-year study of company mergers in four European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States of America reported in the international financial Press this week. Is the Treasurer aware that that study indicated that in general the mergers had not resulted from an attempt to achieve economies of scale and had little effect on long term profitability, lower prices and efficiency but had been induced principally by the desire for aggressive business leverage, and that the mergers have had enormous social consequences? As it is reported that there are 22 companies centred in Melbourne and Sydney actively seeking takeovers, will the Treasurer monitor the social, employment and centralised decision-making consequences of the present Australian trend, explain its effects on those supporting private enterprise, especially in the vulnerable outlying States, and make those consequences known to those who support business and private enterprise in Australia generally?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the particular survey to which the honourable member for Lilley referred, although in the time available since it was published I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. Therefore, I cannot offer any view on the conclusions that are reached. Certainly, I would agree with the honourable member for Lilley that information as to business developments generally is always information that governments ought to have available. I would like to make it very clear to him that I would not regard it, and I do not believe the Government would regard it, as a profitable exercise to monitor the sort of developments of which he speaks as a precursor or precondition of some activity by the Federal Government to prevent those developments.

I know there can be arguments both for and against on the question of how much economic power and economic decision-making ought to be concentrated in particular parts of Australia. I say to the honourable gentleman that in recent weeks I would not have thought that some of the residents of what he calls the outlying States have been all that unsuccessful in certain takeover activities that have occurred. I believe that the long term interests of this country lie not in equalising downwards but rather in equalising upwards as far as the economic benefits to the country are concerned.

Mr Hayden:

– Everything will be run from Sydney and Melbourne- preferably Sydney.

Mr HOWARD:

-The Leader of the Opposition cannot restrain himself. He says that everything is being run from Sydney and Melbourne. I will tell him what the present situation is. According to the latest figures available to me from the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, of the 1,110 public companies in Australia the numbers regarding the individual exchanges in Australia as their home exchanges are as follows: Adelaide, 92; Brisbane, 92; Hobart, 24; Melbourne, 287; Perth, 1 10; and Sydney, 505. Of course, more companies will regard the Melbourne and Sydney stock exchanges as their home exchanges and fewer will regard other exchanges as their home exchanges. That is a state of affairs that has always existed. I put it to the House that what has to be done in Australia is to maximise the size of the economic cake. The most efficient and effective way of maximising the size of the economic cake is for governments to accept what is a reality, that is, that the business sector itself is far better at making business decisions than is the government at making business decisions for it.

page 2771

PRIVILEGE

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to raise a matter of privilege. The matter arises out of a report in the Australian newspaper of 6 November entitled ‘Politics and prejudice’. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to this matter in respect of the newspaper and the writer of the article, Mr Marcus Einfeld, Q.C. The newspaper refers to Mr Einfeld ‘s article as a stinging defence of Mr Michael Finnane. It points out that certain matters had sparked a major controversy. The article commences -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I inquire from you the basis upon which the honourable member is raising this matter. It has no relationship to him at all. Perhaps the right honourable member for New England might be justified in expressing some concern.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There was so much noise in the chamber at the time that the honourable member declared it a matter of privilege that perhaps some honourable members did not hear that statement. This is an example of the way in which the Parliament’s procedures can be upset by too much noise.

Mr NEIL:

-I submit that the article contains breaches of privilege in respect of the whole House, all members of the House, the institution of Parliament and certain members of the House.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will not hear the point of order. I will hear the matter of privilege.

Mr NEIL:

– The article commences by stating:

This newspaper and some of our leaders were highly critical of the way in which, and purposes for which the report by Michael Finnane on Ian Sinclair was first tabled in New South Wales Parliament.

Mr Hayden:

– The honourable member is overriding the procedures of the House. Where a matter of privilege is concerned, a member must raise it at the first available opportunity. The honourable member for St George discussed this matter in the House last night. Mr Speaker, you applied that rule in relation to this side of the House, in the last session, if not in the very early part of this session; namely, that because the matter was not raised at the first available opportunity it was not acceptable for consideration by you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will consider whether the matter was raised at the first available opportunity after I hear what the honourable gentleman is saying.

Mr NEIL:

-I will deal with the point made by the honourable member. Last night Mr Deputy Speaker overruled an Opposition point of order while I was speaking.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his exposition of his point of privilege. If he departs from that I will require him to sit down. He may make a point of privilege and no other point.

Mr NEIL:

– The article refers firstly to statements in the House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I ask that you look at the article in that regard and also in respect of statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) which it says were absolutely disgraceful. The article states that base politicians and their friends with blatant and patently political aims have made certain statements. It states that matters, including the matter under debate, should not be infected with the political motives of politicians and their friends in the media. The article also states:

It is apparently hopeless in this country today to appeal for the politicians of all parties to play their little games in their own paddocks and leave us citizens to get on with running the country.

In my submission that is a serious attack on the proceedings of this House. To describe them as taking place in a paddock and being little games is an attack on the integrity of the institution of Parliament. It then refers to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will look at the article. I will read what the article says. The honourable member need not recite what is in the article. I will look at it.

Mr NEIL:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer you to your decision on 8 April 1976. 1 put to you that this article was not a defence or a rebuttal by the person concerned, namely, Mr Finnane; it was by another person. Therefore, it is to be distinguished from the case that you dealt with on 8 April and in fact comes within the breach of privilege rule. I thought it appropriate to obtain a copy of your ruling, which was given on 8 April 1976 before I raised this matter. I did in fact obtain a copy of that ruling and I refer you, Mr Speaker, to it. The final point I make is that I was not able to proceed last night for another reason with a discussion of this matter which was in fact on the substance of issues. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, I put it to you that this is a different case from that on which you ruled on 8 April, particularly because you said:

The privilege of Parliament does not preclude any person from denying the truth of allegations made against that person under parliamentary privilege.

The clear difference is that another person, that is Mr Einfeld, has made what I submit is an attack. I should point out, Mr Speaker, that you will see in the last part of the newspaper article an attack on the specific rights to fair trial of the honourable member for New England. I submit that you will consider this and refer it to the Privileges Committee.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, in considering this matter will you also consider whether raising specious points of privilege is also a breach of privilege? I ask you to advise the House on that aspect in respect of the complaint made by the honourable member for St George.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is a valid one. I am very concerned that the House must be aware that if privilege is misused there is a risk that the public will not support the continuance of privilege in this House. I think that privilege, as we understand it in its strict sense, is vital to the freedom of this Parliament. It is essential to the democratic process. There have been occasions in the recent past when matters have been raised under the pretext of privilege but which I judged were not matters of privilege. I want to warn the House that when matters of privilege are raised I will consider them, but if I come to the conclusion that there is no basis whatever for the claim of privilege then I will have to report to the House that I believe, if I so believe, that the member has misused the forms. I will give my decision on this matter at a later hour.

page 2772

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS PROJECTS CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation 1979.

page 2772

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-( Richmond-Minister for Trade and Resources)- Pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974-78, 1 present the annual report of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation for 1979.

page 2772

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 107th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council 1979.

page 2772

OILSEEDS RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977, 1 present the annual report of the Oilseeds Research Committee 1979.

page 2772

POULTRY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the fifth report of the Poultry Research Advisory Committee 1977-79.

page 2772

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1978-79.

page 2772

AUSTRALIAN STATISTICS ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council for the year 1978-79.

page 2772

INSTITUTE OF FAMILY STUDIES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the appointment of the first director of the Institute of Family Studies.

page 2772

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION

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

Pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission 1978-79.

page 2772

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES CORPORATION

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Defence Service Homes Corporation on operations under the Defence Service Homes Act for the year ended 30 June 1 979. The final report cannot be presented until the form of the financial statements has been decided by the Minister for Finance and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements is available. Honourable members will recall that the interim report for 1977-78 was tabled on 21 November 1978. Notification of the approved form of the financial statements for the year and the report of the Auditor-General have been received. The final report is now being printed and I hope to be in a position to table the 1977-78 final report of the Corporation before the end of the sittings.

page 2773

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the meeting of the Australian Education Council held in Perth on 25 and 26 October 1979.

page 2773

PATENT, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS OFFICE

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office 1978-79.

page 2773

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

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

– Pursuant to section 30K of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Temporary Assistance Authority for 1978-79 together with the text of a statement outlining the action taken during the year on reports made to me as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 2773

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year 1978-79 together with the text of a statement outlining the action taken during the year on reports made to me as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 2773

QUESTION

DRUGS

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

- Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to correct some information that I gave to the House during Question Time?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr FIFE:

– In answer to a question directed to me by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) I implied that details of airstrips throughout Australia were no longer held by my Department following the transfer of the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police. This is not so. Details are still held by the Coastal Air Sea and Operational Support Group which is within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 2773

HOME SAVINGS GRANTS SCHEME

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

– Pursuant to section 53 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1976, 1 present an interim annual report on the operation of that Act for 1978-79.

page 2773

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh on a personal explanation. He had given me notice.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I wish to make a personal explanation on the ground that I have been misrepresented by last night’s Hansard record.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-To show how obvious the misrepresentation is it is necessary to look at the text, and it speaks for itself. Last night I referred to some very serious accusations of a criminal nature made against Squizzy Williams of the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union by two persons whom I named. I said that the late Tom Foley had given me certain information from police files. I am then reported as having said:

This information, together with certain documents, are kept in a locked vault to which I hold the keys. Also inside that vault are certain instructions which, among other things, direct that I should predecease Williams those documents are to be handed to a named Labor member of parliament with my full authority to use them as he thinks proper in the circumstances. This means that there is no such thing as the final solution in this matter.

In fact, I did not say that I had issued instructions that I should predecease Mr Williams. What I said was that I had issued instructions that should I predecease Mr Williams, certain documents shall be made available. I am not the sort of person who gives instructions of the kind attributed to me in the Hansard record of last night. I hope that no one would believe that of me for one second. I have taken this matter up with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter. He has now informed me in writing that what I have said today is what I said in my speech, not what has been attributed to me. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter said that it has now been established that this was a printer’s error. The chief of the Hansard staff stated that the Hansard copy, as sent to the Government Printer, read:

  1. . if I should predecease Mr Williams -

This notification was signed by John Kerr.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes. The Senate Hansard of last night on pages 1 989 to 1 995 records a speech by Senator Walsh. In that speech he stated:

It is quite clear that in the circumstances of Mr Sinclair the Prime Minister thinks it is not reasonable that it should have been published prior to charges being laid.

I make it quite clear that no charges have been laid against me. The Crown needs to establish that it has a prima facie case from which, if that is concluded by a magistrate, charges might be laid. No charges have been made against me. A summons has been issued on the basis of which it is necessary for the Crown to establish a case. At this stage that has not been established by the Crown.

A second point is that there has been an inference that the Finnane inquiry is of the same status as two royal commissions, one under Mr Justice Williams and the other under Mr Justice Woodward. It is quite apparent that the Finnane inquiry is of entirely different status. The implications in Senator Walsh’s reference to me with respect to conclusions reached by Finnane need to be seen in an entirely different light from that of those reached by two royal commissioners whose inquiries were properly constituted and who, of course, have judicial authority as distinct from the very limited powers of the special investigation proceedings. Of course, Mr Speaker, as you have ruled, those proceedings are not even of a quasi-judicial character.

page 2774

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: INTERNAL TRAFFIC SURVEY

Mr SPEAKER:

-On 2 November Mr President and I wrote to all members and senators concerning an internal traffic survey which is to be carried out in this building at the request of the Parliament House Construction Authority to assist in the planning and preparation of the final sketch plan brief for the new parliament house. This internal traffic survey is part of an analytical study of movement patterns of users in the existing building. Surveys of movements of all people working in Parliament House will be conducted next week commencing on Monday. Because of the intensive and time critical nature of activities in Parliament House every effort has been made to streamline the surveys and to minimise disruption. I ask for the full co-operation of members and all who work in the building during this important survey.

page 2774

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1979.

States Grants (Capital Assistance ) Bill 1 979.

page 2774

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Foreign Investment in Australia- Relations between Australia and the United States-Activities of Members of Parliament- Health CostsImmigrationLiquefied Petroleum Gas

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– In this grievance debate I express my concern at the complete disregard and cavalier attitude of this Government towards a major problem which is confronting all Western capitalist-based economies; that is, the extent to which those economies are increasingly falling under the control of transnational corporations. Part of the current mythology from the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and this Government is that any foreign investment in this country, for whatever purpose, is good and should not be questioned or even objectively examined. This is at a time when the United Nations Organisation has found it necessary to create a monitoring program which continually analyses the role and operations of transnational companies throughout the world and, in particular, in Third World countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Economic Community and the Council of Europe have all recently been involved in extensive examinations of the role of transnational and multinational companies and the effect that they have in the European economy. The purpose of that examination has been to endeavour to establish a code of conduct to deal with transnational companies. It is extraordinary that this issue should not be a matter of concern to this Government.

In the United States of America, the home of the free enterprise system, the powerful Finance Committee of the United States Senate in 1973 completed a most exhaustive inquiry into the operation of multinationals in the United States. The terms of reference of that inquiry covered the implications of multinational firms for world trade and investment and for United States trade and labour. One is entitled to ask why the Government of the United States and all these other important international organisations find it necessary to involve themselves in these inquiries? The answer to that question is very simply multinational or transnational companies in many cases have more direct economic power than many nation states.

They are, in fact, sovereign states in their own right. They are often capable, by virtue of their vast economic resources, of undermining national sovereignty and national economic policy, because they are capable of evading local controls and jurisdiction. Their capacity to move technology, resources and capital from one part of the world to another can often dramatically affect local technology and local work force opportunities. Their capacity and resources and their ability to use transfer pricing, restrictive business practice, and massive capital inflows across national boundaries can play havoc with local economies. That is the reason that the United States, the European Economic Community, and the United Nations have found it necessary not merely to inquire but to establish permanent monitoring procedures in order to protect local economies and to see that the operation of transnational companies comply with national autonomy and local economic objectives.

Whilst it is true that transnational companies can stimulate economic growth and introduce new technology and capital it is equally true that they can also- and have done so on many occasions- divest host communities of traditional skills and whole areas of industrial expertise. I refer to the evidence that was given to the United States Senate comittee of inquiry by Mr George Meany on behalf of the American trade unions wherein he gave evidence that between 1966 and 1971 American multinational companies exported over 900,000 jobs, which had previously existed in American industry, to the low wage areas of Asia, South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. Whilst it is not fashionable these days to talk of the exploitation of cheap Asian labour at 14c an hour, there is no reason to presume that the same principles and attitudes of American-owned multinationals in the United States- I do not say that this applies just to American multinationals; I think the same principle and reasoning applies to multinationals wherever they are- to America’s national resources and its work force, will not apply equally to the exploitation of resources, and the use of our work force in Australia.

Mr Garland:

– You exported a lot of jobs from this country from 1973 to 1975 by inflation.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am interested in the comment of the Minister for Special Trade Representations. The point that I am endeavouring to make is that it is important for this Government, as it has been important for the United States Congress and every other country with a Western-based capitalist economy, to monitor what is occurring within the framework of the economy and to understand the role that transnational corporations can play. I am not really interested in the Minister’s cheap asides; I am interested in knowing whether the Minister supports that view. Whenever the matter is referred to within this House by the Treasurer or any of the other Ministers, the essential problems and arguments are pushed aside. This Government is playing the role of an economic quisling when it is not prepared to face up to the fact that our economy is increasingly being dominated by large overseas multinational companies. I seek leave to incorporate three tables in Hansard. I would be very happy to show them to the Minister for Special Trade Representations. As I am the first speaker in this debate, I have not had an opportunity to show them to him. Basically they are straightforward tables. The first table shows foreign control of industries and economic activities in Australia. The second shows foreign control of industrial sectors by percentage turnover of developed countries. This is serious because Australia now is only second to Canada as to the extent to which a nation’s economy, industry and finance sectors are controlled by persons whose only responsibilities are to their company structure and their desire to make profits. The third table goes into greater detail as to the estimates of foreign ownership and control of the major sectors of our economy. I seek leave to incorporate those tables in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Table 3

page 2776

TOPIC III-THE LARGE NATIONAL CORPORATION

Lecture notes compiled by E. L. Wheelwright.

Foreign controlled companies accounted for 26.1 per cent of new sums insured in 1971, compared with 14.7 per cent in 1961 and 5.7 per cent in 1951.

Source: Submission of Commwealth Actuary and Insurance Commissioner to Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, Hansard, 18 July 1972, p. 434.

The level of foreign ownership of life insurance business in 1973, was 36.8 per cent and foreign control 19.4 per cent. Foreign control was highest for the U.K. at 13.9 per cent.

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Ownership and Control of Life Insurance Business 1973, Reference No. 5.53

  1. General Insurance.

The level of foreign ownership of general insurance business in 1973 was 45.7 per cent, and foreign control 45.0 per cent. Foreign control was highest for the U.K. at 3 1 .6 per cent.

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Ownership and Control of General Insurance Business 1972-73, Reference No. 5.52

  1. Finance.

    1. Banks.

Of the 7 major trading banks, one is foreign owned (ANZ Banking Group). There are over 80 foreign banks with representative offices in Australia.

  1. b ) Authorised Dealer Companies.

Of the 9 companies listed, 5 show foreign ownership ranging from 20 per cent to 42 per cent

  1. Instalment Credit Companies.

Of 38 listed, 14 have foreign-ownership between 50 per cent and 100 per cent, and 1 1 between 20 per cent and 50 per cent.

  1. d ) Development Finance Companies.

Of 48 listed, 19 have foreign-ownership between 50 per cent and 100 per cent foreign ownership and 14 between 20 per cent and 50 percent.

Source: Reserve Bank Submission to Senate Select Committee, Hansard, 7 September 1972, pp. 1141-8.

  1. Finance Companies.

Foreign ownership of finance companies in 1973 was 48 per cent and foreign control 41.5 percent.

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Ownership and Control of Finance Companies 1973, Reference No. 5.50

  1. Advertising.

Foreign ownership (turnover) of accredited advertising agencies in 1974-75 was 42.8 per cent. 30 agencies were foreign controlled and accounted for 50.9 per cent of total turnover. The ten largest agencies were foreign controlled and accounted for 37.7 per cent of total turnover.

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Ownership and Control of Accredited Advertising Agencies 1974-75, Reference No. 17.28

  1. Land- Northern Territory.

The proportion of native pasture cattle capacity held by absentee owners (mainly overseas controlled) estimated to be 85 per cent for the Barkly Tableland District, 70 per cent for Victoria River, 69 per cent for Darwin and the Gulf, 80 per cent for The Top End.

Source: Submission by J. H. Kelly to Senate Select Committee, Hansard, 20 July 1972, p. 852.

  1. Patents and Royalties. “In 1965, 89 per cent of patents lodged in Australia were foreign. In 1968 only 70 out of 485 new products were Australian made. “ “The amount of royalties we are paying is doubling every three years and we cannot keep this up. “

Source: Sir Alen Westerman, Secretary of the Department Trade, as reported in The Australian, 30 September 1961, in an address to the Sixth Australian Plastics Convention in Sydney.

  1. Tourist Accommodation.

Foreign ownership of tourist accomodation establishments in 1973-74 was 6.6 per cent (in terms of takings), highest for licensed motels 15.8 per cent (total takings).

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Ownership and Control of Tourist Accommodation Establishments 1973-74, Reference No. 11.47

  1. Large Companies

    1. Big Companies with total assets of $1Om and over, 1966.

Note: The data for listed and unlisted companies are not for exactly the same year; but even so, a fair estimate is that about two out of every five of these companies is subject to foreign control.

Source: H. Bell, “The Large Corporation in Australia”, in Big Business in Australia, A.I.P.S., (Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1 970), Tables 8 and 9 on page52.

  1. Large Companies in Manufacturing Industry, with Foreign Ownership. The Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry 1971, published by the Department of Trade and Industry, records 980 companies which have some foreign ownership. Most are majority foreign owned. The total assets involved were $1 1,263m, at least. The 90 largest companies accounted for $7,868m. The largest 41 companies, those with assets of $50m and over, accounted for $6,360m.

The Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry 1 976, records 998 companies which have some foreign ownership. The total assetsinvolved had increased to $2 1 , 807m.

  1. v) In 1 972-73, the largest 200 enterprise groups in manufacturing industry accounted for51 per cent of value added. 87 of the largest 200 were foreign controlled and accounted for 23 per cent of total value added.

Source: A.B.S., Foreign Control in Manufacturing Industry, Study of Large Enterprise Groups 1972-73, Reference No. 12.35. Tables below are summarised from this bulletin:

  1. Concentration of Shareholdings in Companies

    1. In 102 large companies, one half of one per cent of the shareholders owned 37 per cent of the shares; the top five per cent were estimated to own about half of all shares.

Source: E. L. Wheelwright, Ownership and Control of Australian Companies (Law Book Co., Sydney, 1957)

  1. In 299 large companies, less than half of one per cent of shareholders owned 58 per cent of the total. Of this 5 8 per cent, companies accounted for 43 per cent, financial insitutions 6 per cent, nominees 3 per cent and persons 6 per cent.

Source: E. L. Wheelwright and Judith Miskelly, Anatomy of Australian Manufacturing Industry (Law Book Co., Sydney, 1967)

  1. In 251 companies, large and small, less than four per cent of shareholders owned 55 per cent of the total.

Source: Trevor Sykes, “The Power of the Few’, Financial Review, February, 12-14, 1973.

Mr HOLDING:

– The point that I want to make is that when I sought information on this matter from the Parliamentary Library, which made use of all its resources and facilities to obtain the information for me, I found that there had been a quite effective monitoring of what was occurring in our own community. Until recently that monitoring was carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is a matter of concern to me that all that monitoring and all the publications which were directed towards making information available to this Parliament and the Australian community as to the extent of the increasing economic control of Australia by overseas companies were virtually terminated in the period of 1976-77. The publication of a range of materials by the Australian Bureau of Statistics was brought to a completion and there is no funding for the monitoring or this aspect of economic activity in Australia. I regard that as a very serious situation. Honourable members opposite might disagree philosophically as to the role that transnational corporations play and can play not only in the world economy but also in our own economy. We can join issue on that. But we can join issue only if all the material and information are available.

Australia now would be in the unique position of being one of the few advanced industrial nations which have stopped collecting statistics and stopped monitoring this type of economic activity. We do that at our peril. I conclude my remarks by saying that it is absolutely imperative, if proper debate is to take place in Australian society about the control of our own economy, that all the information be available to those citizens and those parliaments which want to participate in that debate. The failure of the Government to ensure that these processes will continue is a grievous failure indeed. It does not compare with the extent to which these activities have been the subject of the strongest parliamentary scrutiny and survey in nations larger than ours, certainly in the United States of America and European communities.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I wish to raise the question of the state of Australian and United States relations. I believe that Australia’s relationship with the United States is our most fundamental and important one. It is our most vital alliance and the United States is our most important ally. Our two peoples have very much in common. We share the same ideals and the same freedoms. We are both democracies. For Australia the ANZUS Treaty underpins the ultimate defence of the country. As far as the American people are concerned, however, we are the forgotten land and the forgotten people. I believe that we are very much taken for granted. A generation of people who do not know Australia or Australians has grown up in the United States. This was not always the case. During the Second World War we enjoyed great relations with the United States and its people. But now that generation of people who knew Australia well- those who served in the Pacific theatre of the war and almost certainly visited this country- are an older generation, and a group of people who do not know us has grown up.

I believe that it is to our detriment that we fought with the United States in the Vietnam war. We believed that there was a reservoir of goodwill to be built up by joining our ally, the United States, in that war. That now counts against us because people in the United States wish to forget the Vietnam war and along with that they forget Australia and its contribution to that war. On an individual basis, Australians are welcomed in the United States. Similarly, when honourable members and senators visit Washington, and the United States Congress, they are made very welcome on a one-to-one basis. For instance, this morning a number of us from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence were briefed by General Norman

Schwarzkopf, who is visiting Australia as part of an ANZUS regular briefing program.

Australia enjoys good relations with the Executive branch of the United States- with the President, the administration and the Cabinet. In Australia we have a distinguished United States Ambassador who is close to the President and the White House. Australian Ministers have access to United States Cabinet members. Our Ministers are always welcome in Washington. Similarly, our armed forces enjoy good relations. We have just completed a most successful Kangaroo III ANZUS exercise. The success of that exercise was perhaps to remind our enemies that we still work together. However, I believe that our relations with Congress are not as good as they ought to be and in fact are deteriorating. For some years we have not had any United States congressional visits to Australia. I ask members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States: Why have they apparently lost interest in Australia? Why has none of their committees visited this country?

I have with me a document entitled Backgrounder’ which was issued by the United States International Communication Agency. In that fairly comprehensive document, which looks at United States policy towards Asia as far as the Congress is concerned, there is not one mention of Australia, nor is there a mention of the role that Australia plays in relation to the Association of South East Asian Nations, with Japan or in the Pacific. Quite frankly, I find that very concerning indeed.

Last year I was fortunate to represent this House as a member of the Australian delegation to the United Nations, and I was there for some time. I made some first-hand observations. I believe that the United States Congress reflects the general level of awareness about Australia. For instance, last year I was in New York when the Melbourne Cup was being run. There was not even a mention of that race in the United States newspapers. It was very difficult to find out who was the winner of that race. Australians are lulled into a false sense of security. Just because we read about the United States in our newspapers, we assume that the American newspapers have as much information in them about Australia. That is not so.

Let us look at what is happening in the United States Congress. Currently that body is looking at counter-cyclical beef legislation which is against the interests of Australian beef producers. No wonder legislation is passed in the United States Congress which is inimical to our interests when there is a general lack of interest in Australia by that body. I believe that this Parliament has a responsibility to send regular parliamentary delegations to the United States. In a case of access to the United States beef market, I believe that we need to send a delegation of Australian cattlemen and politicians to the United States to talk to United States senators and congressmen about the matters that we have in common and to point out that it is in .the interests of the American consumer for the United States to have more and more Australian beef. I consider that to help promote Australia generally in the United States we could appoint a number of honorary consuls from a number of prominent Americans who are our friends. The United States Congress, I believe, needs to be reminded of the joint defence facilities that are shared by Australian and United States armed forces in Australia. Similarly, the United States needs to remember the bilateral relations between our two countries. I do not say that all is well on both sides. The Dillingham dispute is regrettable. Australia has a case before the World Court where there is an argument between the Dillingham Corporation of Australia Ltd and the Australian Government about the amount of expropriation damages to be paid. I consider it would have been much better if that case had been disposed of long before this either by agreement or before the Centre for the Settlement of International Investment Disputes. Similarly, at the present time in the United States there is a claim under the United States antitrust laws for extraterritorial jurisdiction. This, in fact, has the effect of meaning that a number of Australian businessmen who are executives and directors of uranium mining companies cannot visit the United States for fear of being arrested and being sent to gaol. I consider that this is a serious situation.

As I said at the outset, the United States is our most important ally. However, I believe that because of the irritants, pressures and strains that I have referred to, the relationship is now out of balance. Both countries need to work harder to improve the relationship. As Australians, we need to do more to promote ourselves as a people and as a nation.

There is one other item of international affairs that I would refer to before I conclude and that is the current constitutional Lancaster House talks taking place in the United Kingdom on the future of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I congratulate Lord Carrington on the way he has conducted these talks. They are in their ninth week. Reports this morning indicate that legislation is before the House of Commons to lift sanctions in part. I welcome that and I hope that Australia will shortly be able to follow suit. I think, however, at this stage, that the United Kingdom needs support from some of its allies and I am pleased to do that. The British plan envisages a two to three month period of direct rule by a governor despatched from England pending new elections. I think that is a proper and practical period in which parties could campaign. But I am left with the suspicion that the Patriotic Front, by wanting a longer period, in fact does not wish to contest the elections at all. When I visited the country as an international observer and as a representative of this Parliament it was obvious that the people there were sick of the war and that they clearly voted for peace. I have always said that just as water needed to flow under the bridge, the frontline States needed time to change their attitudes. Similarly the Patriotic Front would not have fared very well at an election at that time because it was fighting a war and the people were utterly sick of that war. It seems to me that the British proposals at this time are the most practical ones in all the circumstances. I hope that Australia and other allies of the United Kingdom will support Britain in these constitutional talks.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Copies of three overseas phonograms have come into my hands which indicate the existence of a miniKhemlani affair. They also indicate that a member of this Parliament has been wrongly using his electoral office facilities for private business purposes. It is a mini-Khemlani affair because the cables indicate that the member concerned has been endeavouring to raise loans totalling $6m from Arab sources. The cables implicate other unidentified Government members. It is a misuse of a member’s electoral office facilities in that the cables were sent from Brisbane telephone numbers 2217917 and 2252163 for which the subscriber is the Australian Parliamentary Offices in Brisbane. The matter is so grave that I call upon the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) to investigate immediately this whole issue and report to the Parliament. I will now read from the cables. The first cable states:

Subscribers name: Australian Parliament Offices, City Subscribers telephone number.2252163 Dated: 3 October 1979 Charge: $71.00

The cable is sent to:

Zubaidi Trading Company Wata El Musaitbeh Cor.El Mazraa Beirut CR35179 Lebanon

It states:

Please refer to discussions with your Beirut office on Wednesday 19 September in presence of your Mr Youssef Hakin with -

It refers then to the honourable member’s name-

And myself wherein you agreed as an act of good faith on your pan (because of past situation with Australian borrowers where no loans were concluded after fees had been paid by Australian borrowers) to grant 3 loans without fee (nominated as Pacific Islands Paradise Aust dollars three million Lockyer Valley Aust dollars two million drummon)-

Then the honourable member’s name is given again-

Aust dollars one million total Aust dollars six million) these three contracts were signed together with additional contract Holt Aust dollars one million for which a Chase Manhatten Beirut branch bank certified cheque amount Aust dollars 6750 covering your refundable fee was paid to you. You advised at that meeting you would arrive in Australia between 1-5 October 1979 with Bank of America bank cheques to effect drawndown of these four loans (plus Jasch and one million loan) all totalling Aust dollars eight million against first mortgage security. You further requested-

The cable mentions the honourable member’s name-

Assistance towards seeking for yourself residential status in Australia to which he agreed to assist. I have discussed above text with -

It mentions the honourable member’s name-

Who confirms appreciation detailed above is fact accordingly your todays telex is not understood particularly as you make no reference to your impending visit to Australia to conclude these five loans.

The phonogram states that the honourable member then-

Undertook trip at personal expense and we hope you will honour undertaking to come to Australia to keep faith with Australian borrowers. We await your response telex 41954.

Kindest regards John McKennariey

The second phonogram states:

Subscribers name: Australian Parliament Offices, City Subscribers telephone number: 2217917 Dated: 19 October 1979 Charge: $45.63

FadyGemayel

Interliban

Beirut, Lebanon

Dear Fady further to our telephone conversation yesterday 18/10 please advise what other specific problems with the monies and the cheque clearances. (We handed to Zubaidi a certified Beirut branch Chase Manhattan Bank cheque No. S54996 ASDLRS6750 on 19/9/79). I am prepared to honour all my commitments to Mr Zubaidi am not prepared to be treated unfairly. If Mr Zubaidi has not received my telexes on this matter please advise I am awaiting this urgent reply telex 41954 Brisbane. If he does not require or want to be involved in any business commitment in Australia I respect his wishes but I do request nicely at this stage he honour the commitment which he made after meeting in Beirut The reason for trip was not pleasure purely business and I expect that the handshake and signed contract which were made will be honoured. If he requires no further commitment I will honour that but I expect and want to see a fulfilment of our agreement on the Aust dollars three million wild duck Adlrs two million lockyer and Adlrsone million Drummon as per our discussions realised. In addition a loan contract for Holt Adlrs one million covered by above quoted cheque fee Aust$ Adlrs6750 were signed 19/10/79. 1 have defended Mr Zubaidis name honour and integrity to a number of people in Australia and for what I have committed myself to or I will be deeply disappointed and will have to reconsider my decision. I am asking no more than what was agreed to when I was in Beirut in Zubaidis office.

Please advise urgently as these good people are awaiting for commitments at earliest. Kindest regards from many people in Australia who are members of the World Lebanese Culture Union. Many people awaiting your itinerary and plans for visit Australia. Myself and other members of Government would ask you to be our guest in Australia in the near future Telex 4 1 954 Pumfy Kindest regards Your friend Peter Johnson Federal Member for Brisbane.

The third telegram is also from Peter Johnson, the Federal Member for Brisbane.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The Chair has paid particular attention to the possibility that the honourable member may reflect on a member of the House. Up to this point he has not made any reference to names. Therefore I have regarded his remarks as being in order. As the honourable member for Chifley has in mind identifying members and thereby reflecting on individual members, he will be required to do so by substantive motion.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I could take a point of order. This matter is so grave. I understand that the Whip’s Office has advised the honourable member and the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) that I intended to bring up a very grave matter this morning. The matter is so grave that it requires immediate investigation by the Parliament and by the Minister for Administrative Services. There is no way that can be done unless the honourable member’s name is brought into it. If I could just continue my point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have heard the honourable member. Regardless of whether the matter is grave or otherwise, there are forms of the House that must be observed. The Chair is obliged to require the honourable member to do that very thing.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I have here a third overseas phonogram. The subscriber’s name is Australian Parliament Offices, City. The subscriber’s telephone number is 22 1 79 1 7. It is dated 23 October 1979 and the charge is $42.25. It is addressed to Fady Gemayel, Interliban, Beirut, Lebanon. It is signed by the same person I mentioned a few moments ago. I ask leave to table that document.

Leave granted.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I would point out that the rules -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard! He used the word table’.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I sought leave to table it. I also seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I think that all honourable members will be aware of the rules relating to facilities for senators and members. I refer to the Entitlements Handbook’, 1979-80 edition, August 1979. At page 23, under the heading Item 15, Office Accommodation and Office Facilities’, it states:

Overseas Calls and Cables

In accordance with the long standing practice of successive Governments, international telephone calls or international cables may not be originated from electorate office telephone services without the prior approval of the Minister of Administrative Services. (Such calls or cables from Parliament House offices require the approval of the appropriate Presiding Officer). . . .

Electorate offices are provided by the Government to enable Senators and Members to carry out their electorate responsibilities. The offices are not intended for use as party headquarters or for electioneering purposes. . . .

And so it goes on. This is a very important matter. It involves not only the misuse of an honourable member’s electoral office facilities; it is also a mini-Khemlani affair- the raising of $6m in loans, without the purpose being given. I do not know whether the loans are for political party funds or not; the purpose is not given. Without a doubt these are Arab sources in Beirut. That is indicated by the very names involved. Without doubt this is a very grave matter indeed. Complete and full investigation by the Minister for Administrative Services is required, followed by a full and comprehensive report to this Parliament.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– One of this Governments great concerns is the extremely high and increasing health bill of the nation. This vast cost has two main components- firstly, the hospital costs, which are currently being investigated in conjunction with the States, and, secondly, the medical costs. The huge bill for medical costs can be broken down into doctors’ fees themselves, and doctors’ ordered costs- that is those tests and further consultations and surgery suggested or ordered by a doctor. These fees and costs are decided by the doctors themselves. While it is appreciated that due to inflation costs have gone up, the overall increase is far beyond this inflation cost. The situation has arrived that if the medical profession and the doctors themselves do not deal with these increases the Government must and will.

As a free enterprise party, we do not believe we should intervene but it is not quite a free enterprise situation, and other considerations enter the picture. At the end of July this year, I gave the local Press a release in which I said: ‘I do not think it right that an independent inquiry should decide one fee for doctors, the Australian Medical Association a higher one, and for some greedy doctors to charge an even greater fee.’ That Press release produced a flood of complaints, outlining a story of high fees, abuses of the health insurance schemes, and just plain bad service and practice. Doctors agree with me but affirm that there are just a few bad eggs amongst them. I hope that this is true but find it hard to believe that this once great profession is losing its standing and goodwill through just a few bad eggs. It is not easy to find out what doctors charge, but sources working in the system suggest that from 50 to 60 per cent of doctors charge more than the medical benefits scheduled fees, and maybe as many as 20 to 25 per cent charge more than the AMA recommended fees.

As for abusing the system, which is criminal fraud, we find an increasing number of doctors being counselled by medical services committees of inquiry, as a first step. I am led to believe that over 600 doctors in New South Wales alone have been reprimanded and had to repay the excess servicing. It requires many hours of work by the Commonwealth Police to provide the evidence to convict doctors of fraud. However convictions are not rare and 32 new cases came up in the last six months of 1978.

Let us look more carefully at the abuses. A regular one is variation of hours- that is charging after hours fees and collecting higher benefits, for in hours consultations or visits. Then we have exaggeration of services- charging long consultation rates for standard visits and claiming for a complicated procedure when a simple one was performed. One doctor was so stupid and greedy that he claimed for working 27 hours a day.

Another fraud is to give a bill for a consultation and another bill for a simple procedure which should have been included in the cost of the visit. Then there is non-attendance, where a patient telephones for advice or to renew a prescription and is then billed for a full consultation. A straight out fraud is claiming for services which have not been performed. Use of incorrect item numbers- always for higher fees, of course, is another area. This is common with doctors employed by locum services to cover the commission. At this stage I have not even touched on sessionally paid medical officers and their treatment of private patients, or touched on cosmetic surgery or even visits to nursing homes, but there are plenty of abuses there. Recently we had an irate G.P. writing to a Melbourne paper and showing another abuse. A Federal Government employee, due to retire shortly, had accumulated sick leave and so he approached this doctor for a certificate to state that he was unfit for work until retirement became due. Any doctor who takes his oath so lightly that he would sign surely deserves the scorn of the public.

