House of Representatives
21 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 3265

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baillieu, Mr Bourchier, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Roger Johnston and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council and its recommendations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Jarman and Mr Peacock.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council.

We call on the government to:

Continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

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

Petitions 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 NSW.

Respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Connolly and Sir William McMahon.

Petitions received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

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

That we oppose the increase in Radio Licence Fees on Marine Radios for the following reasons:

  1. Radios are an essential part of safety equipment
  2. Marine radio users save the government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. ) Increased licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own, and others safety.

We also oppose the Radio Regulation that allows and encourages the use of CB radios in boats for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) The difficulties and delays involved in obtaining positive identification that a boat is transmitting the message.
  2. The break down in communication between marine radio bases and boats, and boats using CB radio that are in trouble.
  3. Costs for search and rescue will esculate due to these delays.
  4. Safety standards will be lowered, Sea Rescue Membership will decline, increasing work load on remaining members under less efficient radio communication.

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

We also humbly pray that the regulation allowing the use of CB radio in Marine situations be rescinded. by Mr Braithwaite.

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

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

That we oppose the increase in marine radio licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential pan of safety equipment.
  2. ) Marine radio users save the government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. 3 ) Increased licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety.

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

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Jarman.

Petitions received.

Unemployment Benefit

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin and Mr MacKenzie.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth:

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

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

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

Petition received.

East Timor

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that in view of the recent revelations of widespread and tragic suffering and death in East Timor, and in view of the fact that despite four years of painful separation less than half of the 600 Timorese approved for family reunion in Australia have been allowed come from East Timor,

We call on the Australian Government in the most urgent terms:

  1. 1 ) to use its good offices to win access to East Timor for the personnel and resources of Australian aid agencies;
  2. to send an immigration team to Dili immediately to bring to Australia the rest of the 600 Timorese eligible to come;
  3. to relax immigration criteria to allow all of the 2668 Timorese nominated in 1977 to join their families in Australia.

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

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 shows 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.

Unemployment Benefit

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

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

Whereas:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Overseas Students

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly 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 oversease 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, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Australian Schools Commission

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled, this humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, hereby express concern at the Federal Government’s undue influence on the role of the Australian Schools Commission.

We are firmly of the belief that the quality of Australian Education demands a National Body such as this, free of Government restraint, to monitor, research, and assess the different State Systems, and suggest recommendations aimed at improving the education of Australians.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully pray that your honourable House of Parliament will consider therefore our request for the Federal Government to desist from setting prescriptive guidelines for the Australian Schools Commission and allow it to play its role as a National Educative Advisory Body.

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

Petition received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Child and Mothers’ Allowances

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully say, that we are concerned about the standard of living of children, whose parents are recipients of Social Security Pensions and Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for increase in the Child Allowance now $7.50 per week, and removal of the $2.00 cut in the Mothers Allowance made when the youngest child reaches the age of six (6) years.

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

Petition received.

Commissioner for Community Relations

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

The humble petition of the electors of the Division of Cunningham respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned residents of the Illawarra region protest against plans now before the Federal Parliament to set up a Human Rights Commission and restrict the work of the Commissioner for Community Relations, (the Hon.) A. J. Grassby. The work of the Commissioner is essential for the building of a harmonious multicultural society in Australia.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which is administered by Mr Grassby provides for equality of opportunity for all ethnic and racial groups in every aspect of Australian social life. The Act was passed unanimously by all political parties in 1 975 and does not need to be changed.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the work of the Commissioner for Community Relations be not restricted as provided for in the terms of the Bills currently before Parliament.

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

Petition received.

page 3269

KAMPUCHEA

Notice of Motion

Mr NEIL:
St George

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

That this House-

1 ) notes that the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea is not in control of Phnom Penh or major areas of the country and does not have control of any widespread administrative structure;

notes that the Pol Pot regime is one of the most horrendous and brutal regimes in the history of mankind;

does not condone the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea; and

is therefore of the opinion that the Government should immediately withdraw recognition of the Pol Pot regime and not recognise any regime in Kampuchea at this time.

page 3269

ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House is of the opinion that so much of the Standing Orders should be amended and added to as will give effect to the proposition that no allegation of criminal conduct shall be made against any Member of this House or of the general public, under Parliamentary privilege, without the details of the said allegation having first been referred to Mr Speaker, supported by documentary evidence sufficient to raise, in the judgment of Mr Speaker, a prima facie case.

page 3269

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3269

QUESTION

TAKEOVER BID: HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES LTD

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is it a fact that the Trade Practices Commission has requested the Murdoch group to delay for one month putting into effect the offer to the shareholders of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd? Under what section of the Trade Practices Act has this request been made? What are the powers under that section? Does the request have any legal force? Is it a fact that the present Fraser Government altered- in this case watered down- provisions of the old Trade Practices Act, which provisions would undoubtedly have prevented the Murdoch takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd on the grounds that such a takeover would reduce competition and certainly would not result in public benefit?

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

– Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to the matter that has just been referred to by the honourable member for Adelaide. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition I indicated that I would look at his question in the light of the provisions of section 50 of the Act, which deals, of course, with mergers. Subsequent to Question Time yesterday, I learnt that the Trade Practices Commission, prior to my learning of this proposed takeover and prior to the Leader of the Opposition addressing his question to me, had itself taken some action in this matter. I was advised this morning that the Trade Practices Commission has been in touch with the company concerned and has sought certain information from the company by noon tomorrow. In the circumstances, because the matter is before the Trade Practices Commission and is being dealt with by that body in an appropriate way, I do not feel that I should make any further comment.

page 3269

QUESTION

ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Can the Foreign Minister advise the House of the present position regarding the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia peace talks and the announcements made yesterday by the President of Zambia of the mobilisation of the Zambian forces? Can he bring the House up to date on the situation?

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

-As I have explained before, the first two phases of the talks in London have gone particularly well. The first phase resulted in agreement in principle on the constitution, and the second phase resulted in agreement on the transitional arrangements. It is the third and critical phase on the cease-fire itself which has still not yet resulted in agreement. Indeed, honourable members are aware from the reports that while talks are proceeding in London President Kaunda has announced a general mobilisation of Zambia’s armed forces and reserves. In fact, it appears that President Kaunda ‘s announcement does not constitute, as was reported last night, a declaration of war on Rhodesia. Indeed, the Associated Press report expressly turned round its earlier report saying just that.

It is my understanding that President Kaunda ‘s action is allegedly a defence measure taken in response to the escalation in the last fortnight of attacks by Rhodesian forces on important Zambian economic and communications targets. President Kaunda has always maintained that Zambia will resist with force any attacks against it or breaches of its sovereignty. So there has certainly been some escalation of tension in the border area between Zambia and Zimbabwe. This has been occasioned by the incursions of one party against the other.

I well understand that there may well be concern about the the manner in which the talks will unfold. I have not yet had the opportunity to communicate with my counterpart, Lord Carrington, on the matter; but suffice to say that through the difficulties of the first and second phases, concerning both the constitution and the transitional arrangements, great credit has been due particularly to Lord Carrington and I suppose, also to all the participants. One would hope that all parties will remain somewhat cool in the circumstances of this announcement. It indicates particularly the need for the cease-fire, which in fact is being deliberated upon and worked for in London at the moment. One would hope that the discussions will lead to the aim, namely, a cease-fire, so that we can move to the implementation of what has been agreed upon to date.

page 3270

QUESTION

CANBERRA: HOTEL CASINO COMPLEX

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Home Affairs: Is it a fact that recently applications closed for the construction of a hotel complex in Canberra with the option for the inclusion of a casino facility? Is it further a fact that at least one of the companies which lodged an application is a foreign-owned company? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, if a casino licence is granted in Canberra, it will be granted to a 100 per cent Australian-owned company and not to a foreign company?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– At this stage I am not aware of those companies which have submitted applications for the construction of this hotel complex. I have not yet received a report in relation to this subject. I can only say that the matters that the honourable member has raised inferentially will be taken into account.

page 3270

QUESTION

FLAT RATE TAXATION

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the question asked by the honourable member for Tangney yesterday concerning flat rate taxation. Would the Treasurer be prepared to refer to the Commissioner of Taxation for his assessment proposals for flat rate taxation that would not involve the sorts of effects the Treasurer referred to in his answer to my colleague yesterday? Is it a fact that, as at least one report would seem to indicate, the

Government opposes the concept of flat rate taxation?

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

– In answering the question asked by the honourable member for Tangney yesterday, I set out to explain some of the implications of some calls for a flat rate system of personal taxation that are currently being made in Australia. I pointed out what the implications would be for the great body of taxpayers if one introduced a flat rate of taxation and sought to preserve the existing tax free threshold for all taxpayers. I think that anybody who understands the progressive taxation system will know that, in a sense, the Government made a move towards a flat rate system of taxation when it reduced the number of steps in the progressive scale from seven to three. Equally I do not believe that anybody ought to infer from the comment I have just made that further moves in that direction are necessarily seen by the Government as being within its capacity or economically feasible. But I can assure the honourable member for Hume that I have read his remarks in the House in which he outlined a system in this area that he thought might be workable. I thank him for his contribution to the continuing debate on ways and means by which the Australian taxation system might be improved. Further reforms in the taxation area remain very much under surveillance. Part of that surveillance will naturally include the sorts of ideas put forward by the honourable member in his speech.

page 3270

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to his Department’s publication on major manufacturing and mining investment projects which he claims will have significant employment generating effects on the Australian economy. I ask: Does this publication show that for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Ltd’s Hail Creek coal project an investment of $740,000 is required for each extra job; for the Thiess-Dampier Mitsui Nebo coal project $930,000 of investment is required for each extra job; for the Loy Yang Power Station more than Sim is needed for each extra job; and for the North West Shelf a massive $4.5 m of capital spending is needed for each additional job? As there are now about 400,000 people unemployed -

Mr Carlton:

– Do you want the projects stopped?

Mr Jull:

– Would you stop the lot?

Mr HAYDEN:

– And their numbers will be joined after the next election by honourable members on the Government side who are interjecting. As more than 100,000 people come onto the job market each year, will the Minister state the total level of development investment which must take place to overcome unemployment? Is it a fact that on the basis of his departmental figures which I have quoted the minimum cost would be in excess of $350,000m? Does the Minister believe his figures are believable? If so, does he expect anyone else to believe that they are believable?

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

– It is very typical of the Leader of the Opposition that he should seek to qualify the good news which abounds in Australia concerning investment projects which are now committed or subject to the final feasibility stage. I can assume only that the honourable gentleman is trying to get up his desperate profile because in fact that has been recommended to him by the members of the front bench of the Australian Labor Party in the recent Australian Labor Party notes for the next election.

The simple fact is this: If the honourable gentleman wants to look at manufacturing industry he will find that unlike the 124,000-plus people whom he forced out of jobs while he was a significant member of the former Government- my colleague the Treasurer tells me that the phrase is not sharp enough and that I should have used the phrase ‘hounded out’- in the course of the past year there has been an increase in manufacturing employment.

The honourable gentleman should be aware that wage and salary earner employment in manufacturing rose by 12,900 persons, or one per cent, in the year to July 1979. That is a direct reflection of this Government’s capacity to reduce significantly the overall rate of inflation. It is certainly derivative from the more favourable movements in exchange rates. Apart from that, there is the very strong support which the Government has provided for manufacturing industry.

Unlike the honourable gentleman who cut tariffs by 25 per cent, who withdrew the investment allowance, and who withdrew the export incentive allowance, this Government has increased its support for the manufacturing sector by more than 200 per cent during its relatively brief period in office.

As for the projects, the honourable gentleman referred to them as my projects. They are not mine. The survey is developed by the Department of Industry and Commerce and at the present time shows that there are some $16.3 billion of projects committed or subject to the final feasibility stage. When I put out a Press release relating to those projects I qualified them in a series of ways that I will not bother to repeat in this House. The Press statement is available as required.

If the honourable gentleman wants to cast aspersions at the $16.3 billion I would remind him that one of the most significant management consulting organisations throughout Australia- I refer to W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd-said this:

We can identify a total of $29,400m of expenditure on major capital investment projects planned for commencement in the next five years.

That figure is to be taken at 1978 prices. So if I plead anything I plead that the figures produced by my Department were very conservative in that context. If anything, it should be clear that my Department’s schedule has underestimated, rather than exaggerated, expected expenditure on major projects.

I say to the honourable gentleman: Employment is increasing in manufacturing industry. I say to him in a strong fashion: There will be very significantly increased employment which will arise from the large number of major investment projects that are now taking place around Australia. I ask the honourable gentleman: Why does he not stop the nitpicking and the qualifying of the economic enthusiasm which is now abounding in Australia? Of course, the honourable gentleman is characteristically negative, is nitpicking and is not prepared to recognise the realities of life; that is, that this economy is now taking off and the manufacturing sector has considerably greater enthusiasm and confidence than it ever had under his regime. I have no doubt that this trend will continue.

page 3271

QUESTION

FLAT RATE TAXATION

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and concerns the avoidance of the payment of income tax. In part it is supplementary to a question asked earlier today by the honourable member for Hume, and to a question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Tangney. Is it a fact that millions of dollars are lost each year to the revenue because of tax avoidance by means of the cash economy; that is, payments made in cash, not recorded, and of which there are no written records for tax purposes? Does the Treasurer think that $ 1 billion is too high an estimate for this loss to the revenue? Additionally, does the Treasurer agree that the incidence of personal taxation is far too high in Australia, and that the ultimate aim of the tax system ought to be to reduce personal income tax to a standard rate of 32c in the dollar at the existing threshold? Finally, is it an aspiration of the Government to lower personal taxation?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-To take the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question first, it is an aspiration of this Government to reduce personal tax. In saying that, I would like to remind the honourable gentleman of one self-evident economic reality; that unless the community is prepared to accept fewer services from government, personal or any other form of taxation cannot be responsibly reduced. It is absolutely impossible for any government responsibly to reduce taxation unless there is a commensurate control of its own expenditures. I believe that the record of this Government in achieving a better balance between the public and private sectors, and in getting back into balance what the Government collects through taxation and what it expends, compares very favourably with the performance of other countries.

But more specifically, the honourable member for Higgins asked me about the cash economy. I have no doubt that significant amounts of tax are evaded, as distinct from being avoided, through the cash economy; simply through people either deliberately understating their incomes or, separately, through people not disclosing any income at all. The honourable gentleman asked me to put a figure on the amount of tax evaded. I cannot confirm or dispute his figure of $ 1 billion. I do not have sufficient information on which to base a categorical estimate of the amount of money that is involved. I believe that levels of taxation do have an impact on the extent of avoidance and evasion in the community. One would be putting one’s head in the sand if one did not acknowledge that. But equally I do not believe that the remedy for evasion and avoidance lies simply in a reduction in the marginal rate of tax, although that would obviously make a contribution. The very nature of some tax evasion and tax avoidance practices in recent years indicates that people are not just interested in reducing the amount of their tax; many of them are interested in wiping out the totality of their taxation. The argument of those people that the sole purpose of their entering into a scheme or evading tax is simply to bring their rates of tax down to fairer levels is denied by their very actions.

page 3272

QUESTION

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to his joint announcement with the Minister for National Development on 8

November that the Federal Government will assist the States in undertaking programs for new electricity generating capacity in the next decade with funds totalling up to $ 10 billion. What feasibility studies were undertaken to show that there will be the demand for such electricity and also that the States have the capacity to expend such money? For example, can he indicate what is the expected expenditure by New South Wales? Is he aware that some States are concerned that they do not have the skilled manpower either to construct the generating capacity or to man the industries that are expected to use the capacity? Accordingly, I ask: What complementary manpower programs will the Government initiate to ensure the availability of sufficient skilled workers?

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

-From the tone of the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I take it that he is not in favour of the Government’s proposition that we are putting to the States for them to bring forward proposals whereby the Commonwealth might assist in underwriting loan moneys for the development of further electric power generation based on coal. I cannot think of any greater national project that would be of more benefit during this energy crisis period than the development of electricity, both as an alternative to oil power and also to give greater opportunity to Austraiian industry to capitalise on this cheaper form of energy. Already the States have very ambitious electricity programs and much of this additional power will be taken up by decisions that have already been made to develop aluminium smelters. In the course of this year important decisions have been made by international aluminium companies to smelt part of their alumina in this country.

The decisions are of great magnitude and are of enormous significance to this country. Indeed, today we are exporting about $250m worth of aluminium a year. By the time these new projects come on stream, which will be within a period of five years, we will be exporting something like $2, 500m worth of aluminium, thus adding to the economic strength of this country and creating great job opportunities for many people. Realising that the decisions that have been taken will capture and utilise most of the power generation already programmed, we believe that there is virtue in giving encouragement to State electricity authorities to look even further ahead. If the States have programs that they believe are worthy of consideration, they might bring them forward at the Premiers’ Conference.

page 3273

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the serious harm which is being caused to the farming and grazing industries in Australia by the excessive numbers of kangaroos which are damaging crops and pastures? What action has the Government taken to try to persuade the United States authorities to lift their ban on imports of kangaroo products so that a market can be opened up for these products? Will the Minister take any further action to request the United States to act in this matter? In particular, will he draw the attention of authorities in that country to the effectiveness of the sound kangaroo management program which is now in operation in Australia?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am very well aware of the damage that has been caused by plague proportions of kangaroos in some parts of New South Wales, Queensland and, indeed, other States. There is a great misunderstanding of the situation by many people. The President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Don Eckersley, has written to me about the matter which the honourable member raised, asking the Commonwealth to take some action to see whether the Americans might lift their ban on imports of kangaroo products into that country. I might inform the honourable member that over the years a series of representations has been made by my Department to various United States government agencies to try to get a greater recognition of the situation in Australia.