This brings up the subject of sickies generally, and particularly those on Fridays and Mondays. Doctors have a lot to answer for here. Doctors indirectly add another cost to the national health bill when they opt for the big city life. Their failure to fill the country positions means we have to accept migrant doctors. They stay in the country area for a year or so and then head for the cities, where they set their shingle. To earn money they have three consultations rather than one to treat a simple cold. I would suggest that graduating doctors be required to do some time in the country as part of their education.

There is another area of concern which could push costs up again. In America there has been a continuing increase in litigation against doctors for bad practice. We in Australia have just started to see the award of vast sums of money in other areas, but this type of law case in medicine is still rare in Australia; and perhaps in our type of common law it cannot eventuate. In America it has had two marked effects. It has required doctors to take out large insurances and this, of course, has been passed on in fees. It has also meant much more of what could be described as defensive medicine- more tests, more referrals and therefore more costs. It has also led to doctors refusing to treat some patients and some medical conditions. It has been known for many years that there are large differences in the rates of surgical operations between nations, and between different regions of the same country. The health of communities which are deprived of high rates of surgical intervention seems to suffer little, if at all; that is, some unnecessary surgery is performed, though to what extent is hard to establish. There are many factors which seem to contribute to this- differences in method of payment for medical care, variation in medical convention wisdom, availability of beds and surgeons, incidence of disease or accidents, presence or absence of peer review. It is not a happy picture at all.

The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) announced recently the establishment of a Medical Services Review Tribunal to review determinations of the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry, with regard to excessive services to their patients. I back the Minister for Health when he says he has no sympathy for those doctors who are using their professional position of trust to bleed the system at the expense of the patients, contributors to health funds and the taxpayers. I am not suggesting another inquiry into doctors fees; that has been done recently, even though it was not as complete as it might have been had the AMA disclosed what doctors’ incomes really are. I am not even suggesting that doctors should be made employees of the State as teachers are. But I am suggesting peer review, and I back the Minister for Health in urging the medical profession to support the AMA in its efforts to introduce peer review. It is now three years since he challenged the medical profession to introduce widespread systems of peer review. Since then the Government has made $ 1 50,000 available to the AMA for this purpose and has also spent a further $800,000 on other research studies. It is hoped that these sums of money lead to an early resolution, because the alternative to the development of systems of peer review, by those concerned, with the actual provision of care, could be the introduction of some external method of quality control.

So that I cannot be accused of looking for scape-goats or placing the blame unfairly, I intend to find out the extent of the problem and I invite all citizens to write to me, Roger Johnston, Member for Hotham, el- Parliament House, Canberra, with their complaints with regard to doctors’ fees, abuses of charging insurance schemes, the service given by doctors and about plain bad practice. I hope we find it is only a few criminal doctors who are giving the profession a bad name and causing the backlash against them. In the meanwhile I remind people that the medical profession, however revered, is only another service industry. You can question them about the fees they charge, about their judgment, and you can take your business elsewhere. To the doctors I say: ‘Look to yourselves, your profession and see what is required. Then do something about it. For if you do not the Government must and will.’

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I take great pleasure today in participating in this grievance debate and in raising a matter which is really covered by a grievance debate. The case which I will present to the Parliament and the Australian people grieves not only me but also my constituents of Hunter. This case attacks the very roots of our democratic system. I believe that members of this Parliament should take every opportunity, when cases such as this are brought to their notice, to present the facts to this House to preserve peoples ‘ democracy.

I refer to two of my constitutents who are Chinese, a Mr Sui Kei Samson Man and his wife Yuen Ling Rositta Chan. Mr Man was born in Canton, China on 29 August 1956. He came to Australia by air from Hong Kong on 1 1 March 1 976 on a two weeks visitors visa. In Hong Kong, Mr Man was courting his wife. His wife was born in Canton, China on 6 March 1 956. Like her husband, she went legally to Hong Kong in 1962 where she resided until coming to Australia in August 1978 on a temporary visa. In Australia they lived together and worked in cafes. Mrs Chan has since given birth to a son who was born in the Maitland Hospital. She and Mr Man were married in an Anglican Church in the electorate of Hunter.

Mrs Chan advised that she applied to the Australian immigration authorities in Sydney for a further six months extension visa on 25 July 1978. 1 understand it has not been granted. She has informed me that she sent her Hong Kong identity card to the Sydney Immigration Office on 3 August 1978, addressed to a Miss Sacharczuk. I hope that the facts of this case will arouse the revulsion and objections of every member of this House. This unfortunate couple, now illegally in Australia, have been reduced to the state of being poor and penniless as a result of what I consider to be exploitation by a Chinese solicitor in Sydney who has, if I may use the Australian vernacular, ripped off this unfortunate Chinese couple of about $ 10,000.

Mr Martin:

– How much?

Mr JAMES:

-It is $10,000-after promising them that he would gain them permanent residence in Australia. In my view, this couple do not meet the present requirements of the guidelines for legal entry into Australia. However, I honestly believe that they have the sympathy of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) who is carefully considering their case at present. I was reluctant to mention this case today but I did so because, as honourable members will be aware, probably this will be the last grievance debate in this session. The Chinese solicitor is Mr W. J. Lee of Selborne Chambers, 13th floor, 1 74 Phillip Street, Sydney.

He sought payments in cash, and I have photostat copies of a receipt for payment of $1,000 in cash by this couple and another receipt in Chinese for $6,500 paid by my constituents to the Chinese solicitor.

Mr Humphreys:

– What did he charge them that for?

Mr JAMES:

– He charged them this money on the pretence that he was going to have their Australian residence legalised. I wrote to the Minister on 9 July 1979. As I said earlier, he has this case sympathetically under review. According to my constituents, the solicitor has asked for another $ 1 ,000 on completion of the case. He has since informed my constituents that they should no longer come to his office or telephone him, that he would telephone them when he had information for them. But, as they pointed out to me, they have no telephone. How can the Chinese solicitor contact them when they have no telephone and he does not know where they are living? The Chinese couple were not anxious for me to raise the matter in Parliament because they fear that the solicitor may organise some injury to them. Mrs Chan is fearful of going back to Hong Kong because her parents and relatives have left Hong Kong to live in the United States.

The serious part of the whole matter, which I emphasise that I am most reluctant to believe, is that when this large sum of money was obtained by this Chinese solicitor for the reasons that I have stated he said, in the words of my constituents: ‘I only get about $1,000 out of this. There are two people in the Immigration office who have got to be paid and someone in Canberra’. I submit this alleged statement for information only.

Mr Jacobi:

– Oh, that’s a scandal.

Mr JAMES:

– It could be a scandal, but in my view it is not. I have implicit faith and I believe every other member of the Opposition has implicit faith in the integrity and honesty of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I do not have the same faith in the staff of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney. If what this solicitor said is untrue, it was a deplorable and outrageous thing for him to say. I believe it to be untrue. Furthermore, I hope that the fidelity section of the Law Society of New South Wales will do something of a positive nature to see that my constituents are substantially reimbursed the large sum of money involved. They have been exploited by this Chinese solicitor in Sydney who, I believe at this stage, is unscrupulous.

I hope that the Australian Taxation Office will look into the affairs of this man. My constituents tell me that before they entered the office of the Chinese solicitor another Chinaman was going in with $7,000 in cash to pay the solicitor for some litigation. I therefore suspect that that Chinaman was being exploited also. When one hears of these things occurring in Australia one can well understand why the overwhelming population of China sought another form of government under Mao Tse-tung. Are we parliamentarians going to allow this situation to continue in this country or are we going to display the guts that are necessary to eradicate these menaces in Australia? I notice a Liberal member opposite laughing at me. I have never yet heard him get up in this Parliament and report a filthy scandal. Apparently he has something in his own cupboard that he is afraid that he could be hit with. In conclusion, it is also unfortunate that these things have to be disclosed in Parliament as many of the criminals in gaol, whom society is endeavouring to rehabilitate, are listening to these debates. How it must fail to facilitate their rehabilitation!

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

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

-Today I wish to raise a matter concerning liquefied petroleum gas, particularly the recent price rises that have occurred with that commodity and the effect that they have had on consumers and local government gas undertakings. I do so because it is a particular problem in my electorate as well as being a problem on a broader scale. Many people perhaps would not realise that a large proportion of the population is reliant to some degree on LPG for basic domestic uses and heating requirements. Most people living in the major metropolitan cities of Australia have access to very cheap natural gas. That is not the case with many regional centres and is certainly not the case with people who live many long miles from the major metropolitan centres in the sparsely populated area of Australia. For example, in my electorate there are some 14,000 gas consumers. That must represent at least 30,000 or 35,000 people.

Let us look at the situation which exists, say, in Queensland, where some people are entirely reliant on bottled gas. I understand that there are some 90,000 households in Queensland in that situation. That must represent at least 250,000 people. This problem has been brought home by my colleague the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who pointed out that the price rises in Queensland have been extremely dramatic. For example, as of September the gate price of natural gas in Melbourne was of the order of 3.6c per therm. The price of LPG in Brisbane was 33.7c per therm, which was almost ten times the price of natural gas in Melbourne, and the price in Townsville was 48.5c per therm. I think that gives some indication of the cost burden that has occurred in recent times. In my own area, for example, there have been, I think, some eight price rises in 12 months. This has resulted in the price of LPG doubling in that period.

One of the additional unfortunate consequences is that in recent times some local government gas utilities were given advice by the oil companies- it was the best advice they could give at the time; this was as recently as 1976 or 1977- that they should close down their coal gas plant undertakings and convert their reticulation systems to LPG. I believe that the advice given at that time was advice that was given in good faith, but of course it could not have foreseen the tremendous change that has occurred in the world as far as the energy situation is concerned. Nevertheless, these local government gas undertakings have now been saddled with a very serious and significant debt structure as a result of taking that decision, although it was seen at the time to be the correct decision. That undertaking, that debt load, will continue in some cases for up to 30 years and will have to be serviced by the ratepayers of those respective councils.

It is a problem not only for local government gas undertakings but also for consumers, because they had to find additional moneys to convert to LPG from coal gas. The amounts of money were not very significant in some respects. Nevertheless many of them took the opportunity to buy new appliances. In my own situation we took the opportunity of purchasing a new stove. We were encouraged to do so by the gas undertaking of the local council. We now find that that stove may well be a museum piece in the not too distant future. I can assure the House that the secondhand market for gas stoves in my area is absolutely nil. There must be many people in that situation. It has not just cost them money to convert from coal gas to LPG but they now face the very real prospect of having to convert from LPG to electricity. In undertaking such a conversion they would be looking at a very significant cost structure. The cost factor involved in the conversion to gas hearing, gas hot water facilities and gas cooking may be $ 1 ,000 or $2,000. Many people who rely on gas are not at the higher income end of the spectrum. Many of them are pensioners and at the lower end of the income scale. To some extent they are the people who are least able to afford the cost of that conversion. Furthermore, there are significant employment implications. Many hundreds of people are employed in the LPG industry in my area.

I am not objecting to the Government’s encouragement of wider usage of LPG for motor vehicles and as a substitute for liquid fuels. One of the problems we face is that many people have regarded gas as an energy source which can be used for heating and cooking. Perhaps it is more appropriate that we regard gas now more as a type of pressurised petroleum. In fact, that is its real role in the future. In the mean time, there is no doubt that gas consumers are increasingly coming under competitive pressure from electricity as a major domestic energy source. Let us not forget also that coal used in electricity generation and also natural gas are not subject to excise duty as is LPG. Basically, LPG should be regarded as a high pressure petrol. I think that puts the matter into perspective.

I am not advocating that LPG be used from now on ad infinitum as a source of heating. Indeed, that would be extravagant for a resource that can be used as a substitute for liquid fuels. However, I am advocating a wider distribution of natural gas, and it is pleasing to note that the Minister has introduced a Bill to provide for the extension of the main Moomba to Sydney pipeline from Young to Cootamundra and Wagga at a cost of $ 1 7.5m. It is also pleasing to see that the size of that pipeline has been increased so that we can have a link between the Cooper Basin fields and the Bass Strait fields.

While I am on the subject of natural gas and pipelines, I think it is also fair to say that it is extremely difficult for local government councils to see their way clear to embark on these gas projects because they have no clear, definitive estimates of the cost. It is my understanding that the Pipeline Authority is not prepared to give a definite cost of the construction of the pipeline; it is on a final cost basis at completion. Of course, that is a very unsatisfactory situation for local government councils to try to budget for. Furthermore, there have been some significant delays in approving pipeline projects and in providing Budget funds for the construction of those projects. I believe that we should look seriously at that difficulty because I can well understand three, four or five councils being hesitant to commit themselves to a project that may involve a cost of $47m or $50m. If the repayments are spread over 30 years, is a tremendous debt burden when they do not know whether that $47m or $50m will be the final price that they have to pay for the construction of the pipeline.

Many people have advocated that there should be a two-tier pricing structure for LPG. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of the nation at large. For those people on the Opposition side of the House who see some opportunity to advocate a two-tier pricing policy, I would like to quote the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) from Hansard oil May 1979. He stated:

It would be senseless endeavouring to have naturally occurring LPG sold ahead of refinery LPG. The consequence of such a policy would be the flaring again of gas at refineries.

Likewise, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 March this year the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is quoted as saying:

The domestic price of LPG should be raised to nearer the export price which would help to ensure the greatest possible use of LPG within Australia.

I make a point of reading those two quotations because there have been some opportunists in my area saying that the Government should introduce a two-tier pricing structure. In closing, I would like to make a plea to the Government to consider sympathetically the plight of those gas consumers and undertakings that will not have access to natural gas. I believe that there is a well justified opportunity for the Government to provide some level of assistance to those undertakings and to those consumers to make their plight easier and to allow an easier and more equitable transition from gas to electricity, as will inevitably occur.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. It is now IS minutes to one o’clock and in accordance with Standing Order 106 the debate is interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2789

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Report

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign AfFairs and Defence I present the Committee’s report on Human Rights in the Soviet Union, together with the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr SHIPTON:

-by leave-The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled ‘Human Rights in the Soviet Union’ is based on the evidence given to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee. Many witnesses had extensive experience in the Soviet Union. Some had served prison sentences and, as in the case of the well known mathematician, Leonid Plyushch, had been forcibly detained in a special psychiatric hospital, because of their political, ethnic minority or religious dissent against the Soviet system. The Committee believes that the civil rights of Soviet citizens have improved considerably since the Stalin period ended in 1953. Ofcourse, there was immense scope for improvement. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union has failed to enter into the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has failed to implement many of its formal commitments in such documents as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Final Act of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement. Within three years of Mr Brezhnev signing the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement, the Soviet Union flouted the Agreement’s human rights provisions to such an extent that it has even imprisoned or expelled most of the people who, with considerable courage, had openly monitored the extent of Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Agreement.

The widely proclaimed 1977 Soviet Constitution is at best an expression of hopes and desires, not an instrument whereby basic rights may be protected. It is unlikely to improve the situation of those Soviet citizens who do not agree with some aspects of the Soviet political system. Indeed, within a few months of the proclamation of the new Constitution, a number of Soviet citizens underwent political trials which were not open to the general public. In the conduct of these trials the Soviet Government ignored its commitments in the 1977 Constitution as well as natural justice. The civil rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens are very much subordinate to the interests of the Soviet State; this is made clear in the Soviet Constitution. In any case, Soviet citizens have no practical way of enforcing constitutional provisions. There are no independent courts for the purpose of interpreting Soviet laws or for enforcing the Soviet Constitution. Soviet courts which sit in judgment on what may be termed political or religious cases seem to be subject to secret directives.

In view of the reported irregularities at Soviet trials and Soviet sensitivity to Western public opinion, it is recommended that wherever possible the Australian Embassy in Moscow send observers to Soviet political trials. The Australian Embassy in Moscow should keep the Australian Government informed on Soviet human rights violations. This should include any information available on the treatment of Soviet citizens imprisoned for their political or religious beliefs, or because they have sought increased rights for a Soviet minority. Soviet citizens may not engage in independent political activity, nor form or belong to political parties other than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; nor do the Soviet people have an opportunity to effect a change in their government or parliaments through the ballot box. This monopoly of power has been enshrined in the 1977 Constitution and the Communist Party’s influence is strongly felt at all levels of Soviet society. The Party’s monopoly of political power derives considerable support from Soviet security agencies and from control of the Soviet media.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is unique among the major powers in that the Soviet Union’s dominant nationality is portentially outnumbered. It is possible in the near future that the Russians will be outnumbered by the total of the other hundred or so nationalities that make up the Soviet population. National movements among several of those non-Russian minorities are probably the most important of the political forces facing the Soviet government. The national and cultural institutions of approximately three million Soviet Jews have been virtually non-existent since Stalin’s purge of Jewish national culture in 1948. Any minor concessions since that time can only be described as token gestures which may be designed to obviate too much foreign criticism. The authorities’ desire to suppress Jewish culture is confirmed by the fact that even private language instruction and seminars on Jewish culture are severely repressed and books in Hebrew with no political content have been confiscated. In sharp contrast to the situation of other Soviet minorities, there is not a single school in the USSR which teaches in a Jewish language. Soviet anti-semitic publications are printed in a number of languages and have been made available in various parts of the world, including Australia. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government request the Soviet Government not to circulate in Australia and on Soviet cruise ships in Australian waters Soviet books and pamphlets which contain the type of anti-Semitic material quoted in this report.

The USSR disregards its commitments to international declarations and covenants which declare that everyone has the right to leave his country. The Soviet Government regards emigration as an unpatriotic act and has virtually restricted it to the concept of family reunion, which is applied to those Soviet nationalities that can be seen to have a homeland abroad, such as Jews and Germans. At present rates of emigration, it may take over six years for Soviet approval of the outstanding applications to emigrate from those Soviet Jews who have already received nominations from relatives abroad. As at 30 June this year, such nominations amounted to 337,000 for Jews still in the USSR. This long period of uncertainty is a most daunting prospect for would-be emigrants, considering the likelihood of dismissal from employment and other harassment. that applicants are likely to suffer.

When the USSR allows a pre-determined number of people to emigrate each year, it is a concession to Western public opinion, as well as a way to remove elements who are dissatisfied with life in the USSR. As long as the USSR seeks goodwill and economic concessions from the West, there seems to be scope for the West to achieve a more humane Soviet attitude to emigration. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government use judiciously applied pressure on the Soviet authorities, so that the USSR will allow those Soviet citizens to emigrate who wish to be reunited with their relatives in Australia. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government request the United Nations Secretary-General to utilise the UN information services in Moscow to make available to interested people copies of UN conventions on human rights, in the languages of the main Soviet nationalities.

The democratic movement in the Soviet Union has received some severe setbacks in recent years. Many leading activists are now imprisoned for long terms, exiled to remote parts of the Soviet Union or expelled abroad. Past trends and statements by those still involved with political dissent indicate that protest will go on, although there could be a lull while a new community of dissent evolves. Discontent among certain national and religious groups is more widespread, and several national minorities are likely to pose continuing problems for the Soviet Government. Conditions in the Soviet prison system are harsh, brutal, and degrading of human dignity. In particular, Soviet penal regulations, and even more so their implementation, fall far short of humane concepts- in the system of punishments, the rights of prisoners to make complaints, to communicate with their families and friends, and, most seriously, to receive adequate nourishment and medical care.

The Soviet Union is systematically abusing psychiatry through the forced internment of mentally healthy people in order to cure them of their political or religious beliefs. This also enables the Soviet Union to avoid the presence of some important dissidents at trials. The estimated 300 dissidents held in prison psychiatric hospitals at any one time- more are held in ordinary psychiatric hospitals- suffer the most degrading conditions. Harmful drugs are administered to some of them. There is a continuing need to expose the unjust conditions endured by the people who are imprisoned in Soviet penal and psychiatric institutions merely because of their political or religious convictions. Wide publicity tends to act as a security against greater Soviet excesses. It is recommended that the Australian Government give consideration to seeking the establishment of a permanent, independent, international organisation to inquire into the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes. Such an organisation should comprise distinguished psychiatrists, lawyers and human rights specialists. The organisation could operate under the auspices of the United Nations.

Australia should be conscious of its respect for human rights in its relationship with the Soviet Union. It is recommended that in the course of bilateral discussions or negotiations with the USSR, the Australian Government take the opportunities that arise to state its disapproval of Soviet breaches of human rights. Similarly this can be done by individual Australians during cultural, academic and scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union. It is recommended that Australia’s representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, be instructed to use these forums to raise human rights issues.

The Committee is concerned that the Soviet Government may repress any internal opposition which may manifest itself during the Moscow Olympic Games, and that at the time of the Olympics the Soviet authorities will ensure that any known opponents of the Soviet authorities are either removed from Moscow or committed to some form of imprisonment or psychiatric treatment, even if only temporarily. Rather than attempt to influence a change in the venue for the 1 980 Olympics, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with other governments, try to persuade the Soviet Government that the USSR would be seen in more favourable light if large numbers of its political and religious prisoners were released from prisons, labour colonies and psychiatric hospitals before the Games. The USSR should also be encouraged to make a favourable gesture by allowing further substantial increases in emigration before the Games, including about 2,000 Refusenicks, most of whom have been waiting for many years to emigrate.

As the evidence before the Sub-Committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union was to a great extent unfavourable to the Soviet Government, the Committee regrets that the Soviet Embassy in Australia did not avail itself of ample formal or informal opportunities to put a Soviet viewpoint to the Sub-Committee. Nevertheless, the Sub-Committee was able to obtain a number of Soviet publications which express the Soviet viewpoint on several human rights matters. I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed their knowledge and experience to the inquiry, especially all those who testified before the Sub-Committee. I commend this report to the Parliament and consider it essential that the report be debated after members have had time to consider it. I look forward to the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in such a debate after the Government has had an opportunity to consider the matters raised in the report.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave-As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence but not a member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union I think it is important that the House take note of the fact that a number of dissenting reports have been published as well as the report which has just been tabled. With the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) I am a signatory to some reservations, not about the report itself but about the wisdom of the Parliament’s authorising committees to conduct inquiries into matters for which the Parliament itself is not prepared to make available the necessary resources. With regard to the remarks of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the contents of the report, we have made it clear that we see the report and its recommendations as being reasonably derived from the evidence which the Sub-Committee heard and reflecting accurately the evidence which was before the Sub-Committee. I make that point clear because it is possible and likely that the intent of minority reports may be misrepresented.

Certainly, no person who believes in democratic rights and civil liberties or who feels that it is the right of an individual to practise religion, politics or such other acceptable social activities as he sees as being within his interests, thinks that those rights should be denied. They are not available in the Soviet Union. But that situation is not restricted, unfortunately, to that area. Those rights are not available to people in more than two-thirds of the countries in the world. Possibly they are genuinely available in a number of countries which would be counted on one hand. They are not fully available to people in Australia. There are persons within this continent for whom the Parliament has responsibility who lack full access to civil rights and who are treated in abominable circumstances because of laws discriminating against them.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I was speaking to the report on human rights in the Soviet Union which has been presented today. I had indicated that I do not disagree with the substance of the findings of the Committee and especially those findings which are in line with the evidence received by the Committee. As one of those members who signed one of the reservations in the report I think it is important that the record be quite straight on what those reservations are. They do not indicate that there is not a denial of human rights in the Soviet Union. They do not indicate in any way that the findings of the Committee do not reflect the evidence which was available to the Committee. I think it is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Sub-committee has found it necessary to make some criticism of the suggestion that the length and repetitiveness of the report detract from its quality. Apparently he has taken the view that the length of the report has some connection with the quality of the report. That is not my opinion and it is not an opinion that I think would be shared by members of this Parliament, or anybody else who is interested in such matters. The report stands on its substance and its quality and nothing else. If it is substantive and it has the necessary quality then the report is a good one. Mere length means nothing other than it is unreadable in a limited time.

To return to the minority report which I think is one of substance and should be seriously considered by this House, it is possible for this Parliament to undertake any number of similar inquiries or any number of inquiries through committees of this House, to draw conclusions from the available evidence and to present that evidence to the Parliament. It does not mean that the report carries the weight that a report of a parliamentary committee should carry. A report on a particular matter should not reflect only what is an accepted or an accurate view. It should reflect the findings of the committee on a matter on which the Parliament itself has been able to facilitate a full inquiry. Those who are inquiring on behalf of the Parliament should be able to point to the inquiry as the basis of the substantive nature of the report so presented. My concern is that in undertaking an inquiry of the magnitude of this report into human rights in the Soviet Union no funds- I repeat, no funds- were made available for the Committee to enable it to ensure it had available to it those witnesses whom it sought in order to carry out its inquiries or inspections. Certainly, an invitation was extended to the Soviet Union to give evidence. I expected that that would be rejected and I think that in a reverse situation the same response would come from Australia. It is not the practice of major powers to come cap in hand to a nation which is carrying out an inquiry into the affairs of those powers. I do not think that anyone of intelligence in this House would expect the Soviet Union to appear before a jury in Australia to give evidence on its own affairs.

Mr Hodgman:

– Why not?

Mr SCHOLES:

-The Soviet Union is not obliged to appear before such an inquiry and Australia is not obliged either. If the honourable member for Denison were aware of what is going on in the world he would know that at present the United States is seeking to impose its internal laws on this country and we are rejecting that proposal. We have passed legislation to reject it. It is an independent right of any country to choose what laws it will apply to its own territory. The Soviet Union is a restrictive and repressive regime as are those regimes throughout the world which are totalitarian in character. Such regimes are not limited to the Soviet Union but many do not profess to be libertarian or democratic. Certainly, we as parliamentarians profess to represent a country in which respect for human rights and civil liberties is paramount although we do have certain blind spots of our own where we choose to ignore repression of the rights of individuals. In one instance currently a certain minority group in our community is restricted in respect of the right to vote in elections and this Parliament could correct that anomaly if it wished.

In regard to this report and any subsequent reports of this nature, before embarking on an exercise which is of such substance and such deep importance to every person who respects civil liberties this Parliament has a responsibility to make available to the committee which it charges with that task the facilities and the necessary funds. In one section of the reservations which we have expressed- probably we have expressed them slightly inaccurately; nevertheless we were not given assistance with its preparation- it is indicated that the Committee had to depend on the good graces of persons outside this Parliament for the private collections of funds in order to meet the expenses of persons from overseas who came before the Committee to give evidence; or it depended upon the accidental presence in Australia of witnesses. The Committee had no funds available to it to call witnesses whose presence it thought would have been desirable. I am not suggesting that any witnesses were not available because of a lack of funds, but the facts are that no such funds were available. It was not possible for the Committee to carry out inspections in areas where evidence may have been available. It is a serious reflection on the Parliament itself that it would undertake an inquiry and then not make available the necessary facilities to enable the inquiry to take place.

I would like to see a series of inquiries into civil liberties and I certainly believe that there is ample scope in both communist and noncommunist countries throughout the world, in dictatorships and other forms of repressive regimes, including Australia. Such inquiries in almost all cases would bring to the attention of the Australian people, at least temporarily, the extent to which civil liberties and the rights of people to act freely and to practise freedom as they believe in it exists throughout the world. Unfortunately, that is neither practical nor possible. Before any similar inquiries are embarked upon the Parliament has to make up its mind whether it wants such inquiries and if it does whether it is prepared to pay the cost of ensuring that the inquiry cannot be undermined by any suggestion that the resources and the capacity were not available to carry out the inquiry fully and properly. I deprecate the conditions which are exposed in this report. I believe that those responsible for them should look at their home court before they start talking about the problems which may exist in other areas.

Mr Hodgman:

– Gordon! Dear oh dear!

Mr SCHOLES:

-I do not know whether the honourable member for Denison understood what I just said.

Mr Hodgman:

– I did, and I am very, very sorry to hear you say it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-What did I just say? The honourable member for Denison does not know what I just said. I deprecate the conditions revealed in this report. I believe that those who are responsible for those conditions should look in their own backyard before they talk about the rights or civil liberties of persons outside their own backyard. The conditions exposed in this report deal with civil liberties in the Soviet Union. Those I speak of are those responsible for the denial of those civil liberties in the Soviet Union. I am surprised that the honourable member for Denison does not support what I am saying which is that they should look in their own backyard.

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order with considerable reluctance because the honourable member has completely twisted the effect of -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member will quickly move to the point of order.

Mr Hodgman:

– The point of order is that I have been misrepresented and I will seek an opportunity to correct that.

Mr Jacobi:

– Make a personal explanation later.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is all right; you are friends with the Soviet Union and the Kremlin.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will have an opportunity to explain. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr SCHOLES:

-The honourable member for Denison was talking and not listening. Unfortunately he did not hear what I said, otherwise he would not have raised the point of order and he certainly would not have interjected as he did. As others want to speak in this debate I will round off. There is ample scope for consideration and examination of civil liberties in many countries of the world, including Australia. I believe that if the recommendation of this Committee to set up a continuing inquiry into that area is adopted- I note a number if dissenting reports against that recommendation- it has to be seriously considered and not regarded as a superficial operation which can run on its own momentum merely by taking whatever evidence is available to it and repeating whatever is told to it. This Parliament’s standing depends on the substance and the backing of such reports. The Parliament has a responsibility to make sure when its members undertake such inquiries in committees that they have the full support of the resources that should be available.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-by leave-This report is an indictment against the Soviet Union. It documents the alleged devotion of the Soviet Union to human rights. There are, in fact, repeated blatant denials of the fundamental rights which should be accorded to every citizen in 1979. Citizens in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are deprived of basic human rights. They are deprived of freedom to practise religion. Soviet citizens are persecuted because of their ethnic origin. Racial prejudice is practised by the State. Dissidents are imprisoned because of their political views and citizens cannot enforce those human rights enshrined in their Constitution. World commentators will examine this report and critically analyse whether the findings and recommendations from the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence should be taken seriously or, if there are weaknesses, distortions or inaccuracies, whether this report and consequently the reports of all other committees emanating from this Parliament should be ignored in the future.

Every member of this House and every member of the Senate will be judged on the basis of this document. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence could either lack credibility or lack standing within Australia and internationally as an arm of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia seeking truth and morality in international relations. I do not believe that this will be the case. It was, however, one of the dangers which was inherent in tackling this sensitive subject. The relationship between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could be damaged by this report. However, I doubt that this will be the case. International morality has demanded that this subject be tackled and the deceit of the Soviet Government be exposed. If this report is adjudged to be prejudiced, to lack foundation in fact or to utter one intemperate comment, the report, the Committee, this House and this Parliament could stand condemned by every individual concerned with the protection of human rights in the world. We could be criticised by our colleagues in other parts of the world for not doing our job efficiently and with skill. Our Parliament could be ridiculed by institutions in other countries and by world bodies keen to protect the rights and privileges, and to promote the responsibilities, of the individual in a complex, competitive and jealous world.

In accepting this reference on Human Rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the Sub-committee placed itself in an invidious position. If the report is not sound, the primary responsibility therefor must be borne by the members of that Sub-committee. The Labor and Liberal members of that Sub-committee were unanimous in their support for every paragraph. It will be noted that some members of the full Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence have expressed some concern with one paragraph in the report and others have questioned whether the Parliament should have accepted this reference and referred it to the Joint Parliamentary Committee.

I reiterate that this report is the product of two years’ work by a sub-committee comprising members from the Labor and Liberal parties. The composition of the membership of the Committee indicates that this is not a report from a group of rabid right wingers engaged in a conservative plot against a socialist regime. It cannot be alleged that there is any bias from members of this Committee. It cannot be said that there is again a group of politicians kicking ‘the communist can’. Meticulous care has been taken to present a report based on facts, relying on primary sources wherever possible, knowing that the Soviet authorities will attempt to denigrate one fact or one part of the report thereby weakening the significance of the whole report. That technique is not new.

The Soviet diplomat, Valerian Zorin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the USSR, was reported in volume 16, 1978 of New Times as saying:

The human rights campaign was designed to replace the old bankrupt anti-communist and anti-Soviet tenets which no longer can serve as the basis for foreign policy … the same naked anti communism with its corollary of attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries is still there.

Mr Zorin was commenting on the position of the United States of America and what he considers was its pretended concern for human rights. He went on to suggest:

It is perfectly plain that by fermenting enmity between peoples and suspicion and distrust between states, by interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states, the organisers of the campaign are acting contrary to the spirit and the letter of the final act.

This report did not have its genesis in suspicion, in distrust, or with a desire to foment enmity against a foreign state. The initial motivation was to examine critically and to comment upon the status of Soviet Jewry and:

Whether or not Jews in the Soviet Union are the victims of adverse discrimination in citizenship, in rights to religious practice, in rights to publish, communicate, travel, emigrate and organise.

It will be noted that those original terms of reference which were agreed to on the 6 September 1977 following a reference from the then member for Mackellar, Mr Bill Wentworth, were widened on 18 October 1977, when the Committee was charged with the responsibility to examine:

Human rights in the Soviet Union bearing in mind Australia’s support for the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the final act of the Helsinki Agreement.

Those of us who worked on the Sub-committee sought to be objective and precise at all times. We received testimony from 25 witnesses with different backgrounds, experience and knowledge on human rights in the USSR. Included in those 25 witnesses were six who had served prison sentences in the Soviet Union- for example, Pastor Grivans, who had graduated from the theological institute in Riga in 1928. He was ordained as an evangelical Lutheran pastor in that year. After his second arrest in February 1948 he was accused of anti-State propaganda under the criminal code and eventually sent to a Gulag labour camp for 10 years without being formally charged in court, without conviction and without sentence. He spent three years in a camp in the Gulag Archipelago from October 1948. He served a total of 16 years in Soviet corrective labour colonies. I invite honourable members to read his testimony in the transcript which has been tabled.

I also refer for example to Leonid Plyushch, a Ukrainian mathematician, who graduated in 1962 from the University of Kiev and who was employed until 1968 as a research mathematician in the Cybernetic Institute of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Mr Plyushch was a dissident who was detained in Soviet psychiatric institutions from July 1973 until January 1976. Professor John Hazard, Professor of Public Law, for the past 30 years has taught Soviet law to Columbia University law students. Many of the witnesses still believe that a socialist philosophy should be universally applied. Leonid Plyushch, for example, stated:

I still accept Marx’ main philosophy and socio economic conditions and thoughts. I believe some form of socialist structure is the only sort of solution to the problems that the world is facing at the moment.

The human rights movement throughout the world was responsible for the ultimate release by the Soviet authorities of Leonid Plyushch and the permission which was granted to him to leave the Soviet Union. It was not taken by a group of Western democratic conservative governments. In fact, if it had not been for the French Left, which included the French communist party and unions from the French Left, he would not have been released at all. It will be clear to any reader of the transcript of the public evidence which is available, or from this report, that witnesses were called to give their evidence because of expertise on the Soviet Union and its application of human rights, and not for their political allegiance or philosophy.

Four members of the Committee- Senator Sim, Senator Young, the honourable member for

Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short)- expressed reservations about the inclusion of Article 65 in the conclusions and recommendations of the report. It is there recommended that the Australian Parliament establish a standing committee on human rights to report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia- I emphasise the words ‘including Australia’. It is somewhat disappointing that honourable members do not accept the intent of the Committee in making that recommendation. There are several members of both Houses who, from time to time, take action to express a view to representatives of another State on some event or series of events which have occurred, or to condemn a government for denying basic human rights. In fact, some have presented letters of protest and petitions to USSR Embassy officials expressing views on the lack of human rights being granted to individuals in their country. It is recognised that it will always be difficult to obtain evidence from governments of other countries of suppression of human rights in those countries. That should not be a disability to members of this House who are anxious to see every government adopt and practice the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Helsinki Agreement. The appointment of a parliamentary committee for that purpose gives honourable members the opportunity to ascertain whether human rights are being ignored in another country and, if affirmed, to register their concern.

There are also three members of the Committee who expressed reservations on the extent of the evidence which was available to the Committee. We have just heard from the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). It should be emphasised that the honourable member for Corio, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) do not dispute the findings, nor challenge the accuracy of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

I respectfully suggest to those honourable members that it is naive to suggest that any parliamentary committee investigating a reference of this type- that is, the deprivation of human rights in another state- could ever obtain the total evidence which would be available. Of course it would have been valuable for members of this Sub-Committee to have visited the USSR, to have visited the psychiatric institutions which hold many of the Soviet dissenters, to have attended the trials of the dissidents, to take evidence from former refusniks now in Vienna, and to have extensive interviews with the ProcuratorGeneral to test whether, in fact, that officer is capable of performing his responsibility as spelled out in the 1977 Constitution. It would have been advantageous for the Sub-Committee to have travelled to the USSR to discuss with, and cross-examine, the Soviet authorities who administer the criminal code. But, of course, that was not possible. Does any honourable member seriously believe that that would ever be possible under the present Soviet regime?