I know that for many people this is a very emotional question. The fact that the kangaroo is our national symbol generates particular feelings in people, but I really do not think that to preserve our national symbol we need to have great masses of kangaroos moving across the country causing great destruction to people’s crops and properties. There has been an abnormal increase in the numbers of kangaroos in this country because of the availability of additional water facilities. When we get dry periods in this country the plague proportions of kangaroos become ever so much more obvious. I believe that with successful culling and with proper management and conservation programs a balance can be reached between conserving our kangaroos and being able to limit their numbers. We should be able to limit their numbers in a way in which they are not just left to rot but in which some commercial benefits can be obtained during the course of the culling program. I am hopeful that the United States will see our point of view and will recognise that we have a problem in this country which it can help to alleviate by allowing us to export some of our kangaroo products to that country. As I said, representations have been made and it is my hope that the United States might take a softer approach to the problem.

page 3273

QUESTION

INDEXATION OF SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, by reminding the Minister that former public servants in receipt of superannuation pensions are guaranteed by an Act introduced into this Parliament by his Government indexation of their weekly payments on the basis of 100 per cent of consumer price index movements. How does he reconcile a policy of full indexation of the total weekly payments of those who are no longer working for the Commonwealth, while at the same time advocating only partial indexation of the wages of those who are still working for the Commonwealth?

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

– I remind the honourable member for Hindmarsh that only the Commonwealth’s contribution to the superannuation fund is fully indexed. As I understand it, the contributor has the choice between taking his contribution as a lump sum with interest and taking additional pension. In the latter case, I understand that what he receives is not fully indexed, so the total superannuation payable in that case would not be fully indexed.

page 3273

QUESTION

PATROL FRIGATES

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Defence to a question I asked him in the House on 19 September concerning the cost of the new patrol frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. At that time the Minister indicated that in the near future he would disclose the latest position regarding the cost of those ships. Can he inform the House when he will be in a position to supply that information?

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

– I think it was in March this year that I said that the total project cost for the patrol frigates was some $642 m, expressed in August 1978 prices. That project cost has been updated, to use the fashionable word, and is now some $7 15m, an increase of $73m. My friend will understand that that is the total project cost. Within the project cost, allowances are made for a host of things ranging from equipment, torpedoes, helicopters and so forth. The actual unit cost of the ships has increased from $ 132m each to some $141m each. Looked at in real terms, there has continued to be a downward slide in the total cost. I ask the House to distinguish between absolute terms and real terms. The fall in real terms is of the order of $3 m.

page 3274

QUESTION

SWEET CORN

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

– I am aware of the value to Australia of the sweet corn industry. In line with the Bowen report, being a grower, I have to confess to a vested interest in the industry. I am also aware that concern has been expressed by part of the industry about the impact of New Zealand sweet corn on the industry, although no direct approaches have been made to me by the industry as a whole. I will have a look at the question the honourable member has raised and see what further information I can get.

page 3274

QUESTION

MEDICAL FEES

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Health give any indication of the extent to which the medical profession adheres or conforms to the Australian Medical Association fee schedule and departs from the medical benefits fee schedule, which is fixed by an independent medical benefits tribunal?

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

– For the March quarter this year about 70 per cent of all the medical services in Australia were charged for at the medical benefits schedule fee or less. In New South Wales, for instance, the figure was of the order of 74 per cent. In New South Wales sixty-six per cent of the most common service- that is, the standard surgery consultation- was charged at the schedule fee or lower and 1 7 per cent was charged at the Australian Medical Association fee or higher. The sum of the fees shown on doctors’ accounts in Australia was in fact approximately 2 per cent lower than the sum of the schedule fees for the services rendered. In New South Wales, for instance, it was 2.3 per cent lower. This occurs because of the large numbers of services that doctors render at a discounted figure-85 per cent of the schedule fee for pensioners- and also the smaller numbers of services that they render at 75 per cent of the schedule fee for disadvantaged persons. How extensively doctors discount their fees for pensioners and disadvantaged patients is not generally recognised.

Whilst the medical profession comes in for its share of criticism- and some of it, of course, is well earned- I must say that it has been most cooperative as an organised profession in the fees that it has been charging pensioners and disadvantaged people. It has been quite religiously attempting to assist the disadvantaged people and certainly pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards. It does appear that as a general rule the medical profession does have regard to the financial circumstances of its patients. I have no doubt that these factors will be taken into account in the inquiry that is taking place in New South Wales at present under the auspices of the Prices Commission. I believe that it will be critical to the long term stability of the arrangements that have been in existence for many years in respect of pensioners, particularly those with pensioner health benefit cards, and to the arrangements for direct billing to the Department of Health for services rendered to the disadvantaged people to maintain the present system. I hope that in the course of that inquiry proper recognition is given to the fact that there is a very substantial discounting of fees for those in need.

page 3274

QUESTION

WOODSREEF MINES LTD

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Is he continuing to support the provision of further Federal financial support to Woodsreef Mines Ltd?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-For the benefit of honourable members, I point out that there has been an Industries Assistance Commission report on the question of Woodsreef Mines. This report is before the Government for consideration.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. The question was short and explicit even for the Deputy Prime Minister. I asked whether he is continuing his support. I did not ask about the IAC. Will you, Mr Speaker, require him to answer the question, please, if he is able?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have no authority under the Standing Orders to require any particular answer.

page 3274

QUESTION

PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL, PERTH

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In answer to a previous question, the Minister has, I think, acknowledged the Commonwealth Government’s interest in all patients in public hospitals throughout Australia. Has the Minister received any reports of the coroner’s inquiry into the death of the child Christopher Derkacz at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Perth about which I inquired last week? Has the Minister seen Press reports of evidence of the paediatric registrar of the Princess Margaret Hospital, a Dr Clothier, who, referring to some Down’s syndrome children and their condition, said ‘and so the child is allowed to pass away’? Has the Minister seen Press reports that Dr Fry, the Medical Director at the Princess Margaret Hospital, has been proclaiming to all parents of handicapped children that the full facilities of the hospital have been and always are available to handicapped children? Can the Minister, bearing in mind the first part of the question, reconcile these two statements?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the Minister for Health, I make the point that although I have very little knowledge of this issue, my recollection is that the Minister or the questioner earlier indicated that there had been a coroner’s inquiry. I do not know whether any subsequent action is likely or is possible or whether any charge has been laid. I just draw it to the Minister’s attention that, if there is a prospect of such, the Minister ought to be very circumspect in his answer. But I leave it to the Minister to proceed because I do not have any direct information.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order with regard to part of your ruling. I agree with the major part of it, but you said, perhaps loosely, ‘if a charge is pending’. I submit that if there has been a coronial inquiry which has been completed and no charge has yet been laid, during the interregnum the matter is not sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is, of course, as always, correct. I thought my ruling made it clear that the Minister could proceed but that he ought to do so with circumspection against that prospect.

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I must respond with circumspection because I have not a report on the issues that are involved in the question asked by the honourable member. I must say, however, as I said when answering a similar question the other day, that the Commonwealth Government has only an indirect responsibility for the conduct of hospitals in the States. The State governments, of course, have the day-to-day responsibility for the administration of those hospitals, the Commonwealth having an indirect responsibility through the hospital cost-sharing arrangements.

I must answer no to all parts of the question that the honourable member has asked because I have not yet received a report. I gave an undertaking to the honourable gentleman that I would furnish him with a copy of the report once it was compiled. I have not yet received a report from my Department on the issues that the honourable gentleman raised. So I am not in a position really to judge whether the matter is sub judice or otherwise, but I must treat the question with circumspection.

page 3275

QUESTION

FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND: COASTAL SURVEILLANCE

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that McDougall Airlines of Cairns conducts coastal surveillance for the Government in far north Queensland using chartered aircraft as a sub-contractor to H. C. Sleigh Aviation Ltd, formerly known as Executive Air Services? Is the Minister aware of reputed close and direct links between McDougall Airlines and its proprietor and a pilot resident in Cairns who was named several times by the New South Wales royal commission on drugs as a person involved in illegal drug trafficking between Australia and Papua- New Guinea in association with figures in the international drugs trade, one of whom is currently facing a series of charges? Can the Minister assure the House that the extraordinary possibilities suggested by these associations have been examined by his Department and that he is satisfied with the sub-contract arrangement, its efficiency and its fidelity? Are there standard procedures ensuring that checks are made on the suitability of coastal surveillance sub-contractors as well as primary contractors, including, of course, flying staff?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I am able to inform the Leader of the Opposition that McDougall Airlines does not hold a contract with the Department of Transport for coastal surveillance. McDougall Airlines does hire one of its aircraft to Executive Air Charter as distinct from Executive Air Services. Please note the distinction. Executive Air Charter holds a contract for one leg of the coastal surveillance task for the Department of Health. Executive Air Charter was contracted only from 1 October when the shortage of avgas caused the replacement of Executive Air Services as the contractor. Executive Air Charter has a sector from Cairns to Cape Grenville and not, as alleged in the Parliament in Queensland last night, to Broome. Executive Air Charter is not used on drug surveillance but on unauthorised landings concerned with quarantine.

I make the point that I have not seen the detailed allegations made by Mr Casey but, quite clearly, most of them at least are false in terms of the whole of the allegations. I am seeking a copy of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament and I am seeking further information about them. As to the methods by which these contracts are awarded, as I understand it, from day one proper clearances have been given to the personnel involved.

page 3276

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for National Development aware that certain gas utility operators in Australia are claiming that the Federal Government is to blame for increasing liquefied petroleum gas prices through equating domestic prices with export parity prices? Is this a correct interpretation of the situation concerning LPG prices?

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

– I am very well aware of the attitudes of country gas utility operators in particular and the whole of the gas industry to the Government’s liquefied petroleum gas pricing policy. In fact, over the last month or so not only have I had extensive consultations with the leaders of the Australian Gas Association but also as late as last Monday, for example, I spoke to a very representative, if not a totally representative, group of gas utility operators from country areas in New South Wales.

The position with LPG and its use by gas utilities is a complex one. I will state it simply. First of all, the Government has adopted a mechanism which allows the price of naturally occurring LPG out of the gas and oil production stream to be equated with the price of LPG out of refineries. The refinery price is set by the Prices Justification Tribunal on applications made from time to time by the refineries. The price is verified. The Prices Justification Tribunal has adopted a course which aligns that price with the price received by the producers on their export contracts. That price is considerably below some of the spot prices that are being obtained around the world at the present time.

The second factor is that the Government, through its policies, is encouraging the use of LPG as an automotive fuel. Of course, it will also have a very important application in the petrochemical industry. More and more people will be using LPG as an automotive fuel. To encourage-this is the Government’s aim-the total use of all LPG in Australia whether from naturally occurring sources, such as Bass Strait, or the refineries it is our policy to keep it all in Australia. The problem is that the Department of National Development has done a calculation which shows that demand and supply will be finely balanced in as little as 10 years, given that the policy will succeed and that LPG will be used in motor cars and by the petrochemical industry. The gas utilities are competing with a premium fuel which increasingly will be used in its proper application.

Mr Uren:

-What about the North West?

Mr NEWMAN:

-The honourable member asks about the North-West Shelf. The calculation which we have done does not include the use of LPG from the North-West Shelf. The Government, conscious of the problem it is causing for gas utility operators in country areas, has conducted a wide comprehensive survey of practically all those utilities. The Government is now considering the survey. After that consideration the appropriate announcement will be made.

page 3276

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANBERRA

Mr FRY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Capital Territory. I refer to the recent visit to Canberra of Mr Shelby Dill from Colorado Springs in the United States of America who came here, I understand, to solve the serious economic problems which the Government has inflicted on Canberra. Does the Minister expect that Mr Dill’s visit will relieve the plight of the unemployed youth in Canberra? If so, when does he expect this Colorado El Dorado to descend on Canberra? If the expected El Dorado does not eventuate in Canberra, will the Minister give an early decision on the funding of the proposed cooperative workshop for unemployed youth in Canberra which has been under consideration by his Department for several weeks?

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

– In 1974-75 the Labor Government thought we were to have an El Dorado. It increased the Public Service by 100,000, and private sector employment fell by 150,000. 1 remind honourable members that at the same time public expenditure rose by about 50 per cent. The honourable member wants to talk about an El Dorado. That was the El Dorado that Australians have learned about in the meantime. It is the same El Dorado that the Leader of the Opposition is now preaching around the country.

The Canberra Times is to be complimented for bringing Mr Shelby Dill from Colorado Springs.

It has given the business community in Canberra the opportunity to focus on what is obviously the policy to adopt for the future of the national capital. I hope it is something about which not only the honourable member who asked the question is concerned but also all honourable members opposite are concerned. I hope that Opposition members are proud of their national capital and want to see it develop.

Honourable members would have noticed in the financial section of the Age yesterday a full page advertisement on attracting business to Canberra. I have made it clear that the Government wants to attract the private sector to Canberra to make this city grow and, in the process, provide jobs for young people and others who are presently unemployed. I remind those who talk about unemployment in Canberra that Canberra has the lowest unemployment figures in Australia. Opposition members might as well bear the fact well and truly in mind.

Earlier in the day mention was made of applications to construct an international hotel on the site alongside the Lakeside Hotel. If that hotel goes ahead it will involve private sector investment exceeding, I should imagine, $60m. If development of the Jolimont site goes ahead- that is to be determined in the next couple of months- it will involve private sector development in excess of $40m or $50m. It may not be good news for the honourable member for Fraser, but this time next year I hope he will find at least $100m of investment going ahead in the national capital as a result of these two projects. In addition, he will know that the Government has committed itself to very considerable expenditure in the national capital, including expenditure on the new and permanent Parliament House, in the next eight to 10 years. This Government is building the national capital’s major buildings. This generation of Australians is building those buildings. The Opposition ought to pay attention to that fact.

The efforts of Jobless Action in relation to a cooperative in the Ainslie bus depot are being very carefully considered. The Government is having expressed to it by the unions and others in the community some worries about the project. The honourable gentleman might as well know that and understand that it is not exactly supported by those who might be thought to be on his side of politics. But the matter is under consideration. It will be given very careful consideration and I will make an announcement after I have inspected the Ainslie bus depot.

page 3277

TAXATION ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-I seek the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to add something to an answer.

Mr HOWARD:

-Yes. During Question Time yesterday, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) asked me a question in relation to taxation treatment of two superannuation funds which had undertaken investment in real estate in Australia. I indicated to him at the time that if there was any further information available I would supply it to the House. I should point out to him and to the House that the guidelines under which the Foreign Investment Review Board considers foreign investment proposals are well established. They have been explained in detail by the Government. In relation to the specific foreign investment proposal which has been raised, it is important to note that consideration was given to it in a way no different from any other such proposal. The Government did receive a foreign investment proposal for the acquisition of a property in NSW by the National Coal Board Staff Superannuation Scheme and the Mineworkers Pension Scheme of the United Kingdom. The acquisition was to be undertaken by CIN Industrial Investments Ltd, a company incorporated in Australia and wholly owned by the two funds. My colleague the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), actually approved the acquisition in April 1979. The approval was on the basis that discussions would be held with the Taxation Office with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable capital structuring of the venture to minimise any tax avoidance possibilities. Final discussions on this aspect are yet to take place with the Taxation Office.

In general terms- this is the important part of the honourable gentleman’s question- section 23 of the Income Tax Act states that income derived by foreign superannuation funds from interest, rent or dividends is exempt from tax on assessment. However, if a superannuation fund establishes a company in Australia to undertake the investment on its behalf, which occurred in the case referred to by the honourable member for Robertson, that company would be subject to the normal company tax rate on net interest and rents received and any profits repatriated to the United Kingdom from the subsidiary company by way of dividends and interest would be exempt from withholding tax in Australia if it is exempt from taxation in the United Kingdom.

On the other hand, if it is taxable in the United Kingdom Australian tax would be withheld. Whilst on that subject I might add also that this matter was specifically referred to this morning in an editorial in the Australian Financial Review. I regret to observe that not only did the Australian Financial Review editorial refer to the Foreign Investment Review Board as being a rather shadowy body but also, in a very derogatory fashion, referred to it as being a rather shady body. In my experience, and in the experience of the Government, the three people who sit on the Foreign Investment Review Board are good Australians who do an honest job with great integrity.

page 3278

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION ACT

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, I present the annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission 1978-79.

page 3278

THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Searesumed seventh session 1978.

page 3278

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the annual report on Medical Research Projects 1978.

page 3278

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: REPORT

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

-For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Administrative Services 1978-79.

page 3278

NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION COUNCIL

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the National

Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council on the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment 1979. Copies are available from the House of Representatives Table Office and the Parliamentary Library. I understand that additional copies will be available tomorrow.

page 3278

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1 975 1 present the report of the Australian National Gallery 1978-79.

page 3278

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 23 (2) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 1 present the annual report of the Australian War Memorial 1978-79.

page 3278

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960 I present the annual report of the National Library of Australia 1978-79.

page 3278

AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Film and Television School Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Australian Film and Television School 1978-79.

page 3278

NATIONAL WOMEN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the first annual report by the National Women’s Advisory Council 1979 entitled: ‘More than a Token Gesture’.

page 3278

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police 1979.

page 3278

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 58 of the Darwin Reconstruction Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission 1977-78.

page 3279

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 1 present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission 1978-79.

page 3279

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930 I present a statement of receipts and expenditure by the Commonwealth in the administration and development of the Territory 1979.

page 3279

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Leichhardt have indicated to me that they wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman wishes to make a statement? He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yesterday, in a censure debate against the Government, obviously moved by the Opposition, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) quoted from a document consisting of a score or more pages stapled together. Before quoting from the document he made a statement which is highly relevant. He said:

I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition, launched this censure motion, being sensitive to what has been said about him by the Combe report, that is the report of David Combe, the secretary of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party strategy papers are most revealing in what they say of the Labor Party’s standing in the community, its electoral strategy leading up to 1980 and the electoral standing of the Leader of the Opposition.