The members of the Sub-committee took advantage, whenever possible, of the opportunity to receive the testimony of witnesses when they were in Australia. In Annex H of the report we note, for example, that Pastor Grivans was sponsored by the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia, that it helped to bring that gentleman to this country; that Mr Victors Kalnins was sponsored by the Latvian Relief Society of Australia; that Leonid Plyushch was sponsored by the Victorian division of the Ukrainian Committee for the Defence of Human Rights; that the Rev. Smits was sponsored by the Latvian Federation of Australia and New Zealand; that Mr Vaghin was sponsored by the Russian Orthodox Brotherhood of Australia; and that Professor Voronel was sponsored by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. The report spells it out very clearly. The fact that the parliament may not have been responsible for the payment of the fares of some of those witnesses is, I respectfully suggest, an irrelevant argument to condemn that part of the evidence which has been used by the Sub-Committee to support its findings of the denial of human rights. I invite the House to examine the transcript of evidence which is publicly available and which is the official Hansard transcript. Only then will each honourable member be in a position to make his or her own assessment on the credibility of witnesses.

If one examined the documents from the Soviet Union- for example, the Soviet Constitutions of 1936 and 1977, the Helsinki Accords, the criminal code or the law on religious associations, and then took the evidence of former citizens of the Soviet Union who suffered as a result of action by Soviet authorities pursuant to Soviet law, the Committee’s conclusions are found to be soundly based. The extent of Soviet co-operation is referred to in the Chairman’s introduction to the report. Every effort was made by the SubCommittee to obtain an official opinion or statement but we received no reply, nor even an acknowledgement to our written requests.

I turn now to the report. Without wishing to restate the conclusions and recommendations or other findings of fact, I would like briefly to emphasise some aspects which may not be covered by other honourable members. In the first place, I refer to the program of Russification adopted by the Soviet Union. Article 70 of the 1977 Constitution provides:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral federal multi national state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as the result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics.

Article 72 states:

Each union republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

In the application of the Russification policy, fine words in the Constitution referring to free selfdetermination of nations, voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics and the right to secede are forgotten.

Let us look at some of the evidence. Mr Victors Kalnins, a Latvian journalist, told the Sub-Committee:

Even in the officially designed Latvian communist party, the Latvians are a minority and the majority is composed of Russians.

He further states:

The positions has reached the stage where the population of Riga, our capital, is only one-third Latvian. There is even a more extreme example. Daugavpils, another city in Latvia, has only a 9 per cent Latvian population.

Mr Kalnins also advised the SubCommittee that for every birth in Latvia there are four or five immigrants arriving from other parts of the USSR. I asked that witness:

What is your belief in the inevitability of the Russification program?

He replied:

If the political climate of the Soviet Union does not change, then the consequence is likely to be the dilution of our nation in the sea of the Soviet Union. However, there is one optimistic note. The birthrate among the Russians is also falling and gradually it is becoming less easy for them to flood the other republics with Russian immigrants. Going even further, there is some anxiety in the ruling circles in Moscow that the birth rate is growing only in the Asian republics of the union.

Or look at the evidence of Leonid Plyushch on the policy of Russification. He stated that Russification is becoming progressively more pronounced. He instanced the case that in 1977-78 alone, eight Ukrainian scientific journals were converted into Russian language publications. He quotes many examples of what he described as ‘cultural ethnocide’.

The Russification policy is simple in its application. The requirement for Soviet citizens to show ‘nationality ‘ under its internal passport system and on all official forms ensures the Soviet officials the opportunity to identify and then destroy national groups within Soviets outside Russia. It does, for example, discriminate severely against Soviet Jews and the report details the nature of that discrimination as it applies to Jews and, to a lesser extent, to the other Soviet minorities like the Crimean Tartars. Anti-semitic practices adopted in the Soviet Union are summarised in Chapter 5 of the report. Before I deal with that, may I refer to the Helsinki Accords. In 1975 the Soviet Union signed the final act of the Helsinki Agreement, which states:

The participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

Within this framework the participating states will recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

That is part of the Helsinki accords which were signed by the Soviet Union four years ago. Within three years of Soviet leader Brezhnev signing that Agreement, the Soviet authorities had imprisoned or expelled the majority of the people, who with considerable courage, had openly monitored the extent of Soviet compliance with the Agreement.

I now turn to the anti-semitic literature which is referred to in Chapter 5. The Committee received evidence, for example, that such literature is published outside the Soviet Union and we had one case referred to us where an action was taken against the Soviet officials in the USSR Embassy in France to stop the dissemination of anti-semitic literature in that country. The Committee also received copies of literature which has been distributed in Australia through the Soviet Embassy. Let me refer to one example: The Committee received a pamphlet, written by one R. Brodsky, called “The Truth About Zionism’ published by Novosti Press Agency, Moscow, in 1974 and which was also freely available from the library of the cruise ship Shota Rustaveli in 1978 in Australian waters. One extract from that pamphlet demonstrates the anti-semitic nature of the writing. I quote:

Zionists closely co-operated with SS Obersturmbannfuhrer Adolph Eichmann and SS Standartenfuhrer Kurt Becher, two of Hitler’s henchmen, who organised mass killings of Jews. In early 1939 long before Hitler planned his ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question, Zionist leaders made a deal with Eichmann according to which the Nazis were to let a train of Jews leave for Palestine.

On this particular matter the Committee recommends in paragraph 26 of the conclusions and recommendations that our Government should press the Soviet Union to cease the circulation of any anti-semitic literature in this country. I refer honourable members to Annexure F in which there is a list of some of the anti-semitic books which have been published in the USSR between 1970 and 1972 and between 1975 and 1977. The Committee found it difficult to understand Soviet thinking because there are many citizens of the Soviet Union who practise the Jewish faith who are anxious to remain as citizens of that State and who wish to continue with Jewish cultural activities within the USSR.

I conclude by considering one matter which the Committee was careful to determine early in its deliberations and that is the question whether an investigation by a parliamentary committee into human rights in the USSR would have an adverse affect in the Soviet Union on those people whom the Committee was anxious to support. Almost without exception witness after witness confirmed that the Committee’s actual hearing, let alone its final report and recommendation, was of considerable assistance to those within the Soviet Union who were seeking to establish human rights. For example, I again refer to the evidence of Viktors Kalnins. He said:

When people are arrested, protests from outside before they are sentenced are much more effective. As an example I want to mention the case of Gunars Rode and myself. Not only do protests from outside help, they also help to raise the morale of the opponents of the regime.

I also refer to the evidence of Professor Hazard. In the course of his examination, I asked whether protests by lawyers or legal institutions in Australia would have any influence on the denial of due process of law in the Soviet Union. Professor Hazard replied as follows:

Yes. I think it is important. That is why I have thought work by some of my colleagues, such as Professor Telford Taylor in the United States is important. He was one of the prosecutors in the Nuremberg Trials and therefore he knew very well the present Soviet Procurator General, General Rudenko.

When Professor Telford Taylor has criticised the proceedings that have been conducted in the Soviet Union, and particularly in many of the Jewish dissident cases, I think it is important, although they deny that it makes any impact upon them. So my feeling is that distinguished lawyers, have some reason to talk.

That brings me to the point where Chairman of the Sub-Committee, Senator John Wheeldon- I pay tribute to the brilliance of-that man as Chairman of this Sub-Committee- gives three reasons in justification for the conduct of the inquiry by the Joint Committee. He referred in particular to the Soviet Union being a super power which, because of the enunciation of the rights of Soviet citizens in the Constitution, wants the world to believe that those rights are enjoyed by every citizen in that country. The Chairman would also say that the Soviet Union is an ‘evangelising super power’ seeking to persuade people outside the Soviet Union that the USSR model is one which should be followed in other nations. If this report goes some way to demonstrate the hypocrisy and deceit of that regime in its application of human rights and therefore of the regime itself, then we have succeeded.

In speaking to this report it has been difficult to condense in the short time available the relevant parts of a precisely worded document. There are many findings of fact. In many respects the report is no more than an excellent attempt to bring all relevant detail into one volume, detail which has been documented by many others and been the subject of publicity in most countries of the world. If we are able to make this report the Christmas best seller for 1979 then we will have played some small part in helping those who are still fighting for basic human freedoms.

It would be also my wish that every member of the Red Army Russian Song and Dance Company, presently touring Australia, could return to their homeland with a copy of the human rights in the Soviet Union report made to this Parliament. This report should be compulsory reading for every visitor, sportsman and woman and official who will visit the Soviet Union for the 1980 Moscow Olympics. This report should be read by all people interested in the freedom of the individual and by those who seek to understand how society operates in the Soviet Union.

Motion (by Mr Staley)- by leave- proposed:

That the House take note of the report.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I realise that time is short and I do not want to take up too much time of the House. As a member of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which prepared the report on human rights in the Soviet Union, I would like to make a few points. Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to Senator John Wheeldon who was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee for most of the time and to Kim Beazley who was the original Chairman of that Sub-Committee before the 1977 elections. I think that in some ways the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) was not accurate when he said the members of that Committee were not biased. We were not biased in a party political sense in

Australia but we were biased in favour of freedom, in favour of a pluralist type society and in favour of a democratic society. The Soviet Union has only one political party. It has no independent trade unions and it has no organisations independent of the State. That is why the present position in respect of human rights exists in the Soviet Union, as illustrated in this report.

I make one point in relation to human rights in the Soviet Union and in relation to the nationality question: I do not necessarily support nationalistic claims, whether they be by people who originated in the Baltic States or in the Ukraine, those of Jews and so on and tend to oppose nationalism. I think that it is important to have democratic freedom in the Soviet Union. If people had democratic freedoms, the nationality questions would be resolved in a democratic manner inside the United Soviet Socialist Republics. If people in a minority group decided they did not want to stay there at least they could leave the USSR. But what is happening at the present time is that they can neither change the setup inside the Soviet Union nor leave the Soviet Union.

I would like to make a couple of points about human rights in the Soviet Union. I think that those of us who have been interested in the question of freedom and the question of human rights in the Soviet Union and in other countries know- the report emphasises it in its first conclusions- that there have been positive changes. In other words, changes have occurred in some ways away from the extreme totalitarian state of what was generally considered to be a Stalinist society in the Soviet Union until the death of Stalin. But it is still important to know what is happening in the Soviet Union at the present time. The system of police control of the entire society still stands as well as strict police control of any political movement and often even of movement in the realm of ideas. The goal, however, is not to drag all cases of different thinking and behaviour into the courts or into concentration camps as happened under Stalin. The goal is rather to have police evidence of all these cases and then to find different and always the most effective measures of repression in each and every single case. In the greatest number of cases the practice has been that the most effective way is not criminal prosecution but striking at a person’s mode of existence- his job level of income and so on- and administrative measures such as the reduction of certain rights and advantages. The necessities of the totalitarian system are fulfilled when every citizen knows that his activities are being observed and controlled and that he can suffer for his thinking and his behaviour should he be opposed to the rules of the game. In sum, all this creates such a high level of fear in the whole society that, by and large, it has the same function as the use of mass terror. Instead of mass horror that had been accepted with fatalistic submission back in the days of Stalin, the masses now feel it is possible to avoid repression if only one adapts to the demands of the totalitarian power, if one does not do anything that the power does not like or if one avoids people it does not like. As a result of this admittedly narrow space in which the populations recognise that they can make their own choices, political discrimination applied in a more effective way fulfils its stabilising function. In other words the Soviet state in many ways has become more stable because it has allowed a significant number of people, whom we call dissidents, to know that they have certain choices. They are extremely tough choices but they do not necessarily involve the dissidents finishing up in a concentration camp, a prison or a psychiatric hospital.

I do not want to take any longer because I know that there are many honourable members, especially on our side of the House, who want to express an opinion on this report. I draw the attention of the House, and hopefully those people who will read this debate in Hansard, to what I consider to be an excellent article in the British Political Quarterly of October-December 1979 by Dr Zdenek Mlynar, who had been secretary of the Central Committee and a member of the Politburo, or the Party Praesidium, of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and who apparently now lives in Vienna. He played a prominent part in the organisation of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. We have all heard about that in recent times. He was forced into emigration in the early summer of 1977. I would like to recommend his article. Until fairly recently he has been a very prominent member of the Communist Party in one of the Soviet bloc countries. He has a very intelligent approach to what is happening in the Soviet Union. Looking at the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) I am reminded that I want to pay tribute for once to the Australian Broadcasting Commission Broadband program for having a series on ‘The Five Faces of the USSR’, I think it was called. It was certainly a pleasant change from the usual content of Broadband programs on the Soviet Union and its satellites.

I recommend that people take an interest in this report by the Sub-Committee. I hope that it will stimulate discussion on the question of civil liberties not only in the Soviet Union but in other countries. At the same time I would not be true to my general political line if I did not emphasise again and again that there are differences between totalitarian countries. Some are much worse than others. Even inside the so-called Soviet bloc there are significant differences apparently. I am probably the only parliamentarian in this House at the present time who has ever been refused a visa to go behind the Iron Curtain. I tried to go to Czechoslovakia but they would not let me in. I am proud of it. I think the important point for us to remember is that it is not possible to equate all totalitarian societies, or even all authoritarian societies. It is important to note changes and, hopefully, assist those who are trying to bring about changes to make such societies less totalitarian and less authoritarian.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-Following on from what was said by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), I have never asked for a visa to visit the Soviet Union, or any country associated with the Soviet Union, either in Europe or in Asia. I do not really see any justification for anybody ever wanting to go there. I think that the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that has just been put down is plain evidence to everybody in this Parliament that going there would be a useless exercise.

The Committee has aimed in its report on Human Rights in the Soviet Union to present an objective, factual body of material. From this information the Committee has drawn a number of conclusions which to a large extent are based on the testimony of witnesses whom the SubCommittee on Human Rights had sought due to their personal experience in the Soviet Union. Other speakers have outlined the justification for the production of the report on human rights in the Soviet Union and some of its findings. I would like to mention some additional matters because I think they are important.

A major area in which the Soviet Union represses human rights concerns ethnic minorities. Restrictions are placed on the observance of national traditions or the contribution to national cultural development by non-Russian nationalities. Soviet authorities regard such activities as a threat. At best, active involvement in minority culture or causes is likely to result in the accusation of bourgeois nationalism; at worst it may eventually lead to imprisonment. The Soviet policies of ‘Russification’ seem to be a clear threat to several minority cultures within the USSR. The threat is more acute in those cases where there has been large-scale immigration of ethnic Russians, such as in Latvia, whose people and language have already been overwhelmed in the main cities. The Jewish culture and language is under considerable threat. The predominant proportion of each of the main Soviet nationalities are at least able to retain their titular language as their mother tongue. However the Jewish titular language, Yiddish, is not allowed to be taught or used in schools. There has been a great decline in the use of Yiddish, once widely used by Soviet Jews.

Religious practice is severely restricted through government directives and the closure of synagogues. In addition to this pressure against the Jewish culture is a steady stream of government sanctioned anti-Semitic propaganda. The official Soviet reaction to the growing number of unofficial Jewish cultural activities is to label them as Zionist. This indicates a Soviet misunderstanding of the aspirations of a large proportion of its three million Jews who wish to be allowed to participate in Jewish cultural activities within the USSR rather than seek emigration.

As emphasised in the report there is State interference in almost all religious activity in the Soviet Union. Although religious activity suffered greatly under Mr Khrushchev, official discrimination against religious believers is continuing, and the very survival of some religions or denominations is at stake. Religious believers are subject to harassment and imprisonment and the unregistered Baptists and members of several evangelising faiths mentioned in the report are subject to special discrimination. Allegedly some devout believers run the risk of having their children taken away from them. Some of the most severe persecution has been suffered by those faiths that are concentrated in areas where there has been an interaction of religion and a national sentiment, such as in the Western Ukraine and in Lithuania. The Jews and Buddhists have also suffered particularly severely. The Soviet Union will need to pay great attention to the aspirations of its large Muslim communities.

Most churches suffer a shortage of clergy as ministers who die are not always replaced. Ministers and religious believers are also restricted in their movements and ceremonies. Despite the repression of religion in the USSR, and of the shortage of clergy and religious publications, there is a continuing interest in religion among a sizeable proportion of the population. Those faiths which have not been allowed by the authorities to have a central co-ordinating structure suffer special disadvantages because their scattered parishes become completely isolated and easy prey to state interference.

A further example of repression of human rights is the restriction on a citizen’s intention to permanently move to another part of the Soviet Union. This is especially so for residents in rural areas who can be prevented from leaving their collective farms to move to the cities. There are many other things associated with the religious situation which I could mention, but I know that there are other people who wish to say something about it also.

The West cannot ensure Soviet compliance with the human rights provisions of our report or of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement. However these provisions do provide a set of standards towards which relevant governments can be prodded, both by individuals and by other governments. Indeed, one of the key aspects of the Agreement is that, for the first time, good relations between nations are linked explicitly with observance of internationally agreed upon principles on human rights. There have been some successful campaigns outside the Soviet Union to secure the release or emigration of imprisoned Soviet intellectuals and dissidents, or on behalf of those threatened with imprisonment. One of the most notable international efforts to counter human rights violations in the Soviet Union has been the campaign against Soviet abuse of psychiatry for political purposes. This campaign has been very successful in some cases.

The report makes several recommendations on what the West can do to secure improved human rights in the Soviet Union. The dominant viewpoint that has been presented to the Committee by witnesses and through submissions is that the more western publicity that the causes of the dissidents receive, the better. As long as the Soviet Union seeks goodwill and economic concessions from the West, there seems to be scope for the West to achieve a more humane Soviet attitude towards its own people. Australia should insist that a regard for human rights be part of Australia’s relationship with the Soviet Union. It should take the opportunities presented by bilateral discussions or negotiations between the two governments and cultural, academic and scientific exchanges between individuals to express its disapproval of Soviet breaches of human rights commitments. That is why I think it was a splendid suggestion from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) to equip each member of the Soviet Red Army Choir that is here now with a copy of our report. The only difficulty is that most of them would not be able to understand English. It is a pity that we did not have the report translated into Russian.

However, Australia’s international position with regard to human rights will be much stronger once the Australian Government ratifies the international convenant on civil and political rights which it signed in 1973. The Soviet Union sometimes claims a lack of understanding in the West of its case on human rights. The Committee has recommended that the Australian Government suggest to the Soviet Union that it may be possible to arrange a reciprocal exchange of views in the Soviet and Australian newspapers and in other publications. That may seem to some to be an unrealistic suggestion and I doubt that the Soviet Union will take it up. However, I think the suggestion is offered in good faith. Furthermore, it is recommended that Australia seek the right to distribute informative publications in the Soviet Union, in the same way that the USSR is allowed to distribute in Australia.

The Soviet Union of course is not the only offender regarding the violation of human rights; there are some other nations where attention needs to be directed. However, the substance of this particular report is directed to the Soviet Union and therefore that is where the original charge lies. How can the Soviet ever challenge anyone again in this country, in the United Nations or anywhere in the world whilst a document that is so carefully compiled as this particular one is in existence, and with the truth of its statements I think abundantly verified by the evidence? What the report highlights is that basic human rights of any kind at all are denied to anyone who dissents even slightly from the Soviet Government. I commend this report, as other speakers have done, to the reading of anyone who has just the remotest interest in human rights. I think the report will recommend itself not only to people in this country but also to people throughout the world.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-In 1977 when the proposition was put to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for this reference to go to the sub-committee, I asked then that my name be recorded in the minuteswhich it was- as having very decisive reservations on such a decision. The reason was that I foresaw the type of recommendation which would be forthcoming, such as is contained in paragraph 65, and for other reasons. I pointed out then in the Committee that if this was to be taken to its logical conclusion, Australia would be placed in a situation where great pressure would be brought to bear on this Parliament and on the Committee to carry out similar investigations in respect of a large number of countries, very many of which are friends of Australia.

Australia could be put in the position where it would not have very many friends left. I do not think one has to use much imagination to understand that, and I am certainly not going to compound the error which I feel has occurred by nominating individual countries. I will mention two only.

What would our position be if we were to inquire into the question of civil rights of the negro minority in the United States? On the other hand, what would be the position if we were to have some other country decide to carry out investigations into some occurrences here in our own country in respect of Aborigines; in respect of some happenings in the States of Queensland and Western Australia? One could go on from country to country within our region and find that there could be very good causes for such inquiries to be held in respect of those countries. Therefore, Australia would be placed in a situation where it would not have many friends left. This country is in a very sensitive situation. It is very large in area. It is a very rich country in resources but very small in population. It is of paramount importance that in future we take every action we can to use the utmost diplomacy to maintain as friendly relations as we can with all countries around us and, for that matter, with all countries throughout the world. I see that as being of paramount importance. I consider that friendly diplomacy is more important than anything else in maintaining the future of this country, and it is this country in which I am really interested.

I do not always agree with the Department of Foreign Affairs, but in 1977 I was aware- as most committee members would have beenthat the Department of Foreign Affairs was opposed to the reference of this matter to the sub-committee and on precisely the same sorts of grounds as I have just mentioned. I think I am being very consistent in opposing it again today as I did then. I concur particularly with the statements made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), and statements that no doubt will be made also by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) today, but there are two aspects in this report which I particularly wish to emphasise. In the first paragraph of the reservations we state:

We accept on the available evidence that there are serious denials of human and civil rights in the USSR, particularly with reference to minorities.

In the second last paragraph we state:

We would reiterate our view that based on the substantial evidence available the civil rights of certain groups, especially minorities, in the Soviet Union are seriously infringed and fall below that which should be expected in any civilised society.

But we also go on to state in the second paragraph:

Nevertheless we are of the opinion that the Parliament does not do itself justice nor are Australia’s international relations advantaged -

That is the crux- by the conduct of inquiries by its Committees into matters where the inquiry and the Parliament lack access to and authority over the availability of evidence, the areas under consideration and is unable to bring about a conclusion based on total consideration of the subject matter.

That is a very important aspect as far as I am concerned.

Mr Hodgman:

– Shame on you. You are whiteanting the report.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Look, puppy dog, will you please go into your kennel for a little while? The paragraph continues:

Nor does the inordinate length and repetitiveness of the Report disguise the insufficiency and imbalance in the evidential base.

I think I have made the important points that I wished to make. I have made the point that this report can do great damage to the Parliament. I have made the point that paragraph 65 of the conclusions and recommendations, which recommends the establishment of a Standing Committee on Human Rights, would do damage not only to the Parliament but also to Australia’s relations with other countries. I have made the point that we lack the resources with which to obtain the necessary evidence and to test it fully. I have made the point that the repetitiveness of the report could leave the report open to being accused of being a propaganda document. I am sure that that is not the intention. I have made the point that there are serious infringements of civil rights but that this occurs in probably 75 per cent of the countries. This report could do a great deal of damage to this country.

For those reasons, whilst I accept completely that there are infringements of civil rights in the Soviet Union, I am one of those who feel that the recommendation in paragraph 65 and the original reference of the matter to the SubCommittee can do untold harm to Australia in the future. We are only a small country in terms of population. We are a country which attracts a great deal of envy because of our great resources. We are a country which has to depend at all times upon the utmost diplomacy in order to maintain our friends. It does not do us credit or good to embark on projects which we cannot properly finish. We must ensure at all times that our findings are such that they cannot be questioned. Finally, do not let us go back to the cold war attitudes of the past. That will not assist Australia in the future.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

-As a member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union, which undertook this inquiry, I want to speak for a few moments on this subject. I will not enter into the use of any of the jargon that was just used. I believe that the report speaks for itself and recommends itself. I believe that the members of the Sub-Committee worked assiduously with a concern for evidence and with a concern to bring as wide a group of people as possible before the Sub-Committee. I stand strongly by the conclusions which have been drawn up within this report. I commend the report for its modest language, and, above all, for its very careful concern for the evidence that was put before the Sub-Committee.

I think it is only fair that the Parliament, our peer group, should be told that at no time did this Sub-Committee accept evidence that was not cross-examined, thoroughly re-examined and reexamined again. There is nothing that appears in this report lightly or glibly. I think these facts should be known at this time of the presenting of the report to the Parliament. It was with regret that 1 noted the reservations expressed at the end of the report. It was with regret that I noted that the reservations came from three members of the full Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. None- I repeat, none- of the reservations came from members of the Sub-Committee itself, which was totally bipartisan and approached the matter in a totally non-party political manner.

I think this report will stand by itself. It has been carefully written and carefully considered. I regret that some question has been raised as to how it will affect our international relations. I strongly stand by the conclusion stated in paragraph 65 at page 160 of the report. I believe that if we have anything in us at all we have to be concerned with human rights round the world. The Helsinki conference must have some meaning somewhere to some people. If it does not have a meaning in this Parliament, we might as well throw half of our thoughts and moralities out of this place. We are concerned here with civil rights not only in the Soviet Union but also throughout the world. There is an obligation on every one of us on both sides of this House, within the facilities available to us, to follow through this concern.

It is my pleasure to be a member of another committee which is inquiring into another geographic part of the world. God alone knows, there is a lack of civil rights in that area . Are we to ignore that? Are the members of this other committee, because of remarks that have been made by certain people in this House and in the other House, to ignore the lack of human rights that has already become evident to that committee? Ofcourse not. Without trying to presage what will be in the report of that committee, I suspect that paragraph 65 of the conclusions and recommendations of this report will have a vital meaning to everybody in this House. More importantly, if we cannot stand up, if we cannot hear evidence from minority groups of various countries in the world as a free, completely independent committee of this Parliament, then God help us again.

To say that Australia will be disadvantaged by this report is a lot of poppycock. As the Chairman of the Committee said in the Senate only a short time ago, who is kidding whom? They are not his words. He has more eloquence than I. Do we really believe that Russia will stop trading with us because of this report? Do we really suggest that Russia will not look at us? I see one or two honourable members opposite, whom I shall not name, nodding their heads. I regret to say that they have a lot to learn about international trading relationships. Nations trade with other nations when and how they want to. They do not take care of these things. Because they trade where they want to trade there is an extra responsibility on us as members of Parliament to show that we are concerned in taking evidence about human rights round the world. What chicken-livered people we would be if we started to run away from responsibility and from the need to hear evidence? I shall read part of the Reservations that was expressed because we did not hear evidence from the Soviet Union. The report states.

It is realised that the Soviet Union was asked to provide contrary evidence and refused to do so. This however, would be expected . . .

That completely denies what is stated in the rest of the reservations. Of course I agree with the reservations in relation to our ability to get witnesses from overseas and our having the funds with which to obtain them. As with foreign affairs we do take evidence with regard to overseas areas. I strongly support the people who suggested that funds from this Parliament should be made available so that witnesses can be brought here. At the risk of creating a conflict of interest, I believe that committees should also have the right to travel when they are given a responsibility to investigate overseas areas. Above all, the important aspect of this document is that a group of members from both sides of this Parliament was given the responsibility to look into human rights in the Soviet Union. As has been said, we cannot turn away from that responsibility. We were charged to carry out that task by our peers, by everyone who is sitting in this chamber today, and by others. To have done less than we have done in the preparation of this report would have been a total abrogation of our individual and collective responsibilities as members of this House. In conclusion, I pay tribute to Senator John Wheeldon, whose honesty and frank approach to witnesses, evidence and the conduct of the meetings was exemplary and should be followed by most other people in this House if they have such a responsibility. I commend the report. As I said earlier, the report speaks for itself and certainly recommends itself.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– It would not be a bad idea if we started with some equal rights in this House. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) spoke for 23lA minutes and we are reduced in our speaking time. Of course, now we are being pressured to reduce the time for this debate after we took off threequarters of an hour yesterday to watch a horse race. I belong to the school of thought that it does not matter how big the others are and how small we are; our duties are quite clear. Human rights everywhere are important; it is the duty and obligation of free people everywhere to uphold them. That is where I stand. I recognise the limitations upon the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Its members were not able to travel, but we may be able to overcome that. However, there are many things we have to do without carrying out examinations at first hand.

I regard myself as a friend of the Soviet £ Union. It has been on Australia ‘s side in great wars twice in my lifetime. I am depressed that suspicion of the Soviet Union has increased over the last few years, and likewise Soviet Union suspicion of the rest of the world, particularly the West, has also increased. But, one would have to be blind to not recognise that inside the Soviet Union there are great deprivations of human rights. I think that it is our duty to say so to our friends and to others. I guess that the Soviets are strong enough to be able to stand that. There has been a great debate on this. There was great uneasiness within the Committee as to whether it should proceed. My own belief is that we should seek the truth wherever it is- like Ulysses, to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield. That is the principle I bring to my politics and I wish that that were the principle that this Parliament brought to its politics.

Some questions have been raised in this House by my friends about other matters that have not been examined. We ought to turn our attention to them. The report includes a great deal of valuable information. Much of it is not readily available; a great deal of it is simply facts which are useful to all people concerned with the study of international affairs. I come to the point of what is Australia’s duty in these matters. First of all, why pick the Soviet Union? It just happened to be one of the great issues of the time, a topical issue in international affairs. One has to say that the Soviet Union is powerful, influential and stable. It is a secure society. Having been there, I can say quite emphatically that one feels safe and secure wherever one travels in the Soviet Union. If a person were to walk out of a railway carriage leaving his cameras and possessions in the carriage, he could be fairly confident that they would still be there when he came back. The Soviet Union now has some of the problems of the rest of the world in regard to these matters but, it does have freedoms. So far as one can tell, the people of the Soviet Union are free of the real poverty that inflicts a great number of other societies.

However, it is obvious to honourable members on both sides of the Parliament, having come from the kind of society in which we live, that there are other freedoms which often transcend that, including the freedom to be free. That is obviously not the case in the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that the situation has improved over the last few years. What about the other countries of the world? I take up the issue of where do we go from here. I support the suggestion in paragraph 65 of the report that there should be a continuing committee of inquiry. Why? Because in this world of 4,000 million people and 151 member nations of the United Nations, with another 20 or 30 nations which are not members, not more than 20 of them can claim to be free societies. There are strict limitations even in a good number of those 20 countries. No matter what we think about our own country, it is one of the more free countries. But, there are still serious deficiencies here. I am not one of those who would say, if the United Nations or any other body decided to take a look at Australia, that it would not be welcome. Sometimes the motes in our own eyes stop us seeing things properly. For instance, I believe the situation of the Aboriginal people in Queensland would not be harmed by it being as widely known or as closely examined by objective non-Australian viewers as possible.

Is Australia vulnerable? I think that we do have points of deprivation in Australia but they are mostly known if we care to look deeply enough. I take up the question of noninterference in the affairs of other countries. That notion should have gone out in an earlier generation along with button-up boots. As I said earlier, in my view the rights of humanity transcend the rights of sovereignty. Of course, the rest of the world accepts that. There is a lot of tongue .in cheek talk about this. Last year I attended the four months of meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. There were consistent attacks upon countries, one by the other. Nobody bothered much about the rights of, say, the people of Israel to be free of that sort of criticism. They were under constant attack but there was an official inquiry by the United Nations into human rights in Chile. The report is a thick document. We accepted the right and duty of the United Nations to do that. The Chilean Government, which I think would be much worse than that of the Soviet Union, permitted the inquiry to go ahead.

The attention of the whole world is turning to South Africa and to the question of racism. Racism is one of the more dreadful deprivations of human rights. But, it is only one. If we are prepared to examine that thoroughly then we ought to be prepared to examine the deprivation of human rights wherever it occurs. Many people have strong views about the situation inside Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, most of them without having been near the place. I think that is correct, too. There cannot be one rule for one lot of countries and another rule for the rest. Therefore, I think that it was right and proper for the committee of inquiry to proceed. I could suggest a couple more inquiries on which we could start immediately. Right on our doorstep we have the question of Indonesia. What is the situation there? I think that human rights are very low on the scale of priorities of the Government of Indonesia. One could list all the countries in this regard. We would be doing a great duty for humanity if we used the power, persuasion and influence of this country to try to examine these matters and broadcast them abroad. In one way, this is being done by independent organisations such as Amnesty International. There are also organisations such as Freedom House in the United States- I am not sure about its objectivity but it produces a lot of information about publicising these matters- the International Commission of Jurists, and so on. We have a duty to the rest of the world and we have to accept it.

I wish to remind the House of these facts. I am sorry if I am depriving other honourable members of speaking time but I have been speaking for seven minutes after sitting around for hours waiting to take my chance. Let me give honourable members a good example; Britain is a small country. At the beginning of the last century it had a population of 12 million or 13 million people. It abolished slavery. Not only did Britain abolish slavery; it also paid a very handsome compensation- something over f 100m at the time. Subsequently, it put its fleets onto the seas of the world to try to stop the slave trade no matter what the rest of the world did. It was one of the great gestures of history. I am not suggesting that we become as dramatic as that but it would not hurt us to get into’ the international arena and point out wherever human rights are being trampled on, and try to use whatever influence we have with the people with whom we deal to have those rights restored to suffering humanity.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2805

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

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

-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, he has selected the matter which in his opinion is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Prospect, namely:

The Government’s repeated changes to health insurance which have destroyed the community rating principle and will mean that the elderly, large families and the chronically ill will be unable to afford adequate cover.

I therefore 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-

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you have just read out the text of the matter of public importance. I think it is quite clear to anyone who heard what the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) said on television last night that the Opposition is obviously correct in what it says. The repeated changes have destroyed the community rating principle in health and the net result will be that the elderly, large families and chronically ill will be unable to afford adequate health cover. I do not think that one has to be a Sherlock Holmes or a Jim Twaddell, the investigating officer from the North Sydney branch of the Liberal Party- the Sherlock Holmes of North Sydney- to predict this loss of community ratings. It was a consequence of the Government’s yo-yo health insurance policy. It was obvious that that would happen. I am surprised that in a Press statement on 2 November the Minister for Health seemed surprised about what had happened. In part of the Press statement Mr Hunt said that he was opposed to this latest development which, in the longer term, has the capacity to destroy the community rating principle. I draw the Minister’s attention to a statement by Senator Baume who led for the Government in a debate in the Senate on 9 June 1978 when the Government announced that it would introduce voluntary health insurance from 1 November 1978 and that it would abolish the levy, introduce deductibles, et cetera. Senator Baume, a knowledgeable man, when speaking for the Liberal Party in the Senate said:

A deductibles scheme would provide us with the opportunity to move away from community rating for the first time. It would be the first time that we have got away from making everyone carry the same insurance risk. If we are ever to get some incentive into the health insurance system it is essential that community rating be done away with and that experience rating or individual rating be adopted. I welcome the opportunity to do so.

That was said by Senator Baume, the Government Whip in the Senate. He is probably the only person in the Senate on the Government side who understood the changes. I made statements in the debate on the matter which, whilst not approving of the abolition of community rating, also forecast its abolition. To me it was quite obvious that that would happen.

The problem which has arisen today is one of many. I think it would be fair to say that each of the problems which has arisen has been due to the so-called solution of previous problems. The Government has continually attempted to bring about what it calls solutions. They, in turn, have produced further problems. There has been a rapid destabilisation of the Australian health insurance system. It is not surprising that several insurance organisations operating outside the umbrella of the Health Insurance Act are seeking to move into the health insurance area. These organisations, plus the variety of budget and cutrate tables offered by various established funds and the tempting choice not to insure, will effectively destroy community rating which is based on sound actuarial principle rather than a particular ideological prejudice. Inevitably, as the low risk people opt out of private health insurance, rates will become prohibitively expensive for the remaining contributors, the very people most in need of cover for medical and hospital costs.

I noted last week when the matter suddenly hit the newspapers- although we have been talking about it in the House for over a year- that the Australian, in its editorial on 31 October, called Australia’s health system ‘a total unmitigated disaster- a monstrous creation by Cabinet Ministers and bureaucrats and a nightmare for the general public’. The Sydney Morning Herald, which is also not exactly known for its pro-Labor attitudes, in its editorial on the same day said:

A new mine-field is opening up in Australia’s health insurance system . . . bemused Australians have been forced to move a long, long way from the delightful simplicity of the original Medibank scheme, offering taxfinanced universal health insurance.

I emphasise again that the Labor Party, myself and, I think, most people agree that adequate health care is a right in a country like Australia and that the basic costs should be shared between the sick and the healthy. We also believeagain I feel that we have majority support on this matter- that the costs should be shared in a progressive manner related to income. The important thing is this: If we opt out of community rating for health insurance, people who are healthy and probably relatively young- the two coincide to a large extent- will contribute to health insurance only if they are forced to do so. There is no point in their contributing otherwise. At present a person might be very well disposed to the general principle of community rating and the young and healthy contributing towards the cost of health insurance. But there is no guarantee whatever that if a person contributes to a health insurance fund at present until he or she reaches an age or a medical condition which requires more medical attention other people will contribute towards his or her costs. Surely we have to accept the proposition that the healthy in society at any time should contribute towards the cost of illness and treatment of illness for the sick, as the young contribute to the cost of the age pensions and those of us who are working contribute to the cost of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and invalid pensions. This can be done only by compulsion. I am sorry that the Minister will disagree with me. In theory it would be very attractive to have a society in which people, without compulsion, would act in a charitable and social fashion and contribute towards the cost of those who required benefits from society as a whole at any time. This obviously does not happen. I do not think that anybody in our society would expect it to happen.