I quoted from page 3 178 of Hansard. Nothing of great relevance is left out of the quote and honourable members can look at the Hansard report if they wish to check further on what was said. The statement made by the Minister is a highly significant one. First of all, there is no David Combe report. There are strategy papers which have been drawn together by the Labor Party. Those papers have not been collated by the Labor Party- I stress that- into a compendious document such as the Minister quoted from yesterday. Within the last 24 hours I have become aware that there is access to such a document. The way in which that information has been obtained is disturbing to the Labor Party. I do not care to say any more than that at this stage. The implications seem to be quite serious and I expect that I will have to raise the matter again before the Parliament rises.

Mr THOMSON:
Leichhardt

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation he may proceed.

Mr THOMSON:

-On the Australian Broadcasting Commission news at 7.45 this morning, the following statement was made about proceedings in the Queensland Parliament:

The Labor member for Cairns, Mr Jones, told the House that the National Party member for Barron River, Mr Tenni, the Federal member for Leichhardt, Mr Thomson and Senator Glenister Sheil had an association with the central drug figure Neville William Walsh.

My brief acquaintance with Mr Neville Walsh began as follows: I was introduced to him early in the 1975 Federal election campaign as a Cairns businessman who was offering to help. I had never met him before. He was one of many local businessmen offering to help at that time. He offered my campaign committee some old desks for the campaign office. I understand that Mr Walsh provided a female clerk for the campaign office for a short period, but she left as more voluntary labour became available. Towards the end of November 1975 I was campaigning outside Cairns when Mr Walsh was charged by the police with a robbery offence of which he was later acquitted. My campaign committee immediately decided to have nothing further to do with Mr Walsh. I did not meet him again until November 1976 when he was present at a local school where I was presenting an Australian flag. Other than a greeting, we had no conversation at that time. I have not met or seen him since.

Mr Jones also made the following statement in the Queensland Parliament last night in relation to Mr Neville Walsh:

One of the sons of the Federal member for Leichhardt has been in his employ at the behest of the member for Leichhardt.

One of my sons was employed for a short period by Mr Walsh but not at my behest. The circumstances are as follows: In November 1976 one of my sons, then 1 9, and a university student, was looking for temporary employment during his university vacation. A neighbour who was a boilermaker said that he thought he could get him a job as a boilermaker ‘s assistant. At that time we did not know the name of the employer. A couple of days before my son started the job we discovered that the employer was a firm called Maxmore Engineering, with which Mr

Walsh was connected. After some family discussion we decided that there seemed to be no reason at that time why my son should not take the job. My son worked for the firm for approximately five weeks. Most of that time he was helping to bolt a roof on to a new hotel. At no time did I approach Mr Walsh about this job.

I emphatically deny any dealings with Mr Walsh of the kind alleged in the Queensland Parliament and will welcome a full investigation. I commend the Queensland Premier for asking that the Williams royal commission be reopened and I will willingly give evidence to this commission.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. What the honourable member has outlined of the criminals that he has been associated with is typical of the criminals that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has associated with, namely Gale of Gollin and Co. Ltd and -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The labour that they provided free of cost to the Liberal Party prior to the 1975 election.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Liberal Party are associates of crooks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I require the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw that statement.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, what I said was true.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I require the honourable member for Newcastle to withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– All right, Mr Speaker, I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I indicate to the honourable member for Newcastle that when he made that statement he must have well known that it was most offensive to the honourable member for Leichhardt, contrary to the Standing Orders, and a transgression of the Standing Orders of a kind that he, the honourable member for Newcastle, knows is most improper.

Mr Ruddock:

-I take a point of order. I have raised this matter before, and some honourable members opposite were somewhat sceptical of the nature of the suggestion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Speaker, I ask whether you would rule that that information, which was clearly an infringement of the Standing Orders, be stricken from the Hansard record.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not have the power to order that it be stricken from the Hansard. It would require a specific authority for me to do so. Of course, the Hansard represents a total record of what is said here. I think people reading the Hansard, or sitting in the Parliament and hearing certain words said, will make their own judgments as to whether or not the words should have been uttered.

page 3280

AUSTRALIA’S BILATERAL SETTLEMENTS WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Honourable members will recall that in May this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) and I outlined to the House in broad detail the bilateral settlements concluded with the United States, Japan and the European Community. I indicated in September, also in the House, that the Government would release the texts of those bilateral settlements once some important adjustments to the original settlements were concluded and some outstanding negotiations were completed. Although some minor settlements still have to be formally completed, in the light of public interest in this matter, and the fact that the concessions negotiated will become operative from 1 January 1980, I am taking this opportunity to table for the information of the House the texts of the settlements concluded with the United States, the European Economic Community and Japan.

The benefits accruing to Australia from these arrangements have already been described to the House on a number of occasions. However, I feel it would be useful to draw the attention of honourable members to some aspects of the tariff concessions Australia has agreed to implement. It will be noted that most of the tariff concessions are common to all the settlements. In a debate in September I informed the House that Australia had agreed in the bilateral negotiations to bind against increasing the tariff rates on about 120 tariff headings or parts of tariff headings covering agricultural and industrial products. With the exception of three items- namely tobacco, certain fancy cheese and an item relating to frozen poultry- the tariff rates are at or above current applied rates. This means that Australia has achieved a meaningful and advantageous settlement with the United States, EEC and Japan without reducing the current level of tariff protection on a single tariff item applicable to any manufacturing industry. In practical terms, this means that the Government has been able to secure its major industrial tariff objective for the Multilateral Trade Negotiations of gaining full and off-setting benefits for the 25 per cent tariff cut implemented in 1973. This was, I believe- I am sure industry agrees with me- a commendable result.

In the case of fancy cheese, the types which will be admitted at the lower rates are set out in the arrangement with the EEC. Administrative details are being worked out to ensure that only the cheeses described can benefit from the concession. These details will be announced when suitable certification is determined. As well as the bilateral settlements just mentioned, Australia also agreed in the context of negotiations with developing countries to bind some 40 tariff items. The Government’s decision on these items was announced on 29 December 1976 and the rates have been operative since 1 January 1977. After the negotiations with the United States were completed in March this year, developments in the United States Congress in regard to the meat import law resulted in the need for some additional clarification and adjustments in the new situation. In September 1979 I announced that high-level discussions with United States officials had taken place and a mutually satisfactory accommodation had been achieved. The assurances and changes involved are set out in an exchange of letters between the United States Special Trade Representative and me, and these form part of the settlement with the United States. The modifications involved, where relevant, have been negotiated into the other settlements and will be reflected in the Australian General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade schedule.

In coming weeks the Government will be considering the position Australia should take on the various codes of conduct negotiated in the MTN. As decisions are reached on the question of Australian participation in each code, announcements will be made as to our intentions. The announcement of these decisions, and the subsequent tabling of settlements with other countries which are still being finalised, will bring to formal conclusion Australia’s participation in the Tokyo round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. I have said many times before that the results of the MTN have fallen short of

Australia’s expectations, especially in the area of agricultural export subsidies and commodity trading. This is a matter for continuing disappointment, and I regret that the major trading nations were not disposed to do more in this area. We do not intend to have the matter rest there, merely because the MTN is concluded. Indeed, Australia will continue to press for improved trading conditions for agricultural products, both in international discussions and in bilateral discussions with our trading partners. Despite the shortcomings in the area of agriculture, the MTN has helped strengthen the resolve of the trading nations to avoid more protectionist approaches to trade. The reduction in tariffs and the opening up of quotas for key agricultural products should provide at least some stimulus to world trade. If the work commenced in the MTN can be continued into the 1980s, as we hope and expect, there can be further improvements in the conduct of world trade from which Australia will inevitably benefit. I present the following paper:

Australia’s Bilateral Settlements with the European Economic Community, Japan and the United States of America in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations- Ministerial Statement, 21 November 1979.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition welcomes the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) and draws attention to the fact that for over 12 months we have been anxious to find out the position with respect to concessions offered by the Australian Government in what is called the MTN, Multilateral Trade Negotiations, and negotiations with the United States of America. The Minister referred to a statement that he made in the House in September. I remind him that it was made in the House because the Opposition again raised a matter of public importance on why the Government had failed to inform not only the Parliament but also the Australian people of the nature of the concessions. We welcome the statement but we make the point that the document relating to the agreement with the United States was signed in March last and was freely available in the United States as far back as June last. When we asked the Minister to table that agreement in September, he declined to do so. He said that he would not table it until the presentation of the most recently considered package to the United States, which he said had not yet occurred. Yet we were aware from the Minister’s earlier statements that in May he had already initialled the document and agreed to bind some tariffs. At that time we wanted to know what were the tariffs, what industries would be affected by them and by how much we have agreed to reduce the tariffs. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced agreement in the matter as far back as January last. We have this scenario: The Prime Minister announced agreement in January last and then the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 8 May that agreement had been reached. All Australia seems to have is a reorganisation of a minimum access for cheese. In his statement the Minister appreciates:

  1. . the public interest in this matter and the fact that the concessions negotiated will become operative from I January 1980.

We therefore ask why this statement has been left until so late in the year although the alterations in the United States-Australia agreement reached in March are relatively minor. We have given the Government plenty of chances to give his information before now. The Minister’s statement also states:

The benefits accruing to Australia from these arrangements have already been described to the House on a number of occasions.

It is only now that we are beginning to understand what the costs are. The greatest costs appear to affect rural industries and are in areas such as tobacco, certain cheese and frozen poultry. In relation to tobacco, we must ask whether the existing tobacco stabilisation program will be jeopardised by increased imports from the United States. What will be the effect on tobacco quotas which have already been substantially reduced from last year? I was recently in Cairns where the tobacco growers were asking what the increase in imports from the United States will mean to their quotas. Many of them are on land that is not very viable. A gentleman put to me that his quota had been reduced from 15 tonnes to 11 tonnes. He could not see how his operation will remain viable. The real question asked by the Australian tobacco growers is in relation to why they cannot maintain their share of the leaf required by the domestic manufacturers. It appears that the growers will be out of business, according to the submissions made by the growers in Cairns. I would have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister might have adverted to that fact.

Whilst it may be literally true that there is no reduction in the current level of tariff protection on any item applicable to manufacturing industry, we again emphasise that this is only because of the 25 per cent tariff cut implemented by the Labor Government in 1973. This cut was roundly condemned then and it has been condemned ever since. Even in Question Time today -

Mr Anthony:

– You are just trying to capitalise on a bad mistake.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister would want to capitalise on anything. He is an expedient politician. He does not want to talk about principle. Here he is today claiming credit for the action; yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) berates us for ever taking it. How would the Government have got on in these negotiations without those tariff cuts? Let us press on. Moreover, all of the tariff rates on about 120 agricultural and industrial products will be bound against future increases. This will severely restrict the flexibility of future governments to ensure job security in these and related industries. Still no study has been presented on the employment effects of the MTN package. The statement contains no costing on the value of the offers and benefits. We estimate that the value of the Australian offer- that is, what it costs Australia- is in the realm of $650m, but the value of benefits is about $450m. In other words, we are giving away about $200m. There is scant regard to the effects of the new counter-cyclical meat import law which was passed in the United States last week.

Yesterday the Bureau of Agricultural Economics released a study which suggested that Australian beef exports to the United States could be substantially reduced in the mid-1980s. The study indicated that reduced access to the major United States market would come at a time when Australian cattle numbers were reaching high levels and would tend to destabilise the domestic market. In fact, it stated that, in the event of a sharp turn-around in the cattle cycle, Australia’s position could be even more difficult than it was in the market slump of 1975-76. Yet we have heard nothing about this from the Deputy Prime Minister. Again he talks about the codes of conduct. He says:

In coming weeks the Government will be considering the position Australia should take on the various codes of conduct . . .

Yet these codes of conduct come into operation within 30 or 40 days. Depending on the signatures, we will be liable to action from other countries from the time the settlement documents are signed.

Mr Anthony:

– If we sign them.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-If we sign them. Surely the Government will know what it is going to do on 1 January. Parliament will rise on Thursday. Can the Minister not tell us?

Mr Anthony:

-The industry has not responded yet.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The industry has responded to the Opposition. I make that very clear to the Deputy Prime Minister. The industry is very concerned. It is concerned about two matters. I am amazed at the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to understand this. One of those matters relates to government procurement. The Opposition mentioned this in a debate on a matter of public importance on 20 September last. We indicated that the amount of government procurement in Australia is $12 billion. That is deemed to be a subsidy under the codes of conduct. If that is so it means that many of our domestic manufacturers will not have the privilege of bidding for State and Federal tenders because they will be open to world tendering. That will affect them no end.

The other issue relates to export subsidies and countervailing duties. The Government has a very large export incentive program. Its Budget runs into millions of dollars. If under the codes of conduct we cannot give export subsidies, what will happen to the Government’s budgetary theory? What will happen to its export drive if it cannot continue on the basis of providing these subsidies? Surely the Government will know its position within 40 days of the settlements becoming operative. Surely we can have the matter discussed in the Parliament. I think the Government is just misleading the people, particularly those engaged in manufacturing industry, as to their future. The second last paragraph of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement contains an admission which, I would say, summarises the whole situation. It states: the results of the MTN have fallen short of Australia ‘s expectations.

In our view it has been an inept government, unable to carry out the negotiations, which has brought about this situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3283

SELECTION OF NEW TACTICAL FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR FURTHER EVALUATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the House of the further steps the Government has taken in regard to the selection of an aircraft to meet the future tactical fighter force needs of the Defence Force. It has been my practice to keep the House informed on the progressive stages of the development of this project. It is a project of great concern to the Parliament not only because of its high cost but, more importantly, because of the contribution the new tactical fighter will make to the long term security interests of this country. We can look to the new fighter being in operational service from about the mid-1980s to beyond the year 2000.

As I have said before, the Government will not be rushed in coming to its final decision on the choice of aircraft we should ultimately acquire. The steps we have taken to date have been timely and responsible. The Government has already announced its decision to proceed with a Mirage refurbishment program that will enable a number of our Mirage aircraft to continue in service throughout the 1 980s. The strength of the Mirage force will begin to decline by about the mid-1980s through expected peace time attrition, and it is in this time frame that we plan to bring into operational service the first of the new fighter squadrons. This would enable the present three squadron structure and an operational conversion unit to be maintained. Operational capabilities must be the prime determinant in deciding which aircraft Australia should ultimately acquire. It must have capabilities matched to our own strategic and geographic environment and appropriate to our future needs at a cost that we can afford. At the same time, it is to Australian industry that we must look for much of the aircraft’s basic support if we are to move towards greater self-reliance in this area in the future. Investment is needed to introduce into our industries the technologies of these advanced aircraft. These industries must have the work that will sustain the skills that are introduced not only during the time these aircraft are entering service but well beyond.

Operational, technical and industrial missions returned from overseas in the middle of this year. These missions examined proposals developed in respect of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18, the Northrop F-18L, the Dassault Breguet Mirage 2000 and the General Dynamics F-16. The missions explored in detail the operational suitability of these aircraft and discussed with manufacturers their capacity and willingness to satisfy our industrial objectives at acceptable cost.

The report of these missions was subject to detailed and critical examination by the Royal Australian Air Force and my Department, assisted by the Department of Finance, the Department of Productivity, the Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney-General ‘s Department. I think it is one of the finest reports that has ever been prepared by any mission which has gone outside this country.

In the process of this examination supporting information from the governments and manufacturers in the countries concerned was sought in order to assess further the confidence that could be held in each of the programs. Indeed, these examinations have been so wide-ranging that I believe this to be one of the best and most carefully researched projects to have come before a government in this country.

Each of the four aircraft considered is at a different stage of development. The F-16 is now entering operational service with the United States Air Force. The F/A-18 and the Mirage 2000 are not expected to enter operational service for at least another two to three years. The F-18L, which is the land based version of the F/A- 1 8, has not yet been launched.

The Government recognises that all aircraft could to varying degrees provide capabilities not only in the roles of air defence and air combat but also in the air-to-surface roles including maritime interdiction and strike, and in tactical reconnaissance and close support of ground forces. There would be obvious advantages in choosing a single aircraft type that could fulfill both the air-to-air and air-to-surface roles. This would not only give added operational flexibility, but also there would be savings in respect of logistic support and industrial investment costs, as well as a reduced burden on our training programs.

The Government has now decided that further detailed evaluation should be confined to the General Dynamics F-16 and the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18. The F-16 is a single engined, highly manoeuvrable fighter aircraft with capabilities in both the air-to-air and air-to-surface roles. At present it lacks a medium range allweather air-to-air missile. The United States Government is developing an advanced missile of this type for use on the F- 1 6 and other aircraft. To accept this new missile the F-16 aircraft and radar would need to be modified. It is expected that these modifications would be available to meet the initial time scale for Australian deliveries. Other aspects of the F-16’s development will require close examination in the months ahead. We shall be looking closely at the engine. Particular attention will need to be given to developing in detail a satisfactory Australian industry program. Currently the United States Air Force has plans for production of the F-16 through the later half of the 1980s and possibly beyond, depending on the rate of production at that time.