What worries me about the health insurance funds is that the relatively healthy are being siphoned off from the funds by all kinds of gimmicky schemes. Some of them are run by the health insurance funds themselves, some are run by only some of them and others are run by friendly societies. Now, as I understand it, some of them will shortly be run by commercial insurance companies. If that happens contribution rates will either increase very quickly or, alternatively, many of the funds will go broke. Possibly both will happen at the same time. We have already witnessed the failure of a major Queensland fund, the Hibernian Medical and Hospital Benefits Fund, and the Federal Government’s complete disinterest as contributors to that fund received less than 30c in the dollar for medical cost refunds. I am sure that many of us, especially those with electorates in Queensland, have received letters from people who were owed $200 and $300 in refunds for medical expenses. They thought that they were covered. The fund went into liquidation and all they received was 30c in the dollar.

It is no secret that a number of substantial health insurance funds have encountered serious financial difficulties, in large part as a direct result of the number and content of this Government’s changes. The latest annual report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations tabled only two weeks ago in this House lists the national total operating deficit of medical insurance funds as over $ 1 75m during the year. The breakdown for the States included $78m plus for New South Wales, $36m for Victoria, $22m for Queensland and $23m for South Australia. I will give some instances of specific medical funds. In New South Wales the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia showed an operating deficit of over Slim. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd showed an operating deficit in one year of over $50m. In Victoria the Hospital Benefits Association Ltd lost over $ 16.5m. In Queensland the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia lost over $16m. In South Australia the Mutual Hospital Association Ltd and the National Health Services Association of South Australia lost $12.6m and $9.1m respectively during the year. In Western Australia the Hospital Benefit Fund lost $5m and in Tasmania the Medical Benefits Fund lost over $3.4m. These figures give rise to an understandable alarm. Not only has confusion over the options for health insurance reached epidemic proportions but also the funds have been placed in the position in which at least some of them rest on shaky financial foundations thus causing more worry for the contributors. This cannot continue without very serious consequences for large numbers of Australians. I assume that the changes introduced by the Government on 1 November 1978 and partly reversed on 1 September 1979 have increased the profitability of the funds for that period at least, but I do predict that the funds are in real strife.

I hold very little brief for the funds themselves because they pretend to be run by contributors, in the interests of contributors, but they are not. Most of them do not have any contributors or contributors’ representatives on their boards. They are run by a small bureaucracy, purely in the interests of that bureaucracy. They are just as keen to grab the people whom the commercial institutions are attempting to coax into health insurance. I well remember the advertisements by the HBA which are put out usually in December of each year. They depict a rather attractive girl apparently about 16 or 18 who has just entered the work force- the sort of person the HBA wants to take out health insurance with it. The advertisements showed a breast partly exposed. There would be a stethoscope on that breast and the advertisement would be headlined: ‘Do you want just anybody to do this to you? For a choice of your own doctor, subscribe to HBA’. So the HBA is no better than the others. I am not defending the HBA.

As I have only a few minutes remaining to speak in this debate I will conclude my remarks by referring to a specific case- and I know of many such cases- which surely must worry even Government supporters who have some sort of sympathy for people in strife. Last week a woman telephoned me. I do not know how old she is. She said she has two young children. She said that her husband, who earned $ 140 a week, had a brain tumour removed two years ago at a major teaching hospital in Sydney. The reason she rang me, she said, was that she was told I was the only one who understood about health insurance. She was paying $76 a month health insurance- I repeat, $76 a month health insurance- out of a family income of $140 a week. I asked her: ‘Why do you pay that sort of money for health insurance?’ She said: ‘Because I am worried that my husband will have a recurrence of his brain tumour’. We all know that if he has a recurrence of his brain tumour he is entitled to go into a public hospital for nothing. He will in fact go into a public hospital. He will go into a teaching hospital for further treatment. There is no need for her to have cover for treatment in a private hospital. It is completely unnecessary. But we have not been able to get that across to the people. The difficulty is not with the Opposition. Obviously it is with the Government.

I have been trying to tell people not to take out unnecessary insurance. It always hurts me when people with very low incomes such as $130 to $140 a week ring me up or come to me, as they do, and tell me that they are paying between $ 10 and $15 a week in health insurance. It is just not necessary. It is terribly important to bring in a system under which is is clear to the people that they do not need to do that and that they can rely on the benefits available from the States, paid for out of progressive taxation, so that they will have at least the minimum benefit which is necessary to look after them when they are in ill health. I appeal to the Government to do something urgently to correct the situation.

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

– The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has confused me to some extent as to where he stands in regard to health insurance. On the one hand he claims that he believes in compulsion but on the other hand he is day by day, and no doubt for political purposes, advising people to opt out of the health insurance system. I am afraid that I view this debate and the others that we have had on the health insurance system largely as political opportunism. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and indeed the shadow Minister for Health, Or Klugman, have consistently tried to advise the Australian people not to insure themselves privately, particularly the young and single people. Obviously they are doing that because they want to see the system break down. They want to see people opt out and destroy the community rating system which they say is so important. I see a great conflict of attitudes and purposes. I daresay that one of the reasons the Opposition is doing this is that if it succeeds in drawing sufficient people out of the health insurance system considerable damage will be done to the community rating principle and to the health insurance system. It is a contrived plot by the Opposition to create a climate conducive to the announcement of its revised Medibank policy later this year which will, of course, be a compulsory system.

For four years the Australian Labor Party has been very reluctant to announce its health insurance policy because of political considerations and the way in which a Medibank-type scheme will lock the Labor Party into an irresponsible economic policy at election time. It has taken nearly four years for Opposition supporters to pluck up enough courage to announce that if elected to government they would return a phased-in or staged-in Medibank-type health insurance system. The rate at which Medibank would be restored would depend on economic circumstances. This qualification concedes the fact that any government would have an economic nightmare is restoring Medibank and at the same time maintaining low taxation and a responsible budgetary and monetary policy. One wonders how a Labor government could reintroduce Medibank, dismantle the Fraser Government’s fuel policy and not make savage increases in taxation.

I have no argument whatsoever with the Opposition ‘s democratic responsibilities in advancing its own policy but I believe that I have a very real responsibility to warn the Australian people that if Labor proceeds to re-introduce a Medibank-type arrangement it will return this country to the great health cost explosion which occurred when Labor was last in Government. There is no doubt that the Medibank system was a great boon for the medical profession and the health providers.

Mr Baillieu:

– How much did it escalate?

Mr HUNT:

– On the latest figures a return to a Medibank-type system of 85 per cent and a $5 gap it would cost not less than $ 1200m for medical benefits alone. Indeed, Medibank and the high costs associated with health in the Whitlam years are symbolic of Labor’s failure in government. I want to return to the issue, and that is the question of community rating. I want to make it clear that the Government would view with concern any trend towards the destruction of the community rating principle in the health insurance system. It is essential to secure the widest possible community involvement in any insurance arrangement in order to obtain the lowest possible rating for premium purposes. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the recent developments of some friendly societies have had or will have an impact on the community rating principle. However, there is a potential threat. My Department is monitoring the situation closely for any such evidence. I want to issue a warning that if any such effects become evident the Government will not refrain from taking immediate action to remedy the problem.

The Government has a number of options it could take. For instance, the Government could move to make the Commonwealth subsidy for health benefits purposes available only to those people who insure for at least the basic benefits with health insurance funds registered under the National Health Act. I do not wish to pre-empt the decision that the Government may take if it is forced to move in order to protect the high risk or chronically ill people who seek to maintain their insurance cover with a registered health fund. The Government would view with deep concern any action by friendly societies, health insurance funds and commercials which resulted in their draining off the low risk, healthy people at cut price premiums, leaving the high risk contributors to pay high premiums to funds registered under the National Health Act.

Whilst the Government provides quite extensive basic cover- paying all the medical schedule fees over $20 for each service and offering standard accommodation, without doctor of choice, in public hospitals- it would be quite unacceptable to allow some insurance companies and health funds to profiteer by creaming off the good risks with selective policies at cut price rates at the expense of the sick. The Government could not tolerate developments that would be detrimental to the sick and the chronically ill in the community. Therefore, it will monitor the situation very carefully indeed. In the meantime, those insurers and those contemplating insuring for medical and hospital benefits with funds or commercial insurance companies outside the National Health Act would be foolish not to await the outcome of the Government’s consideration of this matter. In any event, people should recognise that those funds outside the National Health Act offer restricted benefits free of any supervision by the Commonwealth Department of Health. People should read the fine print and be fully aware of the limitation on the benefits payable under these cut price policies before they make their decision.

I wish also to respond to some of the wildly irresponsible claims made by Opposition spokesmen in recent days in respect of this issue. Any alleged crisis in health care and health costs is being caused by the cry wolf stance being taken by the Opposition. It is trying to create a smokescreen to camouflage the bankrupt position it created in Australia between 1973 and 1975 when it created the financial Medibank monster. Australia is continuing to suffer from those mistakes. Access to health care has been considerably facilitated during the time of the Fraser Government and, at the same time, the taxpayer has been saved from the horrendous burden that Labor was inflicting on the Australian taxpayer. The cost of health insurance is now cheaper than it was before 1 November 1978. Public hospital charges have risen by only 25 per cent in three years. Schedule medical fees have increased by only 3 1 per cent in four years and the Australian Medical Association agreed with the Government to hold those schedule fees for a considerable period.

Perhaps the Opposition would not like to be embarrassed again by my repeating the massive increases in medical fees that the Labor Party agreed to during its period of government. In fact, they increased by 93.5 per cent in a three year period. People with extended sickness, the chronically ill, have far more protection than they have had in the past. These people have access in the public hospitals to free medical services, care, treatment and accommodation. In health insurance particular attention has been paid to guaranteeing insurance benefits for those with extended illnesses.

The Government has introduced and is applying a formula in nursing homes so that the chronically ill are covered for charges made in 70 per cent of beds in each State. While Labor was in Government the particularly impoverished aged sick in nursing homes were left in a scandalous position. The percentage of fees covered was minimal. Pensioner medical services have an assured future and the Fraser Government has introduced medical service programs for the disadvantaged whereby these people can obtain medical services in and out of hospitals without charge to themselves. People who wish to insure can do so; those without insurance have free and easy access to public hospital services. About 62 per cent of the population presently have health insurance. About 20 per cent of the population are in the pensioner, Defence Services, disadvantaged and veterans’ groups. This leaves about 18 per cent of people who have relied on the Government’s provision of access to standard ward accommodation and the payment of fees above $20. They are still able to obtain public services or pay for services out of their own pockets. That is their choice in this democratic society. The worst features of Medibank have been corrected.

Does the Labor Party wish to go back to the situation that it created originally that caused much difficulty in budgetary terms and also to the whole economy? The changes made to the system have been designed in a most responsible manner and with the extent of responsibility which this Government has shown to the taxpayers of this nation in its attempt to try to get the economy back on a sound foundation. Let us not be hoodwinked by the Opposition on the matter of doctors’ fees. We all know the uncontrolled explosion that occurred in this area from 1973 to 1975. Not only that but also the Labor Party condoned and accepted as a fact of life the AMA’s separate list of fees. Did the Labor Party do anything about that when it was in government? Of course it did not do one thing. It realised only too well that the Commonwealth does not have the power to control fees.

Mr Howe:

– How about doctors’ fees?

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable gentleman was not even a member of the Parliament then. I do not know where he was. I do not know what pulpit he was speaking from. Members of the Labor Party need not put on their histrionic acts now after the mess they made of things at that time. A Labor government would seek to impose the whole cost of health cover upon the taxpayers of the country. This was demonstrated by the fact that under Labor the cost of health to Commonwealth outlays rose from $780m to about $2,900m- a 277 per cent increase in three years. What an incredible budgetary record. The policy of the Liberal-National Country Party Government is that the user should make at least some direct contribution unless he is a holder of a pensioner health benefit card or is disadvantaged. This philosophy has been incorporated in all alterations to the health insurance system and has led to the development of a diversified health insurance industry in Australia.

However, I repeat that if some sections of the health insurance industry proceed to take advantage of the hospital and basic cover provided by the Government and attract the low risk contributors, they will do so at their own risk. In the meantime, I hope that the Australian people will condemn the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Health for their attempts to create a politically expedient climate for the return of an extravagant Medibank scheme that they have now devised.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) spent most of his time agreeing with the substance of the wording of our matter of public importance except in the last ditch violent attack on Medibank. I throw that attack back at him. I remind him of an interview with Mr Jeff Duncan on PM on 23 February 1 978. Jeff Duncan asked:

Mr Hunt how do you substantiate your claim that the health costs, spiralling health costs, are due to Medibank alone?

The Minister said:

I am not claiming that at all. I have never blamed Medibank as such for the great escalation in health costs.

Later in the interview in relation to cost increases Jeff Duncan asked:

Why is that because of Medibank?

Again the Minister said:

Well, I am not saying it is because of Medibank.

Just what are we to believe from this Minister? He should resign immediately. Why does the Minister mislead the Parliament in the way that he just has when he goes into the public arena and says the opposite? Whoever said: ‘Wealth cannot buy health’ was not living in Australia in 1979. That is for sure. Working out how much wealth one needs to buy health is like predicting a Lotto winner and the chances of being a winner are at about the same odds. Our health system is now rotten to the core. The costly operations it has undergone- five changes in four years of government mendacity to be precise- have been aimed at killing public health insurance, not improving it. Just look at the tortuous changes under this Government. First, there was the imposition of the levy and the establishment of Medibank Private. Then there was the abolition of the levy and the introduction of a 40 per cent general subsidy for all services. Finally, there was the abolition of the 40 per cent single subsidy. The painful process was never part of the way along the long road to recovery. The scalpel is again poised for yet another incision. What has all this achieved? Has it given an efficient and improved health system providing the most benefit to the majority at the lowest cost? Not on your life. It has provided quite the reverse.

None of the changes has benefited low and middle income earners, improved their health care or made health administration more efficient. Our health system is not the culmination of years of planning for a system of total health care. It is not a well-oiled machine running smoothly and caring for our needs. It is a nightmare of grossly inequitable and cumbersome bureaucracy. It is a gambler’s nightmare- heads we lose; tails the Government wins. One can pay up to $17 a week- $884 a year- for comprehensive family insurance and trust that one gets one’s money’s worth. Under Medibank Private one can pay a basic package of $4 for 75 per cent medical cover, $5 for intermediate ward cover and $2.60 for extras, which represents a total of $11.60 a week or $603 per year, or one can gamble on one’s health and hope that one does not get sick and have to face heavy medical bills.

Private health funds are now offering a pick-a- box of enticing goodies to the unwary. A closer examination shows that the price is high and the returns are questionable. The private health funds are now competing to issue a great variety of colourful brochures, all espousing the cause of private health care and all aimed at getting the young and healthy out of the mainline medical table. There is a special plan for single girls which is cheaper insurance than the one for families. There is a special plan for ‘single guys’. There is another plan called ‘The Young Singles Plan’. At a cost of 50c a week a private health fund undertakes to register a person for the Commonwealth benefit. There is a plan called The Practical Singles Plan’. This must be for motorbike riders as I notice that there are a boy and girl riding a motorbike on the front of the brochure. That private health fund is offering insurance for $2.90 a week. Then we come to the The Growing Family Plan’. Under the Hospital Benefits Association, we find that a family is asked to pay $11.30 a week for basic cover. There we have it. That is the damage that is being done. As I said before to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), it is a bit like the 1 9th century peepshow rhyme: ‘You pay your money and you take your pick’.

The tragedy of it is that we now find that the friendly societies are also getting into the act; an act that the private health funds and the Minister helped to start. The Minister has been put in a position where he has to do something about that situation. I make the point that what the private health funds are doing is simply as a result of the policies that have gone before. Many people are simply opting out of health insurance altogether. They are simply doing their arithmetic and are coming up with all sorts of half-baked con-, elusions. In the end it might not do them any good, but that is what they are doing. They are doing their arithmetic and are coming up with conclusions that they can visit a general practitioner 26 times a year before the 75 per cent Medibank Private table at $192 a year becomes a cheaper option. It is very dangerous for people to be doing that, but they are doing it because they cannot afford to pay the present rates. The reasons that I have enunciated explain why the funds are in trouble. The Government is responsible because it has destroyed the principle of sound actuarial insurance funding. A year ago, 70 per cent of the public was covered by health funds. At present, less than 60 per cent of the public want any part of the private health funds.

Now the long-suffering, confused public faces further shock treatment because more changes are on the way. The mail is out, and the Minister has just confirmed in his speech, that the Government is considering measures such as placing a means test on free access to public hospital beds and perhaps limiting the universal medical benefits subsidy to members of funds only. In addition to further confusing changes fund contributions are going to rise yet again. As I have just outlined and as the Minister is aware this will be caused by the mass exodus from the funds and another two reasons: Firstly, the removal of that general 40 per cent subsidy, and secondly, because doctors’ fees are going up once again. Information has been released to the effect that a fee for a general practitioner’s consultation will rise by 13 per cent- from $8.90 to $10.20. I note that the Australian Medical Association- the most militant and selfish trade union in the country- is still instructing and advising its members to hold out for a 20 per cent increase. That is disgraceful. I am digressing. I will leave that matter aside for a moment.

As a result of the abolition of the general 40 per cent subsidy, contributions for the 75 per cent table for the Medibank Private family rate have increased by 18 per cent. But when the 40 per cent was payable by the Government the private health funds actually paid out only 35 per cent of $8.90 for a general practitioner’s consultation or $3.1 1. Now, given the rise in doctors’ fees and the abolition of the 40 per cent subsidy, the funds are up for 75 per cent of the consultation fee, that is, $7.65. In other words, there has been a 146 per cent increase in the responsibility of the private funds for a general practitioner’s consultation, but only an 18 per cent increase in fund contributions. Obviously, the people of Australia will be facing further increases. Once again the Government’s cent wise and dollar foolish attitude and medical greed are to send insurance rates rocketing. To sum up the reasons why those costs will rise again, the first reason is the exodus of at least 10 per cent of the contributors to these funds. The second reason is the increase in medical fees. The third reason is the deliberate abolition of the 40 per cent general subsidy.

Why do we need 80-odd different private health insurance funds? After all, the Commonwealth pays for all services over $20, at a cost of $590m. Medical tables operated by the funds really cover only the first $20 anyway. The Government pays the rest. What is to be done? Certainly something more is necessary than legislating for a new system to register health insurance funds, allowing contributions as tax concessions; implementing a means test on public hospital beds, and restricting payments of the federal benefit to fund members, as is being considered by Cabinet. The Australian people do not want and do not need the complex multiplicity of funds and tables which is currently thrust upon them. They are choking in the chaotic muddle of this system, which has been clogged by the greed of private medicine. The Australian people, particularly families and the poor, are crying out for a dependable, understandable, comprehensive system to take the worry out of health care. They will not get that from this Minister or this Government.

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-There is really only one matter that was raised in the speech of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) that is worth commenting upon and once again I feel compelled to comment in this House, on that matter, that is, the advice that the honourable member has been delivering to people for many months that they should refrain from taking out health insurance. This is most unsatisfactory. I would suggest to people that when they incur expenses that they cannot pay themselves they ought to refer the accounts to the honourable member for Prospect. I am sure that he would be only too happy to pay them. The people in this country who decide to be uninsured ought not to decide to do so until they have studied very closely the whole situation. After all, people do not have access to universal schemes to cover insurance for their cars, television sets or homes. They are compelled to look at the particular rates that are offering and to take the risk if they so desire. Quite frankly, I think the same situation should apply in this case of health insurance. It is typical of the socialist approach of taking over people’s thinking and responsibilities. They are molly-coddled from the cradle to the grave. That is exactly what the honourable member for Prospect is about. I will not have a bar of it.

The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) spoke about people being unable to afford present rates. Those people have to get their priorities straight. Surely the most important thing to all of us is our health? If people in this country wish to spend their money at the TAB and in the hotels- it is nothing for the average man today to spend $10, $15 or $20 a week at the TAB and a similar amount in the hotels- and not bother about their health, are we going to stand by and pick up the tab? That is exactly what the Opposition is suggesting that we should do. Of course, that is what it did when it was in government. From the events of the past several months, it is patently clear that if the Australian Labor Party ever comes into government- I said

IF because I doubt very much whether that will ever happen again- it will introduce a universal health scheme. I want to quote from the Labor Party’s health policy document. This was part of the policy developed at the July conference of the Australian Labor Party held in Adelaide. The policy states:

A Federal Labor Government will-

Introduce a universal Health Scheme to be financed by an income related contribution enabling the public to choose between health care provided by health professionals remunerated on a fee for service, salaried, sessional fee, capitation fee or capitation fee plus bonus basis.

The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) asked a question of the Minister for Health in the House on Tuesday. The Minister stated in reply that this scheme would cost taxpayers $ 1,200m annually for medical benefits alone.

Dr Klugman:

– Extra.

Mr HODGES:

-No in excess of $600m extra per annum. I ask the honourable member for Prospect: Where is that money going to come from? Is the Opposition going to increase taxes or increase the deficit? Perhaps, it is going to reduce expenditure in some other way. Knowing the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975 as I do, when all costs and expenditure exploded, I do not see it reducing expenditure in any particular area. Let me examine some newspaper reports on that policy at the time that conference was held in Adelaide. I quote from the Adelaide Advertiser of 20 July 1979. It stated:

In his address, Mr Hayden said: ‘We are committed to the staged restoration of Medibank- the first step of which will be taken in our first year of office. ‘

Introducing the health policy proposals yesterday, the Opposition spokesman on health, Dr Klugman, said Medibank had never been given a fair go.

He said Medibank had not been run for an extended period under a Minister sympathetic to the concept and its funding had been chopped and changed- often for political reasons.’

Also, in the Advertiser of 26 July it is stated:

The Federal Opposition is preparing a new universal health insurance plan based on the original Medibank concept.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, served notice yesterday that the ALP would make health a major issue at the next Federal election.

He said the Opposition was pledged to an alternative universal health plan to contrast with what it saw as the piecemeal approach the Federal Government had taken to health since 1975.

What I cannot understand about the Labor Party is that this was a failed policy; it was feared by the Australian people; it was rejected by the Australian people. Yet, the Opposition now states that it is going to reintroduce this scheme if it ever comes into government again.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– They never learn.

Mr HODGES:

-No, they never learn as the honourable- member for Hotham just stated. Any universal scheme without a substantial identifiable cost will be overused. Surety the Labor Party can see that. It happened during the three years or so of Medibank while the Opposition was in power. It will be abused and overused by the suppliers of the service. The honourable member for Prospect is a member of that profession which provides this service. It will be abused by the consumers. This has been proved time and time again. Yet the Labor Party states that if it comes back to power it will reintroduce a Medibank-type scheme. The members of the Australian public rejected it; they do not want it. They will reject the Australian Labor Party if it fights an election on this issue. The Australian public saw the cost of health escalate to such an extent in this nation that everybody became very frightened. Let me just repeat a few of the figures. Under Labor, health expenditure rose from $2, 500m to $5, 600m in three years. It more than doubled. There was an increase of 120 per cent. Under the present Fraser Government the increase has been from $5,600m to about $8,000m or a 40 per cent increase in a three year period. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) who is sitting at the table, despite the fact that a number of changes have occurred, is to be congratulated on at least curbing these costs.

There are so many other points. For instance, doctors’ charges were allowed to escalate quite freely. Indeed, I believe this was encouraged under the Labor Government. Certainly, it did not have its finger on the pulse in relation to doctors’ fees. Although I have been critical of the medical profession in this House on a number of occasions, I believe the doctors need some commendation in relation to the restraint they have practised in co-operation with this Government over the past two or three years. This Government was faced with the unenviable task of tackling the medimess created by the Whitlam Government. The architect of that scheme, of course, was none other than the present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who aspires to be the Prime Minister of this country. Labor has a poor track record in the health area and that cannot be denied by anybody on the other side of the House. We saw this massive escalation in costs. It is a high tax and a big spending party when in government. That is on record. The honourable member for Prospect has to accept that. On the other hand the Fraser Government has a good track record. It has curbed health costs over the last four years. Indeed, I am sure that the Australian nation is thankful for the fact that we have been able to curb the costs to the extent that we have. Most people learn from their mistakes, but not Mr Hayden and the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party again demonstrate that a leopard really never changes its spots. He has been known of recent times as a big tax Bill and big government Bill. Quite frankly, those names will stay with him.

I want to express a little concern about the present trends in health insurance. The Government must surely not overreact; it must not be panicked into any quick action. After all, the changes that have been instituted have only happened since 1 September. We are really still in the shakedown or settling down period. If the healthy are opting out of the health funds and if there is an intrusion by the friendly societies and commercial insurance companies that are outside the Health Insurance Act, into the medical insurance area, obviously this must be monitored closely by the Government. The Minister has stated today and on previous occasions that he is going to monitor very closely the actions of these groups. For the life of me, I cannot see why the elderly and chronically ill were specifically mentioned in the matter of public importance. There is an inference in the wording of the matter of public importance that this Government is going to create a situation in which the elderly and the pensioners will have to pay for health insurance and hospital care. This is not the case. It has to be refuted strongly. The elderly are covered if they have pensioner health benefit cards, and a majority of them have. Indeed, it is quite wrong for the Opposition spokesman for health to indicate through this matter of public importance that some extra taxation will be imposed on these people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

page 2813

LOAN (FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT) REPEAL BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to terminate the arrangements under which States are required to report in respect of funds provided under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act. The termination is subject to the proviso that States apply any remaining funds towards assistance of a type provided under the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act, which is the subject of a separate amendment. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2813

STATES AND NORTHERN TERRITORY GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill is to authorise the Government to enter into an agreement with the States and the Northern Territory to amend the existing Rural Adjustment Agreement in two ways. The first amendment is to bring the Northern Territory into the Rural Adjustment Scheme on the same basis as the six States. This move is, of course, a direct result of the Government’s transfer of autonomy to the Northern Territory in July 1978. The Northern Territory has, heretofore, provided some forms of rural adjustment along the general lines of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. The second amendment is to formalise a number of machinery procedures which have been used during the currency of the Rural Adjustment Scheme and its predecessor, the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, on an informal basis. There are three procedures involved.

The first is to authorise the Minister for Primary Industry to make supplementary determinations of the amount of assistance a State may approve under Parts A and C of the Rural Adjustment Scheme during a year. The existing Rural Adjustment Agreement provides for the Minister to make one determination, before the commencement of each financial year, of the amount of assistance a State may approve during that year. There have, in the past, been special circumstances where a second determination has been necessary. For example, in 1978 the Minister’s initial determination was made on the basis of an interim governmental decision regarding 1978-79 assistance. Additional funds were approved in the 1978-79 Budget and a determination was necessary to distribute them between States. The amendment to the Agreement makes specific provision for such supplementary determinations.

The second amending procedure is to permit the transfer of approvals authority from one State to another, within the same category of assistance, subject to the agreement of the States concerned. The States must estimate their rural adjustment requirement in February of each year for the next succeeding financial year. They are thus required to look almost 18 months ahead, an exercise which can be extremely difficult in the uncertainties of the rural sector. The procedure which will be authorised by this amendment will allow the transfer of excess approvals authority for a particular category of assistance from one State to another State which has an unsatisfied demand for the same category of assistance.

The third amending procedure is to enable the Minister to authorise a State to precommit, in exceptional circumstances, approvals authority which it is anticipated will be allocated in a subsequent financial year. This measure is in a way complementary to the second one mentioned above. If through circumstances beyond its control a State finds that the demand for rural adjustment assistance exceeds the amount of approvals authority available and no other State has excess approvals authority which could be transferred, the practice in the past has been to permit the State to approve additional assistance on the basis of using funds to be provided in a subsequent year. This approach necessarily reduces the amount which will be available to the State for new approvals in the subsequent year, but it provides a most useful degree of flexibility. The precommitment procedure proved, in fact, to be most useful to Western Australia when the demand for rural adjustment assistance was significantly increased by the long drought of the mid- 1970 ‘sin that State.

Finally the amending agreement formally incorporates a number of small changes to the Schedule to the principal Agreement. These changes may, under the Agreement, be made on the basis of an exchange of letters between the Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned. The necessary exchanges of letters have taken place and they are now to be formally incorporated in the Agreement. The changes are: To extend the Rural Adjustment Scheme to apiarists; to allow household support to be provided, at the discretion of the State authority, for up to three years; to extend the period during which household support assistance will be converted to a grant from six months to twelve months; to increase the lump sum payable to recipients of household support who make a prompt decision to adjust out of fanning from $3,000 to $5,000; and to amend the wording of the farm improvement criteria to ease the restriction on this form of assistance.

The Bill also provides for consequential measures arising from the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Repeal Bill. The original Act imposed certain reporting requirements on the States and the Commonwealth Auditor-General which, due to the passage of time and the expenditure of funds provided under this Act, have become increasingly difficult to satisfy. Any funds that may be remaining after the repeal of the Act are to be applied towards assistance of a type provided under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2814

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr John McLeay, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will recall that the creation of the Australian Federal Police was the central recommendation contained in the ‘Report to the Minister for Administrative Services on the Organisation of Police Resources in the Commonwealth Area and Other Related Matters’ by Sir Robert Mark. All honourable members are aware that that recommendation has been embodied in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 which received royal assent on 15 June 1979. Subsequently all provisions of this Act were proclaimed by His Excellency, the Governor-General in Council, on 19 October 1979, and the Australian Federal Police officially commenced operations on that date. The purpose of the Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill is to make amendments to existing Commonwealth legislation consequential to the enactment of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. These amendments are primarily aimed at changing references to Australian Federal Police from references to Commonwealth Police, as well as to preserve rights under the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act, where appropriate, to members of the Australian Federal Police.

Specifically, this Bill provides for amendments to existing legislation, as set out in the Schedule to the Bill, to come into operation, or be deemed to have come into operation, on the date fixed for the coming into operation of the remaining provisions of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. As previously mentioned this date was 19 October 1979.

The one exception to this, as set out in clause 2, sub-clause (2), amends sections 87 and 87j of the Public Service Act 1922, which are in relation to the preservation of rights under the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act, which are to come into operation on the date of the commencement of section 32 of the Public Service Amendment Act 1978. This is in line with assurances that have been given by Ministers that jobs, career prospects and terms and conditions of employment of members of the previous two police forces will not be at risk. In this instance, the amendments provide for the preservation by some former Commonwealth Police officers, who have been appointed to the Australian Federal Police, of their rights under the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act in respect of their former service in the Australian Public Service.

The Schedule sets out in detail those Acts which are to be amended consequential to the enactment of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Apart from amending references from Commonwealth Police to the Australian Federal Police, they also provide consequential amendments to such Acts as the Superannuation Act, the Public Service Act and the Audit Act for reference to the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Australian Federal Police. I have arranged for an explanatory memorandum and notes on clauses to be distributed to all honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2815

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr John McLeay, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr John McLeay:
Minister foi Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I move:

Honourable members will be aware of the Government’s policy to strengthen the parliamentary system and to enable Parliament adequately to review the activities of government administration. One facet of this process is the broadening of parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure. As an early step the Government agreed to the establishment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on 29 April 1976 in response to the need for a greater in-depth examination of public expenditure in relation to effectiveness and economy in the delivery of given Government policy. As a further step the Bill now before honourable members to amend the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 is designed to strengthen the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts.

In introducing the measures contained in this Bill, the Government’s aim is to bring within the Committee’s purview a range of statutory authorities and other governmental bodies currently subject to the Committee’s examination only insofar as information on these bodies is contained in the Auditor-General’s annual report or supplements to it. This is to be brought about by giving the Committee the power to examine, on its own initiative, the financial affairs of all statutory and other government bodies. The only exceptions are to be the Northern Territory and the administrations of the external Territories, and inter-governmental bodies. The Government has decided that in view of the changed and changing relationships between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, and the external Territories, the financial affairs of their present and future administrations should not be subject to scrutiny by the Committee. Expenditure incurred by Commonwealth departments in the Territories would continue to be subject to scrutiny by the Committee. The Bill provides for a special procedure with respect to bodies jointly established by the Commonwealth with the Government of a State or States or with another country. In these cases, it would clearly be inappropriate for these bodies to be subject to examination by a committee of this Parliament without the express agreement of all the governments concerned. Where such agreement is forthcoming, however, the Committee will be able to examine the financial affairs of such bodies. A further development in the Committee’s role is provided for in the Bill by enabling the Committee to examine special reports made to Parliament by the Auditor-General.

Currently, the Committee is not empowered to examine reports to Parliament by the AuditorGeneral outside his annual report or supplements to it. In particular, the Government believes that when the Auditor-General makes a report to Parliament on the results of any efficiency audit, the matters contained therein should be examinable by the Committee. Henceforth, the information contained in all reports of the Auditor-General transmitted to the Parliament would be subject to the Committee’s scrutiny, except insofar as the Territories and intergovernmental bodies are concerned. The opportunity has also been taken to introduce certain measures to improve the operations of the Committee. Sometimes the Committee has experienced difficulties in forming a quorum because many of its members are also members of other parliamentary Committees. It is therefore proposed to reduce the quorum from six members to four members. This proposal is in line with recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System in relation to certain other committees. A further provision would remove the present restrictions on the number of sectional committees- currently not more than two- that can exist at the same time. The change would enable more enquiries to be held simultaneously. For some time the legal position with respect to the Committee’s power to meet anywhere in Australia and to sit during a parliamentary recess has not been clear. Amendments to the Bill have been included to remove these doubts. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Public Works Committee has both of these powers, and the Government believes that the same powers should be conferred on the Public Accounts Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2816

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Bill, which contains 20 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 16-30 (1979) which have been introduced into the Parliament at different times since April 1979. Also included in the Bill are changes of an administrative nature. In the main, the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority:

Acetyl products.

Australian citrus industry.

Bags, sacks and certain polyolefin fabrics.

Ceramic floor and wall tiles.

Chemical products (Part A).

Confectionery, chocolate and cocoa products.

Continuation of assistance for insulators.

Hoists, pulley tackle and winches.

Miscellaneous industrial machinery.

Nuts, bolts and screws, et cetera.

Oxo alcohols, butyl acetates, et cetera.

Paper products.

Spanners and wrenches.

Sporting and recreational equipment.

Travelgoods, briefcases, toilet cases and similar goods.

Vices.

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

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 2816

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 32 to 35 ( 1 979) and Excise TariffProposals No. 7 ( 1979).

Customs TariffProposals Nos. 32-35 (1979) and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 7 (1979) which I have just tabled, relate to changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1966 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Proposals Nos. 32 and 33 contain changes of an administrative nature. No change in duties on the goods described in the Proposals is involved. Proposals No. 34 implement the Government ‘s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on grapes and wine; and spirits, spiritous beverages, et cetera.

The Government has generally not accepted the Commission’s recommendations contained in both reports. In the grapes and wine report, the Commission recommended that the majority of goods under reference should have a protective margin (including sales tax) of 25 per cent in the long term, phased in over a three year period. The Government considers that this is not the appropriate time for the reduction in protection as recommended by the Commission. Excess stocks of wine exist overseas and in Australia and a surplus grape problem has emerged in recent years. Consequently, a reduction in protection at this time could hamper the efforts being made by wine producers and grape growers to adjust their production to market requirements. The Government has therefore decided to apply the present General rates of duty to goods under reference from most sources.

In its report on spirits, spiritous beverages, et cetera, the commission recommended that most of the goods under reference should be dutiable at 25 per cent, plus an amount equal to the excise on local production and an amount per containing vessel. The Commission also recommended the removal of short term assistance measures applying to grape brandies. The Government considers that acceptance of the Commission’s recommendations, which proposed slight increases in duties applying to most potable spirits, would have relatively little impact on imported spirit prices, but would have required international negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, covering trade levels of a high order, to seek Australia’s release from tariff bindings on certain spiritous beverages. Consequently the General rates of duty applying to most of the goods under reference remain unchanged. The Government has, however, been concerned at the difficulties facing grape growers because of the importance to them of brandy distillation as an outlet for grapes. Consequently, while removing the short term assistance measures, the Government has also decided to reduce the excise rate for grape brandies by $2.75 per litre of alcohol to enhance this product’s competitive position. An equivalent reduction is made in customs duties in accordance with international commitments.

The Government has also decided to remove the duty differential between certain locally produced and imported flavoured and nonflavoured spirituous beverages. All such goods will be dutiable at the lower ‘flavoured’ rate. It considers it anomalous that countries which traditionally produce vodka, tequila, et cetera without adding flavouring to their beverages should pay higher rates of duty than those countries which add flavouring.

Excise Tariffproposals No. 7 propose changes to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 complementary to the changes contained in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 34. The changes contained in these Proposals operate from tomorrow. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 35 implement changes to developing country preference rates following a limited review of the Australian system of preferences for developing countries. The changes operate from 12 November 1979 and represent a decrease in duty rates on a range of imports from developing country sources. I have had prepared a comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the duty changes, which is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 2817

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his statement of 24 May 1979, to reintroduce a value limit on qualifying homes, including land, for which home savings grants may be made. These new arrangements will ensure that available funds are directed to assisting those people in most need of financial help in purchasing their homes. Other eligibility conditions of the scheme will not be altered by the Bill. Grants will continue to be payable to single people as well as to married people, and for both established and newly constructed homes, whether purchased or constructed through a building contractor or by an owner- builder. Qualifying homes include separate houses, semidetached dwellings, home units and flats; whether in suburban areas, in country towns or on rural properties. The home must be the applicant’s first home in Australia, and he or she must own the land or hold tenure in an approved form. Newcomers to Australia also qualify if they had a right of permanent residence here when they acquired their homes.

I remind members of the House of the savings provisions in the principal Act. In order to qualify for the maximum grant of $2,000, an applicant must have held acceptable savings of $6,000 or more, and have saved over a period of at least three years ending on the date of the contract to buy or build the home. The maximum grant of $2,000 is payable for homes bought or built since 1 January 1979. Smaller grants are payable, at the rate of $1 for each $3 acceptable savings, on shorter savings periods of one year or two years, or on acceptable savings of less than $6,000. The main forms of acceptable savings are those held with savings banks and building societies, which provide the bulk of the long term finance for private housing. The new value limit will apply to people who contracted to buy or build their homes, or who commenced construction of their homes as owner-builders, after 24 May when the new arrangements were announced.

The Government decided that it was necessary to re-introduce a value limit so that the limited funds available for payment of grants would be directed to those people in greatest need of assistance. People whose first home is a more expensive one stand less in need of assistance from the Commonwealth, and hence the taxpayer, to achieve home ownership. A value limit on homes, which applied under the first home savings grant scheme and was envisaged in our 1975 pre-election policy statement foreshadowing re-introduction of the scheme, which the former Labor Government had legislated to abolish, is generally regarded as the fairest practicable way of directing assistance. We believe that a value limit on qualifying homes is a more equitable course than the alternatives of paying smaller grants to all first home buyers, regardless of need, or of excluding from eligibility particu- lar groups, such as single people.

Industry groups agree. The Australian Bankers Association’s research directorate has described the value limit as ‘a sensible decision’ and the Real Estate Institute of Australia welcomed the measure as ‘a simple and effective form of means test’. It is also worth recording that before the decision was announced, the Opposition’s spokesman on housing had been critical of the fact that people buying very expensive houses were eligible for a grant. At the time of the announcement of the value limit earlier this year it was recognised that the limit would need to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that the amounts remain appropriate.

The Bill provides that a grant will not be payable if the value of the home, including the land, the dwelling, and any other improvements to the land, exceeds $40,000. People acquiring homes valued at less than $35,000 will continue to be eligible for the full grant of up to $2,000, subject, of course, to their qualifying savings. Where the value of the home falls between $35,000 and $40,000 the grant will reduce progressively as value increases. The Bill permits variation of these limits by regulation.

The value of the relevant interest in the home is to be determined by the Secretary to my Department, having regard to certain matters. The value will be the value of the home when it is erected in its completed state, including the value of any work not completed at the date the value is determined. In most cases, the point in time at which the value is determined will be the person’s prescribed date. This date is referred to in the existing legislation and is the date the applicant entered into the contract to buy or build his home, or commenced its construction as an owner-builder. It is the date to which all eligibility requirements relate.

Honourable members might appreciate an explanation of clause 4 of the Bill. There are situations where an applicant owns a dwelling jointly with another person, but where the dwelling is for the exclusive use of the applicant and is not occupied by that other person, who may have joined in the title merely to assist in the loan security. That other person may own another home or be otherwise ineligible, and it would be unfair to disqualify the genuine applicant because of this type of joint title situation. The existing legislation enables the interest of the other person to be disregarded where there is a joint ownership in these circumstances. Clause 4 of the Bill extends this provision to joint ownership of shares in a block of home units.

In the majority of applications, the value will be the cost set out in the purchase or building contract, excluding the value of any chattels, and excluding also the value of any part of the land or dwelling not used for domestic purposes. For example, where a property is used for primary production, land in excess of one-fifth of a hectare will be excluded from the value. Also, the value of the business area of a shop and dwelling may be excluded. Correspondingly, savings expended on the non-domestic element will be excluded from savings that attract a grant.

To ensure that the limit applies uniformly and equitably to all applicants, in cases where the Secretary has reason to believe that the figure shown in the contract or the stated cost is not a reasonable approximation of the value- for example, a home bought from or built by a relative of the applicant at a concessional price, or a home built wholly or partly by the applicant with his own labour and materials- arrangements will be made for the true value to be assessed by the Commissioner of Taxation. Work done or items supplied outside the main building or purchase contract will be valued and included in the value for the purposes of the limit. The value of land gifted by another person and improvements or fixtures, such as a carport or stove, will also be included.

It must be realised that the majority of people who have received grants under the Scheme are young married couples on moderate incomes acquiring modest homes. The intention of the Scheme has always been to assist such people and the new arrangements enable this assistance to continue. First home buyers purchase far less expensive dwellings than families purchasing a subsequent home. Australian families have long had a tradition of starting out by purchasing a modest home suited to their current needs and realistically within their reach. Later, when their circumstances permit, some will move to a larger house or to a more expensive location.

Figures for home savings grant approvals for 1978-79 show that for Australia as a whole about 80 per cent of recipients who purchased a home paid less than $40,000. For New South Wales the figure was 78 per cent and for Victoria about 72 per cent. The figures show that the average first home buyer in Australia is a young family purchasing a house costing about $34,000, although this figure obviously varies between cities. Details are available in the interim statement on the operation of the Scheme in 1978-79 which I tabled in this House this morning. Since the Home Savings Grant Scheme first commenced in 1964 some 500,000 grants, totalling nearly $300m have been made to help people buy their first home.

Mr Martyr:
Mr GROOM:

-That is right; $300m. This year $75m has been provided- an increase of $55m over last year. This is substantial evidence of the Government’s continuing commitment to home ownership. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 2819

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

– This morning the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) raised what he claimed was a matter of privilege. He drew attention to an article published in the Australian newspaper of 6 November written by Mr Marcus Einfeld, Q.C. headed ‘Politics and Prejudice’ which related to Mr Michael Finnane, the inspector appointed under the Companies Act to inquire into the company affairs of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). The honourable member for St George submitted that the article contained breaches of privilege in respect of the whole House, all members of the House, the institution of Parliament and certain members of the House.

I have read the article. I am unable to conclude that any portion of it is of sufficient relevance or directness to amount to a breach of privilege or contempt of this House. Generally stated a contempt of the House is any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer in the discharge of his duty. Writings reflecting on either House may be of such a nature that they obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by diminishing respect due to it. No passages in the article referred to by the honourable member for St George fall into this class. Parliament and its members by their very nature must expect comment or criticism- it is of the substance of our democratic system. I must add that I would have found the matter was not entitled to precedence as it had not been raised at the earliest opportunity.

As I stated this morning, I am very concerned at cases which have arisen recently where members have intruded into the proceedings of the House under the guise of raising a matter of privilege and so obtained precedence over other business. Such an intrusion into the business of the House without due thought for the forms and practices of the House must be regarded by the Chair as a serious matter. I have three cases in mind. On the 23 October the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) raised a matter relating to the alleged refusal of a Department to answer questions submitted to it by a committee. In my opinion this matter lacked the basic requirements to constitute contempt of the House. On the 6 November the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised as a matter of privilege an apparent discrepancy in answers given before an Estimates committee and the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) at Question Time. In my opinion there was no matter of privilege involved in the matter raised. Now the honourable member for St George has raised the matter I have referred to. In my opinion no contempt of the House is involved.

The privileges of the House are precious rights which must be preserved. The collateral obligation to this privilege of freedom of speech in the Parliament and the essential complementary privileges of the House will be challenged unless all members exercise the most stringent responsibility in relation to them. I reiterate what I said this morning, that when matters of privilege are raised I will consider them but if I come to the conclusion that there is clearly no basis whatever for the claim of privilege then I will have to report to the House that I believe that the member has misused its forms.

The House may wish to consider also the method by which complaints of breach of privilege are raised in this House. I am attracted to new procedures adopted in the United Kingdom House of Commons which would prevent the forms of the House being used to raise spurious complaints. I will have the Commons procedures considered by the Standing Orders Committee for adoption by this House.

page 2820

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I do. I did not canvass these matters earlier. They relate to the same article adverted to within the claim for privilege that was canvassed by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil). I refer to an article by Marcus Einfeld at page 7 of the Australian of Tuesday, 6 November. I did not do so because I felt that those matters may well have been sub judice. There are five matters to which I wish to refer briefly. The first involves a suggestion. I will quote from the article:

Some of these criticisms have since been met, though not answered, by the launching of prosecutions.

There have been no prosecutions launched against me. There have been a number of summonses and it is now necessary for the Crown to establish a prima facie case. In regard to the second matter, I quote Mr Einfeld:

If he -

That is Mr Finnane- had not given Mr Sinclair and the other directors and their respective lawyers, the unprecedented degree of opportunity to place submissions and propositions before him that he did afford them, he would have been pilloried as an enemy of natural justice.

There was no unprecedented degree of opportunity given to me, my lawyers, or to the other directors or their lawyers. There was the same degree of opportunity as is required by the law; it was no greater and no less. In respect of the third matter, Mr Einfeld stated:

  1. . such a person would presumably have made different findings about Ian Sinclair than have been made by Michael Finnane. A reading of the full report shows this to be patently absurd.

Those conclusions are predicated only on a reading of the report, not on a full reading of the evidence. I would suggest that any conclusions reached in a consideration of the report need to be measured in a consideration of all the evidence submitted to Mr Finnane and not only to that referred to in his report. I now wish to quote Mr Einfeld in relation to the fourth instance. He stated:

Mr Finnane ‘s report on Mr Sinclair cannot be rejected, criticised or even approached on the basis that Mr Finnane is a member of the Labor Party, any more than . . . an inquiry conducted by a judge into the activities of a politician should be rejected because the judge was once a member or supporter of the same or an opposing party.

I draw the distinction. Mr Finnane is a continuing member of the Labor Party. A judge who was once a member of a political party is, of course, in an entirely different category. In the fifth instance, it is stated:

Mr Finnane ‘s report can only be rejected … if Mr Sinclair can produce, as he will- fortunately for him and for all of us- now have the opportunity of doing, yet other material which demonstrates the falsity of Mr Finnane’s conclusions.

It is not for me to produce evidence; it is for the Crown to establish evidence. It is for the Crown in the submission of evidence to establish that it has a prima facie case. Mr Einfeld has suggested that in some way it is for me to answer the charges. It is not. It is for the Crown to establish that the charges lie. There are other instances within the article. I have referred the article, through my solicitors, to the Bar Association. Of course, there is also the continuing concern that matters of this ilk could well be in contempt of court.

page 2820

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I move:

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

establish the Institute as an independent statutory authority responsible to the Parliament;

provide the Institute with a more positive responsibility for the maintenance of cultural identities and traditions and encouragement of multiculturalism;

elaborate the functions of the Institute to include research into the history and phenomenon of immigration to Australia and issues related to the development of ethnic groups in Australia and their diverse cultures;

ensure the possibility of entering into contractural relationships with other community-based organisations engaged in activities in accord with the objectives of the Institute;

enable the Institute of Multicultural Affairs to conduct research into and foster community sensitivity for racial groups not the subject of study by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies while including the latter in the ambit of multicultural affairs, and

define members of the Institute their method of election, and their duties and powers as members of the Institute.’

As conceptualised by the Galbally report, the proposed Institute of Multicultural Affairs was welcomed by the Opposition in 1978 as a multipurpose resource centre serving the needs of a polyethnic society. As we saw it, the Institute would document the phenomenon of immigration to our country, trace and comment on the growth of ethnic communities, sponsor crosscultural awareness, help preserve the heritage of our ethno-cultural society, promote mutual tolerance and esteem between all groups and investigate cross-cultural experiences, lifestyles and needs. In other words, whilst its main activities were to sponsor research, disseminate information and educate the community, the Institute was not envisaged by us as an academic institution in an ivory tower far removed from everyday problems studying the arts and crafts of our various communities as a sort of public relations exercise. . We envisaged it rather as a communitybased resource centre sensitive to community needs and aspirations.

One of its main concerns would have been the welfare of our communities in the broader sense of the word. This meant not only social welfare but also the welfare of groups of people as ethnic communities, the relationships with children growing away from the heritage of their parents, the children’s relationships to their parents and the survival of those groups as entities. It is quite clear that the concept of assimilation does not work. Nowhere in the world does assimilation work in that sense. People wish to retain their ethnic identities. We envisaged this Institution as being concerned with the welfare of communities in that sense. We envisaged that it would receive its directions from the communities themselves. But these, it seems, were pipe dreams. The Institute will be entrapped by this legislation. It will be restricted. It will have little or no relationship to the problems that I have talked about. By this legislation it is being carefully removed from the communities it is being set up to serve. Most astonishing of all is perhaps the provision for the appointment of 100 members who have absolutely no role to play. The Council of- the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is, in effect, to be the Institute. Honourable members will note that as the Bill stands the Council will be purely a government machine- a creature of the government.

Let us look at how the Institute is to be composed. Firstly, clause 10 states:

  1. 1 ) The Institute shall consist of-

    1. the members of the Council; and
    2. not more than 100 persons appointed by the Minister as members of the Institute

  2. The Minister shall consult with the Council in relation to the appointment of persons as members of the Institute.

Quite clearly, they are all to be government appointees. There is no doubt about that. I will cover that point in more detail later when I discuss the composition of the Council. In passing, I note that when it comes to the functions of the members of the Institute clause 1 1 states:

Meetings of members of the Institute may be convened by the Council at such intervals and places as it thinks fit.

Members of the Institute will have no rights about when and where they will meet. It will be entirely up to the Council. Let us look at the proposed Council. In clause 16 we are told:

  1. 1 ) The Council is responsible for the conduct and control of the affairs of the Institute.
  2. All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, the Institute by the Council, or with the authority of trie Council, shall be deemed to have been done by the Institute.

In other words, the Council is to be the Institute. When we look at the way the Council will function we see that clause 18, which has a marginal note ‘Directions by Minister’, states:

  1. 1 ) The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions as may be given to it from time to time by the Minister in writing.

That is not unusual. It continues:

  1. Sub-section ( 1 ) does not empower the Minister to give directions to the Council with respect to the content of any report to be furnished under section 1 7.

The Minister will give directions but he will not be able to give directions to the Council in terms of the content of its reports. That looks as though we are getting a little freedom at last. But clause 18 continues:

  1. In preparing any report to be furnished under section 1 7, the Council shall have regard to such policies of the Commonwealth Government as are communicated to the Council by the Minister in writing.

In my view that sub-clause in essence completely hog ties the Institute and the Council. It is free to submit reports as it likes but it has to bear in mind the policies of the Government. That is like the advice given to a whole range of committees that have been set up by Liberal governments in the past. The Vernon Committee, way back in the past, had views about immigration but felt contrained to support the policy of the then Government. It was not allowed to make comments on immigration policy in relation to economic affairs, although I understand that in the substance of its report it stated that it was not able to conclude that immigration in fact gave rise to the economic benefits that were so loudly touted at the time. The Nimmo Committee was set up to look into the shortcomings of the voluntary health insurance system at the time but its guidelines were such that the Committee, for all its investigation, could not report in the terms that anyone who knew anything about it knew that it would have wanted to report. Undoubtedly, the Committee would have said that there should have been a national health insurance system. It could not say that. The closest it could go to saying that was to suggest that a government department should be set up to look after all the voluntary health insurance organisations. That was a clear indication of how it was intimated to the Nimmo Committee that it had to report within the policy of the Government, which was to support the concept of the voluntary health insurance system. The Committee could not say what it really wanted to say.

The same restraint is being placed on this Council. Any report furnished by the Council, whether sought by the Minister or initiated by the Council itself, must bear in mind and, one assumes, comply with the policies of the Commonwealth Government. I think that it is almost a completely empty gesture when clause 17 states:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such reports as the Minister requests on matters relating to the functions of the Institute, and may furnish to the Minister such other reports on matters relating to the functions of the Institute as the Council thinks fit.

We can see how the subsequent clause makes that clause almost meaningless. Let us now look at the proposed composition of the Council. Clause 20 states:

  1. 1 ) The Council shall consist of-

    1. a Chairman -

Appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government-

  1. the Director of the Institute -

Appointed by the Governor-General on the direction of the Government-

  1. The Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs -

Appointed by the Government-

  1. Not less than 3 or more than 6 other members.

There is no other comment in that sub-clause so obviously those other members will be appointed by the Governor-General on the direction of the Government. There is no doubt that this body is to be a mere creature of the Government. It will have nothing to do with the ethnic communities. This is paternalistic tokenism of the worst possible kind. That is the reason for our amendment.

Let me again read the first part of the Opposition’s amendment. We think that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to ‘establish the Institute as an independent statutory authority responsible to the Parliament’. I might add in passing that not even the reports of the Council will go to the Parliament. They will go to the Minister who can sit on them, put them into a pigeonhole or bury them. If one examines that section of the Galbally report which set out the guidelines for the operation of this organisation and compare it with the Bill it will be found that there is a subtle shift in emphasis. The shift is from community based services to a nebulous government directed and government-tied set of functions. Does this shift reflect a run for shelter from the unknown consequences of immigrant participation? Is it a consequence of thoughtlessly following another piece of legislation created by this conservative, frightened Liberal Government, that piece of legislation which deals with the immigrant involvement in Australia in the area of communications- the media? I refer, of course, to the Special Broadcasting Service. Both pieces of legislation are very similar although the functions of the organisations ought to be quite different.

The immigrant communities themselves are increasingly concerned that the SBS is simply another government department, or subdepartment if you like. True, broadcasters are appointed who are supposedly representing the communities but of course they are appointed by the Government. One could hazard a guess that the hundred members of this Institute to be appointed by the Government will be the equivalent of the broadcasters for the SBS- the show, the sort of outward appearance to suggest that somehow or other the communities themselves are involved, but in real terms they are not.

The most obvious model to hand which should have been the model for this legislation is the Institute of Aboriginal Studies. The legislation for that Institute ensures that it maintains a responsible yet autonomous role. Such a body would have been an appropriate model for the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Some have said that the Institute of Aboriginal Studies would be too academic but that is not how it turned out. It did begin as a seemingly academic institution but its democratic structure has encouraged Aboriginal participation and involvement in crucial community needs. For example, it funds publications such as the Palm Island reserve news sheet in north Queensland which the Queensland Government has repeatedly attempted to suppress because it voices community grievances. The Institute of Aboriginal Studies sponsors research into land claims before they go to court. So too the Institute of Multicultural Affairs ought to be investigating the community welfare needs of immigrants. It ought to be conducting research into the whole concept of group rights under the law- an important contemporary transcultural concern.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Opposition’s amendment covers various aspects of the objects and functions of the Institute. Let me deal with these objects and functions. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the objects of the Institute are ‘to develop among the members of the Australian community an awareness of the diverse cultures within that community’- and that is a good thing- and ‘an appreciation of the contributions of those cultures to the enrichment of the community’. I do not know why it should not include all’ cultures. It should not be only ‘those cultures’- that is, particular migrant groups. I do not know whether it includes Aborigines, but it certainly ought to. The word ‘all’ would have been better. It should read ‘an appreciation of the contributions of all cultures to the enrichment of that community’. Another object of the Institute is to promote tolerance, understanding, harmonious relations and mutual esteem. One cannot argue with that objective. Another object is to ensure that we can share with one another the diverse cultures within the legal and political structures of the society, and that is a good thing. Another object is to assist in promoting an environment which affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. The only trouble with all that is that it does not say anything in a positive sense about the ethnic communities themselves- their cultural identities. Hence paragraph (b) of the Opposition’s amendment reads: provide the Institute with a more positive responsibility for the maintenance of cultural identities and traditions and encouragement of multiculturalism;

If one looks carefully at those objects as they are listed in the Bill it will be seen that they are really, under another form of words, promoting assimilation. They are not in fact encouraging the maintenance of identity. They are trying to ensure that everybody is tolerant to people who are a bit funny and to make sure that we do not feel odd when those people are around. That is to say, we will put up with them. There will be tolerance, harmonious relations and understanding. But there is nothing about ensuring that the Australian community recognises those groups of people, appreciates their qualities and helps them to maintain their identity. Maybe this is overcome by the functions of the Institute. I have only dealt with the objects.

The Bill provides that a primary function of the Institute is to have a major role in providing advice to the Commonwealth Government. That seems reasonable. Another primary function of the institute is to promote those objects by commissioning and conducting research and studies, which are unspecified. Another function is to furnish reports to the Minister. Why are the reports not to be furnished to the Parliament? Another function is to make information available to members of the Australian community and to particular bodies, organisations or groups within the community. That is a bit of a public relations job but as it could be educational it is therefore acceptable. Another function is to conduct promotional and educational activities. That is specified more carefully. Another function is the establishment of a repository of literature and other material relating to the diverse cultures of members of the Australian community. There is no mention of aspects essential to any selfrespecting institute supposedly involved in multiculturalism such as we mention in paragraph (c) of our amendment which reads:

Elaborate the functions of the Institute to include research into the history and phenomenon of immigration to Australia and issues related to the development of ethnic groups in Australia and their diverse cultures;

The Institute should be looking at how settlement first started, at what happened to the original communities- Anglo-Saxons, the Irish, the Chinese who came in and the South Sea islanders who are totally ignored. We should be having studies on what happened to those groups. Why after all these years do many of them still maintain their identity? They are still Irish-Australians; they are still Scots; they are still Chinese. There is no such animal as an Australian full stop. We cannot forget our ethnic origin.

Mr Martyr:

– They are human beings.

Dr CASS:

– Sure, they are all human. That is one thing they do have in common, they are human. But by virtue of that and the way they have developed over time we ought to recognise the fact that in our community we are still different, as the honourable member for Swan and I look different. Bearing in mind the Government’s oft stated concern for the involvement of community-based organisations, we find that this legislation is strangely silent. Nowhere can one find any direct involvement by communitybased organisations. One hopes it will happen. I think from comments the Minister has made before he probably has it in mind, but why could it not be stated? Paragraph (d) of the Opposition’s amendment reads:

Ensure the possibility of entering into contractual relationships with other community-based organisations engaged in activities in accord with the objectives of the Institute;

We know that a number of these organisations exist. For example, in my own area of Melbourne there is the Clearing House on Migrant Issues, an organisation with enormous resources, a lot of expertise in the very areas that this Institute is going to look into. I see no reason why it could not be specifically mentioned in the legislation that contractual relationships should be entered into. It would give the Council and the Institute a hint on how they should go about performing their functions.

The Minister in his speech referred to a continued separation between the Institute of Aboriginal Affairs and the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. This is a technical distinction between the orginal native born and the later overseas born settlers. A purist might argue that when the Aborigines came to Australia a long time ago they came across land and did not have to swim. Such a technical distinction fragments the policy and conception of a multicultural Australia. The exclusive separation of Aboriginal affairs will perpetuate the black-white syndrome. Furthermore, Torres Strait islanders have been separated from the Aboriginal Act in Queensland since 1971 in recognition of their different past history and their different contemporary circumstances and therefore to meet their different needs. I am not too sure whether the Queensland Act does much for the Torres Strait islanders but at least it is acknowledging that they are Australian Aboriginals. Although the Torres Strait islanders are recognised by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and research has been commissioned on their behalf, in the mind of the community- including the Minister- that Institute is identified primarily with Aboriginal communities. I am not sure that many people recognise that Torres Strait islanders really are also covered.

But leaving them aside for the present, South Sea islanders hardly ever rate a mention anywhere. Although they often came initially as forced immigrants to Australia they remain Australia’s forgotten people. This is a typical example of south-east Australian perspective colouring the establishment and funding of centres that are supposedly to have a national purpose. We cannot see far enough to see all these facets of the problem. In our view the Minister ought to outline how the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the Institute of Multicultural Affairs could and should be associated under the umbrella of one diversified society. To this end we propose part (e) of the Opposition amendment which states that we should redraft the legislation to: enable the Institute of Multicultural Affairs to conduct research into and foster community sensitivity for racial groups not the subject of study by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies -

That refers to the South Sea islanders; they are excluded- while including the latter -

That is, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies- in the ambit of multicultural affairs . . .

They should have a very close relationship and I think the legislation ought to say so. The final section of our amendment concerns the composition of the Institute. This portion appears vague in the Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill deals with ‘Membership of Institute’. It states that the Institute shall consist of members of the Council and 100 persons appointed by the Minister. As I have pointed out, the members of the Council have no functions at all unless they are called together by the Council, They have no rights to call a meeting themselves. There is no mention of the purpose of these 100 people, their function, what sort of people they shall be, or from where they will be selected to become members of the Institute. Given the function of the Council which I have mentioned before and which I will reiterate- it is in essence to conduct and control the affairs of the Institute- the members of the Institute, these 100 people, are quite irrelevant. They seem to have no function at all.

I conclude on this note. To overcome these deficiencies we suggest in the final section of our amendment that the Bill should be redrafted to define the members of the Institute. These 100 people are not defined at the moment. From where will they come? What sort of people will they be? What will be the method of their election? We know that obviously they will be picked by the Government. Will they just be the pets and the stooges of the Government or will they, if there is meant to be some relationship with the ethnic communities, really in some way represent the communities? What will be their duties and powers as members of the Institute? As I have pointed out, they have no power whatsoever as the Bill is presently drafted. For these reasons the

Opposition thinks the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted in the terms we have suggested.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate interrupted.

page 2825

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Statements were made in the Grievance Debate today by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) in which he alleged that I had charged to my electorate office telephone three overseas cables. That I do not deny. These telegrams were sent in an endeavour to assist three development programs within Queensland. At no stage was it my intention that the cost of these overseas cables would be borne by the Australian taxpayer. I originated the overseas cables from my electorate office with the full expectation that in due course I would receive an appropriate debit advice from the Department of Administrative Services in Brisbane asking me to meet the costs of those cables. This would be consistent with the procedures authorised by paragraph 8-1 of the Remuneration Tribunal document which relates to the use of the telephone services in my private residences. To date I have not received such a debit advice. I can assure the House that on its receipt the charges will be paid by me. I admit to the House that I erred but it was unintentional. I erred by giving my office telephone number rather than my private number.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Armitage:

– No. I seek leave to make a statement in view of the reference made by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) to my remarks in the House this morning. He did not fully explain the matters which I brought before the House this morning.

Leave not granted.

Mr Armitage:

– I think the refusing of leave is very incorrect because the matters now brought up by no means explain the actions by which the honourable member involved other Government members and offered residential status in return for loans.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Having obtained leave from the Chair, the honourable member for Brisbane had the right to make a personal explanation, which he so did. Standing Orders do not allow that personal explanation to be debated. There are forms of the House, of which the honourable member for Chifley would be aware, which he can follow.

page 2825

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-The House is debating a BUI to establish the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the objectives of the establishment of the Institute. I think it is worthwhile repeating at this stage just what those objectives are. Clause 5 reads:

  1. to develop among the members of the Australian community-

    1. an awareness of the diverse cultures within that community that have arisen as a result of the migration of people to Australia; and
    2. an appreciation of the contributions of those cultures to the enrichment of that community;
  2. to promote tolerance, understanding, harmonious relations and mutual esteem among the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia;
  3. to promote a cohesive Australian society by assisting members of the Australian community to share with one another their diverse cultures within the legal and political structures of that society; and
  4. to assist in promoting an environment that alfords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the opportunity to participate fully in Australian society and achieve their own potential.

I believe that those objectives are laudable and should be supported by the Australian community. The spokesman on immigration for the Opposition, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), made a number of criticisms. Whilst I generally take the view that he does try to conduct debates on the matter of immigration and ethnic affairs in a relatively bipartisan manner, I felt that some of his criticisms were nit picking- if I can describe them as suchand really did not get to the substance of the Bill. For example, early in his remarks he made a suggestion that this was a body just to study the arts and crafts of our society. I suggest that it is a rather more substantial body and one which will really seek to look at questions of the real content of ethnic communities in Australia, the contribution that they are making to Australian society, the history of their development and so on.

I noted with interest a number of the remarks which he made with respect to the amendment which he moved on behalf of the Opposition. Firstly, the amendment proposes that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to establish the Institute as an independent statutory authority responsible to the Parliament. The normal procedure with statutory authorities that this Parliament establishes is that they report to the Parliament in the normal way, through the Minister responsible, in the form of an annual report. The Minister has to provide information and respond to questions in the Parliament on behalf of statutory authorities that are within his general area of portfolio responsibilities. So there is nothing unusual about the way in which this particular statutory authority is being established by this Parliament.

The second part of the amendment suggests that the Institute should have a more positive responsibility for the maintenance of cultural identities and traditions and the encouragement of multiculturalism. Clause S of the Bill, which sets out the objects of the establishment of the Institute, achieves that aim. I would suggest that what the spokesman for the Opposition is really debating is a question of the balance that one is trying to achieve in the wording in setting out those aims. The balance that the spokesman for the Opposition seems to be seeking to achieve is one that places an emphasis on the independence of the cultural identities and traditions, whereas the Bill sets out to make the point, in a rather deliberate fashion, that the independent cultural traditions of various ethnic groups have great value, that they are important, and that they must be promoted, and there is an emphasis on ensuring that those conditions contribute to the total Australian community. That is something that we ought to try to achieve.

I have discussed the issue of multiculturalism with people in my electorate and with various groups and, as I understand it, the one fear that does seem to be expressed by a number of people is that the concept of multiculturalism implies some sort of separate development of various groups, that we would have separate groups in our society each adhering to a different language and respecting different cultural traditions without really coming to grips with each other, and promoting tolerance and understanding between the various ethnic groups in the Australian community. That fear has been expressed amongst Australian born people and people who have come more recently from other countries. It is not a fear that I share, but I think that we have to make clear in any legislation which we put down seeking to establish an institute of multicultural affairs that one of the principal objectives is to promote that tolerance, that understanding and that respect between various groups and ensure that all groups, from the standpoint of their own cultural traditions, are making a contribution to a unified Australian community- a diverse community; one which profits from diversity; one which has more colour and life because of that cultural diversity; but one which, nonetheless, is more cohesive and unified as a complete Australian community. Therefore, I believe that the wording which the Government has placed in the Bill strikes the right balance and meets the sorts of objections that are likely to be put up by people who have some fear of this concept of multiculturalism.

The amendment put forward by the Opposition then states that the Bill ought to be redrafted in order to elaborate the functions of the Institute to include research into the history and phenomenon of immigration to Australia and issues related to the development of ethnic groups in Australia and their diverse cultures. It further states that the Institute ought to be enabled to conduct research into and foster community sensitivity for racial groups not the subject of study by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies while including the latter in the ambit of multicultural affairs. I am really not quite sure what the Opposition is seeking to achieve by putting forward those suggestions. Clause 6 of the Bill already states the primary functions of the Institute. One of those functions is to promote the objects in clause 5 by commissioning and conducting research and studies; I emphasise the words ‘commissioning and conducting research and studies. That is a very open statement; it is a very open brief. The Institute is therefore able to commission and conduct research and studies over a broad range of matters relevant to the responsibilities of the Institute.

I am not quite sure why the Opposition would seek, in a sense, to limit the types of research which the Institute should be encouraging by trying to define that rather more closely. I would have felt that there was greater advantage in ensuring that its brief was as wide as possible in that respect, because from time to time there may arise issues which we cannot anticipate at this stage, to which would require further study and research, and to which the Institute ought to direct its attention.

The Opposition’s amendment also suggests that the Bill should ensure the possibility of entering into contractual relationships with other community-based organisations engaged in activities in accord with the objectives of the Institute. As I see it that is also unnecessary because, after all, the Institute is a body corporate, it is a legal entity, it can sue and be sued, and it does have the power to enter into contractual arrangements with other legal entities. So I do not see any difficulty in that respect’. The honourable member for Maribyrnong, as I heard him, also suggested that the Institute should conduct some of its duties in accordance with the policies of the Commonwealth Government. Clause 18(3) of the Bill says that the Institute shall have regard to such policies of the Government as are communicated in writing. I emphasise the words shall have regard to’. I think that is a broader provision than was suggested by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. The Institute has to have regard to the policies of the Government, but is not required specifically to follow every item in accordance with the policies of the government of the day. It is relevant and proper that in its activities it should have regard to the policies of the Government because, after all, one thing that we hope will come out of the Institute is a study of the effects and the impact of the policies of the Government on the development of multiculturalism in Australia.

I want to deal with a few of the sorts of fears that have come up about this concept of multiculturalism. This is a term which is rather fashionable in Australia at present. I use the term myself. But I think we have to be careful not to become carried away with the mere fashionableness of it. In fact, I noticed another piece of jargon which was used by the honourable member for Maribyrnong when he referred to a polyethnic society. I have heard that word used on a few occasions. It is interesting how we seek to find various words to use in this context. The history of Australian migration has been in a sense a history of trying to find words which are acceptable and which do not offend people. In the early days when migrants were often referred to as ‘reffos’ it was felt that the term ‘new Australians’ was a more appropriate term to use. Once the new Australians had been here for IS, 20 or 25 years, apparently some of them said that they did not quite like the term ‘new Australian’. We have tried to find other words. Some people refer to migrants now as ‘ethnics’ and in some circles that also is greeted with horror. We find that we are searching for words like polyethnicity, and so on, to describe developments in the Australian community.

We have to be a little bit careful about the way in which we take up some of the jargon. What we are really talking about is the fact that there are in Australia a number of people who have ecmt here from more than 100 countries- three and half million people to be fairly exact-since the Second World War. Forty per cent of .hose people have come from the United Kingdom and the rest from more than 100 countries. They have all made a contribution to the development of the Australian community. In my view they have added to the degree of tolerance within the Australian community.

In the course of my lifetime, and I am by means the oldest member of this Parliament 1 have noticed a change in the attitude of Australians to other cultural traditions. Fifteen or twenty years ago we tended to take the attitude that all migrants to Australia ought to become just like us and and should learn to like the footie, the beer, the meat pie, et cetera. I am exaggerating, of course, but that attitude was apparent. At present, an increasing number of Australians are taking to looking at soccer, and there is no doubt that it is a better football game. An increasing number of Australians are enjoying the sorts of diverse experiences which are now available in our country as a result of the great contribution that has been made by many people from many different lands. Honourable members will see it in the variety of restaurants that are available, the fashions and architectural designs. In countless ways the great migration programs which have taken place in Australia since the Second World War have touched upon our every day lives. That has been to the advantage of Australia.

Regrettably, some instances have also occurred of particular migrant communities having within their ranks people who have sought to promote old divisions. I will not mention them because I do not want to specify certain migrant communities. That has happened to some degree. We need to get across to people the impression that we want them, in their communities, to make the best contribution they can to the wider Australian community, by bringing in all of those elements which are desirable, by educating natural born Australians and people who come from other countries in their cultural tradtion, but also we want them to leave behind the enmities from which they have tried to escape in many cases. I think it is to the credit of this Government that it legislated, for example, to prevent recruiting for overseas armies in Australia. I think that is useful not only in itself, but also as a declaration by this Parliament that we do not want people who are now part of the Australian community contributing to the maintenance of divisions within their home countries.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this Bill. I believe that the Opposition’s amendments are quite unnecessary. I believe that the Institute ought to be established in the manner proposed by the Government in this Bill. I am sure that it will make a contribution to the development of a richer, more diverse but more coherent Australian community.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The whole issue of immigration is one which has some accord politically and, indeed, throughout Australia at the present time. I am not sure that this was always the case. I suppose we can say now that there is something like a unity ticket in evidence.

Mr Martyr:

– What!

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is a lovely bit of terminology.

Mr Martyr:

– I don ‘t like it.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member may have a little to learn about the term.

Mr Martyr:

– I have nothing to learn about unity tickets.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He may have a little to learn about the setting in which I make that comment. It is very much in character with the founder of our immigration policy,, the late Arthur Calwell. I think all parliamentarians with any knowledge and experience about these things will concede that he was very forward looking when, as Labor Minister for Immigration, he initiated this program. I recall that a former member for Parkes, the late Leslie Haylen, was sent as an emissary overseas to charter the first ships to bring the migrants here. The unity ticket now, having had that creative work done way back in the early post-war years, is to give effect to the spirit of immigration and to make the passage and pathway for our migrant people more easy or reasonable.

Mention has been made of the success of the program for which governments of both political complexions can take credit. It is an enormous phenomenon of our time that three and a half million people from 100 countries have come to our country, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has said. Forty per cent of those 3.5 million migrants in the postwar intake are of English origin. This does not detract from the fact that there have been many problems and there are still many problems to be ironed out. I think we are achieving social harmony. I sincerely hope that this measure will contribute to an even greater attainment in that respect. All of us speak at citizenship ceremonies and make mention of the fact that migrants have come to enrich our lives, that some of our own traditional behaviour patterns have become subjective and that the finer qualities often tend to emerge dominative. I suppose that is more apparently the case in the culinary area than in some other areas. We love migrant food. We go to the Chinese and Hungarian restaurants and do things of that kind.

For the sake of succinctness which I will obviously have to develop in view of the time, it might be convenient for me just to make some mention of the purposes of this legislation as summarised by the excellent Parliamentary Library digest service. It makes reference to the fact that the Galbally report commissioned by the Government in 1977 was virtually the instigator of this Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I quote from the digest:

The report pointed out the need for skilled research and information on experience in other countries to assist in the development of multiculturalism in Australia. The report also recommended that the Commonwealth provide $1.8m over a three-year period to establish an Institute of Multicultural Affairs to provide advice and information on multiculturalism.