The F/A-18 is the largest and most capable of ali the contending aircraft. We would be opting for the United States Navy configuration with only the most minor changes. It is the one aircraft that offers the safety and survivability advantages of two engines. This can be an important consideration when long distance flights are being contemplated. It has considerable growth potential for the addition of new systems and weapons capabilities. It is more expensive than the F-16. Because of its early stage of development, there are greater risks associated in assessing the final cost, operational capabilities and support requirements of the F/A-18. On present plans, the aircraft will be in production throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s. Opportunities exist for a well balanced Australian industry program. We have assurances from McDonnell Douglas that legal proceedings by Northrop, its partner in the F/A-18 program, will not adversely impact on these opportunities. McDonnell Douglas has already identified satisfactory alternative tasks that could if necessary be substituted for work from Northrop ‘s portion of the aircraft.

I turn now to the two aircraft which have been excluded from further detailed evaluation. The Northrop F-18L has been excluded because there is no firm program and there can be no assurance that the aircraft would be available to meet the time scale sought for our new tactical fighter. We do not believe that this aircraft, which is comparatively expensive, has advantages sufficient to continue detailed evaluation on the prospect that others might later decide to acquire this aircraft in sufficient numbers to justify its production.

As regards the Mirage 2000, the French Government is firmly committed to its development and introduction into operational service. The aircraft should be available to match Australia’s delivery schedule in the 1980s. A program of industry involvement was offered that was well matched to our needs. This aircraft has air-to-air performance broadly comparable with that of the F-16. The Mirage 2000 is forecast to have marginally better top speed at high altitudes, but the F-16 has superior acceleration. The Mirage 2000 has the disadvantage that a specialised radar needs to be developed for the air-to-air role, and a different radar for the airtosurface role, to meet the levels of operational capability sought for the RAAF. The substantial payload-range advantage of the F-16 and

F/A- 1 8 over the Mirage 2000 is of particular importance in the Australian theatre. That the Mirage 2000 has some excellent qualities is recognised. The present decision to set it aside is based on the expectation that the F- 1 6 can offer a wider range of capabilities at a lower cost, that planned improvements to the F-16 in the air-to-air role will be forthcoming and that the expectations of significant technological and other offsets for either the F-16 or the F/A- 18 will prove well founded. Practical considerations also indicate that if the final evaluation and draft contractual phase is to be completed within a reasonable time, having regard to the limited departmental and industrial resources available, further detailed evaluation will need to be confined to two aircraft.

Should our expectations for the F-16 or the F-18 not be fulfilled in the months ahead, I assure the House that this Government will not be forced into any ill-considered decision on the final choice of aircraft. This project is too important for that to happen. We will continue to oversee developments in the contenders now set aside and we will be prepared to reconsider them if there is a well founded reason for so doing, accepting that this could impose some delay in the entry of the new fighter aircraft into operational service. The RAAF and my Department will now proceed with the detailed evaluation of the F-16 and the F/A- 18 with a view to presenting recommendations to the Government on the suitability of these aircraft for final selection. I do not expect this further phase could responsibly be completed before the later part of 1980. I shall continue to keep the Parliament informed on this important project. I present the following paper:

Selection of New Tactical Fighter Aircraft for Further Evaluation- Ministerial Statement, 21 November 1979.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Government’s decision to reduce the number of aircraft currently under consideration to fill the tactical fighter force role has been anticipated for some considerable time, and the speech by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) would indicate that it has been accompanied by some significant trauma within the Government. However, given the lead-up and the general approach to the program, and the obvious preference for American equipment expressed last year by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and expressed very strongly within the Defence organisations and, to a lesser extent, the defence forces, it was to be expected that the Government would bring down this type of decision. I am not as confident as the Minister that the decision is one which necessarily will fit our future needs. It certainly eliminates from the competition the French contender, the Mirage 2000, which on most of the evidence has a lower rate of performance. Nevertheless, it has a fairly advanced technological and military capacity and would have assisted in the involvement of the Australian aircraft industry on a long term basis.

If we compare the Minister’s statement on McDonnell Douglas and the F/A- 18 with statements published in the last few days, we find that some of the offsets currently being offered in the area, which are for such things as the development of solar power units, may be necessary because of the company’s internal legal problems in the United States of America. However, they would prevent any input by or basic advantage for defence-oriented industries in Australia and for the general aircraft industry in this country. There are problems associated with each of the aircraft. Those of the Mirage apparently result in disqualification; those of the other aircraft can or may be solved over the period of further assessment or during the life of the aircraft. I can only assume that the inclusion of the F-16 in the final two choices is on the basis of price and levels of performance. The F-16 is designed for a specific narrow role within the total United States air defence network. It does not in its present form meet requirements of the Australian Defence Force, nor will it do so unless it is modified significantly to give it greater all-weather capacity. The aircraft is constructed as a lightweight aircraft and is not for heavy duty usage. It may have a shorter life cycle than would be required by Australia, where different purpose aircraft cannot be contemplated to perform individual roles and a single aircraft must carry out tasks for which it was not necessarily designed and for which it may not be suited.

I raise one other matter with regard to the F-16 aircraft, and I do not wish to suggest that the best technical evaluation is that of a politician; it is the evaluation of those people who are qualified to make it. I refer to the life cycle of the aircraft. It is currently entering service and will have had its first up-date as a production model before we expect deliveries of the first aircraft in the initial order, which I understand will be of the order of 25 aircraft. It will be four to five years old as a production aircraft, and the span of its likely operation as an aircraft within the Australian Defence Force before obsolescence takes over, will be reduced by at least that period. If that aircraft comes into service, it is likely that we will not attain the full quota in the order, which I understand is based on the eventual purchase of 75 aircraft. Obsolescence may well take over before the third purchase takes place. It should be remembered that at the same time as second orders are being considered, we will be required to look seriously at other areas of the Defence Force, where obsolescence will be a major problem by the end of the 1980s and about which announcements have not been made, even on projected collective costing, by the Minister or the Department of Defence. All of the major surface units of the Navy are due to go out of service by the end of the 1980s or the early 1990s. Replacements can be anticipated to cost between $2,000m and $3,000m at current costs. If the minimum price of $ 1,500m for the current TFF program is added to that and a forshortened life of an aircraft already in production, which I think is a practical consideration, we could be in a situation at that time of having to look at new aircraft to replace what will have become a technically obsolescent aircraft. The F-16 is not one of the new generation fighters.

The F- 1 8 has a different set of problems. Quite clearly, of the aircraft concerned, if no other considerations were involved, the performance, capacity, size and general compatibility of the F- 1 8 with the Australian scene would make it the contender to be first looked at in a number of respects. It has one disadvantage for Australia and some technical considerations which the Minister’s statement does not point up but which nevertheless must be of concern. I am glad that the Minister has already said that, if those technical problems do become a matter of substance, they will be reconsidered.

Firstly, the aircraft is basically designed in the McDonnell-Douglas form as a carrier aircraft. It is a naval aircraft with excessive strengthening for a land-based aircraft because of the strains which are placed on naval aircraft but are not necessarily apparent in a land-based aircraft. I understand that an Australian program would involve a replacement undercarriage and other modifications to lighten the aircraft if it becomes necessary.

The other disadvantage is one which Australia, unfortunately, has to live with daily in the defence area. I am sure that the Minister understands this better than I do. That disadvantage is price. The current price on the basis of the 1980 United States financial-year budgeting is $ 17.4m an aircraft. I understand that we are being offered the aircraft at a lower price than that but I understand that our purchasing arrangements with the United States are that we purchase aircraft through the United States defence network at the cost paid by the United States. Therefore, the relevant price is that price which the United States Defense Department is required to pay. I am not in a position to sayand the statement does not indicate in respect of either of the aircraft on the final list-whether we will be required to pay further development costs for modifications to the aircraft and especially the F-18 in respect of its weight, landing gear and other alterations to bring it into line with a land-based aircraft. I do not know whether we will be required to pay the development costs or whether they will be absorbed into the total United States program. It would be my expectation that, if the modifications are for Australia and for Australian purposes, Australia would be expected to pay. That is a price equation which will have to be taken into consideration when we are looking at the total cost.

At this stage, it is not possible for any group of honourable members or individual members of this Parliament to determine the validity of the decision. We can only indicate that we have to place our trust in those people who advise the Minister and the Cabinet that they have made a decision which is in the best interests of the Australian Defence Force in the future. Time will tell. There are problems because this is an area in which alternatives no longer exist. Australia will be negotiating solely with the United States.

Earlier I mentioned the problem which concerns me of the tendency in this country to consider only United States equipment because of availability of spare parts and the capacity to plug into the defence stores and replacement networks. But it may well have been of value if the hard decision could have been taken on an alternative aircraft which would have given us added bargaining power and made for a very high degree of competition for Australian inputs into aircraft manufacture and production. I am not sure whether the Australian aircraft industry is getting the best deal. In respect of one aircraft which already is in production, I am concerned about the doubtful validity of its time-span. In respect of the other aircraft, it has an all-up weight well above the others and has two engines- and the Minister has not mentioned the costs. According to the figures that I have, it is currently about 30 per cent dearer than either of the other aircraft and it is likely to be even more expensive.

Mr Cotter:

– Which are you in favour of?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am not making a choice. It may well be that Australia, because of costs and defence capital equipment budget commitments in the next 10 to 12 years, could end up with a very good aircraft but an inadequate number of those aircraft to meet the realistic defence needs. It may be that because Australia is now locked into the situation it is purchasing aircraft purely because they are cheap.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3287

BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Redevelopment of Brisbane International Airport- initial works of Phase 1, Queensland.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Mr BUNGEY:

-The proposal referred to the Committee was for the initial works for Phase 1 for a new Brisbane airport. These works, totalling $98m, involved site reclamation, floodway development and construction of a new 3,500 metre runway. Approval of these works almost automatically requires the provision of the additional facilities planned for the completion of Phase 1 such as domestic terminal buildings and aprons, control tower, access roads, car parks and navigational aids and systems at an additional estimated cost of $74m. Therefore, total estimated cost for Phase 1 is $l72m.

The Committee’s report is not unanimous. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) has dissented from some of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, and the report includes his minority view.

The Committee has accepted the broad concepts proposed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Housing and Construction for the ultimate redevelopment of Brisbane Airport. It accepts that the site is suitable and that the scope of works proposed for Phase 1 is satisfactory, except in one regard. This relates to the international terminal building. The Department of Transport plans for Phase 1 do not include a new international terminal building, although some $5m is planned for upgrading of the current interim international terminal building. Evidence to the Committee clearly indicated that the taxiing distances to and from the proposed new runway to the current international terminal building would be unacceptably long, and could be dangerous under certain circumstances. The Committee has therefore recommended that a new international terminal building should be an integral part of Phase 1 and should be commissioned at the same time as the other Phase 1 facilities. The additional estimated net cost would be $18m, with the terminal actually costing $23m but with the need for the $5m expenditure on the current upgrading of the terminal being averted.

The reasons advanced by the Department of Transport for immediate development of the new airport were based on traffic forecasts and consequent pressures on terminal and runway facilities, the need to reduce noise nuisance in certain residential suburbs, elimination of building height restrictions in the Brisbane central business district and the ability to lift the current curfew. Additional factors in support advanced by other witnesses included encouragement of Queensland tourism, the Defence need and the current inability to instal certain guidance systems.

In summary, the Committee acknowledged the problems currently existing in relation to noise, curfew and building height restrictions, but did not accept them as compelling reasons for immediate redevelopment. Evidence in relation to the traffic forecasts and the capacity of the current runways and terminal facilities indicated that there were some deficiencies which could be alleviated with some additional capital expenditure. Current runway capacity is clearly sufficient until well after the 1990s, although some restraints are imposed on larger aircraft. Upgrading and extension of the current runway by some 300 metres at an estimated cost of $13m would overcome the major shortcomings.

The domestic airlines, in evidence, indicated that before the announcement of the redevelopment of Brisbane Airport in 1977, they had planned to upgrade the current terminal facilities at their own cost to meet their needs to the year 1992. Reference has already been made to the planned extensions to the current international terminal which would cost some $5m. The capital cost to the Commonwealth of extending the current runway and upgrading terminal facilities to satisfy needs until at least 1992 is therefore in the region of $18m. Probable cost recovery charges to the aviation industry in respect of such upgrading over the next 10 years would be some $ 16.7m. The capital cost of the total of phase 1 development of Brisbane Airport is $ 1 72m or $ 190 m if a new international terminal building is included. The anticipated cost recovery charges to the aviation industry over the next 10 years of such works would total some $97.7m.

Mr Hyde:

– What will that do to air fares?

Mr BUNGEY:

-It will mean about a 4 per cent increase in domestic air fares. As I say, cost recovery charges will total some $97. 7m or $ 109.25m if a new international terminal building is also constructed.

The Committee was concerned that premature expenditure on Brisbane Airport could well jeopardise essential airport development elsewhere in Australia and that air travellers, because of the cost recovery program, would be forced to pay higher air fares earlier than would otherwise have been necessary. So far as the Committee can ascertain, the earlier than necessary undertaking of the work involves premature Commonwealth capital expenditure of at least $ 154m and an additional cost recovery burden to the aviation industry of at least $81 m over the next 10 years. Therefore, the Committee has in this report, firstly, endorsed the concept and plans for the ultimate development of Brisbane Airport, except that an international terminal building should be included in phase 1 ; secondly, recommended that the ultimate development be not commenced until at least 1986; and thirdly, recommended upgrading of current facilities at a capital cost of $ 18m to enable the current airport to function satisfactorily until at least 1992. I thank the House.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is leave granted?

Mr Viner:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a nice show of democracy. It is a disgrace.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Parramatta will remain silent.

Dr Klugman:

– Let it be noted that leave was not granted by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat:

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does everyone know that it was not the Opposition who knocked the honourable member back?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will remain silent.

Dr Klugman:

– As long as it is in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent.

page 3288

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY OBSERVER DELEGATION

Report

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

-by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker; I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary delegation to the Second General Assembly of the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation held in Bangkok from 27 September to 3 October 1979 and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr CARLTON:

– I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the Australian observer delegation to the Second General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation, known as AIPO, in Bangkok at the end of September believes that it made a worthwhile contribution to building relationships with our ASEAN neighbours. There are four good reasons why this type of exercise is valuable: Firstly, parliamentary, as opposed to ministerial or other governmental meetings allow for more flexible discussion of issues without the same degree of restraint that must be exercised by Ministers or officials. We found that we were able to discuss quite sensitive matters affecting Australia’s relationships with ASEAN countries on a politician-to-politician basis, with a good understanding on both sides of domestic political considerations. There was no need for us to adopt carefully prepared stances and as a result we felt that we and they learnt more. Secondly, a conference restricted to a particular region such as ASEAN tends to deal with much more tangible problems than conferences of broader scope such as that of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. In this case, agenda items such as the Indo-China problem took on the urgency that might be expected when a war was in progress only 300 kilometres from the conference room.

Thirdly, the conference has advantages over a visit by a delegation in that there is time to get to know a group of people- one’s fellow parliamentarians from other countries- sufficiently well to pursue issues in depth and to maintain contact in future years. At this conference, with the help of the renowned Thai hospitality, we were able to get to know most of the delegates and as a result, we feel we have made friends in each of the ASEAN parliaments. That must help to improve our understanding of our region. The final benefit that I would like to mention is that when parliamentarians from both sides of the House are away from Canberra, they tend to emphasise those things that unite them rather than those things that divide. The Honourable Bert Kelly said in his book One More Nail:

Members of Parliament perform much better when they think they are not being watched or listened to on the radio.

Let me say that I enjoyed the company of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and Senator Baden Teague on this delegation and record that our respective party affiliations were of secondary importance as we represented the Australian Parliament overseas. We members of the delegation commend to the Parliament and to the Government the value of a continuing close association with the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. In March 1980 there will be an opportunity for us to receive in Australia a delegation from AIPO. We must make sure that we make the most of that visit. The delegation has acknowledged in its report its indebtedness to a number of people who assisted it in the course of its duties. May I, in addition, thank my colleagues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Senator Baden Teague for the part they played in making our participation in the Assembly a success.

page 3289

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Report

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

-by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Thailand and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr COTTER:

– The delegation consisted of Senators Scott, Bishop and Hamer, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and me. We visited several member countries of the Association of South East Asian nations.

Mr Kerin:

– It was a good delegation.

Mr COTTER:

– It was a good delegation. We were principally concerned with looking at the refugee situation in each of these ASEAN countries. We were looking at Australian aid projects and at improving Australian relations with the several countries visited. The delegation was totally concerned at and impressed by the severity of the refugee situation throughout South East Asia. We spoke with many refugees; we spoke with people who had experienced enormous hardship, privation and starvation. We witnessed first-hand several of the terribly compact refugee camps in countries that had received the boat people and in Thailand. These camps had received enormous numbers of refugees who had fled by land across the borders. I will say a little more about the refugee situation later.

We were impressed with the value that Australia was receiving in regard to aid projects with the various ASEAN countries- the joint Indonesian-Australian, Philippine-Australian and Thai-Australian aid projects. Principally, these are based on agricultural projects aimed at bringing into production waste lands and lands that are presently not in production for food and other purposes. Another major aid project was to establish better quality stock and better facilities for farmers in South Mindinao and in Indonesia. We were impressed by the vast difference in the standard of living between the metropolitan areas of, say, Manila and the rural areas of South Mindinao, particularly at Pagadian. We were aware of the tense military situation in South Korea. I remind honourable members that this was before the recent tragic circumstances that have occurred in South Korea. We were aware very much of the tense military situation which prevailed at the time of our visit. We visited the demilitarised zone and experienced first-hand some of the tenseness that the troops are subjected to in that area. We were impressed in Korea with the higher than average standard of living for countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations. We were impressed by the Australian aid projects in the Philippines aimed at upgrading the quality of the cattle. We were impressed with the relations between the people of the Philippines and Australians.

In Thailand we visited several areas, particularly the area known as the Golden Triangle. We were made aware of the situation of the drug problem first-hand. We visited the border areas between Thailand and Kampuchea and spoke with people who had recently fled across the border from Kampuchea into Thailand. We were aware at that stage of the immense pressures building up in Kampuchea for the exodus of an enormous number of refugees. We were also aware of the tremendous hardships that those people were experiencing. They were being harassed right to the border by Viet soldiers. We stood and watched the Viet soldiers from a distance of approximately 100 metres. To demonstrate our solidarity we held a Press conference under the very muzzles of their rifles. The thing that impressed the delegation most of all was the privation and the terrible state of the refugees who had fled in enormous numbers across the Kampuchean border into Thailand. We had information and were aware that enormous numbers of refugees would presently be pushed out. Circumstances and events have subsequently overtaken those thoughts.

We are aware that the problem of people being pushed out of Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam is absolutely enormous. These people are being subjected to tremendous hardships. They are being starved, beaten and tortured. When they are able to raise substantial sums of money they are being granted free passage from the country. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Vietnamese Government is trading in refugees. It became obvious to the delegation on the whole of the trip that the action taken by the Australian Government in receiving refugees into this country on a permanent basis was enthusiastically received and appreciated. Concern was expressed that not enough refugees were being taken into Australia but we were able to point out that on a per capita basis our track record in this area is the best in the world.

It became apparent to me- I speak only for myself on this matter- that the real problem of refugees in South East Asia, particularly Kampuchea and Vietnam, cannot be solved alone by taking refugees into Australia or any other country. The sheer weight of numbers precludes this from being the ultimate solution to the problem. I firmly believe that action has to be taken to give sanctuary to these people in their enormous numbers in areas close to or within the borders of Kampuchea, Thailand or Vietnam. They will need to be sustained and supported over a lengthy period until at some time in the future they may be able to return to their homelands. I am not talking about 50,000 or 100,000 refugees. We are looking at a possible total of one million to two million refugees.

There is no question that the refugee problem is far bigger than the 37,000 refugees we are prepared to take into Australia under our present aid program. There is no question that we could take more but such action would again be only a drop in the bucket. A substantial number of refugees who have come into Australia have made it out of those areas by boat. In being willing to accept these boat people we are conceding that at least 50 per cent of them are dying during the journey. Friendly nations are willing to concede 50 per cent of deaths if they say that they will continue to accept refugees if they can make it by boat. I believe that the problem is so big and important that we must rethink our whole approach to the matter. I am heartened that in latter days we have taken some steps to send directly to Kampuchea, Vietnam and East Timor additional aid and support in the way of food and other support.

page 3290

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The intensification of stagflation in the Australian economy resulting from Government policies.

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

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Opposition brings this matter before the House because it is acutely concerned that current government policies are likely to intensify greatly stagflationary influences in the Australian economy.

Mr Ellicott:

-What is stagflation?

Mr WILLIS:

– The current stance of budgetary and monetary policies is stagflationary- for the benefit of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) who is at the table that means policies which are both inflationary and contractionary and which lead to economic stagflation- not only in the purely domestic economy context but also in the context that increasing world stagflation will greatly exacerbate the inevitable effects of those policies on the Australian economy. Firstly, let me look at the budgetary strategy. At the time of the Budget we said that the strategy was both contractionary and inflationary, that is stagflationary. With regard to the contractionary elements we pointed to the fact that the domestic deficit had been reduced by 60 per cent, not by economic growth which would have been a good way of reducing it but by increased taxes. Taxes increased by 1 5.4 per cent as against an increase in outlays of 9. 1 per cent.

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has estimated that if by some miraculous procedure we had full employment, instead of having a deficit we would have a surplus of $3 billion, with current tax rates and expenditure programs. Clearly, if we were able to get back to somewhere near full employment the deficit would be totally wiped out by that process. The fact that we would have a full employment surplus of $3 billion is a measure of the extraordinarily contractionary nature of the present Budget strategy. We have also mentioned in the past the statement by Professor Nevile of the University of New South Wales, one of Australia’s leading fiscal analysts, that the Budget was the most contractionary Budget for more than a quarter of a century. With regard to the inflationary aspects of the Budget strategy we have pointed to the severe increase in petrol prices because of the crude oil pricing policy. We have shown that without any further rises after July, there will be an increase of 1.2 per cent in the consumer price index because of the July increases in petrol prices stemming from the Government’s policy decision to increase the price of Australian produced crude oil in line with import parity. Of course, further increases in import parity will mean further inflationary influences in Australia. I will refer to this later.

We have pointed to increased health costs which will add 1.3 per cent to the consumer price index as a result of the Budget decision to withdraw the Commonwealth subsidy for medical services costing less than $20. Petrol prices and health costs alone will mean a 2.5 per cent increase in the consumer price index. With the 1.3 per cent rise in food prices in October which was announced today- it is quite clear that food prices are continuing to rise rapidly- we are certainly looking at an annual inflation rate in double figures by the December quarter this year. In addition, as I have mentioned previously, there have been large increases in producer inputs for the manufacturers of this country due to increased commodity prices and the Government’s budgetary decision to apply a 2 per cent tariff on all previously duty free imports, thus adding to costs and inflation. Without doubt, the Budget strategy is inflationary and contractionary and is imposing severe stagflation on the country.

Monetary policy also is contractionary. The target rate of growth for the money supply is 10 per cent, despite the fact that the Government estimates an increase in inflation of 10 per cent plus and a growth of Vh per cent. Therefore, with the money supply rate of growth of 10 per cent, the stance of the monetary policy is quite clearly restrictionary and not enabling much economic growth to occur. So on both the budgetary and monetary aspects, we can see a stagflationary government strategy. Recent developments have severely reinforced the effects of the Government’s policies established at the time of the Budget. They give cause for fear that stagflation will become much more severe in the near future if current budgetary and monetary policies continue to prevail. Despite the fall in pay-as-you-earn tax payments from December, we cannot expect any substantial boost to economic activity to occur. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research and Morgan Research have produced their latest index of consumer sentiment. It shows that in the current September quarter there is some improvement in consumer sentiment, but it also points out that consumers are not likely to spend any more because of their fear of inflation; that they will just save the tax cuts which will come into effect from 1 December. So although there will be a reduction in pay-as-you-earn tax payments from 1 December, the Institute and Morgan Research specifically point out that although there is improved confidence among consumers, it has only increased their ability to spend, not the actual likelihood of their spending the money. That is an extremely important point.

The major stagflationary factor now is oil pricing policy. Developments since the Budget make it certain that the prices set by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries for crude oil will increase substantially when the OPEC countries meet in Caracas, Venezuela on 17 December to consider oil prices. Many OPEC countries have already increased their prices in the last few months so that although the average 1979 OPEC oil price is $US19 a barrel, the actual price today is about $US23.50 a barrel. Saudi Arabia ‘s price is only $ US 1 8 a barrel. That is an important price because it is the price on which the price of Australian produced crude oil is based. Australia takes the Saudi Arabian light oil price and adds a quality differential to get our import parity price. The Saudi Arabian price at $US 1 8.50 is well below the existing world parity, without any further decision to increase that price at the meeting in Caracas in December. So there is no way that the Saudi Arabian price will not increase substantially in December, at the very least to the current OPEC price of $US 23.50. More than likely it will be by much more than that because OPEC prices are likely to rise further.

We must remember that oil prices will not rise just in December of this year but they will rise throughout 1 980. On the most reasonable expectation of what is likely to happen we must expect further rises throughout 1980. We are currently on a quarterly review of world oil prices by the OPEC countries. Every quarter the OPEC countries are going to review prices. On the Australian Government’s crude oil policy it means that we are likely to be increasing oil prices considerably not only from January 1980 but also throughout 1 980 on a six-monthly basis because that is the way in which the Government has decided to adjust to import parity. There will be further substantial increases coming which will be stagflationary in their effect- inflationary and tending to bring about more recession. To reinforce this point I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 19 November, under the heading ‘Money Market Stability Concern Rises Again’. The article quotes a Mr Rimmer Devries, the Dutch-born senior vicepresident and chief international economist for the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. It states:

Mr Devries is frequently sought for his views by United States government officials and central bankers around the world. Morgan’s monthly World Financial Markets, produced under his guidance, is considered one of the most authoritative publications on international finance in the United States.

The article goes on to look at Mr Devries’ views of what is likely to happen to oil prices in 1980. He says that on a highly optimistic assumption, we can expect an average price of something like $US25 a barrel in 1980. That is his highly optimistic assumption. His estimate of the price most likely is $US35 a barrel. His not impossible average price for 1980 is $US35 a barrel, which would mean almost a doubling of current Saudi Arabian prices, and therefore virtually a doubling of Australian crude oil prices, with enormous inflationary and contractionary effects on the Australian economy under this Government’s policies.

We know the price of oil will rise substantially and that economic activity will fall because of higher prices and because there will be a massive OPEC balance of payments surplus in 1980. As Mr Devries stated in the article, last year there was no OPEC balance of payments surplus. There was a big surplus in 1973-74 as a result of the enormous oil price rise at that time. That was gradually whittled away so that last year there was no surplus. But in this year OPEC expects a surplus of $50 billion which will mean virtually a withdrawal of real income from consuming countries to the oil producing countries of the enormous level of some $50 billion. Next year, on the assumption of a price of $US25 a barrel, the surplus will be $60 billion; on the basis of his most likely estimate of $US30 a barrel, it will be $90 billion; and on the not impossible price of $US35 a barrel, it will be $ 120 billion.

There is no way that Australia can expect to be unaffected by the international inflation and recession that will follow such developments. The recessionary effect will show in demand for our exports and increased inflation will tend to feed in by way of higher import prices. But I must emphasise the point that there is no need for Australia to exacerbate these effects needlessly by importing that international recession and inflation by continuing to price Australian produced crude oil at import parity. We cannot expect to escape the effects through our demand for our exports and through our import prices. But we do not have to import inflation needlessly by way of grossly increasing the price of Australian produced crude oil. If we continue to do that- it is very much government policy- then we must expect to have severe inflation and recession throughout next year and beyond.

The rise in the Saudi price from $US18 to $US23.50, which is only the current OPEC price- would increase inflation in Australiaassuming a two-thirds indirect effect as well as the full direct effect- by 0.9 per cent. That is almost a 1 per cent increase on that basis. If the price rose to $US25 a barrel, the highly optimistic low figure that Mr Devries mentioned, the inflationary effect in Australia would be 1.2 per cent. If the price rose to $US30 a barrel, 2 per cent inflation would flow from that rise under this Government’s policies. If the price rose to the not impossible figure of $US35 a barrel, the inflationary effect in Australia in 1980 would be some 2.8 per cent for that factor alone. Quite clearly, this Government’s crude oil pricing policies are going to feed in massive inflation in 1980 if they are continued. That is an extraordinarily important point for the people of Australia to become aware of. That would be totally and utterly unnecessary. Tax levels will be increased severely also. A large increase in the crude oil levy has occurred over the last two years. It has increased from $476m in 1977-78 to an estimated $2,056m in the current year, assuming that there are no further increases in crude oil prices. But those crude oil prices are certain to occur with the present policy. If the price per barrel goes to $US23.50 for OPEC oil next year, that would increase our levy by $660m- another $660m ripped off Australian taxpayers. At SUS25 a barrel the additional levy would be $870m; at $US30 a barrel it would be $ 1,585m; and at $US35 a barrel, it would be $2,300m as a result of the Government’s decision to impose import parity by way of an increased crude oil levy. That of course would have massive recessionary effects on the economy.

The effects do not stop there. The Treasury is arguing for world prices to apply not just to crude oil but also to natural gas and to coal used in the manufacture of electricity, thereby feeding in further inflationary prices in this country if that becomes Government policy. That Treasury argument is contained in a submission made quite recently to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. So this Government’s policies and the policies of its advisers are quite clearly to feed massive inflation and recession into this economy in a quite unnecessary way. We cannot expect to avoid the inflation or recession for 1980 on a world basis, but we do not have to import it unnecessarily in the way that we will be doing by the policies of this Government.

Canada and the United States do not have anything like import parity for crude oil. They adopt other means of trying to restrict the use of liquid petroleum. We should do that too by looking at such things as mandatory reductions in fuel consumption capacity for vehicles, discriminatory sales taxes on fuel efficient vehicles, overall energy increase limits and boosting public transport. But this Government is not doing that. All it can think about is increasing the price of Australian produced crude oil in line with import parity, imposing massive tax increases on the Australian people and calling that an energy policy. It is no energy policy. It is a policy for needlessly importing inflation and recession into Australia in 1980 and the years beyond. I had intended to talk about monetary strategy too which has also pointed towards increasing stagflation in Australia in 1980, but time has not allowed me to do that.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

-I might have been excused for thinking, having heard the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), that this was a debate on crude oil pricing and the energy policy of the Government. Of course, we would always be happy to debate those matters. It is always disappointing to hear members of the Opposition. Given that they were in government I am quite sure that they would not change the basic policy. It is always very interesting to hear them talk about the crude oil pricing policy as if we had very many options. They know very well that we cannot isolate ourselves from world markets. They know very well that, if we started to go into that sort of system for very many products, there would be a complete revolt in this country. How would it be, for instance, if the beef producers in Australia were told that they would have to sell their product at an artificially low price because the

Government wanted to plan the economy and force down the market price. I am mystified why the Opposition does not face up to the fact that the United States of America is no example to look at in terms of an energy policy. The United States at present is making a complete mess of energy matters. Because petroleum is so cheap in America- it is still relatively cheap in Australiathat country faces a far more difficult period than we do. Conversely, because we are at least a little realistic about these matters, our consumers, the people of Australia, will face a far better period.

We are talking about stagflation. We are talking about an intensification of stagflation. It is interesting that the very use of the word ‘intensification’ in the matter proposed for discussion presupposes that stagflation did exist. It obviously presupposes also that it must have started in the time of the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975. It certainly did not exist before then. As everybody knows, by its actions whilst in office, the Labor Party did everything it possibly could- perhaps it did not do so in any deliberate way- to fuel inflation. It did everything that it could by a number of other measures to increase unemployment. These problems resulted. Inflation soared and unemployment, for the very first time since the Depression, reappeared. The Labor Party in its policy speeches before the 1972 election began to tell people that there was a large cake and that the wages policy would have to change. The Labor Party told the people that there was plenty of money for everybody without having to work any harder. It was not very many years after that that some of the more sensible people in the Labor Party had to renege on those statements and admit that one man’s pay rise may be another man’s job.

By its actions in the public sector when in government the Labor Party encouraged private sector wages to increase. It said that it had to be the pacesetter and lift the level of wages. It said that it must therefore reduce profits. By doing this ultimately the number of jobs would be reduced. The Labor Party bled the working man dry with taxes. It was in that period that taxes increased so dramatically. Even in his speech on the 1 979-80 Budget, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) continued to advocate the same sort of direction with taxes; he spoke about a top marginal rate of tax which would amount to a super tax in this country. He has not pulled away from that position nor can he because the very interests of the Labor Party are involved through its socialistic policies in increasing government and therefore in increasing taxes. That is a matter of Labor Party policy that has been well known and well documented for many years. The Labor Government ran huge deficits. It collected incredible amounts of taxes compared with earlier periods and it still ran huge deficits. It still, therefore, put pressure on interest rates.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Nowhere near as big as yours.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-Well, just have a look at the deficit this year and have a look at what we have been criticised for. We have just been criticised for trying to pull back the deficit. I have just heard the honourable member for Gellibrand suggest or imply that we should be looking for a surplus if we are looking for full employment. I am not quite sure what he wants. Does he want a large deficit as his cronies in the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic Research want or does he want a lower deficit or, in fact, a surplus? It is very difficult to know because we find conflicting statements every day from the Labor Party.

Certainly, the word ‘stagflation’ is an in term. One reads it in the economic Press these days. I take it that it means what the honourable member for Gellibrand said it means. He talks about stagflation as being a period when there is high inflation with contraction and therefore, I take it, high unemployment. I think that is what he said.

I reiterate that if we do have a thing called stagflation which, I must say, we are starting to move out of, it was a new trick in the Australian economy and the new trick was performed by the Whitlam Government. The new trick would be intensified if there was ever to be a change back to that type of government, that socialist government, that wants to interfere, to tell us what to do with our money, to tax us more and to increase government and wants us to think that profit is a dirty word.

The present Government at least is positive. It is pulling Australia back from a very difficult situation in which we seem to have an endemically large deficit. That deficit was built in by the policies of the previous Government. People were taught to expect the Government to look after them in so many ways that they had never anticipated. As any honourable member on either side of this House would attest, it is common for the Australian people now to want to know why they cannot get a bit more for this and a bit more for that. It is common often with people who can well alford to supply the services that they complain they are not getting from the Government. The Labor Government had a very important psychological effect on Australia. People are expecting what they should not expect. They should be prepared to go out and earn them for themselves. Given an economy where market forces in some measure are allowed to act and given an economy where taxation is at reasonable levels, people will go out to find answers to the problems that they presently expect the Government to correct for them.