That puts the position in a nutshell. Now there is to be a Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I know that not everybody can see the potential of this. In fact, I have had representations of a cynical nature contending that the Government is using this process to curry favor with the migrant community. I suppose that if honourable members look at this proposal to establish a council of up to 100 members, they can easily see that it could become such a vehicle. In fact, there has been criticism about the old advisory groups that used to meet and the big beanoes that were held in Canberra by large numbers of migrant people over the years. The contention has been made that that was also used to give people a few days in Canberra at the Government’s expense. Whether or not that is cynical only the beholders and the initiators of the scheme are in a position to say. It is fair to contend also that there is an antipathy to the proliferation of boards and things governmental in the community. We are talking about $1.8m to set this Institute up over a three-year period. That is certainly not the end of the section financially by any means. We would be setting up something that would be very hard to stop. It will have a very enduring characteristic about it. We might be talking of hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of several decades. So this is very significant legislation indeed.

Clause 6 of the Bill indicates the primary functions of the Institute. The emphasis is on integration, not assimilation and that is important. That means that we are going to identify and provide for a situation which will facilitate the preservation of the ethnic cultures. As such, that emphasis should be supported. For many years the concept of a multicultural society has been bandied about, but in point of fact very few people know what is entailed in this concept. I do not profess to know myself. I do not suppose we will know what this thing is about until it is in operation. The Institute itself will have the task of determining multiculturalism in Australia, and certainly, to a large extent its own role. The Government takes the view and intends that the Institute adopt a practical educational and action oriented approach. It therefore has the task of analysing and disseminating information on ethnic cultures and backgrounds. The Government hopes that the Institute will come to be regarded as a national resource centre on the cultural background of Australia ‘s migrant people.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) who is the shadow spokesman on these matters has indicated the nature of a complex amendment which he moved at the second reading stage of the Bill. Of course that is already incorporated in Hansard. We intended in the Committee stage to move a number of amendments to give effect to his second reading amendment. To save time I will ask approval of the Minister to incorporate the Committee amendments in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. 1 ) Clause 3, page 1, line 9, at the end of the definition of “appoint” add “unless otherwise stated”.

In my view Wollongong should be considered as a possible location for the proposed Institute’s headquarters. It is a great and successful multicultural city. Migrants and Australian born are engaged together in the great steel industries of Australia, at Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd,’ Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd and other works. Together the non-indigenous ethnic groups are probably in higher proportion in Wollongong than in any comparable part of Australia. There are many serious problems concerning migrants in that city. These problems are in the area of housing, education and very serious unemployment. In Wollongong there is great fulfilment on the one hand and despair and degradation on the other. It is an atmosphere of multi-cultural reality. I think that is what is needed in respect of this proposed Institute.

It is in Wollongong and a few other places like it in Australia that practitioners in ethnic affairs can demonstrate their skills and capacities. It is in Wollongong that the ethnic communities can make their voices heard. If the proposed Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is to go to the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra, then important components of its activities should, in my view, go to Wollongong or some other substantial multi-cultural community where the Institute could be encouraged to keep its academic and intellectual feet on the ground. I issue a word of warning to the Minister and to the Government that there can easily be a tendency to take this whole issue into an area of unreality. I believe that it will be very important to look at what has already been done and to link into those things. There can be no better example than the activities initiated by the Wollongong University. Once again I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving this proposed institute a realistic base such as could be made available in the Wollongong University setting.

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 MacKellar) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 2831

WHEAT MARKETING BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry (8.0 · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– I move:

This Bill and six accompanying Bills provide for the implementation of wheat marketing and pricing arrangements in respect of the five seasons beginning 1 October 1979.

Review

As in the case of past five-year wheat industry marketing and stabilization arrangements, complementary legislation is to be enacted by each of the States. In fact elements of the arrangement rely on State law. I refer in particular to the provisions requiring growers to deliver their wheat to the Australian Wheat Board, the marketing of wheat domestically and the pooling of the proceeds of the sale of wheat for payment to growers. There has been a history of renegotiating the elements of the pricing and marketing arrangements for the wheat industry every five years to enable account to be taken of the changed needs and circumstances of the industry. An enquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission on the arrangements to apply after the expiry of the five-year plan that ended on 30 September 1979 has provided a basis for review of the industry arrangements on this occasion. The IAC report was released publicly in July 1978 to enable all sectors of the industry and the States to consider the formulation of new arrangements.

Orderly Marketing of Wheat

Traditionally the industry’s arrangements have been based on the application of orderly marketing. For the wheat industry that concept entails the delivery of all wheat, other than that retained by the grower for his own use, only to a licensed receiver of an statutory authority and to no other buyers and the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of that wheat to growers on an equitable basis. The concept also entails the user industries in Australia receiving their needs of wheat from the Australian Wheat Board and from no other supplier and paying a price that is equitable as between the competing users in each industry. The orderly marketing of wheat has been challenged before the High Court and the IAC made recommendations for change.

The latest High Court case, Uebergang and Others v. Australian Wheat Board, involves, amongst other issues, a challenge on the basis of Section 92 of the Constitution to the application of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974 of New South Wales to interstate transactions. A similar challenge was rejected by the High Court on 8 September 1978 in what is known as the Clark King case. The fact that there is a further High Court challenge to the same legislation does not preclude the Commonwealth and State Governments, in reliance upon the Clark King case, from enacting legislation for the purpose of establishing wheat marketing legislation to apply for the next five years. Whether further legislation or a constitutional amendment is desirable would depend upon the outcome of the challenge in the Uebergang case. The orderly marketing of wheat has been considered by the States, the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation and the user industries. The proposition has not been accepted that there are significant savings to be made in the receival and storage of wheat by introducing commercial trading between producers and users in the domestic marketing of wheat.

A characteristic of the industry is that grain is harvested in a relatively short period and received into silos. Supplies are then drawn from storage throughout the year for the needs of users and for export shipment. The cost of this handling and storage is borne by the industry. Whilst some individual growers would be able to escape these costs by delivering direct to a buyer, this saving would only be available because a majority of growers were prepared to support and meet the cost of the infrastructure required to meet the demonstrable needs of the industry. The commercial trading of wheat would enable individual growers to sell to the more lucrative sectors of the market and so reduce the pool return of those growers whose wheat is orderly marketed through the loss to the pool of revenue from these higher priced outlets. The individual grower would have an option of delivering to the orderly marketing system. The fundamental principles of orderly marketing provide the basis for continuation of the wheat delivery and marketing arrangements for the new five year period. However, there are modifications of the payments arrangements for growers and the pricing procedures for buyers of wheat, to meet the present circumstances of the industry.

In developing these modifications several key factors have been considered. These include the market for feed wheat that could enable producers and users to trade on a commercial basis. This market facility could provide growers with a cash flow to their enterprises different from that afforded by the Board’s receival and payments system. By contrast, the Australian Wheat Board’s payments to growers from a season’s pool have been spread over a longer period. This lengthening of payments has been caused by the increasing need for the Board to sell wheat internationally on deferred payment terms to meet competition from other major exporting countries. This in turn has led to the need to establish arrangements for financing discounted payments that are made to those growers whose cash flows have been reduced by drought-affected crops and other factors.

Guaranteed Minimum Delivery Price

The Industries Assistance Commission considered that the continuation of the stabilisation assistance arrangement for the wheat industry could not be justified on either efficiency or welfare grounds and recommended its discontinuation. The arrangement provided for contributions by growers to a stabilisation fund, from which payments are made when the average export price is less than the stabilisation price for a season. Provision existed for payments from Government revenue, within defined limits, when there are insufficient growers’ moneys in the fund. In place of these stabilisation arrangements, the Government has decided that growers should receive a substantial payment when their wheat is received by the Australian Wheat Board. This payment will be made on all wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board and it will be set at 95 per cent of the average of the estimated pool return for that season and the two previous seasons, converted to a net basis. The payment will be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The net pool return is converted to a net basis for the purpose of the guaranteed minimum price calculations by taking the net proceeds of the disposal of the wheat of a season and deducting the costs incurred by the Board in relation to the wheat of that season.

Movements in the guaranteed minimum delivery price from one season to the next are to be subject to a limit of 1 5 per cent. Any deficiency between the net pool return and the guaranteed minimum delivery price will be met by the Commonwealth as a payment from revenue when the particular pool is finalised. The guaranteed minimum price arrangements provide the industry with support from the Government that is designed to help it overcome any short run down turn in producers’ returns. At the same time the basis for determining the guaranteed minimum price ensures that the support will be inevitably modified with longer run adjustments in market returns whether those adjustments be for a rising or a falling market.

The legislation recognises that the guaranteed support will enable the Australian Wheat Board to make a first payment to growers on delivery of their wheat at the level of the guaranteed minimum delivery price less the wheat finance fund levy, the wheat tax and individual growers’ freight, handling and storage charges. It is the intention that the guaranteed minimum delivery price for each season be announced before 1 December each year when the bulk of the harvest commences to be delivered. The provision of the guarantee thus enables growers to receive a cash payment when their wheat is delivered that represents a substantial proportion of their final return. This innovation is designed to overcome the delayed pool payments and maintain a cash flow to growers. The payments arrangements in respect of the guaranteed minimum price do not impinge on the ability of the Board to offer cash discounting facilities to growers on payments subsequent to the guaranteed minimum price payment to meet the needs of particular growers. This arrangement evolved during the life of the present scheme and will be a useful adjunct to the payments arrangements when the final pool return is well above the guaranteed delivery price. The modification to the Australian Wheat Board’s historical pool payment procedure which I have outlined will be of great value to growers in planning their financial commitments and budgeting the cash flow of their enterprises.

Wheat Board Finance

Traditionally, the Australian Wheat Board has borrowed from the Rural Credits Department- RCD- of the Reserve Bank to obtain funds to make the first payment to growers on delivery of their wheat and to meet the pool’s marketing expenses. Under the Reserve Bank Act a statutory twelve months repayment period attaches to RCD loans and the Government has provided a guarantee of Wheat Board repayment within that statutory period. Increases in borrowings from the RCD can add to domestic liquidity in a fiscal year to the extent that they are not repaid in that period. It has become necessary to develop new financing arrangements to enable the Board to borrow to meet the changed character of the payment arrangements. These arrangements entail new borrowing rights and obligations for the Wheat Board.

The changed provisions also reflect the experience of financing the substantial increase in funds needed by the Wheat Board to pay the higher level of first advance for deliveries from the record 1978-79 season’s crop. The provisions recognise the significance of the wheat industry in terms of its ability, through the very size of its seasonal cash flow, to influence national liquidity. The financing changes provided for in the Bill are in fact similar to those already embodied in legislation assented to in July but which had application to the 1978-79 season only. The new financing arrangements embodied in the Bill provide for the Board to borrow from the Rural Credits Department to pay the guaranteed minimum delivery price to growers and meet marketing expenses. This provision reflects a continuation of the past arrangement. The Board will be able to borrow from commercial sources. Should the Government require the Board to borrow commercially within the statutory twelve months period for purposes that RCD moneys would normally have been available, the Commonwealth will meet any borrowing costs that are additional to those that would have occurred had the borrowing been from the RCD

Should, under these arrangements, the Board be unable to borrow from commercial sources for the purposes of paying first advances or meeting marketing expenses within the statutory period, it is the Government’s intention that the RCD should provide the necessary finance. Whilst the Government will guarantee repayment of any borrowings by the Board from the RCD it is the Government’s intention that the Wheat Board should borrow commercially any money necessary, additional to that available from the finance fund to be established by this legislation, to refinance any outstanding RCD drawings at the end of the statutory twelve months period.

The linking of the guaranteed minimum price with the first payment, the consequent high level of the first payment and the magnitude of the funds required, may have the effect of reducing the Wheat Board’s ability to repay its RCD borrowings within the statutory period. To assist the Board to meet its refinancing obligation a wheat finance fund will be established. The fund will be a trust fund of growers’ moneys. It will have a ceiling of $100m and will be financed by the transfer of the $80m in the existing wheat prices stabilisation fund together with the proceeds of a levy on wheat marketed under the control of the Wheat Board. As with the stabilisation fund, the wheat finance fund, will be a revolving one, with any excess in the fund being returned to growers on a first-in first-out basis. The finance fund will provide a source of funds from which the Board will be able to borrow on a seasonal basis to clear any outstanding debt to the RCD on a season’s pool at the end of the statutory twelve months period. Borrowings from the Fund will be made at a rate of interest determined by the Minister having regard to rates applying to Reserve Bank fixed deposits or Commonwealth securities.

The provision for the Board to make commercial borrowings on finance payments to growers that was included in earlier legislation is brought forward in this Bill. In fact this provision will be taken into account when the Government will again seek arrangements for financing advances to growers in 1979-80. As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said in his Budget Speech, so as to minimise the addition to liquidity as was the case last year. Any arrangements that are made will not be at extra cost to growers.

Domestic Price

The arrangements for the pricing of wheat sold on the domestic market recognise the different components of that market, namely, the use of wheat for milling into flour for human consumption and the use of wheat for stockfeed and for industrial purposes. The arrangements also recognise that in past five-year plans there have been significant national income transfers between consumers and growers as a result of the arrangements then operating. Accordingly, the present Bill introduces some changes in the basis for setting domestic prices for wheat. Instead of the existing arrangement under which one price is fixed under the legislation for all wheat, regardless of the purpose for which it is used, there is provision for the Wheat Board to fix the prices of wheats for stockfeed and industrial uses. When fixing these prices the Board will have to balance the commercial interests of producers and users and maintain the orderly marketing of wheat produced and used for these purposes. In carrying out this responsibility the Board will be able to appoint an advisory panel comprising representatives of producers, stockfeed manufacturers and industrial wheat users. This panel would assess the accuracy, comprehensiveness and relevance of data that should be taken into account in determining prices. It would not recommend price levels.

The change in pricing procedures recognises that the markets for wheat used for stockfeed and industrial purposes are different from those of the market for wheat used for human consumption. It is intended that the Board should be able to meet the needs of those different markets. For the 12 months commencing 1 December 1979 the price of wheat for human consumption throughout Australia will be fixed under this Bill and complementary State legislation at $127.78 a tonne, excluding the Tasmanian freight loading. For the following four marketing years the price will be moved each year according to the formula set out in the Schedule to the Bill. That formula adjusts the price in line with movements in export prices and an index of prices paid by farmers while providing, over time, a margin above export prices. Year to year movements in the formula price are to be subject to a limitation of 20 per cent. The new pricing formula replaces the existing arrangements which provide for an annual variation in accordance with cash costs of wheat production. In taking account of the trend in export prices the formula is intended to moderate the national income tranfers between producers and consumers that have occurred in the past.

Special Delivery Provisions

The role of the Australian Wheat Board as sole seller on the domestic market will be continued. This role rests on the continuation of the requirement that all wheat delivered off farms be received only by the Board. However, the delivery arrangements will be modified to enable growers with the authority of the Australian Wheat Board to exercise options in the delivery and marketing of wheat. This new element of flexibility is designed to meet the needs of growers. There are growers who are so placed geographically that there is an advantage both to them and to the buyer in delivering their wheat direct to the user rather than to the central receival system. There are also growers whose wheat has a special characteristic that is not amenable to be handled by the central receival system but which can be taken by a user if delivered directly.

It is proposed that growers be authorised to apply to the Board to be permitted to sell or deliver their wheat direct to a buyer other than a licensed receiver of the Australian Wheat Board. The Board in turn will be authorised to grant a permit for delivery by a grower direct to a buyer subject to conditions the Board determines as to price, freight allowance and any premiums or discounts in relation to the Australian Standard Wheat price. Consistent with the concept of orderly marketing to which I have referred the proceeds of sales of the wheat will be incorporated in the Board’s pooling arrangements and the provisions for payments to growers apply as if the wheat had in fact been delivered to the Board’s pool. However, provision is to be made for any quality differential agreed by the grower and buyer and for any cartage cost adjustment to be passed back to the grower. In recognition of the fact that the central receival system continues as an alternative delivery option available to the grower, provision will be made for the Board to deduct from the payment to the grower a charge- covering capital, depreciation and costs of maintaining capital equipment- relating to costs associated with the bulk handling authority relevant to the particular grower. The specific charge will be determined under State legislation.

Authority for the issue by the Board of a permit to a grower to deliver or sell wheat other than to the Board ‘s receival system will continue as at present in respect of wheat delivered by a grower to a miller for gristing for the return of the produce of the grist for use on his farm. A similar permit to deliver outside the receival system will also apply to seed wheat and inferior quality wheat including screenings not acceptable for receival by the Board. The arrangements proposed continue the principle of wheat retained by the grower on the farm on which it is grown remaining outside the control of the Board. In recognition of the structure of ownership of wheat growing and livestock feeding enterprises it is proposed that this principle be extended to exclude from the Board’s pricing and delivery arrangements wheat which is transferred from the property on which it is grown to another farm under the same ownership for the purpose of livestock feeding on that farm.

To ensure that such joint enterprise transfers do not become an avenue for the undermining of the wheat orderly marketing arrangements the Wheat Board will be provided with the power to control and monitor the movements of such wheat. The modification to the basic delivery provisions which have served the industry over time are designed to meet the changed needs of the industry by providing growers with a specification of their rights to deliver wheat to other than the central receival system. At the same time protection through controls to be exercised by the Board and through the pooling arrangements is provided for the orderly marketing arrangements of the industry. The arrangements include the insurance that growers who engage in direct delivery transactions contribute to the maintenance of the central receival system, which is an essential part of those orderly marketing arrangements.

Tasmanian Freight Loading

The principle of the domestic consumer meeting the cost of shipping wheat from the mainland to Tasmania is to be continued. As previously, moneys to cover this cost will be raised by a loading on the domestic wheat price. However, this loading will apply to wheat only for human consumption because this will be the only administratively determined price under the new arrangements that may not be adjusted within each 12 month period to meet the market. Moneys so raised will be used to meet shipping costs on all wheat shipped from the mainland to Tasmania, regardless of the port from which it is drawn. As has always applied, the freight to Tasmania fund established by the legislation will cover shipping costs only and not, for example, transport costs within Tasmania.

Features Remaining Unchanged

The Bill includes a number of features embodied in existing wheat stabilisation legislation. The provisions for delivering quota arrangements remain, purely as a contingency measure. Implementation of quotas would necessarily require the agreement of all States. Other main features which remain unchanged are the seven year period for all except the pricing provisions of the Bill which continue to have a five season life, the constitution and general powers of the Wheat Board and the power of direction by the Minister.

The Bill contains a clause giving retrospective validation to remuneration paid by the Wheat Board to bulk handling authorities under current and previous wheat stabilisation legislation. Such remuneration was paid according to a basis agreed by Federal and State Ministers, as required by the legislation. Ministerial agreements were on a retrospective basis. Legal advice received was that payments made under retrospective agreements could only be validated by enactment of appropriate legislation.

Conclusion

The wheat marketing and pricing arrangements embodied in the Bill have been determined after extensive discussion and consideration of the IAC report and recommendations and after serious and lengthy consideration of views put forward by all interests concerned. The arrangements have the support of the industry and all State governments. The provision of the guaranteed minimum deliverly price, in particular, will give the wheat grower confidence in the future. Generally, the arrangements will enable the wheat industry to go ahead into the next five . years with some assurance of predictability and security. Such is the importance of the industry to the national economy that this can only be to the benefit of Australia as a whole. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2835

WHEAT LEVY BILL (No. 1) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

This Bill is ancillary to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979 and complementary to the Wheat Levy Bill (No. 2) 1979. The purpose of the Bill is to impose a levy of $2.50 per tonne on wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. The levy is payable by the Australian Wheat Board. Funds so derived will be paid into Consolidated Revenue and an equivalent amount is appropriated under the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979 for payment into the wheat finance fund established under that Bill.

The wheat finance fund may be used by the Board to refinance any outstanding borrowings by the Board from the rural credits department of” the Reserve Bank of Australia at the expiry of the 12 months statutory period applicable to such borrowings. I commend this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2835

WHEAT LEVY BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is ancillary to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979 and complementary to the Wheat Levy Bill (No. 1) 1979. The purpose of this Bill is to impose a levy of $2.50 per tonne on wheat not delivered to the Australian Wheat Board but the sale of which has been authorised by the Board under the direct grower to buyer transactions scheme. The basis for such transactions is provided in the parent Bill. The levy is payable by the Australian Wheat Board.

As in the case of the complementary Bill, funds will be paid into Consolidated Revenue and an equivalent amount is appropriated under the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979 for payment into the wheat finance fund established by that Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2836

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (REIMBURSEMENT OF BORROWING COSTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

)-I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is of a machinery nature to ensure the continuation of financial arrangements previously provided under the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974 and the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Act 1979, which are to be repealed. The principal Act which came into effect earlier this year provides for the Australian Wheat Board to be reimbursed the costs of borrowing certain monies. I commend this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2836

WHEAT PRODUCTS EXPORT ADJUSTMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

)-I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, ancillary to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979, is a machinery provision to take account of the proposed repeal of the Wheat Export Charge Act 1974 and the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974 in which the definitions of ‘wheat products’ were provided. The Bill proposes to amend the Wheat Products Export Adjustment Act 1974 in order to link its operation with the proposed Wheat Marketing Bill 1979. I commend this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2836

WHEAT TAX BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

)-I move

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

This Bill is related to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979, the Wheat Tax Act 1957 and the Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1 979. The Wheat Tax Act 1957 provides for the imposition of a tax on deliveries of wheat to the Australian Wheat Board. The intention of the Wheat Tax Bill 1979 is to provide for a tax to be imposed on wheat not delivered to the Board but the sale of which has been authorised by the Board under the direct grower to buyer transactions scheme. The basis for such transactions is established in the Wheat Marketing Bill 1979.

The rate of tax is specified as being the same as the rate in force from time to time under the Wheat Tax Act 1957. As in the case of the revenue derived from the operation of the Wheat Tax Act 1957, moneys collected from the tax imposed by this Bill will be paid into Consolidated Revenue and an equivalent amount paid into the wheat research trust account for later disbursement on scientific and economic research projects for the benefit of the wheat industry. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2836

WHEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

)-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

This Bill amends the Wheat Research Act 1957 and is complementary to the Wheat Tax Bill 1979, the Wheat Tax Act 1957 and the Wheat Marketing Bill 1 979. The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wheat Research Act to provide for amounts equal to the amounts derived under the Wheat Tax Act 1979 to be paid into the wheat research trust account. The Bill also provides the necessary related appropriation from Consolidated Revenue. Consistent with the principle specified in the principal Act for dealing with taxation collections, the Bill also specifies the basis upon which funds derived from the Wheat Tax Bill 1 979 are to be identified in order that revenue derived from a State is used for research in that State.

The opportunity is taken also to amend the reporting period for the annual report on the operation of the principal Act. The present calendar year requirement for the report inhibits the presentation of financial information. Presentation on the proposed basis will simplify the presentation and preparation of the report and enhance its usefulness. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 2837

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Howard:

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, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979, the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amend-‘ ment Bill 1979, the Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1979, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1979, the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1979 and the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 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 Millar:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bills now before the House cover a wide variety of income tax measures. Their principal effect is to close off various tax avoidance loopholes and to increase substantially the income tax burden on taxpayers as a whole for this financial year by reimposing a tax surcharge and denying any income tax indexation. The Opposition strenuously supports the tax avoidance measures but just as strenuously opposes the Government’s measure to increase substantially income tax across the board. The Bills also give effect to various less important alterations to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Opposition does not oppose those changes. The only Bill that we oppose completely is the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill. This is the Bill which imposes the tax surcharge and denies indexation of the tax scale this financial year. Let me say at the outset that we strongly object to the complete misrepresentation of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of the impact of this Bill in his second reading speech. He said:

The main feature of the Bill is the removal of the income tax surcharge imposed as a temporary measure for the 1978-79 financial year.

That statement simply is not true. This Bill does not remove any surcharge. In fact, it imposes a surcharge of 1.07c in the dollar at all levels of taxable income. Certainly, this surcharge is less than that applying to the previous year, which was 1.57c in the dollar, but to describe the Bill as removing the income tax surcharge is totally and completely untrue. What it does is reduce the surcharge by 29 per cent, not remove it as the Treasurer claims, taxes of the Bill, therefore, is that people with a taxable income of between $3,893. and $ 16,608, which includes most people who pay income tax, will pay 33.07c in every dollar over $3,893 instead of the standard rate of 32c in the dollar. Of course, the Government is very sensitive about this and is doing its best to deceive the Australian people as to what is really going on. I am sure, that most honourable members recall the interview of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on radio the morning after the Budget. Quite ineptly and deceptively he attempted to assert that what the Budget did was to cut income taxes. In his second reading speech on the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill the Treasurer just as deceptively attempted to give the same impression to the Parliament and the people.

The impact of the surcharge on taxpayers in this country will be quite considerable. Although an amount of 1.07c in the dollar may not sound like very much it will mean that taxpayers collectively will pay out an additional $600m this year. That is far from being a minor sum. It should be clearly understood that all Government supporters who vote for this Bill will be supporting the removal of that amount of additional income from taxpayers by way of increased income tax. Certainly Government supporters will claim, as the Prime Minister ‘ and the Treasurer have already claimed, that taxes are being reduced this financial year because pay-as-you-earn deductions will be reduced after the end of this month. This will certainly be the case because these taxpayers have been paying tax so far this financial year at the same rate as that which they paid for the last seven months of the previous year. The surcharge for the last seven months of 1978-79 on PA YE deductions was 2.47c in the dollar. Averaged out over 12 months it became 1.5c inthe dollar, which was the surcharge applicable to all taxpayers in that year. This year the continuance of the surcharge of 2.47c in the dollar for the first five months of the financial year will average out over the whole 12 months to 1.07c in the dollar. That is the surcharge applicable to all taxpayers this year. It is imposed by the legislation now before the House. The supposed tax cuts in December that the Government is so anxious to capitalise on are, in fact, nothing more than a consequence of pay-as-you-earn taxpayers having paid in the first five months of the year the full year’s surcharge on their income tax for the whole year.

The legislation now before the House also increases the level of income tax on taxpayers by denying any tax indexation. The concept of tax indexation to which the Government was supposedly committed involves adjusting the tax scale for inflation so that as taxpayers’ incomes increase with inflation they do not have their tax burden- that is the proportion of their income that they pay in tax- increased automatically. By adjusting the tax scale for inflation, the proportion of income that taxpayers whose incomes increase with inflation will pay in tax will remain unchanged. That at least is the theory. Although the Fraser Government claimed to be committed to full indexation, it has never applied full tax indexation. It discounted various price rises in its first two years of office and in 1978-79 it applied what it said was half indexation. In fact, it was more like one-third indexation. For the current year there will be no indexation at all. As a c onsequence, the proportion of income that tax- payers will pay in tax will increase.

The cost to taxpayers of being denied tax indexation is not incidental; it is $487m, accord- ing to the figures given by the Treasurer. Thus the total increase in income tax because of the continuance of a substantial surcharge and the non- indexation of the tax scales will be, on the figures given by the Treasurer, $1,08 7m. That is the cost of the Government’s broken promises. The promise that last year’s tax surcharge would be only temporary and would end by 30 June this year and the promise to restore tax indexation this year were both broken in the infamous May mini-Budget. The cost to taxpayers of those broken promises is being felt right now. As I have said, collectively it amounts to a sum of approximately $1,1 00m. The excuse given by the Treasurer for not implementing tax indexation this year is that the Government could not afford to reduce the surcharge and implement tax indexation. It decided, therefore, to reduce the surcharge, and to try to convince people that it would be abolished in December, and not implement tax indexation on the basis, so the Treasurer said, the people do not understand it. That is an extraordinarily interesting statement by the Treasurer. If we compare what the Government put forward as its reason for originally supporting tax indexation it does not fit at all.

What the Government said originally was that it was essential to have tax indexation because it was necessary to keep governments honest and to stop them increasing taxes by stealth. Therefore, if we abolish tax indexation it follows logically, from the Government’s own argument, that what we are doing is increasing taxes by stealth and that the Government is not being honest. That clearly flows from the Treasurer’s statement that people do not understand tax indexation. In a large measure he is right; they do not understand it. But the fact remains that what he is doing by not implementing tax indexation is, in the words of himself, the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen, increasing taxes by stealth and being dishonest. It is absurd for the Treasurer to claim that it is reasonable to have forgone tax indexation this year because people do not understand it. It simply does not accord at all with the previous statements the Government has made about the essential need to have tax indexation.

The Treasurer also has said that tax indexation will be restored only when we can get inflation down. What an absolutely ridiculous and absurd statement that is. Tax indexation has relevance only when there is inflation. If there were no inflation tax indexation would be a totally irrelevant concept because people would not be moving up the tax scale according to the level of inflation; therefore there would be no increase in taxation by stealth at least in respect of the inflation factor although there could be in respect of increases in real income. Essentially, the inflation argument means that there is no inflation and there is no need to have tax indexation. The Treasurer says: ‘If we can get inflation down to almost nothing we will give you back tax indexation. But if we cannot do that, if inflation remains high, there is no way we can have tax indexation’. So when the people really need it, when it is important and relevant, they will not get it. When it is irrelevant or nearly irrelevant this Government might decide to give it to them. That is the kind of situation we are in at the present time.

The Treasurer also defended non-indexation by saying that there are now only three marginal rates instead of the previous seven; therefore tax indexation is less important in that context. That again is a totally absurd and nonsensical argument. There is total confusion between marginal rates and average tax rates. It does not matter how many steps there are provided the scale is somewhat progressive. If there is no tax indexation under a progressive income tax scale and people’s incomes increase with inflation they will inevitably pay a higher and higher proportion of their income in tax, as indeed was the case for the period from about 1954 to the early 1970s under previous Liberal-Country Party governments when almost without exception people annually moved up the tax scale because of nonindexation of the schedule. There was a five per cent surcharge in some years and a five per cent reduction in others but the general movement was up the scale because of non-indexation. If there is a progressive tax scale, irrespective of whether it has three, five, seven or 15 steps, and it is not indexed, there will be an increase in the tax burden simply by the process of inflation and without the Government’s doing anything actually to increase tax rates. It is ridiculous in the extreme to argue, as the Treasurer does, that because there are now three levels indexation is less relevant.

The tax increases which have been imposed in this Budget are very substantial, as is illustrated by what I have already said. The overall figures reveal that the increase in income tax receipts this year, calculated on the Budget assumption that wages will increase by 9 per cent to 9.5 per cent, will be 18.2 per cent. There we have itwages up 9 per cent to 9.5 per cent and taxes up 18 per cent. Quite clearly that indicates a very large increase in the overall tax burden. But this increase in the tax burden is not evenly applied. Low income earners will be made to pay a much higher percentage rise than high income earners. In my speech on the Budget I incorporated in Hansard tables which illustrate this quite clearly. Let me cite some of those figures. A single taxpayer on $8,000 last year will, with a 9 per cent rise in income this year, have a 16 per cent increase in tax. A single person on $6,000 last year will, with a 9 per cent rise this year, have a 24 per cent increase in tax. A single person on $5,000 last year will have a 38.9 per cent increase in tax. But at the other end of the scale, a single person on $ 100,000 last year will have a increase of 9.6 percent.

As you go up the scale, the percentage increases in tax, as a result of the various measures in this Budget and in the legislation now before the House, go down. Quite clearly that is utterly inequitable. The same situation is true in respect of taxpayers with dependants. Those taxpayers on $8,000 will have an increase of 28 percent but for those on $100,000 the increase will be 9.6 per cent. Quite clearly these measures impose not only a very substantial overall increase in the tax burden but also do it in a thoroughly inequitable way by loading the greatest percentage increases on those who can least afford to pay additional amounts of tax. But that is a matter of small relevance to this Government.

The increase in the tax burden on taxpayers in this country under the Fraser Government has been remarkable. The large income tax increase in this financial year, encompassed in the Bills now before the House, makes a mockery of the Government’s claim to be a low tax party. In fact, this Government’s period in office has been marked by increases in the tax burden which take the overall tax burden to the highest level in the history of our country. Let me prove that with various figures relating to increasing the income tax burden on Australian taxpayers. First, let me look at individual tax receipts as a share of gross domestic product. In the three years of the Labor Government receipts averaged 12 per cent; that is, the total amount of income tax receipts under the period of the Labor Government as a proportion of the gross domestic product was 12 per cent. In the first three years of the Fraser Government it was 13.1 per cent. It was notably up on the figure for the period when the Labor Government was in office. In this financial year, using the Government’s estimates for prices and real growth in gross domestic product, and the revenue figures in the Budget, income tax receipts from individuals this year as a share of gross domestic product represent 13.3 per cent. So it is moving up all the time. This Government clearly is moving into a higher and higher tax impost on the Australian taxpayers.

Pay-as-you-earn tax receipts as a proportion of wages and salaries paid for the three years of the Labor Government were at 9.3 per cent. For the first three years of the Fraser Government it was 10.3 per cent. On the same basis of calculation as I mentioned previously, for the year 1979-80 the figure becomes 10.5 per cent. So it is moving up all the time. In looking at total Federal tax receipts, not just income tax but all taxes that the Federal Government raises from people, businesses, et cetera, in the three years of the Labor Government receipts represented 22.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. In the first three years of the Fraser Government they represented 23.3 per cent. For 1979-80, again on the same basis of calculation that I used previously, it will be 23.9 per cent. Again it is moving up all the time. I am talking about not just income tax, but all tax receipts. The reasons for that are not only the rapid income tax increase but also due to the enormous amount of revenue being accrued by the Government from the crude oil levy there are very rapid increases in taxes in the non-income tax area as well.

In looking at the share of average weekly earnings paid in taxes, to get away from the overall concept and look at the individual level, in 1975-76 22.7 per cent of the average weekly earnings of a single person was paid in income tax. In 1979-80 that figure rose slightly to 22.9 per cent. But a married taxpayer paid 14.2 per cent of his income in tax in 1975-76. In 1979-80 he will pay 1 8.3 per cent, which is a very substantial increase indeed. Of course it can be argued that those- figures make no allowance for the changed arrangements in respect of family allowances or health insurance. So one can do the sum again and include in the concept of net tax the amounts paid by the Government by way of child endowment or the family allowances and the additional amounts that taxpayers have to pay now to be covered for health care. I am referring only to medical costs, assuming that the people take advantage of the free hospital services provided by the Government under the new health arrangements. A single taxpayer paid 22.7 per cent of his income in 1975-76 in this concept of net tax. In 1979-80 he will pay 24.4 per cent. In 1975-76, 13.3 per cent of the income of a married taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children went in net tax. In 1979-80, 17.7 per cent went in net tax. That is a very substantial increase indeed.

It is interesting that it is in this area of married taxpayers, the families, the most heavy tax impost is occurring. This sits oddly with the Government’s claim that it has done marvellous things for families by way of increasing family allowances. Of course, the reality is that the decision originally to move to family allowances and abolish the tax rebate was a good move which we supported. But it has been destroyed by the fact that the allowance has not been in any way adjusted since that time, so its real value has halved. Therefore, families find that the net tax impost on them is increasing all the time.

There we have it. It is absolutely clear and beyond any doubt at all that the Fraser Government has notably increased the burden of income tax, and taxation as a whole, over what it was when Labor was in office. This is despite the fact that its period of office has been marked by massive tax avoidance by high income earners. Therefore, high income earners have had no increase at all in their tax burden. Indeed, it has been greatly reduced with the result that ordinary taxpayers, particularly wage and salary earners who have virtually no means of avoiding tax, have seen a considerable increase in their tax burden. All this makes a mockery of the Liberal claim to be a low tax party, as it has claimed so vociferously to be. The reality is that it is a high tax party; the highest tax party in Australia’s history. It is especially so for wage and salary earners. The clear, undeniable facts show that attempts by Government spokesmen to portray the Government parties as generally low tax parties are nothing more than crude attempts to deceive the Australian people.

As I have explained previously, this high tax feature of the Fraser Government is an inevitable result of its economic policies and, in particular, its deficit paranoia. Its continuing attempts to reduce the deficit, quite unsuccessfully so far, by increasing taxes simply depressed the Australian economy, thereby causing the deficit to blow out again through the resulting loss of tax revenue and more persons needing to claim unemployment benefit. This effect leads to more tax increases and a further perpetuation of the recessionary cycle. Without a change in basic economic policy we can expect only that the Fraser Government will not only continue as a high tax government but as the ever higher tax government.

I turn now to tax avoidance. As I mentioned in opening, we support the tax avoidance measures contained in these Bills. Before making some general points on this matter I wish to draw attention to the main measures included in the legislation. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) puts an end to four tax avoidance schemes- Curran-type schemes, trading stock schemes, pre-payment schemes and expenditure recoupment schemes. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) in part relates to those four types of avoidance schemes by providing that carry forward losses under these schemes will not be allowed. This is an extremely important measure which we strongly support. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, made the point that $ 1,600m worth of artificial losses were claimed from the operation of these schemes for the year 1977-78, of which approximately $ 1,000m would be able to be carried forward to wipe out tax in future years if nothing were done to prevent it. Hence the provision in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5). However, we find it curious that the

Government has provided in relation to carry forward losses in respect of only those four schemes. We cannot see why the Government could not have provided a more general provision. It seems that as other tax avoidance schemes arise- there appears to be no end to them- we will have to have further legislation in the future to provide this kind of protection; that is, to prevent carry forward of paper losses in respect of these new schemes which will arise. Why cannot we have some sort of general provision which is a prohibition on the carry forward of all paper losses? I would like some honourable members on the Government side to make some comment about this matter in this debate. If it is possible, surely we ought to be introducing such a provision. I do not know why it would not be possible.