I ask honourable members to have a look at the two sides of what is called stagflation. We have, first of all, the unemployment side- the contractionary side. We heard the honourable member for Gellibrand talk about the recent Budget as being contractionary. What about the boost to exports that the Government has been encouraging in the past year or so? What about the aims to increase overseas confidence? And there is overseas confidence in this country. Certainly there is evidence of that fact if one looks at the range of projects foreshadowed and the range of projects for which, already, money is starting to flow into this country. There is evidence of overseas confidence if one looks at our international competitiveness as measured by the relative exchange rate in recent times. If honourable members are talking about contractionary budgets, why did tax cuts occur in the last Budget? Why did we go ahead with the change to the tax scales. Every wage earner will find these cuts in his or her pay packet in two or three weeks time. I admit that the recent Budget was a very tight one. It was one in which the Government was prepared to face up to its responsibilities on behalf of the Australian people and to try to cut back on Government programs so that the tax scales would not be as high as they would be with the grandiose schemes of the Labor Party. In the Budget the Government was prepared to face that deficit situation. We must remember that that deficit situation has created many traumatic side effects in our economy, not just interest rates, but also a long term debt with which my children might be saddled unless we can have a long term continuation of sensible government.

On the employment side, I hope that the Opposition would recognise that whereas quite some time ago we had a participation rate of some 59 per cent of the population in the work force, we now have a participation rate of some 6 1 per cent. In fact, as a proportion of the population, there are now more people in the work force than there were 10 years ago. I also hope that when the Opposition thinks about these things it will recognise that there has been an increase in jobs, particularly in the private sector, in the last 1 5 months or so. That is in stark contrast with the situation during Labor’s term in office, when admittedly it was able to increase the number of jobs, recognisably in the public sector; that sector which is a service sector; that sector which is meant to live off the productive capacity of the remainder of Australia.

The situation has changed. Jobs are appearing now in the private sector; a large number of jobs. If we look at the unemployment figures, it is very interesting to note that in October this year the prospects for young people in Australia are better than they have been for the last four years. If we look at the inflationary side of stagflation, it has been recognised by both sides of this House that the rate of inflation must be got down as a precursor to recovery. This Government has worked very hard to achieve that aim and it has achieved a great deal in these areas, given of course that there are some wild cards in the pack that it does not seem to be able to control. The Government cannot control them mainly because of constitutional difficulties. I refer, of course, to wage demands. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), who swaps around from horse to horse, in one of his more sensible moments, in his 1975-76 Budget Speech said:

Our present level of unemployment is too high.

That was in Labor’s time.

If we fail to control inflation unemployment will get worse.

That is why this Government is trying to get the rate of inflation down. This Government recognises that inflation is not particularly important of itself, but it is important because of the flowthrough to all people in the economy, the flowthrough effects on the confidence of the economy, and the flow-through to the working people and the old people. There is no case where that flow-through is beneficial. It is not beneficial in the long term and that is why this Government is trying to get the rate of inflation down. That is why this present Budget was castigated a minute ago by the shadow Treasurer. That is why this present Budget, in trying to get people into a situation of confidence through tax cuts, and encouraging exports, continues to bear down on inflation.

I am not sure that the Labor Party knows what it thinks about the economy. I do know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures, which are fairly important figures on inflation in the OECD countries, show that in the period 1971 to 1976, which was primarily in the Labor Party years- perhaps if we referred only to the Labor Party years we would find an even worse situation- Australia’s average rate of inflation in that five-year period was 10.8 per cent. That was more than the OECD average. Yet between 1961 and 1970- the whole period of the sixties- our inflation rate was always substantially lower. In that previous period our inflation rate averaged at 2.5 per cent against the OECD average of 3.4 per cent. Look at what has happened now. If we take the worst possible period- the six-month period up to September 1 979- our inflation rate was 10.3 per cent and, on average, the OECD rate was 12.9 per cent. That is what we call ‘The proof of the pudding being in the eating’. That is the result of the Australian people electing our sort of government, because our sort of government knows the results of having a badly run economy. Our sort of government believes that every person in this country deserves to make a profit, and everybody in this country deserves a job.

There are emerging results. There is an increase in the real gross domestic product which is in stark contrast to the last part of 1975. Exports are up, and if honourable members opposite are interested in these figures and want to find out more, they should talk to General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd. I also point out, as an index of our competitiveness overseas, brought about largely by government policy, the Syntec index of international competitiveness dropped from a base of 100 in 1972 to 92 in the Labor years through to 1975. It is now up to 115. That is a great pat on the back for the present Government. Largely, that is why there are such massive projects now in prospect in Australia.

We can be confident for the 1 980s unless, of course, there is a change back to the gross interference, the big government, the higher taxes, and the very sucking of the country’s lifeblood that we would expect if we were to change back to a socialist party.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-It is a great commentary on the Government that in a major debate on the economy it puts up someone with such a deplorable understanding of the economy as the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Sainsbury). That being the case -

Dr Edwards:

– What about you?

Mr DAWKINS:

-I notice that Professor Edwards is going to follow me in the debate. He might be able to lift the tone of the debate coming from the Government side. It will be necessary for me, because of the inaccuracies in the contribution of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, to indulge in a small amount of lecturing. Firstly, it is important to understand that when we are trying to compare the economic effects of one Budget as compared with another, the only reasonable way in which we can make that comparison is on the assumption of a comparable level of economic activity. What my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) was trying to do, which the honourable member for Eden-Monaro seemed to misunderstand, was to emphasise that we should realise the fiscal effects of this Budget. If we proceed on the assumption that it was a Budget operating at a time of full employment, then in fact it would be a Budget involving a massive surplus. The honourable member for EdenMonaro has to ask himself whether this is the appropriate time fora government to be running an enormous economic surplus. Are the conditions of this economy such that we should be running an enormous surplus in the Budget? The Opposition believes that that is absurd, and it shares this belief with a large number of notable economists throughout the country.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Such as?

Mr DAWKINS:

-Such as John Nevile whom I will come to in a moment. Another of the misrepresentations made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro was that taxes were higher under the Labor Government than under this Government. We are not ashamed to recognise -

Mr Sainsbury:

– No, I didn’t.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for EdenMonaro has made his speech. I ask him now to remain silent.

Mr Sainsbury:

– He ‘s telling fibs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Eden-Monaro will remain silent.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The honourable member should withdraw that remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Eden-Monaro will certainly withdraw that remark, if the honourable member for Fremantle finds it offensive.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Unqualifiedly.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The point I am making is that the honourable member did say that taxes were higher under the Labor Government than they are under this Government. If he is prepared to withdraw that remark I am happy to accept his withdrawal. When we take the total amount of revenue to the Government as a proportion of gross domestic product, and compare it with the period of the Labor Administration, it has, in fact, gone up under this Government.

Another of his inaccuracies was in relation to the level of -

Mr Sainsbury:

-Hear, hear!

Mr DAWKINS:

– I am just correcting his inaccuracies, which seems to be a reasonable first step before I get on to my argument. Another of his misrepresentations was on the basis of the level of the deficit. It we take the deficit either as a proportion of gross domestic product or in money terms, then we find that the accumulated deficit under this Government is very much larger than it was under the Labor Government. It is up to 50 per cent larger. The Opposition is not ashamed to make comparisons in relation to the economic performance of the country under our Government, but I think it is reasonable, if we are going to make comparisons, that we make them on the basis of fact and not on the basis of some illusions dreamed up by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. We can be grateful for one thing, and that is that the National Country Party is not participating in this debate. The understanding of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro may be one thing, but I am sure that his understanding is far higher than that of any member of the National Country Party. I understand that when the National Country Party looked at the matter of public importance and saw that it talked about the intensification of stagflation, it thought that stagflation had something to do with sexual perversion. That is one of the reasons why it did not participate in this debate. That is one of the reasons why the National Country Party is not participating in this debate.

The honourable member for Eden-Monaro seems to understand what ‘stagflation’ means, even if he found out only after listening to the honourable member for Gellibrand. Stagflation is a description of a period of economic circumstances with price increases coupled with depressed economic activity. This is the sort of thing which was brought about by the Budget brought down earlier this year. Members of the Opposition and other people said so at the time. The reason we said that this Budget would have a contractionary effect on the economy was, taking it on one basis, that the Budget was taking more money out of the economy than it was putting back. It was worse than the Budget of the previous year in this regard. Professor Nevile of the University of New South Wales said that as a result of taxes increasing faster than the expenditure of the Government, it was going to be a highly contractive Budget, to use his term. He said it would be the most contractive Budget in 30 years. He went on to support to some extent the attitude of the honourable member for EdenMonaro because he said that this would have been acceptable -

Mr Sainsbury:

– He was wrong.

Mr DAWKINS:

– He was not wrong.

Mr Sainsbury:

– He was. It was not as contractionary as the 1974 Budget.

Mr DAWKINS:

-Professor Nevile is the expert and he is the pre-eminent Budget analyst in this country. I think that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro ought to defer to Professor Nevile. Professor Nevile has analysed Budgets over at least the last 30 years and has looked at their effects on the economy. His dispassionate judgment is that this year’s Budget is the most contractive Budget in 30 years. Perhaps I ought to draw to his attention the view of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro to see whether he will revise his position! Professor Nevile said that a highly contractive Budget at this stage might have been excusable if it were coupled with a policy to overcome immediately the problem of inflation. He went on to point out that despite the contractionary nature of the Budget the inflation level was likely to go up. He said:

This Budget will probably succeed in increasing over the coming year both the rate of inflation and the level of unemployment- a feat which only one previous budgetthat of last year- came close to achieving.

Professor Nevile was saying that far from this Budget being appropriate to the economic circumstances, it will make everything worse. If we look at what has happened since the Budget, we see that the evidence is beginning to confirm that view. If we compare the levels of unemployment in October 1978 and October 1979, we find that unemployment has gone up by 7,000 on the basis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics series of figures. If we look at the Commonwealth Employment Service series we find that the number of unfilled vacancies fell by 7 1 5 in October. We also find that for the September quarter 1979 the inflation rate is higher than it was for that quarter a year ago. Even though it is a bit early to say that is a result of the Budget, the figure certainly includes some of the ingredients which came from the mini-Budget a few months earlier.

We are beginning to see, as the honourable member for Gellibrand pointed out, that interest rates are on the way up, mainly in response to movements overseas. We cannot insulate ourselves entirely from these, but increased interest rates will have the effect of contributing to a further depression in the Australian economy. We have seen an outflow of private capital of $328m in the last two months. Private investment in this country is on the way down. The honourable member for Gellibrand went to some lengths to point out that the impact of the imminent price increases to be brought about by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries meeting due in December is likely further to exacerbate the problem of inflation in this country. This fact only confirms what Professor Nevile, the honourable member for Gellibrand and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said at the time of the Budget.

The economy is truly sick. Honourable members might even say that it is sicker than the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). However, the recovery of the economy seems to be even more intractable and illusory than it is in the case of that gentleman. The problem is that the economy is not even getting the appropriate treatment. We assume that the Prime Minister is getting the appropriate treatment. But the people in charge of the treatment of the illnesses of the economy suffer from both incompetence and ideological obsessions which frustrate the necessary cures. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that he is moving to the high ground. That movement is in the interest of his own selfpreservation. The trouble is that the high ground is likely to get pretty crowded as we all move there to escape the consequences of the economic policies of this Government. This Government seeks to do nothing. It seems to proceed on the basis that the less action government takes, the more minimal its intervention, the better the economy will be. We thoroughly reject that proposition.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– If I were to deal point by point with the Opposition’s exercise in economy walloping I would be here all night. I would have no time left to challenge, as I want to, the very word ‘stagflation’ as a description of the state of the Australian economy, let alone its ‘intensification’. Something has been said in this debate as to the definition of stagflation. But it is clear from the Opposition speakers that what they want to convey is a heavy overtone of stagnation. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) just said that the economy is sick, he wants to convey that economic activity is at a low ebb; production and employment is stagnating and standing still at a low level and all this accompanied by high and rising inflation. If that is what ‘stagflation’ is supposed to convey then that does not describe the Australian economy today. It is a typical exercise in misrepresentation by the Labor Opposition. But it is symptomatic of a good deal of loose talk about recession and stagflation among media commentators for example, used almost as a throwaway line, but still serving to spread a false view of the Australian economy. For it is a false view. It is true that Australia, in company with most other advanced countries, has not achieved the robust economic growth of earlier decades. There are some fundamental causes for that, including slower population growth, the energy crisis and other factors.

Nevertheless, I put it to the House and the Australian people that the Australian economy is performing pretty strongly. Production has been expanding at a significant rate- honourable members would have to call white black to deny that fact- and employment, including that in manufacturing industry, has increased. There has been a return to fundamental strength especially the international competitiveness of the Australian economy, which is now more than comparable to the position 10 years ago. There is a commitment to long term investment in this country on a scale which signals a new phase of industrial development in Australia. Finally it is true that inflation is up on the 8 per cent level that existed at the end of 1978. That is largely a reflection of returning prosperity via high commodity prices. However most informed commentators predict a peak in inflation in the current December quarter and thereafter renewed decline. My colleague discussed the matter of inflation so I will not spend further time on it.

I referred just now to investment, the spending of money on new developments, new buildings and machines and new projects, which provide the means for expanded production, economic growth and new jobs for Australians. The investment initially will provide construction jobssuch as the more than 5,000 associated with the massive aluminium smelting plants- then permanent, meaningful, on-going jobs for Australians. Over recent years there has been a veritable ferment of investment in this allegedly stagnant economy. The most recent figures, which are for the last June quarter, show that spending on new capital investment was up by 1 9 per cent on that in the June quarter of the previous year, 1978, and that it was very widely spread, through mining, manufacturing, tourism, retailing, new shopping centres and so on. As referred to in Question Time today, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) predicted recently, on the basis of a survey by his Department, that Australia is on the verge of a further unprecedented surge in mining and manufacturing investment.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Even Bill Hayden agrees with that.

Dr EDWARDS:

-That is right. Even the Leader of the Opposition recognised -

Mr Bradfield:

– He endorses our policy.

Dr EDWARDS:

-He endorses it. As the Minister reported, some $16.3 billion in investment projects is now at the ‘committed’ or ‘final feasibility’ stage. Investment nearly stopped under the Labor Government. That was the plain fact of the matter.

Mr Sainsbury:

– There was no point in it.

Dr EDWARDS:

-That is right; there was no point in it. To that Government ‘profits’ was a dirty word. But under this Government this level of intended investment signals a whole new phase in industrial development in Australia.

Let me go on to deal with output, production. Is this stagnating? On the contrary, it has gone up very significantly- and employment with it- in all sectors of the economy, including manufacturing and other sectors, except perhaps the construction sector. A recent issue of the bulletin published by the management consultants W. D. Scott, includes its own index of industrial production. Under the heading: ‘Strength in industrial production’, the bulletin states:

Industrial production in Australia has now been rising for seven successive quarters. This is an extraordinarily long run in the experience of the last 8 years.

In the most recent issue of the ANZ Bank Business Indicators -

Mr Bradfield:

– A most reliable source.

Dr EDWARDS:

– It is an entirely reliable source, as my colleague says. In that issue we read:

The estimated value of the index -

That is, the ANZ index of the quantity of factory production-

Call groups) in August 1979 was 180, 10.4 per cent higher than a year ago.

Is this a picture of a stagnating economy? The quotation continues:

Most sub-groups recorded substantial increases over the year to August 1979. The most spectacular increase was shown by chemicals and allied industries which rose by 27 per cent.

In this respect what needs to be underlined is what the Government has done to restore the international competitiveness of the Australian economy which was totally undermined by the former Government. The fact is that today the competitiveness of the Australian economy has been restored to a similar or better level than that of 10 years ago. The fundamental importance of this is that it enables Australian industry to compete effectively with imports at low levels of assistance and to make sales in overseas marketsexports. This has been achieved by this Government’s policies of cost containment, increased productivity and a more competitive exchange rate. The best evidence of what has happened is that Australia’s manufactured exports expanded by 30 per cent from 1977-78 to 1978-79. That expansion was broad-based. Exports of machinery and transport equipment increased by 32 per cent, while exports of furniture, including sales to Sweden, increased by 82 per cent, and so on.

The Australian people need to understand this in order to realise that, as in the period from 1973 to 1975, all of this would be at risk if the Labor Party were ever to get back into power and to implement the economic policy which it agreed upon a few months ago in Adelaide. That policy was described by Bob Hawke, the future member for Wills, as ‘gutless’ and ‘a sellout to the Left’, which it was. It is indeed a recipe for disaster. It hardly mentions inflation and the need to control inflation in order to preserve the gains about which I have just been talking- to preserve and enhance still further this capacity of Australian industry to compete and thus to provide meaningful employment for Australians.

In pointing to the fundamental strength and the high level of activity in the Australian economy, I do not want to be understood as saying that the Government is not faced with formidable problems in the economic policy area. The level of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is still too high. The facts of the situation, as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, do however point to an improvement in the trend. That was recently commented upon also by the Australian Industries Development Association. I assure the Australian people that the Government has this key, but very complex and difficult, problem under continuous study and review.

The next difficulty I would mention is the international outlook, particularly the outlook in the world’s most significant economy, the United States, where production is declining, where in the six months to September inflation was at the level of 14 per cent and where interest rates are currently 15 per cent and higher. These things mean that there are difficulties ahead for us all. But in the midst of these difficulties Australia, entirely contrary to the thrust of the matter of public importance brought forward by the Opposition, is well placed to move ahead with strength and confidence. I conclude that, with continuing restraint in the increase in incomes, with the Government’s determination to maintain its taut but not contractionary Budget policy and, within this context, with the drive, capacity and skills of both management and employees in free enterprise in Australia, the prospects for this country are unsurpassed. The Government rejects this negative, obscurantist nonsense from the Labor Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- The discussion is concluded.

page 3299

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Western Australia into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs B. S. Nicholls, J. F. Morgan and F. W. Statham, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their Report laid before the House of Representatives on 1 3 November 1979, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the Report, and indicated in the maps referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name of the Division suggested by the Commissioners for indentification purposes to be named Canning be named O’Connor and that the name of the Division suggested to be named Roe be named Canning.

The Government has considered the report of the distribution commissioners for Western Australia. It is the view of the Government that the report should be adopted insofar as the boundaries are concerned but that it would be appropriate to adopt different names for two of the proposed divisions. I take the opportunity to thank the three distribution commissioners for Western Australia. They have done their job expeditiously. The Government believes that they have done it fairly.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The redistribution proposals are made necessary by the High Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in what are known as the McKinlay case and the McKellar case, which required a quota of members from each State to be ascertained whenever necessary. The majority decision of the Court was that the term ‘whenever necessary’ meant each general election occurring towards the end of a three year term. Given that it is imposssible to please everybody and given the parameters that the distribution commissioners have to work with, I think it can be said that the report of the distribution commissioners is basically reasonable.

I refer in particular to the 1 977 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which required that no electorate of 5,000 square kilometres or more shall have an electoral population greater than the electoral population of an electorate of less than 5,000 square kilometres. This complicated arrangement creates considerable difficulties for distribution commissioners, especially in a geographically large State such as Western Australia. These difficulties are further accentuated when the population of the State is increasing faster than the population for Australia as a whole. While the percentage variation from the quota varies from only 5.9 per cent below quota in Kalgoorlie to 3.41 per cent above quota in Perth, the population increases are more likely to occur in geographically small electorates, which will cause a distortion of electorate sizes in a relatively short space of time.

It can be said that the electoral proposals will favour the Liberal Party. I do not want to go into a detailed analysis of that matter, but we have some reservations about the naming of the seat of O’Connor. The naming of seats is totally a matter for the Parliament. That practice has been established, as Senators Withers knows. In this case the distribution commissioners suggested the name of Roe but the Government preferred the name of O’Connor, after a surveyor and Western Australian politician of the last century.

Mr Bungey:

– A good name. He was not a politician; he was an engineer.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I apologise; he was an engineer. Engineers never become politicians. The most famous O’Connor was a New South Welshman, Sir Richard O’Connor. With all due respect to the memory of Charles O’Connor, Sir Richard O’Connor can be remembered as being a member of the Constitutional Convention of the 1890s, a senator, a Minister of the first Federal Ministry, that is, the Barton Ministry, and one of the three judges of the first High Court of Australia.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I will not detain the House for long. I want to make a few remarks because, at the time the Distribution Commission was established, I was anxious about what the commissioners might bring forward, given the previous track record of some members of the Commission. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that a reasonable job has been done in all the circumstances. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the commissioners have created not one but three new seats because the new seats of Canning and Moore are almost totally dissimilar from the seats of the same name which preceded them. They have both become predominantly metropolitan seats whereas previously they were very largely rural constituencies. The seat of O’Connor therefore joins the seats of Forrest and Kalgoorlie as one of the three solely rural and pastoral seats in Western Australia.

However, the problem about which I have complained before still remains. The Australian Labor Party has to get close to 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote before it can win more than two seats, and I think that is evidence of some sort of problem in relation to the redistribution. I realise that it is a problem which cannot easily be overcome by the commissioners because of the nature of the distribution of the population within metropolitan Perth. However, it does mean that a bias remains in favour of the non-Labor parties.

I want to make a few brief remarks- I hope I will be excused for doing so- about the decision of the Government to name the new wheat belt seat after C. Y. O’Connor. It is probably worth remembering that the distribution commissioners who conducted the 1974 distribution, when the tenth seat was created, actually decided to recommend that the seat which was eventually called Tangney should be called O’Connor.

Mr Shack:

– It was a good seat.

Mr DAWKINS:

-It was a better seat in 1974 and 1975. It has gone backwards since then. The point is that the commissioners have revived that proposal, and I think it is very appropriate indeed. It is very appropriate for the seat to which it has been attached because the goldfields water supply pipeline almost bisects the division which bears the name of O’Connor. I want to make some remarks about the very substantial and significant contribution C. Y. O’Connor made to the development of Western Australia. When it is remembered that he resided in Western Australia for not quite 1 1 years, I think his achievements are all the more remarkable. He came to Western Australia just at the time it achieved responsible government. Premier Forrest was anxious to find an engineer who could perform the large number of public works which he and a large number of other people thought necessary at that time. The first of those projects was the Fremantle Harbour. Work on that project was started soon after C. Y. O’Connor arrived, but it was not without some problems. A number of parliamentary and other inquiries were held before his proposal to build the harbour within the mouth of the Swan River replaced a proposal, initially supported by

Forrest, to build the harbour outside the mouth of the river. O’Connor was accused of being an upstart, a shire engineer from New Zealand, whose judgments should not be valued. However, the professional reports which followed the presentation of his proposal supported it in very glowing terms and in fact said that the building of the Fremantle Harbour was one of the greatest achievements of its kind.

The population of Western Australia at that time was only 50,000; at the time of his death 1 1 years later it had grown fourfold to over 200,000. That in itself was significant, but the achievements in the field of public works during that time set the stage for the even expansion in the population which followed. One of the reasons I think it is particularly appropriate that this Parliament should recognise the contribution of C. Y. O’Connor is that his relationships with the State Parliament were appalling, one might say. He was pursued relentlessly by members of the State Parliament, and in fact it was that continual pursuit of him and his integrity which finally led him to take his life. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

It was while he was away giving advice to the South Australian Government that the State Parliament in Western Australia decided to set up yet another select committee to investigate the goldfields water supply proposal, which by that time was already half completed. O’Connor came back to find that the select committee was in full flight and had received a number of very defamatory submissions concerning his integrity and his role in the work relating to the goldfields water supply. One of his last contributions was in relation to a commission given to him by Forrest, when he was Minister for Defence in this place. In April 1901 he asked O’Connor to provide a report on the construction of the transcontinental railway. O’Connor’s preliminary report was provided to Forrest and to the Commonwealth Government in May 1901. Indeed, that was probably the last major report he made prior to his untimely death in April 1902.

An excellent biography of C. Y. O’Connor was published about a year ago. I have discovered that the Parliamentary Library does not have a copy of this book. Following the decision of the Parliament to name this seat after C. Y. O’Connor, it is therefore my intention to make a copy of the book available to the Library so that more honourable members can read about the contribution he made not only to Western Australia but also to Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3301

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION (YOUNG TO WAGGA WAGGA) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-This Bill is to authorise the Pipeline Authority to construct a natural gas pipeline in New South Wales from Young, on the main Moomba-to-Sydney pipeline, to Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga in the south. This move is welcomed by the Opposition. The supply of natural gas to these towns will make a further contribution to the conservation of Australia ‘s liquid fuels because of the opportunity which will be made available for fuel substitution. The go-ahead has now been given to the Pipeline Authority, but it is in fact long overdue. These two towns, plus others in the region, have been waiting a considerable time for the supply of natural gas.

As part of the original agreement between the Pipeline Authority and the Australian Gas Light Co., under which the Authority assumed responsibility for the Moomba-Sydney project, the Authority undertook to construct lateral pipelines to serve Cowra, Orange, Bathurst, Lithgow, Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga. This was to enable the Australian Gas Light Co. to meet its obligations to the New South Wales Government to supply natural gas to these towns. Despite representations from local councils and the fact that the Pipeline Authority has made it clear since then that it has been willing to honour this obligation, no action had been forthcoming.

The Authority had started preparatory work on the laterals but in June 1975, with the agreement of the then New South Wales Government, AGL decided that construction should be deferred. As a result, the Federal Government decided to defer a decision on the provision of funds to the Pipeline Authority pending a formal request from AGL for construction. Despite subsequent statements by both the former and present New South Wales Government no request was received until late 1978.

Last November the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) received a joint proposal from AGL and the councils of Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga that a lateral to these towns should be constructed, operated and maintained by the Pipeline Authority. The proposal was referred to the Authority which subsequently reported favourably to the Minister. As a result, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) announced in his 27 June policy statement:

The Government will authorise the Pipeline Authority to construct a twelve inch gas pipeline from Young to Wagga Wagga and to Cootamundra costing approximately $ 1 5m.

The pipeline is now expected to cost in the order of $ 17.5m and should be completed by mid- 1981. This will not only provide further opportunities for fuel substitution but also provide valuable employment opportunities during the construction phase and after reticulation begins because of the attraction to industry which is offered by a supply of natural gas. As well as replacing fuel oil, natural gas also will replace liquefied petroleum gas, which is currently reticulated in both Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga. This will be a matter of great relief to the consumers in these two towns because, under the Government’s import parity pricing policy, LPG is now priced at a price commensurate with the oil equivalent at import parity. Consumers connected to natural gas pipelines are now getting their gas at considerably lower costs- I think about a quarter or one-fifth of the price that people are paying for LPG- because LPG is produced synthetically in refineries and whilst it is produced as naturally occurring the naturally occurring LPG is supplied only when there is a shortfall in the refinery produced LPG. So the consumers in large towns which will not be connected to the natural gas pipeline, such as Bathurst, Lithgow, Orange and Cowra which are in New South Wales, will continue to pay through the nose for liquefied petroleum gas under this Government’s import parity pricing because the LPG -

Mr MacKenzie:

– You agreed with that policy.

Mr KEATING:

– We do not agree with the import parity pricing at all. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) trying to get off the hook the other day in the grievance debate. It is the Government that he supports which has flogged the consumers of New South Wales particularly those in the towns of the electorate of the honourable member, including the city of Orange. At this stage, of course, there is no decision by the Government to the contrary. The pricing of crude oil at import parity means that all of the by-products of the refining process reflect that import parity price. One of the things which reflect that import parity price is, of course, LPG. If country consumers in New South Wales and in Victoria are peeved about the fact that they are paying through the nose for LPG, they can lay the blame squarely on the present Government because it is Government policy.

On that very point, in respect of Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow, on behalf of the Federal Opposition, in 1977 I promised that a Labor government would build pipelines to Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow. I reiterate that promise; we would build the lines. The present Government has been in office for four years but it has failed to build the lines. If the lines had been built, the gas to these towns would have been priced in the terms of the contract which AGL entered into with the Moomba producers in respect of essentially the Sydney market. In other words, cheap gas would now be available to Orange, Lithgow and Bathurst. It is not. Instead, the people in these towns have very dear LPG, thanks to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for National Development who believe in high energy prices.

As well as replacing fuel oil, natural gas will replace LPG also. About 2,600 tonnes of LPG now used annually will be released for automotive use. As the Minister pointed out in his statement on 25 October, it is intended that this line be extended to Albury thus connecting the Bass Strait and Cooper Basin gas fields, establishing an east coast natural gas pipeline grid. I just make the point that the New South Wales Government was very interested that a six-inch line not be built to Wagga Wagga, which was the original intention, on the basis that a 12-inch line would at least connect with the northernmost extension of the Victorian gas grid. A 12-inch line connecting the Victorian gas grid and the New South Wales and South Australian gas lines would mean that the Cooper Basin would be connected with the Victorian gas grid. In the event of a shortage in supplies from Bass Strait or production problems gas could come from the Cooper Basin into the Victorian reticulation system. Similarly, Gippsland gas could come into the New South Wales and South Australian system. I do not know what the Authority’s view on this proposal was. Probably it would have been the sensible one that a 12-inch line should have been constructed. It was absolute folly to be talking about a six-inch line. I know that the Victorians jealously guard their gas and say that what is found in Victoria belongs to Victoria. That is a parochial view that should not be argued by any person interested in Australia as a nation. The inter-connection of the pipeline does at least protect a continuity of supply.

It is heartening to see that the present Government at least has come to realise the contribution that natural gas can make to Australia’s energy independence and also the importance of having a well-planned gas grid connecting the major demand and supply centres of Australia.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Pipeline Authority for the excellent job that it has done since its establishment in 1973. I am sure that future work undertaken will be of a similarly high standard. The construction and operation of the Moomba-Sydney pipeline has been the major activity of the Authority. The line was completed in December 1976 and it represents one of the nation’s largest engineering projects of the 1970s. It is 1,300 kilometres long and in its first two years of operation carried gas, in terms of energy, equivalent to about one million tonnes of fuel oil. During this year it is expected that the quantity of gas carried will be greater than that of the previous two years combined. As the penetration into the New South Wales market increases, more and more deliveries of gas will be made by the South Australian producers and that will come down the line.

The Opposition believes that if natural gas is to make a significant contribution to Australia’s energy independence- and we believe this to be so- a well-planned, co-ordinated approach to development must be adopted. The central theme of the Green Paper which the Opposition produced in March 1979 was the utilisation of natural gas in Australia. The Australian Labor Party stands alone as the only party in Australia which asserts that gas will be the central preoccupation of Australian energy policy on the basis that it is one of the fuels that can be used to a much greater level, not only in terms of its pipeline and stationary applications but eventually as a substitute for liquids. I know that the Pipeline Authority also shares this view. In its 1976 annual report the Authority stated:

The Authority has always been conscious of the need for planned development, including careful and detailed assessment of the short and long term markets for natural gas and the likely available supplies, and a technical and economic evaluation of the various possible solutions available in order to ensure that, in the longer term, say 25 years or more, Australia’s valuable gas reserves are developed and used in the best interests of the nation.

This is a view which the Government must also adopt if maximum benefit is to be gained from our natural gas resources. Australia needs a natural gas policy. Presently, it does not have one. About 10 per cent of our primary energy needs are currently met by natural gas. This figure is expected to increase to about 15 per cent by 1985. It will increase even more if proper policies are adopted now.

The important characteristic of gas is that it replaces oil, the one fuel that Australia is in most need of. In absolute terms, Australia’s proven gas reserves, on a heat value basis, are almost three times that of oil. The prospects for finding more gas are also much greater than for finding oil, and ultimate gas reserves are estimated as likely to be as high as five times the present level of proven and recoverable reserves. Total reserves at present are about 28 trillion cubic feet while it appears that ultimate recoverable reserves could be about 100 trillion cubic feet. The Australian Institution of Engineers believes that the ultimate reserves will be in the order of 160 trillion cubic feet. However, exploration activity for gas to date has been very poor. It has been virtually non-existent, particularly in off-shore areas, the most likely place for new gas discoveries. Much of the undiscovered gas is likely to be found off-shore Western Australia whereas the main centres of demand are on the eastern seaboard of the continent.

Mr Graham:

– Why would that be the case? Why is it necessarily better off-shore? Is that true in the rest of the world, too?

Mr KEATING:

– No, but it is true in Australia because Australia, in geological terms, is a very old continental land mass and the intelligence is that hydrocarbons are found in the younger sediments. The younger sediments in Australia are in the prolongation of the continental shelf, mainly off the Western Australian coast. That theory has now been tested somewhat and there have been announcements recently of exploration programs on-shore. I think that we have accepted too easily that most of the prospects are off-shore. Probably there are good prospects onshore, but there has been a low level of gas search because of the very long term contracts which have been tied up for gas supplies, particularly by Victoria and New South Wales. That has meant that there has been no point in companies just spending money to add to reserves. Companies do not spend dollars finding reserves; they spend dollars finding reserves that they can sell. If there have been long term contracts, particularly contracts written in fixed price terms over long periods, there has not been an incentive for producers to go out and find more gas. This has had an inhibiting effect on exploration activity.

Perhaps the most tragic area of neglect is the Cooper Basin. As honourable members would be aware, Sydney has a gas supply of 30 years under the Schedule A contract between the Australian Gas Light Company and the Cooper Basin producers. Victoria has at least a 25-year gas supply and a call upon a second block of gas from Gippsland. But South Australia will have a two trillion cubic feet shortfall between about 1984 and 2005. For Australia to give all of its major industrial centres a gas supply on a basis of a 25-year moving index would, I think, be a commendable national objective. This would be possible if we were to find another two trillion cubic feet of gas in the Cooper Basin or adjoining basins and if there were an adequate supply of gas in Western Australia. At the moment, of course, Western Australia will not have a 25-year gas supply with the current projected level of liquefied natural gas exports on the North West Shelf. But if the proven reserves of the area close to the North Rankin trend in Egret, Tide Pole, and some of the other areas close to North Rankin- Goodwyn and Angel- are proven, then Western Australia itself could have a 25-year supply of gas. It would mean that Perth and the rest of Western Australia, Adelaide and South Australia, Melbourne and the rest of Victoria, Sydney and New South Wales and the other large centres like Newcastle and Wollongong, and if there were any further discoveries in the Surat Basin, Brisbane itself, could have a 25-year supply. That could be a good thing for Australia. It would give us a level of energy independence which would be quite luxurious. So the problem is finding two trillion cubic feet of gas on this side of the continent. I do not think there is going to be that much trouble finding it. In fact, people are very bullish about the Cooper Basin. I think the Cooper Basin reserves are about 3.6 trillion cubic feet. There is a school of thought that that figure could be doubled to about 7 trillion cubic feet. Even if we could find another two trillion cubic feet that would be sufficient.

The alternative, of course, would be to build a pipeline across from Gippsland to Adelaide. I know Esso would probably like to do that because it would give that company some negotiating strength against the Victorian Gas and Fuel Corporation. But it would not make all that much sense to build a pipeline to Adelaide when the Cooper Basin liquids are going to need to be brought to market. A pipeline is therefore either going to have to be built to Redcliff or to Port Stanvac or to Brisbane, in which case we would be better off building a pipeline which could carry more gas to South Australia from the Cooper Basin, the Arrowie Basin, the Officer Basin or any of the other adjoining basins in that area. So if we get off our tails and start looking for gas in Central Australia, the likelihood is that we will find another two trillion cubic feet of gas. If we were to find another two trillion cubic feet then the demand picture for this side of the continent would be satisfied without building a transcontinental pipeline.