Regarding the importance of tax avoidance, quite apart from the Government action to restructure the tax scales inequitably, it is clear that the equity of the tax system is being further destroyed by tax avoidance. This is shown by the figures for taxes paid by pay-as-you-earn taxpayersbasically wage and salary earners- and by non pay-as-you-earn taxpayers in the last two financial years. Between 1976-77 and 1978-79 pay-as-you-earn taxpayers had their total taxes increased by 21.9 per cent. The total amount of tax that they paid went up by that amount, but for non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers- that is, non wage and salary earners as a whole- their total taxes paid went down by 4.7 per cent. Obviously that enormous discrepancy is largely accounted for by the tremendous impact of tax avoidance. This shows how enormously effective tax avoidance is, despite the Government’s action to prevent it. The Opposition agrees that the Government has taken substantial measures to reduce tax avoidance. But it had no choice. Unless it did so it would have had a far greater loss of revenue. It is absurd for the Government to claim continually that it deserves credit for having done more than any other government to prevent tax avoidance.

The fact is that there has never been so much tax avoidance activity for governments to put an end to. That was shown quite clearly by a statement which I have referred to previously by Mr Bruce Pascoe, President of the Taxation Institute of Australia. He said in December 1978 that in the previous two years- that is, 1977 and 1978- tax avoidance became big business in Australia. He said: ‘It became a disease which, being allowed to go unchecked, reached epidemic proportions’. It is in this environment that the Government has had to take action. It allowed avoidance to go virtually unchecked- in the words of Mr Pascoe- until early 1978, by which time a tremendous amount of tax had been avoided and the whole avoidance process had been built up into an industry. It grew into one of the few growth industries under this Government. As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said last night, about the only other areas which have increased that we can think of are massage parlours and Chinese restaurants.

I would like to make many criticisms of the action taken by the Treasurer in respect of tax avoidance, acknowledging nevertheless that he has done quite a bit in this area. One of the areas in which we feel he has fallen down badly is simply by not acting against various schemes which he knows to be operating, which have been put to him time and time again and which he continues to allow to exist. Maybe it has something to do with the work load but it still seems odd that he allows this to happen. One area is internal superannuation schemes. In this House in the first half of this year I drew this matter to the attention of the Treasurer and gave him some documentation with respect to how such schemes worked. On 12 August this year I issued a Press release which referred again to the impact of internal superannuation schemes as blatant tax avoidance devices which this Government was continuing to allow to operate.

These schemes work basically in this way: A company sets up a superannuation fund for its employees, including directors, who receive benefits only at death, on retirement, or after a qualifying period. Only the company contributes to the scheme. Its contributions are tax deductible, allowing it to avoid company tax and division 7 tax on undistributed profits. The fund invests something like 30 per cent of its assets in government securities so that all the fund’s income becomes exempt from tax. The other 70 per cent of the fund’s assets are lent back to the company at a reasonable rate of interest, the payment of which is a tax deduction for the company. The employment of all employees is terminated before they reach retirement age or serve out the qualifying period. Eventually, the directors are the only employees left in the fund and they receive all the assets accumulated in the fund tax free. Of course, this has particularly nasty effects in respect of the company’s work force. The employees are led to believe that they are part of a superannuation scheme. But the reality is that it is only a device to avoid tax. Many of them finish up with no superannuation because the intention of the scheme was not to give them any superannuation but to avoid taxation.

Recently I have had made available to me detailed evidence of how such a scheme worked. This scheme was put forward by a firm known as Industrial Taxation Services which has its headquarters in Beaumaris in Melbourne. I can make available to the Treasurer, at any time he wants, details of how this particular firm is proposing such internal superannuation schemes to work. For the benefit of honourable members and the public I seek leave of the House to include in Hansard a table which sets out clearly how this scheme would operate in the case of one company for which Industrial Taxation Services did some work.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

  1. No upward salary movements.
  2. ) No Staff turnover or increases.
  3. 3 ) A continued rate of 5 per cent Gross Interest paid on borrowings.
  4. Continued present tax scales and legislation.
  5. Maintenance by Life Office of present cash value figures.
Mr WILLIS:

– I thank the House. Since I made that Press statement there have been many statements in support of the claim that I made at the time, not the least by such organisations as the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and Australian Superannuation Plans. All of these organisations have strongly supported the case that I have made that many of these internal superannuation schemes are blatant tax avoidance schemes and that there were clear measures that could be taken by the Government to put restrictions on the use of this form of tax avoidance scheme, but so far nothing has been done. It is deplorable that the Government has seen fit to sit on its heels and allow this ripoff of the system to occur, not only because of the loss of tax revenue, but also because of what it is doing to thousands of employees out in the work force who think that they have superannuation cover but who are just being deluded and defrauded by this process. It is scandalous that the Government allows this situation to continue. Finally, I would like to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4). I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Government ‘s taxation policies are inequitable, deceptive and ineffective in that they-

in direct violation of the Government’s election promises, are imposing an increasing income tax burden on the Australian taxpayer,

have continually reduced the equity of the tax system by imposing an increasing proportion of the income tax burden on low and middle income earners,

are failing to prevent the continuance of a record level of tax avoidance by high income earners and

have been marked by prevarication, policy reversals and concessions to powerful interest groups ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later point in the debate.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I am concerned about the income tax structure in Australia. There is no doubt that there is widespread concern and dissatisfaction with the taxation structure in this country. One of the measures of dissatisfaction is the extent to which tax avoidance has developed as an industry in Australia. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) recently said that the Commissioner of Taxation had identified over 10,000 taxpayers as participants in tax avoidance schemes, compared with about 860 in 1975-76 and 2,200 in 1976-77. In his 1979-80 Budget the Treasurer provided for $683m as being the loss to revenue from tax avoidance. It is important to realise that the 10,000 taxpayers and the $683m both relate to known, identifiable or actioned schemes. The amount of income not declared and the amount of tax avoided is incalculable.

It needs to be understood that the problem has its origins in the system itself. Because people are dissatisfied with the existing system they will go, and do go, to differing degrees of effort to reduce or eliminate their tax liability. The Government’s efforts to counter this increasing level of activity are necessarily slow and result normally in complex and lengthy legislation. This is so because first a scheme or a device has to be identified before a counter to it can be introduced. The principles relating to retrospectivity are such that in virtually all cases the revenue lost before the Government takes action is not recoverable.

One of the results is the increasing complexity and size of the Income Tax Assessment Act itself, and another is the amount of time and effort that has to be devoted to tax avoidance by officials, the Government and the Parliament. To make matters worse the avoidance industry continues to throw out the challenge by saying: ‘Every time you close a loophole, we’ll open another’. It seems that the process is endless and that the elimination of tax avoidance will become an increasingly major consumer of time for officials, government and the Parliament. It is my contention that the basic reason for the problem we face is that we are trying to patch up a bad system. Whilst I commend the Treasurer’s efforts in relation to tax avoidance, I cannot see how all the effort in the world will solve the problem. It has often been said that a government cannot enforce a bad law. I think that syndrome dominates taxation in Australia.

I wish to commend the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) for the proposals he has brought forward, which have been favourably received, in relation to family income splitting. I believe that the honourable member for Sturt deserves much credit for causing people to think about the system and to seek ways to remove inequities from within it. But I am concerned about his proposal for two reasons and I want to put those reasons before putting a possible alternative proposition. My first concern is that the proposal of the honourable member for Sturt builds on the existing system. Even though his proposal would remove inequities, once that position had been achieved we would still be faced with all the problems that we now face with the system as we know it. In a way the honourable member is moving the same way as the Treasurer- to patch up a bad system.

The second concern I have is that the honourable member’s proposal carries the inherent risk of raising community expectation. If for some reason the Government found it could not accept the proposal, those expectations would be dashed. The problem here is that I believe the honourable member to be right. There can be significant disadvantage to single income families as compared to two-income families. This fact has now been well publicised and those who are disadvantaged are entitled to expect the Government to redress that disadvantage. If the proposal is not implemented, a serious problem exists between those people and the Government. I have a minor concern about the honourable member’s proposal and that is that the proposal depends upon tax indexation for its implementation. It seems to me that tax indexation has been clearly demonstrated to be fraught with difficulties in the practical political sense as well as in the fiscal or budgetary sense. I would prefer a tax system that, because of its justice and equity, did not require indexation to maintain its partial acceptability in the community.

I believe that the debate on income tax needs to be broadened so that the options are not limited to tax cuts, indexation and the proposal from the honourable member for Sturt. I say this because, with all due respect to the Government, the Treasurer, the honourable member for Sturt and most commentators, these options are really only adjustments at the margin. They involve adjustments to what I have already described as a bad system. Australia needs realistically to consider a fundamental change to its existing taxation system- a change that will give equity and incentive and eliminate the desire for tax avoidance. It is in this spirit that I wish to put forward a proposal that I hope will be taken as a serious and realistic contribution to the taxation debate in Australia. My proposition demonstrates that a system of flat rate tax can be introduced in Australia at an acceptable cost, if in fact at any cost at all. I do not intend to deal with the advantages of flat rate tax. I believe the arguments are well known and accepted. The difficulty with flat rate tax has always been seen to be the cost of implementing what is regarded as a good system. I hope to show that it can be implemented.

The proposal argues for a flat 20 per cent rate of tax on incomes. In contrast to the family income splitting proposal of the honourable member for Sturt, this proposition involves taxing the family unit. Because a percentage of the taxpayers who pay less than 20 per cent would be disadvantaged by the flat rate proposal it would be necessary to allow those taxpayers to opt for the existing structure. A flat rate tax system such as proposed here would eliminate the need for tax indexation, would remove rebates and concessional deductions, and would involve no threshold. It would also mean a reversion to non-taxation of pensions. It would also remove almost entirely tax avoidance and tax evasion as well as ensuring that most income is declared. A flat rate tax regime would need to be accompanied by stiff penalties for those abusing the system.

As the latest taxation statistics available are for the 1976-77 income year, all figures in this proposal relate to that year. In relative terms, the current position should not be substantially different. At an income level of $9,500 the average flat rate of tax is 20.3 per cent. The amount of $9,500 is the critical income level in this proposal. Below $9,500 are 64 per cent of the taxpayers, who pay 32 per cent of the tax. The proposal is that those above $9,500 would pay a 20 per cent flat rate on every dollar of income and that those below could opt for the existing rate structure if they would be disadvantaged by paying 20 per cent. On the surface the loss to revenue is enormous. On the assumption that all those below $9,500 opted for the existing system, and all those above $9,500 paid 20 per cent, the cost would be almost $2 billion. Obviously such a cost would be unacceptable.

The proposal depends largely on the acceptance of taxation of the family unit. A ‘family’ means husband, wife, children and full time student children. The flat rate of tax would be applied to the grossed up income derived by all members of a family. A family would be taxed as one entity. The reason for this approach is to remove the necessity for income splitting and it would result in virtually all family partnerships and trusts being taxed as if they were one income. Two income families would not be disadvantaged because they could opt for whichever was the most attractive- the flat rate tax or the existing scales. The only families that would opt for the existing scales would be those with a combined income of less than $9,500. With the passage of time, and with the effect of inflation, the number of taxpayers with an income below $9,500 would diminish until virtually all taxpayers, on a family unit basis, would receive about $9,500 and paying the flat rate of 20 per cent.

Perhaps the question most important to this proposal is: How many would opt for the existing scales? Obviously every individual and every family receiving over $9,500 would be advantaged by the 20 per cent flat rate, and any individual or family receiving below $9,500 would be disadvantaged because the average, the flat rate, below $9,500 falls steadily. As previously mentioned it would only be the genuine below $9,500 income individuals and families who would opt for the existing scales and pay less than 20 per cent. But there are many other categories of people receiving below $9,500 for whom the 20 per cent rate would be more atractive. Firstly there are the income splitters and there are a large number of husbands, wives and children included in the 64 per cent of taxpayers receiving below $9,500. There are working wives whose individual incomes are less than $9,500, but who, on a family income basis, would benefit from a flat rate. There are part-time workers who earn less than $9,500 but who would benefit from flat rate tax. There are people, such as school leavers, who are not members of the work force for a full year and so earn less than $9,500 but who would be advantaged by flat rate tax. There are pensioners who, pension and income included, earn less than $9,500. With no tax applying to the pension these pensioners would be advantaged by paying 20 per cent tax rather than 32 per cent tax on any income over and above the pension. There would be others who would benefit from flat rate tax and who would transfer from the existing scales even though their income is less than $9,500.

In summary, it is my contention that a large proportion of those receiving below $9,500 would in fact opt to pay tax at the flat 20 per cent rate. I believe that this proportion is most likely to be around half, but in the table I have prepared I include figures for 25 per cent, 50 per cent and 75 per cent of those receiving below $9,500 transferring to the 20 per cent flat rate. It will be apparent that the more people who are taxed at 20 per cent the less will be the cost to revenue, because those opting for the old scales will be paying a flat rate of less than 20 per cent. If 50 per cent of those below $9,500 opted to pay the 20 per cent flat rate the superficial cost to revenue would be $1.47 billion. If only 25 per cent transferred it would be $1.73 billion, and if 75 per cent transferred it would be $1.23 billion. As I indicated earlier I believe the most likely result would be about 50 per cent with a superficial cost of about $1.5 billion.

There are two principal ways through which the bulk or all of the $1.47 billion revenue forgone would be recovered. Firstly a large amount of presently undeclared income would be declared; and secondly tax avoidance would be largely eliminated. I believe there is some mutual exclusivity in relation to the two points, but equally the amounts in each do not cancel each other out. It can be argued that the benefit from the combined effect of the two results could well exceed the $1.47 billion forgone. The amount of additional income that would need to be declared and taxed at 20 per cent in order to break even at $ 10.75 billion, which is the amount of tax raised in 1976-77, is $7.3 billion or 15 per cent more income than was declared in 1976-77 on the presumption that 50 per cent of those receiving below $9,500 would opt to transfer to the 20 percent rate. If 25 percent transferred the additional income would need to be $8.6 billion or 18 per cent, and if 75 per cent transferred it would be $6.1 billion or 13 per cent of that declared now. It is not unrealistic to assume that this would happen.

The Treasurer has stated in his Budget Speech that the amount of tax outstanding from tax avoidance schemes acted on by the Government in 1978-79 is $433m. He also stated that $250m extra had been provided for to cover further tax avoidance. It should be borne in mind that this $683m only allows for known tax avoidance schemes that have been acted upon. It is not unrealistic to believe that at least a further $1 billion in tax would be raised from what the community at large regarded as a ‘fair’ system of taxation.

One of the principal reasons why some would oppose such a flat rate tax system is that it would provide a windfall benefit for the rich. This needs to be put into perspective. The first thing that needs to be said is that 93 per cent of taxpayers have a taxable income of less than $16,000. Those who receive between $9,500 and $ 16,000, who account for 29 per cent of taxpayers, would benefit from a reduction in their average or flat rate of tax from between 27.6 per cent and 20.3 per cent, depending on income level, down to 20 per cent. For most of these the reduction in tax would not be large and they could in no way be classified as rich. That leaves the 7 per cent of the taxpayers in Australia who have taxable incomes in excess of $16,000. Depending on how we define rich, people receiving over $16,000 would, at or above that level, fall into that category. These 7 per cent currently pay 16 per cent of the total tax collected from individuals. At the absolute extreme there are 873 people with a taxable income over $100,000. These 873 people would have their flat rate of tax reduced from 60 per cent to 20 per cent. If we take $20,000 as the level above which one becomes rich, less than 3 per cent of taxpayers are in that rich category.

It strikes me as absurd to deny 93 or 97 per cent of taxpayers a sensible taxation system for no other reason than that 3 or 7 per cent of taxpayers will receive a significant reduction in tax. Although opponents of flat rate tax will always quote individual examples of what the tax benefit would be, they totally overlook the immense benefits that flow from such a system to the whole community. The certainty, confidence and incentive that accompanies the fact that tax takes only 20 cents in every dollar earned more than outweighs the only other suggested protection- indexation. Indexation is only valuable if the income growth does not exceed the inflation growth or indexation adjustment. Flat rate tax is more beneficial. It may also be argued in a negative sense that there is not much equity in the present system under which those taxpayers receiving below $9,500-64 per cent- pay only 32 per cent of the tax while the remaining 36 per cent pay 68 per cent of the tax collected. The flat rate tax system I envisage would result in the estimated 32 per cent of taxpayers receiving below $9,500 paying 23 per cent of the tax, and those receiving over $9,500- an estimated 68 per cent- paying 77 per cent of the tax collected.

I said earlier that one of the basic difficulties with flat rate tax is the cost of its implementation. Obviously it would be impossible to consider flat rate tax at a time when the Budget deficit was running at $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion. That is not now the case. The deficit is now under control relative to recent years. The Government has scope to reduce expenditure and it also has the oil revenues. The combination of these three factors is such that we are now in the ideal climate to introduce flat rate tax, even if it cost $0.5 billion. The benefit to the community would be more than outweighed by any short term cost to the deficit. Any lack of confidence that may follow a larger deficit would be more than offset by the boost to confidence and consumer spending that would accompany flat rate tax. If, as seems to be the case, the Government has a commitment to tax cuts or tax reform next year then I ask that this proposal be fully examined, costed and debated. I do not argue that this proposal is the final, only or perfect solution, but Australia may never have a better opportunity to introduce flat rate tax than it has now. If this opportunity is not taken now we may well be saddled with the existing unsatisfactory system into the indeterminate future. Although I have not shown those two tables to the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard. One is a summary of the table which was in the Budget Paper No. 1 1 and the second is a table which I prepared and referred to in my speech.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) has revealed himself. I always felt that he would be a classic member of the flat earth society because I am sure that that is the measure of his Neanderthal thinking. He has had the gall tonight to start propounding the thoroughly discredited theory of a flat tax. I am not surprised. I have heard some of his other pronouncements on other subjects. I am astounded that an allegedly responsible member of parliament would come in here and suggest that we should revert to a flat tax system. Surely the system that is favoured by the party which I represent is equitable. It can be justified in every sense. It is a progressive from of tax under which people pay what they can afford to pay. They pay what is a fair assessment of their income in the form of taxation to the government. Surely the Government is not going to start seriously contemplating a flat tax system. The honourable member for Hume has totally revealed himself, and I am appalled.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you, in your preparliamentary days, were an eminent tax inspector. I am sure that you would agree when I suggest that the only things wrong with the tax collection system in Australia at the moment are the inequity of the rate for those people at the top level- I also put that suggestion to the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson), who is sitting at the table laughing- and the amount of tax that is evaded. I was pleased that at least the honourable member for Hume had the decency to suggest that somewhere between $ 1,000m and $2,000m will be evaded in the current financial year by people who use all the loopholes that are available to ‘smart’ accountants and ‘smart’ lawyers. I use the word ‘smart’ in the pejorative sense, in inverted commas, because surely it is a very loose assessment of ‘smart’ that people can be smart enough to outwit other people who do not have the same opportunities, and thus avail themselves of an inequitable share of the tax burdens.

If only people in the total electorate were honest the tax system would work. I am pleased to represent a working class electorate. I am sure that the bulk of the people I represent pay a fair share to the Government’s purse, to the nation’s purse.

Mr Kerin:

– They have no choice.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As the honourable member for Werriwa interjects, they have no choice. They do not have the ‘skills’ or the basic dishonesty to be paying less than they should. We should look at the higher classes of society in Australia, the establishment, the Gold Coast businessmen, with all due apologies to the Minister at the table, the doctors, the solicitors, the accountants and the wealthy farmers. Those people not only minimise their tax, they absolutely remove the possibility of their paying any. They are the guilty parties. They are the people who are evading the $2,000m in tax this year. They are the people who are making the people I represent in my electorate, the workers of Australia, pay an inequitable amount. A worker with a tribe of kids is battling to send them to a State or parochial school, battling to pay whatever school fees have to be paid to keep the system going. Workers are paying an inequitable share of the tax burden because other people are avoiding their responsibilities. The Government should be aiming at the people who avoid their responsibilities. There is nothing wrong with the tax system if basic honesty existed within the community. That is what this Government should be trying to do.

There are some cosmetic measures in the Bills that we are discussing, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) and related Bills, that might do something about curing some of these ills and stopping the proliferation of Curran schemes and other schemes set up by the smart lawyers and smart accountants to allow their clients to not pay their fair share of the tax burden. But the Bills do not go far enough. We on this side of the House suggest that these measures should be made retrospective. The Government, when it discovers an avoidance scheme in operation, should be able to go back to the operative date of commencement of the scheme, not 12 or 18 months later when people have evaded the tax. We suggest to the Minister at the table and to the Government that it should be injecting some form of retrospectivity into these laws. That is the policy that has been propounded by our shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who spoke prior to the honourable member for Hume. We want the Government to catch in the net the people who are not paying their fair share. That is our suggestion.

Only a few weeks ago I attended the opening of a new clinical school at the Westmead Hospital in my electorate. I was privileged to hear perhaps the last major speech made by one of the most eminent and respected medical men in Australia, Sir John Lowenthal. He was then Professor of Medicine at Sydney University and Chairman of the Australian National Heart Foundation. Unfortunately, he died shortly afterwards. The basis of his speech to the young doctors entering that clinical school- I well remember the terms he used- was that they should get back to the practice of medicine and forget about the business of medicine. He alluded, in guarded terms, to the number of doctors who have brought disrepute to their profession by their entry into tax evasion schemes. I am not just singling out doctors, but given the fact that in the last week or two they have raised their fees by 23 per cent. I presume that people like me, the working class people, are easy prey for them. People feel that they are being unfairly treated in terms of the tax they pay as against the tax people in the high income level do not pay. I suggest to doctors that they get back to the practice of medicine and forget about the business of medicine. Doctors, even by conforming with reasonable standards of behaviour, could still be the highest earning people in this community. It is very common knowledge that an ordinary general practitioner is now grossing somewhere around $ 100,000 minimum a year, giving them a net return of $40,000 or $50,000. How could those people justifiably suggest in any terms that they should be paying less than their fair share of tax? So I suggest to the honourable member for Hume that he forget about flat rates of tax, the same as he should forget about his membership of the flat earth society. I am sure he is a very senior member of that society.

Getting back to the legislation in question, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill, which is part of this parcel, seeks to declare the new rates of personal income tax payable by individuals and trustees which were announced in the 1979-80 Budget Speech and to provide for the future application of tax indexation.

Mr Lusher:

– Can I go?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You may go. I am sure your presence will not be needed and I am sure that the aggregate intelligence of the House will not be lowered by your absence, it will be increased. The Opposition opposes this Bill because although it removes the income tax surcharge of l.S per cent which was imposed by this Government for the 1978-79 taxation year, all it effectively does is to impose a 1.07 per cent surcharge for the 1979-80 financial year instead. This is just another one of the broken promises of this Government. If this Government is remembered for anything it will be for this wonderful litany of broken promises which were espoused by our esteemed Prime Minister (Mr Malcom Fraser) in his election speech of 1977. Those promises have been repudiated and dishonoured. They have been almost totally obliterated by succeeding actions. This surcharge is another example of the Government’s failure to honour its promises. The Government promised to abolish the surcharge at the end of July this year. It failed to do so. If honourable members can cast their minds back a little further, the Government had the gall, in December 1977, to promise people tax cuts. It not only did not give them tax cuts, it in fact gave them a surcharge. It not only broke a promise, it made another one and broke it.

The Opposition also opposes the Bill on the grounds of another of the Government’s broken promises- its failure to introduce tax indexation for 1979-80. Earlier in its period of office the Government claimed that tax indexation was desirable to keep governments honest. I subscribe to that too. But its trail of broken promises, of which I have mentioned only two or three- there are many others- have proved to the people of Australia that it is a blatantly dishonest government. The Government cannot afford to introduce tax indexation because that would prevent it from implementing its characteristic policy of taxation by stealth. I will not go into taxation by stealth; I will leave that to later speakers. In effect the Government’s refusal to implement tax indexation means that while inflation continues the proportion of income tax increases for everyone who pays tax, regardless of his income. This Bill provides that in future indexation can be implemented by an Act declaring that indexation is to apply for a particular year, but the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has given no hint as to when such an Act may be introduced. In fact he has given every indication that tax indexation will not be introduced at all. He spelt this out quite clearly because in his second reading speech he claimed that it was not possible to introduce tax indexation for the 1979-80 financial year because of Budgetary considerations.

I foreshadow that in May next year the Treasurer will come in here with a sweetner because that is election year. History reveals that election years have funny effects on Treasurers. Something that was not at all possible in August 1979 may well be possible in May 1980. It may well be that people will remember, if the Government does introduce some form of tax indexation as an election sweetener, where the money came from. People may start thinking about every gallon of petrol that they have bought and how much they have paid for it. Then they will know where their tax indexation is coming from. I would like to know what these budgetary considerations were that precluded the Government from introducing its tax indexation.

The Treasurer says that tax indexation will not be introduced because people do not understand it. This is surely an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia. When we go to an election the people of Australia will certainly indicate their intelligence because if the present poll continues the Government will be sitting over on this side of the House and the real government of Australia- the party that represents the great bulk of the people of Australia- will be squatting over there whence it never should have left. The Treasurer also said that tax indexation would be introduced only if wage increases and inflation were low. However, as he himself has admitted, inflation is going to rise to 10 per cent next year as a result of his inflationary Budget. It would appear therefore that tax indexation indeed has been given the kiss of death. Talking about the kiss of death, I notice that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) has entered the chamber.

The Government claims that it is cutting taxation this year and it is true that pay-as-you-earn taxation deductions will be decreased, but taken over the year as a whole, the proportion of income paid in tax by all taxpayers will increase this year. Moreover, this increase is quite inequitable and, as is usual with this Government, the greatest tax burden will fall upon low income earners. For a party that claims it is a low tax party, I think the figures really make a joke of that claim. I just added a few figures together today that people could readily understand. They show that income tax paid by individuals in Australia in 1975-76 was $9,2 19m. Strange to relate, in the 1979 Budget, the estimate for taxation paid by individuals is $15, 128m, just a nice little increase of 66 per cent in taxation revenue from individuals in a slight matter of three years. Surely that would end forever the claim that this

Government, sitting on the treasury bench, is a low tax party.

The increase in taxation this financial year for single taxpayers in the lowest income bracket will be 64.6 per cent. By comparison, for those earning around $50,000- funnily enough, that is the amount paid to Ministers- the increase will be only 1 1.3 per cent. I wonder whether that is coincidence or a deliberate attempt. Could that possibly be considered progressive or regressive tax? I think the people of Australia will be able to make a judgment on that, because despite the fact that the Treasurer thinks that the people of Australia are not intelligent, believe me, they are. For a taxpayer with dependants, the increase is even more marked. Those earning $6,500 this year are paying an increase in taxes of 155.9 per cent whilst those on $54,500 will have their taxes increased by 1 1.6 per cent- a nice little 1 1.6 per cent over last year. In other words, the lower a person’s income, the higher his percentage increase in taxation this year.

Low income earners are the people least able to afford high rates of taxation, but under this Government they are supporting the wealthy. That surely shows the immorality of this Government. The rates of tax applicable for any financial year, in accordance with the Income Tax (Rates) Act, are imposed for that financial year by the annual Income Tax (Individuals) Act. That Act in this year imposes the personal income tax rates applicable to individuals and trustees for the 1979-80 financial year, and until the Parliament does otherwise, it provides for the following financial year and is complementary to the Bill we discussed earlier.

I notice that two nuns from one of the local schools happen to be sitting in the House, and one of the better provisions in this Bill that I do approve of is that which allows tax deductible gifts of $2 or more to be made after 1 July 1979 to the Roman Catholic archdiocesan funds established exclusively for the purpose of providing religious instruction in government schools in Australia. 1 applaud that move. It is at least one of the better ones that the Government has made. It is a very minor one, but one of the better moves.

One of the other Bills in this parcel that we are debating cognately is the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1979. This gives legislative effect to three Government decisions made in May and June of this year. These decisions are the denial of income tax deductions for paper losses created by tax avoidance schemes initiated in a year of income and, because of insufficiency of income in that year to absorb them, carried forward to later years. We do not deny that that is also a reasonable move, but as I expressed earlier, it does not go far enough to catch these people who are evading their taxes. The Opposition believes that these sorts of legislative changes should be made retrospective.

The Bill also allows for the easing of some limits on deductions for income equalisation deposits- a little sop for the farmers. We do not deny them that opportunity. They are having a good year and we are pleased about that. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you represent a rural electorate. We are very pleased that the farmers are having a good year. If they can be given some easing in their tax on an averaging basis we are quite happy with that. The Bill also introduces the changing of arrangements for the transition from the 40 per cent phase of the investment allowance to the 20 per cent phase. I am delighted about that because I do not think anybody would deny that the 40 per cent allowance in investment that was given to business has not done the job for which it was introduced. It was alleged to be a scheme to provide employment but I think that everybody- including the Government- believes that what it has done has been to allow businesses a large tax deduction to provide new machinery, largely of a labourreducing type, and largely imported. So it has really worked in reverse to the scheme it was supposed to implement. It has not provided employment by virtue of its implementation and, further, it has not provided employment because largely it was machinery bought from overseas, so the scheme has been a failure. At least the Government has had the decency to reduce the allowance to 20 per cent.

The first of these decisions- the one implementing the deduction for paper lossesimplements action against those participating in certain tax avoidance schemes- the Curran-type scheme, the horrid scheme which people use to exploit others; trading stock schemes; prepayment schemes; and expenditure recoupment schemes. Paper losses generated in earlier years by tax avoidance schemes entered into before government remedial action against such schemes was initiated will not be allowed as income tax deductions either in the 1979-80 financial year or in subsequent years, and we are delighted with that. Tax avoidance schemes have for a long time now allowed certain people well versed in the taxation laws- they are the people I was talking about earlier, the smart lawyers, smart accountants, smart doctors- to cheat the

Government of the taxation due to it. So successful have these schemes been that the number of people using them has increased markedly in recent years.

In the 1975-76 financial year, 861 taxpayers were identified as participants in such schemes whilst by 1977-78, the known number- I stress the known number- had risen to 10,244. These schemes have been so prevalent that it is estimated that in the 1979-80 financial year the Government lost some $203 m of revenue to which it was entitled because of these schemes. That is a very minimal assessment of the figure. I think most people, and probably the officials sitting on the back seats, would believe that the figure is more likely to be in the range of $2,000m.

Mr Kerin:

– The fiscal fiends.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I would not use that term. The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) has suggested that they are fiscal fiends, but I would not use that term. Although the loopholes in the taxation laws which allowed the schemes I mentioned earlier to operate have at last been closed, claims exceeding $ 1 ,600m have been made on the Australian Taxation Office for the deduction of paper losses from tax avoidance schemes carried out in 1977-78. Obviously the Opposition strongly opposes any form of tax avoidance system, not only because of the loss of revenue to the Government that such schemes entail, but also because it is intolerable that others, honest taxpayers in the community, should go on year after year paying taxes whilst unscrupulous people openly avoid paying tax. We therefore support any move to stamp out the operation of such schemes. To sum up, as I said when I started this little speech, the basic ingredient required in the community is honesty. The working classes of Australia have never yet been caught in a tax evasion scheme. Never does one find the names of butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, fitters and turners, school teachers or trade union officials in the lists of names of those evading tax- only the establishment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– I must make a few comments on this Bill, particularly in relation to the remarks of the butcher from Parramatta- I am sorry, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown)- who was very quick to point out that butchers never avoid taxation. I am pleased to hear that. A couple of points should be drawn from his speech. The honourable member for Parramatta went on to say that this Government has brought in some imposing taxation that it is going to increase tremendously. He failed to mention, of course, how taxation had risen in 1975 and what it would be if we still had the infamous tax scales that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) introduced in 1975. The Australian Labor Party will be terribly shocked to find on 1 December that the take home pay of the very people whom they talk about representing but whom in fact we represent-the people who earn the money- has been increased. Their average weekly earnings will be increased considerably. This will be a terrible blow to honourable members opposite because they were not counting on the fact that this Government would cut taxes. The present Government is the only government since 1972 actually to cut taxes. Honourable members opposite will receive some more shocks before next year is out.

Mr Kerin:

– Would you fancy an audience?

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Pin your ears back, as you have done. Do not let your ears flap. If you take your hands away from your ears they will flap.

Mr Kerin:

– Would you fancy an audience?

Mr BOURCHIER:

-You would take off if you did not stop your ears flapping.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the chair.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should, too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Members of the Opposition should treat the honourable member for Bendigo with a little respect as I understand that Opposition speakers were heard in silence.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– That is right. Mr Deputy Speaker, I just wish to place on record a comparison of the taxation deductions after 1 December 1979 and the standard rate of tax of 32 per cent introduced in 1978 with what would be the position if the infamous Hayden scales were still in operation. I will take as an example two or three simple sets of figures because the honourable member for Parramatta and the violinist from Werriwa can understand only simple figures. If I had a blackboard I would draw on it in such a way that even they could understand the figures. As from 1 December 1979, a taxpayer with no dependants and earning $100 a week will pay $9.35 a week tax, whereas under the Hayden scales, if they were still operating, he would be paying $15.45. The honourable member for Parramatta talked about a 60 per cent increase. If the Hayden scheme were still in operation there would be a 60 per cent increase in the tax payable by a person receiving $100 in take home pay. That is not a bad effort! For a person earning $200 a week the rate of tax payable will be $41.85 per week as against $52.10 which would be payable under the Hayden scheme. A taxpayer with a dependent spouse and child and a $100 a week income will be required to pay nothing at all under this Government’s taxation scheme after 1 December, Under the Hayden scheme he would have had to pay $4.05. These are the facts.

Dr Everingham:

– But Hayden would have indexed it better than you did.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-Do not worry about that. You cannot deny the facts, old son. For a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and child and a salary of $200 a week the taxation rate will be $30.50 a week as against $40.70. They are just a few simple figures that outline clearly the way in which the Hayden scheme would have treated the working people of this country. They outline the very beneficial results that the people will have in the form of decreased income tax and an increased take-home pay packet. Having admired this legislation so much, and realising that the remarks I have just made sum up the situation absolutely, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

A division having been called for and the bells being rung-

Mr Humphreys:

– Where are they?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are all in the bar drinking.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, a Labor Party member opposite made a remark about his fellow members that should not be regarded as casting an aspersion on honourable members on this side of the chamber. He said that the members of his side are all at the bar drinking. I assure you that the members of this side are not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was of members of the Liberal Party that I was speaking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Neither honourable member has received the call by the Chair and neither of them is entitled to speak to a point of order until he receives the call.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Bourchier:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sit down, sonny. You have not been here long enough yet.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will be sat down if he does not refer to honourable members by their proper titles.

Mr Bourchier:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of order, the honourable member for -

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Read your sheet.

Mr Bourchier:

– Okay. The honourable member for Grayndler, a member of the Labor Party, made an interjection which suggested that members of this place- he did not specify from which side; he just said ‘the members’, meaning all members apart from those in the chamberare in the bar drinking. I wish to make it quite clear that the members of this side of the chamber are not. They are walking into the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– There is, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are all walking into the House now. Where are the members of the Labor Party?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be fair to make the assessment that on the most important group of taxation Bills to come before the House this year the Government supplied a speaker who spoke for 20 minutes on the flat earth society, and Jack the Knife who spoke for three minutes?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is that the contribution by the Government to the debate on the tax Bills?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The House divided. ( Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles )

AYES: 62

NOES: 29

Majority……. 33

In division-

Honourable members interjecting-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Willis’s amendment) stand pan of the question.

The House divided. ( Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O ‘H. Giles )

AYES: 63

NOES: 30

Majority……. 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles)Order! Honourable members seem to be rather frivolous tonight. When the Deputy Speaker is on his feet, would honourable members kindly behave themselves. The question has been resolved in the affirmative and the question now is -

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I seek leave to move together the amendments to the Bill that have been circulated in the name of the Treasurer (Mr Howard ).

Leave granted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The Minister for Finance will resume his seat. The Committee will come to order. Honourable members of a mind to remain in the chamber and attend to the business of the Committee may do so. Honourable members on their feet will retire.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, perhaps those in the broadcast box could turn up the public address system because you are very hard to hear.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am sure that if the honourable member for Fadden remains silent, in common with other members, he will have no difficulty in hearing. I call the Minister for Finance.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Clause 3, page 3, lines 43 to 45 and page 4, lines 1 to 6, omit sub-clause (3).

Because these amendments and this Bill relate to a closing off of certain tax avoidance schemes, I shall make a few general remarks about that matter. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) today made available figures giving details of estimates of the amount of revenue which has been lost in this year and previous years through tax avoidance. It has been estimated by the Treasurer that at 30 June 1979 about $433m was outstanding in terms of revenue lost due to tax avoidance schemes. This figure, of course, includes only those amounts which have been precisely tracked down to tax avoidance schemes. We do not really have much idea as to how much greater the real figure might be. Interestingly enough, however, of this amount of $433m the Treasurer estimates that somewhere between $200m and $230m relates to the previous year, 1978-79. Leaving aside whether those figures are accurate, that indicates that there has been a great explosion in the last couple of years in the amount of revenue lost from tax avoidance schemes. For instance, if $200m of the $433m can be attributed to one year only and assuming that it has taken three or four years for these schemes to get off the ground, this indicates that the acceleration in the amounts of revenue lost has been very great in recent years.