There is a lot of talk now about building a transcontinental pipeline to supply gas, but of course, if we build one there will not be any gas to come down the line because it will be committed mostly to Japan and to domestic Western Australia. After we supply 300 million cubic feet a day out of North Rankin for Western Australia plus 6.5 million tonnes of LNG a year, there would virtually be a very slim chance of sending very much more gas on a daily basis down a transcontinental pipeline; and there is not much point in sending it anyway because there is no market for it at the moment. But schemes have been floated to the effect that if we could send down gas to Sydney or to New South Wales then we could use coal to produce methanol. That idea is worth looking at but at this stage there is not much point given the fact that with some search we could find another two trillion cubic feet of gas in the Cooper Basin area. Another two trillion cubic feet of gas there would change the whole picture for Australia. It is very interesting to find everybody now interested in gas and in transcontinental pipelines and interconnected grids, but when the Labor Party was talking about these things in 1973-74, they were considered to be the height of folly and almost treasonous in terms of the politics of the day. The conventional wisdom of 1973-74 has now been adopted by the Government. The Government is now looking with an open mind upon these things. I just wish that the Government were as fair to my predecessor in office in looking at these issues as it is prepared today to look at issues. But of course in those days a Labor Government was in office and Labor governments are not supposed to run Australia; that is only for the crooked, broken down establishment.

Much of the undiscovered gas, as I said earlier, is likely to be found off-shore. Some will be found on-shore. But of course we need to look much further at this question and to start to increase the whole search for gas in Australia. At the moment, of course, producers are more interested in finding oil than gas, mainly because of the significant price differentials between the fuels. Gas is priced to the producers at about $3 a barrel oil equivalent while the price of oil is about $19 a barrel. That brings me back to the point raised by the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie). Consumers are paying about $19 a barrel oil equivalent for liquefied petroleum gas in Orange and in other cities and towns in his electorate, whereas if they were connected to a natural gas pipeline they would be paying $3 a barrel. I know the honourable member is listening. What I have to say is instructive. There is a lot of difference between $3 a barrel for methane and $19 a barrel for LPG. It is the Government’s import parity pricing policy which lifts the price of refined LPG not naturally occurring.

Australia’s gas pricing policy with large price differentials between the States can be described only as a shambles. Until this is rectified, the incentive for gas exploration is unlikely to be forthcoming. A future Labor government will give serious consideration to a means of rationalising gas pricing policy. It will give a high priority to ensuring that each major consuming area is provided with a 25 years supply of gas. If an adequate level of private exploration is not seen a future Labor government will also become actively involved in exploration for gas via a government corporation which has been established in Labor policy and which would be called the Australian Hydrocarbons Corporation. A Labor government will also keep under investigation the need for a transcontinental pipeline but we are confident that additional reserves will be found in the eastern part of the continent if the correct decisions are made. If those reserves are found we will not need to build a transcontinental pipeline. In the meantime, it is hoped that the decision to provide a lateral line to Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga will be closely followed by an announcement to the effect that the other towns in New South Wales waiting for natural gas supplies will also be provided with lateral lines.

I see a fairly bright picture for gas. I would see a much brighter picture if there were a much higher level of gas search in Australia. There was a report yesterday that Beach Petroleum NL had found gas in the Western District of Victoria. Even though it is a fairly modest gas flow it is important for that region. The pattern of onshore exploration will probably be such that we will be turning up pockets of gas throughout the continent. One of the things which play in favour of the United States is that it has many gas lines across the continent. No matter where companies drill they are close to a pipeline. If they can find a product they can generally sell it. Where there is real estate there can be exploration. There is not much point in putting down a hole in the northern part of South Australia, the southern part of the Northern Territory or the western part of Queensland if there is no pipeline nearby. The more pipelines which are built the more improved are the prospects for continuing gas exploration. Companies can then drill prospects in the expectation that on finding gas they can market it through the pipeline.

The Pipeline Authority has done a sterling job in efficiently building and operating the pipeline in Australia. We hope that more pipelines will be built. While I have enjoyed the opportunity to talk about gas on this Bill, I find it outrageous that the Government should have passed legislation earlier this year requiring that any new pipelines in Australia be approved by a special Act of Parliament. In other words, Parliament has to agree to every single proposal instead of the Pipeline Authority being free to build lines. This provision was carried to stop a future Labor government building pipelines. One can see from the way in which the Tory brain works that the Tories think that the disproportionate and unrepresentative nature of the Senate will mean that the States with a smaller population can keep a stranglehold upon a future Labor government and that when pipeline proposals are made by that government, they can be blocked by a conservatively dominated Senate.

That was the reason for the passage of the legislation in the first place. It was an attempt by a government to tie the hands of a future government. The present Government objects to that when the Labor Party tries to tie its hands on uranium policy but it does not mind trying to do it itself. There are no rules in Australian politics any more. The Prime Minister saw to that. We play without a set of rules. Actually, we have all come to enjoy the game. It gets back to a government’s ingenuity in office- how it can checkmate the opposition and a future government in office. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. If Labor gets back to power its development policies will not be thwarted by the idiot behaviour of the present Government.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I welcome the Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill 1 979. It has a very important impact on my electorate as one of the two areas which will be connected to the pipeline is Cootamundra. The Young-Cootamundra- Wagga pipeline concept goes back many years. Long negotiations have been going on between the Australian Gas Light Co. and the Pipeline Authority, between the Australian Gas Light Co., Wagga and Cootamundra and between the Government and the Pipeline Authority, Wagga and Cootamundra. There was a period of suspension when the project was shelved for a time. Although they have been lengthy, the negotiations have ultimately been satisfactory for all concerned. The significance of the lateral is that it will provide a long term and assured supply of gas at stable prices. That is something which, in view of today’s energy difficulties, is welcomed greatly in Cootamundra and Wagga.

The final authorisation for this project came in the energy statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 27 June. At that stage the Government extended the concept of the lateral to include ultimately Albury and to connect Sydney and Melbourne with both Bass Strait and Moomba in what I hope will be the beginning of a gas pipeline grid in at least the eastern States. In that statement the Prime Minister also announced that the size of the line would be extended from 6 inches to 12 inches. That action again takes into account the future connection from Wagga to Albury and the linking of the two major fields with the two major capital cities. The cost of the lateral is estimated to be $ 17.5 m. At this stage I pay a tribute to the honourable member for Farrer, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who has consistently pursued this project. He deserves great credit for the ultimate result which this legislation will bring about. He has been a great inspiration to me throughout the long period of negotiations and discussions and has made my own task in supporting the project immeasurably easier. I hope- in fact I have no doubt- that the people of Wagga will appreciate the enormous and successful effort that the Minister has made on their behalf.

One of the things that goes with the pipeline construction is an environmental impact study. I was pleased to see the Press statement from the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) on 16 November 1979. He announced that the Young to Wagga Wagga natural gas pipeline would become the subject of an environmental impact statement and that once this was available public comment would be invited on the draft. This is a necessary part of the process of constructing a pipeline. I think it needs to be said that the record in an environmental sense of the Pipeline Authority has been a very good one. Today if one flies over the original Moomba to Sydney line it is almost impossible to tell where the line lies in the ground. The reconstruction of the surface has been such that unless one picks an area where the pipeline goes through a forest or something of that nature one would not know that the pipeline was there. Photographs in the sixth report of the Pipeline Authority show in graphic detail that the environmental impact of the laying of the pipeline is virtually negligible. I hope that no problems of an environmental nature will be associated with this project.

The current cost of liquefied petroleum gas to the consumer in Cootamundra is 22c a therm. It is estimated that in 1 98 1 when the gas from this pipeline will be available the cost of natural gas will be 25c a therm. We have to take into account that with the way in which LPG prices are rising the cost of LPG will probably be far in excess of 25c a therm by 1981. The benefit to Cootamundra will be not so much in cheaper energy but in the fact that once natural gas becomes available the enormous price rises that have been occurring will cease and energy costs will stabilise. I go back to what I said before. The great significance of this lateral project is that it will provide Cootamundra and Wagga with a long term, assured supply of energy at stable prices. The cost of LPG in Sydney, as I understand it, is about 5.6c a therm. In Melbourne it is about 3.6c a therm. The reason for the difference in cost between those figures and the 25c a therm which I mentioned the estimated cost to consumers in Cootamundra is the amortisation effect of the cost of the pipeline itself. Current negotiations indicate that the two councils concerned, those for the Shire of Cootamundra and the City of Wagga Wagga, will have to bear 6 1 per cent of the cost of the pipeline and that that cost will be taken over a period and included in the cost to the consumer. In that way the councils’ share of the cost of the pipeline will be recovered. But until negotiations are complete it is not possible to calculate what the final price will be.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) is making an inspection of the pipeline route next Monday by helicopter. During that inspeciton he will have discussions with the Cootamundra Shire Council at Cootamundra. I expect that the negotiations about the share of the cost of the pipeline which will be met by the two councils will be discussed at that meeting. I thank the Minister for making the inspection and for holding discussions with the members of the Cootamundra Shire Council.

The pipeline will prove to be an enormous boost both to Cootamundra and to Wagga. It is something which both areas are extremely grateful for. It will provide enormous opportunities for decentralisation and for employment not only during the construction of the line itself but also when the availability of gas will enormously enhance opportunities for industry. I take the view that this pipeline project is the most important event since the coming of the railway to this part of the world. I have enormous confidence that once this stable, long term, reliable source of energy is available we will find industries establishing along the pipeline and its laterals. In much the same way as towns and industries grew up along the railways 100 years ago, development will take place around this source of energy in the decades ahead of us.

The future is very important. I wish to say a few words about it in the short time available to me. As the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) indicated, it has been proposed for a long time that another lateral ought to be constructed through Cowra, Orange and Bathurst to Lithgow. The cost of that pipeline would be far greater than the cost of the CootamundraWagga lateral because of the terrain through which it must go. It would probably be of the order of $40m at today’s prices. There are also proposals to take a lateral from Gunning to Canberra and Queanbeyan. If that lateral is constructed there is the possibility that Yass could be connected by means of a smaller line again. I hope that when that proposal is being discussed the inclusion of Yass will be treated seriously.

The Australian Gas Light Co. in discussions that I have had with it has displayed a very cooperative attitude. It seems to me that it is very keen to sell gas as and when it can and it is very willing to do what is necessary to sell the gas. I think that what needs to happen- I would like to make a plea to the Government on this point- is that we need to free up the Pipeline Authority’s negotiating capacity so that we can get things going a lot more quickly than we have been able to in the past. Section 15 of the Pipeline Authority Amendment Act was amended in 1979 so that every individual approval now needs a specific Act of Parliament, such as the Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill before us at the moment. Although that may not necessarily be a bad thing, I think specific action needs to be taken on behalf of the Government to ensure much easier and more speedy negotiations between the Australian Gas Light Co., which has the contract for the gas, the Pipeline Authority and the people who want to purchase the gas. This would be in Australia’s long term interest. In view of the time, I now conclude my remarks.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-As the House knows, this Bill- and the Opposition does not oppose it- allows the Commonwealth Pipeline Authority to construct a pipeline from Young to Wagga and later, I hope, to Albury to join up the two major gas producing basins, that is, the Cooper Basin in South Australia, with the Gippsland field in the Bass Strait. In his second reading speech, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) said:

This would provide a measure of security of supply for the two largest cities in the Commonwealth in the event of interruption to supply from either gas field.

There is another reason why it is very important to link the Cooper Basin and the Bass Strait natural gas field. Let me explain. Australia’s natural gas reserves currently are about 885,000 million cubic metres. Of course, those reserves are from three major fields. There is the Gippsland Basin in Bass Strait of about 200,000 million cubic metres. About half that amount- some 100,000 million cubic metres- is in the Cooper Basin. Some 470,000 million cubic metres are in the North West Shelf of Western Australia. The North Rankin trend has reserves of 244,000 million cubic metres, the Angel district about 50,000 million cubic metres and the Goodwin area about 1 40,000 million cubic metres. It is important to look at that holding in the light of what I will point out.

It can be readily seen that the Bass Strait field has about twice the reserves that are in the Cooper Basin of South Australia. Despite that fact, the Cooper Basin is called upon to supply both South Australia and New South Wales. NSW will be supplied via the Moomba to Sydney pipeline of which this pipeline will be a spur and later a connecting link to Victoria. Natural gas is very important to South Australia. It provides about 35 per cent of its primary energy reserves. New South Wales currently receives 5 per cent of its energy reserves through this vital pipeline to South Australia. The Santos Company which is the operator of the Cooper Basin gas fields has contracts to supply the Pipeline Authority of South Australia with about 24,000 million cubic metres which will supply South Australia until about 1987. Similarly New South Wales is guaranteed 56,000 million cubic metres until the year 200 1 and a later option of an extra 23,000 million cubic metres until 2007. As I think has been noted earlier in this debate this means that South Australia- not Victoria or New South Wales- is the State which could be in trouble at a later date. It will need to draw its supplies after 1987 from future discoveries. I am told that Santos does feel that another 100,000 million cubic metres, or as the shadow Minister said 3.6 trillion cubic feet, could be available. The important point to remember is that it will be more expensive to extract and will come from very much smaller and deeper pools.

Though it may be possible to double the current reserves in the Cooper Basin by further exploration, it is obvious that a potentially explosive situation exists. It is impossible to envisage any government of South Australia with 35 per cent of its energy supplies coming from natural gas, presiding over a shortfall gas supply in its home State, whilst another State is provided with contracts covering another 18 years from within its home State. Given this situation and in the absence of a pipeline to the north-west of Western Australia, two vital points emerge. The pressure is now well and truly on to prove future reserves in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. Secondly- this is what I set out to prove- the Young-Albury pipeline when it is completed may well be required to supply New South Wales continually with Bass Strait gas before the year 2000.

Given the possibilities then of future shortages in the eastern States in the long term, given the need to prove up long term reserves in Western Australia and given the possibilities of producing methanol as a substitute for liquid fuels, notably petrol, it is very pertinent in this debate to examine the North West Shelf situation. Briefly, as I do not want to take up too much time, I mention that the multinational consortium proposes to drill two wells and service them from two platforms on the North Rankin field only with about 245,000 million cubic metres of reserves. It is intended to export some 70 per cent to 75 per cent of those reserves from that single field. The daily production would be 41,000 million cubic metres. The export and fuel for the liquid natural gas plant would be 31,000 million cubic metres. Western Australia, including the aluminium industry in the south west and the iron ore industry in the Pilbara, would draw 10,000 million cubic metres.

The capital expenditure is enormous. In 1978 values, it is some $3,000 billion to $4,000 billion. Of course the argument for such a high level of exports is to create an early cash flow to get a return to pay back the loans which would be required to finance this enormous development. But, remember this: Whilst we are not opposing exports, we say that a case exists for the consideration of breaking them down. If honourable members want to use the early cash flow argument, they should understand that at least twothirds of the capital expenditure is going to be provided to buy ships to export the gas and for a liquefied natural gas plant to freeze it. So the question that has to be asked is: Is it possible that it would be wiser, regarding our own long term demands, and more economical to reduce the export level now, thus guaranteeing Western Australian domestic demand for a much longer period, to have at least some future reserves for the east in the event of none proving up of further reserves in the east and to provide a feed stock for methanol production at a later date.

Let me make it clear, as the shadow Minister has on many occasions, that the Opposition’s policy is to allow exports from the North West Shelf sufficient to justify development expenditure but not more than should be allowed in the national interest, having regard to Australia’s domestic demand in hydro-carbons. In actual fact, that is the policy of the Australian Labor Party. But, having said that, I point out that there is now a case to reconsider export levels and the figure of 4.4 million tonnes of LNG a year which, instead of 6.5 million tonnes, would reduce exports by about a third- that is, about 47 per cent of the North Rankin trend would be exported instead of 70 per cent to 75 per cent which is currently proposed. Really, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government and West Australian Government, instead of getting mixed up in hysterical arguments and accusations whether exports will be allowed, to consider what we are saying here. There does seem every reason to cater for increased Western Australian demand for natural gas above 10,000 million cubic metres a day. Western Australia is deficient in coal resources and is highly dependent upon imported fuel oil for power generation. It is argued that natural gas is a prime energy resource and ought not to be used for power generation. The Federal and West Australian Governments propose to allow up to 75 per cent to be exported- but most of it for what? It is for power generation in Japan.

Let me name the utilities. They are Tohoku Electric; Tokyo Electric; Chubu Electric; Kansai Electric; Chugoku Electric; Shikoko Electric; Kyushu Electric; Tokyo Gas; and Osaka Gas. More than 60 per cent of the regasified LNG will be used in Japan for electricity generation. In my opinion, iron ore producers in the Pilbara, alumina producers in the south-west, and the West Australian Electricity Commission, are as entitled to use Western Australian gas for power generation as are the Japanese. It is a far better option than Sir Charles Court’s proposal for a nuclear power station. In the circumstances it is totally irresponsible of the Premier of Western Australia to be even talking about a nuclear power station, when it has been proven that there is no way that a nuclear power station can be decommissioned in future, after 30 or 40 years of active life. Nor is there any way to dispose of the high level of nuclear waste.

I would suggest that a reasonable conclusion at this late stage, with the $S0m feasibility study almost completed, and given the political and employment situation in Western Australia, is that the project should proceed on a reduced export basis, that is, not more than 45 per cent of the production from North Rankin, and about a one-third reduction from what has already been proposed. As the shadow Minister said, the trans-continental pipeline is a future