This is further confirmed by some other figures made available by the Treasurer today in which he indicated the growth in the tax avoidance industry, as we might call it, from the years 1 975-76 to the current period. My colleague the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) has already referred to these figures in part. He revealed that the number of individuals who have been identified as participating in these schemes has grown from a mere 861 in 1975-76 to 10,244 in 1977-78. One can only assume that the number has increased further since then. These figures reveal that there has been a great explosion in participation in tax avoidance schemes under this Government. Those Government supporters who criticise the Opposition for its lack of action when in government should take careful note of these figures. They reveal that at the time the Labor Government went out of office there was only miniscule participation in tax avoidance schemes compared with the participation which is taking place now. Most alarming of all perhaps is that there has been a particularly great explosion in the number of people who are participating in schemes other than those which are well known and clearly identified. Under the category of other schemes ‘-I will not give the definition- in this table, which has a column dealing with the Curran scheme and various other well-known schemes, the number has increased from just over 100 in 1975-76 to 1,800 in 1977-78. That is a very alarming state of affairs and it reveals the very great need to do something more than this Government is prepared to do in relation to clamping down on tax avoidance schemes.

As I have said before, I think we can doubt the accuracy of the Treasurer’s estimates in terms of revenue losses in relation to tax avoidance schemes. I want to talk about another possible measure which might give us a clearer indication of the real amount of revenue that has been lost. I want to do this by comparing the amount of revenue which has been gained by the Commonwealth from pay-as-you-earn income taxpayers and the amount of revenue received from those who pay under the provisional tax arrangements. There is some difficulty in using this comparison but to some extent I think the comparison is valid. For instance, the same rate of tax applies to both groups of taxpayers. The difference in the method of payment of tax does reveal a difference in the way in which the income is earned. For instance, those who are essentially wage and salary earners in the main use the PA YE method to pay their tax and the people who receive income in other ways usually use the provisional tax arrangements. There is a tendency for the revenue under the provisional tax arrangements to fluctuate, largely because farm incomes tend to vary and farmers by and large pay their tax under this arrangement if they are not involved in companies. However, I think that to some extent these fluctuations are ironed out via the tax averaging schemes which are available to farmers. i

By making a further assumption that the rate of increase in income per taxpayer has been at least the same for provisional taxpayers as it has been for PA YE taxpayers we can make some useful comparison on the basis of the revenue. It is my guess that the incomes of provisional taxpayers have probably increased more rapidly than incomes for PA YE taxpayers because in the main PAYE taxpayers tend to be more constrained by the arbitration system and industrial laws than those people who receive income by other methods which enable them to use the provisional tax arrangements. Taking account of those qualifications, by comparing the revenue received by the Government from PAYE taxpayers and that received from those who pay tax under the provisional arrangements a very interesting scenario develops.

For the period 1972-73 through to 1975-76 the increase in revenue was slightly more in the provisional category than it was in the PAYE category. However, in the next period 1975-76 to 1978-79, that is the period of this Government’s administration, the rate of increase in taxation for PAYE taxpayers was 48 per cent compared with only 9 per cent for the provisional taxpayers. That is a very marked difference between the increase in revenue from those two sources. I think it reveals that there is a good deal of tax avoidance going on among those people who pay tax under the provisional arrangements. The comparison of the 48 per cent increase and the 9 per cent increase, and with the slightly more accelerated increase for provisional taxpayers in the previous years in mind, is very illustrative indeed. On the assumption that revenue from provisional taxpayers had increased at the same rate as it had for PAYE taxpayers- and that is what I think ought to have been the position- the revenue derived from provisional taxpayers would have been not $3.25 billion that in fact it was, but an extra $1.15 billion, so that over $ 1,000m I suspect has been lost through tax avoidance schemes being operated by provisional taxpayers.

That is just one measure but I think it is a measure which we can reasonably use to try to establish the scope of tax avoidance in this country. I must add that the $ 1,100m or over $ 1 ,000m that I am talking about in the deficiency of the amount that should have been paid by provisional taxpayers is for one year alone; that has to be compared with the $200m or $230m which the Treasurer thinks was the deficiency in that year. I think the problem of tax avoidance is very much greater than the Government has been prepared to; admit and indeed it indicates the necessity to take more stringent action.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-The Committee is considering the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4), which is another move to counter income tax avoidance practices such as the Curran scheme which have benefited the participants by $ 1,400m. The Government of the day has provided for a discussion on this Bill and six other Bills two speakers, one of whom spent 20 minutes on a general measure- not related to the legislation under consideration, but on flat tax- and the other speaker took three minutes. There are no other members of the Government present in the House bar the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) who is sitting at the table and the Government Whip. I think this is an absolute scandal. All these measures together represent an impost on the Australian taxpaying public of $ 1,100m due to two more broken promises. Yet the Government does not even provide the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to take the legislation through the chamber. As I said, there have been only two Government speakers. One spoke for 20 minutes and the other spoke for three minutes. There have been two speakers from the Opposition side. It is absolute nonsense.

These seven Bills are technical Bills. The Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Amendment Bill alone requires a full debate. It is a very technical measure indeed. Farmers’ incomes have to be adjusted and they will have to make changes in respect of the income averaging scheme. The income equalisation deposit measures require a full blown debate. The other Bills affect every wage and salary earner in Australia. This Government is ramming this legislation- seven Bills- through this place after about an hour’s debate on the second reading. This is absolute nonsense. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) contains further measures to counter income tax avoidance practices which the Treasurer had previously tried to counter with Bills such as this one. We are always in a situation of the dog chasing its tail in respect of tax avoidance schemes and the closing of loopholes. Part of these measures relates to this notorious Curran scheme which has been estimated to be worth $ 1,400m per annum to its participants and a loss of $700m per annum to revenue. Other estimates of the losses to revenue through all taxation avoidance schemes range from $500m to $2,000m per annum. My colleague the Honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) has already outlined some of those to the Committee.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard) first of all introduced a Bill in April 1978 to deal with the Curran scheme, with provisions retrospective to the previous Budget date of 16 August 1977. It is a pity that so much of the debate on the Bill was about the principal of retrospectivity. I have no love for tax dodgers. We simply have to bite the. bullet on retrospectivity and not agonise about it. Within months of that Bill of April 1978 being assented to, it was learned that the provisions could again be circumvented. After the Treasurer had made a further statement on the distressing way the Bill was being trammelled this Bill has now come to light again. The Treasurer announced concern in September/October 1978 and again in March 1979. The Bill was introduced then and was given time for a discussion to ensue about it, but it was not debated in this place. It was not debated as a separate Bill and we now find that a couple of speakers will have 10 minutes each in which to speak. It is an absolute nonsense.

The basic elements of the Curran scheme are that taxpayers who seek to be treated as share traders can artificially create a tax deductible loss which can then be offset against their normal taxable income. For example, a person can pay $190,000 for shares with a face value of $10,000 and after accumulated profits attaching to those shares have been capitalised by the issue of bonus shares to a face value of $ 190,000 the total parcel of shares is sold for $195,000. Under a Curran scheme the person claims to have incurred a loss of $185,000 whilst in commercial terms a profit of $5,000 has in fact been made. These schemes can be used by a taxpayer to create whatever loss is required to eliminate tax liability completely. So it can be seen that originally the Curran schemes depended for their success on a non-taxable issue of bonus shares.

The modified schemes which this Bill is out to cut off introduced a variation that the bonus issue is paid out of a share premium account created solely for the purpose of the scheme instead of out of capital profit reserves. The Government has been advised that the modified schemes are caught by the original Curran amendments introduced last year. But the Treasurer has said that the Government cannot afford to take the risk that the modified schemes will be upheld in the courts, hence the new amendments. This raises a very important point. In March this year a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia ruled against the Taxation Office which brought a case against a company which successfully used section 36a of the Income Tax Assessment Act as a dodge to turn profits into tax losses. The Court ruled in favour of a company which turned a profit of $238,000 into a tax loss of $3,593. The Government acted in May 1977 to close the loopholes of section 36a which became a boon to share traders and dividend strippers but, in the case in point, acted too late. At that time it was said that the Government stood to lose $400m in revenue. But accurate estimates are always difficult to make. Mr Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association said that he had been told by experts that section 36a fiddles were bigger than the Curran scheme.

The High Court of Australia, sitting in its legal ivory tower, has made decisions which are disastrous for the welfare of Australia and, in particular, uphold the validity of the Curran scheme and made section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act subject to a new almost obscene interpretation rendering its original purpose null and void. Not only has Senator Watson in the other place, as it is fancifully called, made public comment on this, as have other people, but no less a person than the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, has also made comment.

We do not have time to go into all the technicalities and the complexities of these schemes. We need a full blown debate on this issue. These are complex matters and the people of Australia need to realise that the people taking advantage of these schemes are not the average middle income earners or the people on wages and salaries but people who set out to avoid tax. They are the people who are ripping off the average income earner of this country, the man who is faced by higher taxes due to this Government. He is the man who also has to live with the very regressive taxation scales and the inflation and higher taxes due to the Government’s broken promises.

Even now we see in the newspapers all the time advertisements headed ‘100 legal ways to reduce your tax’. Some very good schemes are mentioned for some of the Ministers in the Government. Some points read: ‘How to run another business which doesn’t pay tax on its profits. Nine ways to use rural tax shelters. How doctors in private practice can channel all their income into a family trust. How to get even more benefits from family trusts’- I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) has been reading this- ‘How loans within the family can reduce tax’. So the advertisement goes on.

The Opposition joins completely with the Government in trying to do something about taxation avoidance. We stand fully behind the Treasurer in strengthening the provisions of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. It has to be done. We also believe that we have to talk much more about retrospectivity and eventually act in this area. While ever there are smart people, the rich business friends of the Government, who are prepared to dodge tax and the ordinary average family income earner has to pay more and more tax because he cannot avoid taxation, because he pays pay-as-you-earn taxation, we will have to do something about this matter in this chamber. I say again that we need to have a full-blown debate on all of these Bills and not jam all seven Bills through in 23 minutes. It is a nonsense.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– I will not take a great deal of the time of this chamber. I think it is important to make one or two comments. One has to wonder whether the two previous speakers from the Opposition, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) and the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), are in fact opposing the measures the Government is taking to try to overcome the problems of tax avoidance.

Mr Dawkins:

– Not enough.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– From listening to the honourable member it was very difficult to tell. He said that we are not doing enough. The honourable member should be patient. I will answer him in a moment. The honourable member for Fremantle said that all tax avoidance virtually started with this Government. The honourable member for Werriwa, whom I thought to have more intelligence, supported that remark. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the shadow Minister for Finance who is sitting at the table, nodded his head very wisely and said: ‘Of course, that is when it started ‘. I think two of those honourable members were members when Mr Crean was Treasurer. He was the first Labor Party Treasurer of three in three years. He stated that he wanted to do something about Curran-type schemes. That is remarkable seeing that the scheme was said not to have started until we came into power. But Mr Crean was going to do something about it. Two Treasurers later and three disastrous years later the Labor Party had done nothing. It had not done one little skerrick about tax avoidance.

Labor members are supposed to be the champions of the little man. They did nothing at all. They supported the people using the scheme. They were probably getting some rake-off for their campaign funds. There is no doubt that the Labor Party did nothing. Its members had the gall to criticise this Government for being positive and doing something. I think it should be quite clearly noted in the books that under the Labor Party administration its first Treasurer, a man of great wisdom whom the Labor Party quickly sacked because he was a man of great wisdom, announced that something had to be done in regard to tax avoidance. But, typical of the Labor Party, it felt that it could not face up to the situation. It did nothing. Of course, the only thing it did in three years was destroy the economy of this country, create the greatest inflation of all time, lift unemployment to a level that had never been reached up to that time and created a five per cent increase in unemployment.

Mr Bryant:

– That is not true. What about 1951-52?

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The honourable member knows that it is true. He was one of the Ministers at the time who wasted money in the Northern Territory as though it was going out of fashion. The Labor Party was spending money as though it had no limit. Blank cheques went to everybody. That is the sort of government we have come to expect from the Opposition. There is no doubt about the measure -

Mr Kerin:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. I put it to you that we are talking about the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4). We are not talking about the honourable member for Wills when he was a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or whatever he was. We are talking about a taxation Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The honourable member for Bendigo is required to address himself to the questions before the Committee.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I would not have strayed from the subject except that the honourable member for Wills continued to interject, as he always does. But it is unusual for him to interject while I am speaking. I said that I did not wish to keep the Committee late because we have a number of measures to deal with. I wanted to have it placed clearly on the record that the Labor Party had every opportunity to do something about tax avoidance and it did absolutely nothing. I repeat, and 1 want it spelt out quite clearly in Hansard, that members of the Opposition have the gall to criticise this Government for taking measures to counteract the efforts of tax avoiders. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The honourable member for Werriwa is upset also because he does not have enough time to debate this matter. Goodness me, he had three years in office in which to debate it and the Labor Party did nothing about it. He ought to sit in mute silence and allow a positive government that is doing something positive to proceed with its work and to get these Bills through so that we can carry out the actions that members of the Opposition are claiming should have been taken three years ago. I suggest that honourable members opposite should not argue the point about not getting a fair go. They had three years and they did nothing.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I simply wish to deal with one of the points- I think it was the only point- made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). He was totally wrong as he usually is. He said that the Australian Labor Party had done nothing in respect of tax avoidance in the three years in which it was in government.

Mr Hyde:

-What did it do?

Mr WILLIS:

-I am just going to tell the honourable member what it did do. It did quite a bit in fact. The first point I make is, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, that tax avoidance- in the words of the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia, who I think knows much more about the matter than the honourable member for Bendigo- took off in the two years prior to December 1978. That was a period in which this Government was in office. He said that it happened in that period because tax avoidance went unchecked it became a disease, a sort of madness which gripped the Australian economy. Those were the words of the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia.

I now deal with the more specific point made by the honourable member for Bendigo, that Labor did nothing in respect of tax avoidance when it was in office. These are the measures which the Labor Government introduced against tax avoidance: Firstly, tax avoidance through purchase of companies with accumulated bad debts or losses was ended. Secondly, restrictions were imposed on the carry forward of excess distribution by private companies in order to avoid an undistributed profits tax. Thirdly, the use of Norfolk Island, Cocos Island and Christmas

Island as tax havens for avoidance of personal and company tax was ended. Fourthly, payments of dividends to artificial companies in Papua New Guinea and other tax havens as a means of avoiding undistributed profits tax was ended. Fifthly, dividends and interest going to Papua New Guinea was made subject to withholding tax.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Millar:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2861

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2861

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-As I was saying, the fifth point was that the dividend and interest going to Papua New Guinea was made subject to withholding tax, thereby preventing the use of Papua New Guinea to avoid the payment of withholding tax. Subscriptions of pseudo exploration companies were ended as a form of tax avoidance. Avoidance of withholding tax on interest payable to overseas residents by means of the initial payment of such interest to an overseas branch in Australian business was ended. Seven quite specific measures were taken by the Labor Government in respect of tax avoidance. The kind of activity into which this Government has been forced, which admittedly is rather more extensive than that, is simply because so much more tax avoidance has been going on since this Government came into office. The fact that the Government has had so much legislation is a product not of the concern of this Government as against the concern of the Labor Government but of the fact that it has had so much tax avoidance activity going on while it has been in Government. For the first two years in which it was in Government, to use the words of the President of the Tax Institute of Australia, it let it go unchecked until it became a disease, an epidemic, that gripped the whole of the economy, certainly the more affluent parts of the economy. That is the reality of the situation. We do not have to put up with the sort of nonsense which we have heard from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), who has totally distorted the reality of the situation when the Labor Government was in office.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Mr Chairman-

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson) - by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I want to take about 10 seconds of the time of the House to speak on the question of tax avoidance which members of the Opposition laboured so heavily during the Committee stage of the Bill as well as during the second reading stage. One of the questions that has not been mentioned by members of the Opposition is the question of cash payments. It is apparent to everybody who knows anything about taxation in Australia that the greatest single area of tax avoidance is the area of cash payments. Almost the whole of the building industry is riddled with it, and it is to be found in many other sections of the community. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) made great play of the fact that one never sees the working class people mentioned in the statistics published by the Commissioner of Taxation relating to people who have been charged with tax avoidance and so on. That may well be the case, but a greater amount of tax is foregone by the Government through the action of those whom the Australian Labor Party refers to as the good, honest people of this country that it represents. The fact of the matter is that every person in this community is doing his best to reduce and to minimise the amount of taxation that he has to pay- the workers whom the Labor Party is representing as well as everybody else.

Mr Bourchier:

– Supposed to represent.

Mr LUSHER:

– I should have said ‘supposed to represent’. It may be of interest to members of the Opposition to know that only 10 per cent of the taxpayers of this country earn over $20,000. Those people pay less than $2 billion in tax. If those people cut their tax in half it would not account for the amount of money that the honourable member for Parramatta says is being ripped off in tax avoidance by people at the highest level of income. That relates only to those people who earn $20,000. The fact of the matter is that a great loss in revenue is coming from the activities of the average people in this community who do a bit of gardening here and a bit of plastering or the laying of a few bricks there and who get paid in cash by the people by whom they are employed. They never declare that income and they never pay any tax on it. That is the reality of the situation. So it should never be suggested in this Parliament by members of the Labor Party, or by anybody else for that matter, that the great mass of the low income earners in this country makes no effort to reduce or to avoid income tax. The fact of the matter is that 45 per cent of the taxpayers are in the category of being below the average level of $ 1 0,000 or $ 1 1 ,000. One only needs to have each of those people avoiding $20, $50 or a couple of hundred dollars a year in income tax and that would account for the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars about which everyone is concerned. That is the reality of the situation.

That takes me back to the point that I was making earlier. I am not supposed to refer to an earlier debate, but until we get a fair system of taxation in this country- a system of taxation which people are prepared to accept as being fair and reasonable- there will be a continual desire on the part of everybody to try to minimise, avoid and reduce income tax payments. I make the point that tax avoidance is not something which is the prerogative of the so-called rich and wealthy and the high income earners in this country. Everybody knows, and it needs to be constantly repeated, that the greatest area of tax avoidance in Australia is the area of the cash payments which takes place largely at the lower end ofth e income strata.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2862

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 5) 1979

Second Reading

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

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 Eric Robinson) read a third time.

page 2862

LOAN (INCOME EQUALIZATION DEPOSITS) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

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

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 Eric Robinson) read a third time.

page 2862

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 1 9- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20 (Indexation).

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Opposition wishes to express its concern about and, indeed, opposition to this clause. What this clause does is to prevent the indexation of the spouse rebate. It is part of the Government’s total plan to have no tax indexation for the year 1 979-80. We believe that if there is to be no tax indexation of the rates scale there should at least be tax indexation applying to the spouse rebate. It is rather ironic that we have a situation in which the Government is refusing to apply tax indexation to the spouse rebate. In other words, the Government is refusing to give assistance to those single income families.

We keep reading in the newspapers that various members on the Government back benches are so concerned about these people that they are floating all these schemes around about how they are going to look after the single income earning families. We are told that they are concerned because they are paying more tax than the families which have the same income that is earned by two people. They say that they have a real concern. Yet, here we have a situation in which they could do something about assisting single income earning families by increasing the spouse rebate, by indexing it for this financial year. But no, that is not this Government’s intention. It has no real concern for these people. All of this publicity that we keep reading in the newspapers about various back bench committees being concerned about these people seems to be so much hogwash when it comes to the reality of what this Government actually does. It gives no assistance in this Budget to the single income earning family. The Opposition opposes this clause and intends to vote against it.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– I want to reiterate what the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) has just said. The effect of this amendment is to prevent indexation of the spouse rebate. This just shows the absolute hypocrisy of this Government. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and this powerful, influential Government back bench committee which deals with taxation matters have been saying how concerned they are. The secretary of the committee, the honourable member for McCarthur ( Mr Baume), says he is concerned about families. This committee is putting forward many suggestions in respect of the splitting of incomes. It is also putting forward proposals to help single income families. The Government is exposed by this measure. It is not prepared to go along with taxation indexation any more and keep itself honest. As it openly admits. It is not prepared even to go along with the indexation of the spouse rebate. So much for its concern about families. What has this Government got against families? I think we should ask that now. What has it got against the middle income earners of this country? It was not even prepared to discuss all these Bills properly tonight.

The Government brought in the family allowance as a great reform. It keeps on saying that the Hayden tax scales were fixed back in 1975-76 as if a Labor government, if it continued in office, would be pinned forever with the tax scales of that time. This is the Government’s chief argument against the Hayden tax scales. They were a great advance; they were a great reform. There were a lot of tax savings inherent in them. The introduction of the child rebate at the time was also a very worthwhile measure. We concede that the family allowance scheme was a great reform. But if honourable members look at the net effect, it represented a rip-off to families. The Government is not prepared to index family allowances either. So the Government’s own great reform, as it heralded it, is being gradually eroded away. We have heard a lot about taxation reform, the need for indexation and the need to keep governments honest. In the February 1 978 tax scalesthe ones that followed the election of 1 977- there was the promise about the tax cuts and the great handfuls of money. A few months after the tax cuts and the three tax scales were brought in, a taxation surcharge was then imposed which was supposed to be pulled off later but was not. It is now going to be pulled off and so is the promise of tax indexation going to be pulled off. This measure again perpetuates that situation. The Government is not prepared even to index the spouse rebate. When those tax scales in February 1978 were introduced their regressiveness, their unfairness to the family income earners and the middle income earners, rapidly became apparent. Let us look to the figures. The 71.6 per cent of taxpayers on incomes of below $1 1,500 at that time, accounted for 51.5 per cent of the net income yet they received only 29.5 per cent of the total tax relief. One can contrast that situation with the 10.4 per cent of taxpayers on net incomes of $ 1 5,800 and over. They received 42.7 per cent of the total tax relief. That regressiveness is still inherent within the present tax scales and it is slanted towards those who are better off.

The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) last night said: ‘If you look at the total tax take it was down last year on the year before by one per cent in real terms.’ Now, I never believe anything the honourable member for Macarthur says, so I checked it out. It depends what deflator he used. Let us concede that he was right. Actually, I came up with a figure slightly better than one per cent so I am prepared to concede he was right. But that is not the point. The reason the total tax take is down is that the people in the middle pay more tax and the people on higher incomes pay a darn sight less. That is why the total tax take is down. I say again that this Government is not even prepared to index the spouse rebate. This Government is not even prepared to throw a bone to its own back bench committee. With all this kite flying about the concern of the Liberal Party for the families, this Government is not prepared to do anything for the families of this country.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I had expected not to speak to this Bill because the Bills are so outstandingly beneficial to the Australian nation that they speak for themselves, but because of the arrant nonsense spoken by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) I am forced to my feet. It is extraordinary that the honourable member for Werriwa should consider the fact, which he concedes, that income tax collections last year fell under this Government because of our tax reforms, is beside the point. It is very much to the point. The fact is that personal income tax collections last year fell despite the fact that the Opposition maintained a totally misleading and dishonest approach as, in fact, the honourable member for Werriwa has just maintained this instant. He knows perfectly well that the major reason for tax rises this year is not in the pay-as-you-earn section whatever but in the non-PAYE section. The biggest single rise- as the honourable member for Werriwa knows because he, in fact, has the capacity to use an adding machine unlike many of his colleagues- is in the non-PAYE section. In fact this is particularly so among rural incomes where, thank heavens, after years of Labor repression at last the rural sector is getting a fair go. Because it is getting a fair go and reasonable incomes the tax has gone up. I am not embarrassed or ashamed by that fact. I am overjoyed that the rural sector has had an immense recovery of incomes and, as a result, is paying much higher taxes. The most disturbing factor that strikes me from listening to the honourable member for Werriwa is this phoney concern he is now expressing for the family. He has voted for the Hayden Budget which increased PAYE taxes by something like 44 per cent. While wages went up by 22 per cent he voted for legislation which would increase taxes at double the rate that wages increased. The honourable member did that, and then he has come into this House and profess cynically and phonily that his concern is for the family and for low tax. I must say that I have never heard such nonsense in my life. The honourable member ought to be embarrassed, having supported, in fact, the worst Budgets that this House has ever seen. Those Budgets increased tax by the greatest amount that we have ever seen.

Mr Scholes:
Mr BAUME:

– The honourable member says rubbish. I challenge the honourable member to establish any Budgets in the history of this nation that have increased taxes as much as those that took place under the Government of which he was apparently honoured to be a member. I am absolutely appalled at the honourable member for Werriwa for whom, I must say, I have great personal regard. I can only assume that he has been sent into this debate under instructions to maintain the uncharacteristic nonsense that he is maintaining tonight. This Government introduced the benefits to families. This is the Government that has lowered taxes. The other side was part of the Government that raised them massively. I am appalled by the deception that the honourable member for Werriwa is trying to impose upon the Australian people.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-When an honourable member rises in this House and indicates that a IS per cent increase in taxation is a reduction, I think that the rest of his argument becomes irrelevant. But the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) has challenged members on this side of the House. He made a completely erroneous claim about increases in tax rates in the Hayden Budget. He cannot support that claim with facts.

Mr BAUME:

– I can indeed.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr SCHOLES:

-He cannot support with facts his claim that that was the highest increase in income tax of any year on record. I suggest that the honourable member look at the total rise in tax collections in the first four years of the Menzies Government. He will find that in one of those years, under a Liberal Government, the increase in tax collections was 104 per cent.

Progress reported.

page 2864

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leave- proposed:

That Standing Order 103 ( 1 1 o’clock rule) be suspended for this sitting.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Here we go again. The Government has had unlimited opportunities for the Parliament to meet. It stopped proceedings so that it could carry on with its gambling proclivities. It conducts the House like a third-rate progress association and now it is going to break the rules that we established some five or six years ago.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They ought to leave the country.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. The trouble is they always come back. I want to voice my protest. Over the years we have established the principle that we stop at 11 o’clock. We organised the place so that we could adjourn at 10.30 p.m., so that people could go home at a reasonable hour and so that the place could be conducted with some semblance of order. Now we are getting back to old habits again. There is absolutely no excuse on the Government’s behalf. We have met for 136 days since the election was held a couple of years ago. Out of 730-odd days we have met for only 136 days. I know that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) is interested in these matters because he never takes any part in any of the debates.

On the other hand, in many respects this has been what one might call a red letter day, or some sort of day, as the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) has actually made a speech instead of just standing up and gagging everybody else. I will overlook the fact that the speech was irrelevant to all the subjects under debate, and that it was simply a diatribe against the Opposition and that he made statements that were quite wrong because I think it is good to know that he actually can stand up and make a speech. However, I hope that we on this side of the House, instead of surrendering to this proposition in the future, will start to make a proper display of our anger and indignation at the way the Government runs this place. One of the things that members of this Parliament ought not to do is to allow the place to be used as the private property of the people opposite.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– It is hard to underestimate the pretentiousness of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). Just at a time when it suits the Government to extend the sitting of the House, he protests. The remarks he just made were a complete contradiction of the speech he made in the House a few days ago, when he insisted that the House should sit for a little longer. We have just heard an impassioned speech from the honourable member for Wills objecting to the fact that the sitting should be extended. Now, when the Government is in a position to extend the sitting, the honourable member for Wills objects to it. I suggest that he is not serious when he makes a speech of that nature.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2865

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clause 20.

Question put-

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 59

NOES: 31

Majority……. 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leave- read a third time.

page 2865

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 58

NOES: 31

Majority…….. 27

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 Eric Robinson) read a third time.

page 2866

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

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 Eric Robinson) read a third time.

page 2866

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Howard:

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 Eric Robinson) read a third time.

House adjourned at 1 1.18 p.m.

page 2867

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Television Program Standards (Question No. 2372)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sanctions, other than warnings of non-renewal or in fact not renewing a licence, are appliedby the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to enforce television program standards.
  2. What monitoring of standards is carried out by the Tribunal.
  3. What publicity, including encouragement of viewers to report breaches, is given to the standards and by whom.
  4. Does the Tribunal make public the warnings it issues; if so, where may these be seen by viewers; if not, will he take steps to ensure prominent publicity, including admission by the broadcaster on a comparable program of the breaches, in terms satisfactory to the Tribunal.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is the responsibility of the licensee of a commercial television station to comply with the Television Program Standards determined by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal under section 99 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942. In the case of a breach of the standards there are a number of options open to the Tribunal under the Act, e.g. imposition of conditions on a licence (sections 84 and 85), suspension or revocation of a licence (section 16), renewal of a licence for a period less than 3 years (section 87). Other sections of the Act under which the Tribunal may take action are sections 101, 1 18 and 1 19.
  2. The Tribunal monitors television stations on a limited random basis.
  3. The role of the Tribunal seems widely known to the public through publicity of licence renewal hearings and news releases.
  4. The licence renewal hearings are conducted by the Tribunal in public. The Tribunal invites submissions from the public in a press notice relating to the performance of a station prior to the public inquiry. Submittors are invited to give evidence at the public inquiry if they so desire. In the case of a blatant breach of the Television Program Standards the Tribunal usually issues a news release on the action taken.

Australian Medical Association (Question No. 4343)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice on 2 1 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to a resolution adopted by the Federal Assembly of the Australian Medical Association in June 1979 directing members only to employ graduates with Australian registration who are members of the AMA.
  2. Does this resolution breach any anti-discrimination legislation of the Commonwealth or States.
  3. If so, will the Attorney-General draw the appropriate government ‘s attention to the AMA ‘s decision.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The resolutions to which the honourable member refers would appear to be those adopted by the 18th Federal Assembly of the Australian Medical Association, at its meeting on 4-6 June 1979.I have been advised that they are as follows:

That, except in special circumstances, preference in employment be given to medical graduates registered in Australia and who are normally resident in Australia ‘, and That preference in employment be given to medical graduates who are members of the Australian Medical Association. ‘

  1. These resolutions do not contravene the Commonwealth’s anti-discrimination legislation (the Racial Discrimination Act 1975).
  2. Whether State legislation has any application, is not a matter for me to comment on.

Trade Agreements (Question No. 4401)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

Will he bring up to date his answer to question N 340 on trade agreements (Hansard, 26 May 1978, page 2636).

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Australia has concluded trade agreements with the Governments of the following countries since the answer to Question No. 340:

Philippines-1975 (a); Brazil- 1978; Poland- 1978; Thailand- 1979.

  1. Entered into force 1979.

A trade agreement was signed with the Government of Bahrain in 1 979 but is not yet in force.

The trade agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany is no longer in force.

  1. Consultative bodies have been established under the following new agreements since the answer to Question No. 340:

Brazil- (Joint Committee); Philippines- (Joint Commission); Poland- (Mixed Commission); Thailand(Joint Trade Committee ).

  1. The dates and places of the meetings of consultative bodies since the answer to Question No. 340 are a.’ under

Brazil- 18-19 July 1 979 in Brazil; China-4-6 June 1 979 in Australia; Hungary- 19-22 June 1979 in Australia; India-27-29 November 1978 in Australia; Korea- 10- 15 October 1979 in Korea; New Zealand (a)- 17 October 1979 in New Zealand; New Zealand (b)- 10-1 1 April 1979 in New Zealand; Philippines-27-28 August 1979 in Philippines; Poland-21-25 May 1979 in Poland; Romania-7-9 May 1979 in Australia.

  1. Joint Consultative Council on Forest Industries.
  2. b ) NAFTA Consultative Com mittee.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 4406)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

Will the Attorney-General bring up to date the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ answer to question No. 120 concerning the steps being taken to ratify the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Hansard, 8 March 1978, page 570).

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Consultations with States are continuing in the Meetings of Ministers on Human Rights and at officer level, with a view to ratification by Australia of the Covenant by the end of the year. The following ratifications and accessions to the Covenant should be added to the list printed in the answer to Question No. 1 20 given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 4538)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which of the exchanges referred to in Appendix 2(2) of the publication Community Access 80, published by the Australian Telecommunications Commission, service villages or townships within their exchange districts with a population in excess of (a) 50, (b) 100 and (c) 250 persons.
  2. Which service towns referred to in Appendix 2 (2) have populations below (a) 50, (b) 100, (c) 250 and (d) 1,000 persons.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

Telecom advises that population statistics are not maintained for all of the exchange areas listed in Appendix 2 of the booklet Community Access 80. However, some indication of the relative sizes of the centres concerned can be gained from the following table which classifies the exchanges and service towns mentioned in the booklet according to the number of telephone services connected to the local exchange in each centre.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 4539)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is a former general manager of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission living in a house at Double Bay, NSW, formerly owned by OTC.
  2. Was the house sold by OTC to the executive; if so, what was the price paid.
  3. What was the most recent valuation by the ValuerGeneral of the house and property before the sale.
  4. Is it a fact that the price paid was the market value of the house 10 years before the sale.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A former General Manager of the Commission (Mr Harold White) is living in a residence at Vaucluse owned by OTC.
  2. No.
  3. The Commission has received a valuation by the Valuer-General of the State of New South Wales dated 26 June 1979 in the amount of$135,000.
  4. Not applicable.

Uranium Advisory Council (Question No. 4625)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates has the Uranium Advisory Council met since its establishment.
  2. What matters have been discussed by the Council at each of its meetings.
  3. What is the name and background of each person appointed to staff the Council.
  4. Has the Council commissioned studies by outside persons; if so, which persons and what studies are involved and at what cost.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 24 January 1979; 28 February 1979; 30 March 1979; 26 and 27 April 1979 (visit to Lucas Heights); 23-26 May 1979 (Northern Territory visit); 5 and 6 July 1979; 9 and 10 August 1979.
  2. The Uranium Advisory Council has discussed a wide range of matters during its meetings. The First Report of the Council tabled in the Parliament on 13 September 1979 (Hansard, page 1085) covered the period to 30 June 1979 and also indicated several matters to which the Council would be giving attention at subsequent meetings. I am informed that additionally in July and/or August, Council members bad discussions with a Commissioner and the Director of the Australian Heritage Commission, the Acting Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation and officers from the Department of Trade and Resources and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
  3. The Uranium Advisory Council Secretariat is currently staffed by five officers employed under the Public Service Act: one Assistant Secretary (Level 1 ), one Senior Research Officer/Librarian (Class 7), one Administrative Officer (Class 6), one Clerical Assistant, Grade 3 and one Stenosecretary, Grade 1. Recruitment action presently being taken will increase the Secretariat ‘s staff to seven by the addition of one Senior Project Officer (Class 10) and one Principal Research Officer (Class 9).

The honourable member will appreciate that with the exception of senior staff, details of whom are printed in the Commonwealth Government Directory, it is not normal practice to publish the names and backgrounds of support staff employed under the Public Service Act.

  1. No.

Aboriginal Affairs Films (Question No. 4817)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

Will the Minister arrange for screenings in Parliament House, Canberra, of a series of films produced for public information and education by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Yes. I will be taking up the matter of an appropriate viewing time and location for screening with the presiding officers.

Nursing Home Fees (Question No. 4883)

Mr Humphreys:

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

  1. 1 ) How many patients and residents at nursing homes in Queensland (a) transferred to other nursing homes and (b) left nursing homes for other types of accommodation (excluding hospitalisation) in the period 1 January to I September 1979.
  2. In the case of part ( 1 ) (a) how many of these transfers were to nursing homes charging less than the fees at the previous nursing homes.
  3. 3 ) Is it a fact that the high number of transfers and departures from nursing homes in this period was due to fees at most nursing homes increasing rapidly, without a commensurate increase by the Government in its contribution to the standard fee for nursing homes in Queensland.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) During the period 1 January to 1 September 1979 the following patient transfers took place in Queensland:

    1. transferred to other nursing homes- 123.
    2. transferred to other types of accommodation (excluding hospitalisation)- 66.
  2. Eighty-six transfers under 1 (a) above were to nursing homes charging lower fees than at previous homes. Of the remaining transfers 36 were to nursing homes with higher fees and one was to a nursing home with equal fees.
  3. As at 30 June 1979, there were 4,625 non-Government nursing home beds in Queensland. 123 transfers during the eight months period 1 January to 1 September 1979 would represent only a fraction of the potential turnover during this period. Apart from the purely financial aspects, there would be other reasons for transfers between nursing homes, such as re-location of patients’ families, preferences of the patients involved, et cetera.

Departure Tax (Question No. 4960)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the (a) travel costs and (b) car allowance costs related to the collection of departure tax for 1978-79 and what are the estimated costs for 1979-80.
  2. What was the (a) gross and (b) net collections of the tax during 1978-79 and what are the estimated collections for 1979-80.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

(0-

Car hire costs are difficult to determine accurately. An officer who has permission to use his own private vehicle, even though approval was given primarily for departure tax duties may have to use his vehicle for other official purposes. There is no breakdown of expenditure to this degree as it is all recorded as Regulation 90 allowances.

(2)-

The difference between gross and net collections are refunds.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791108_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant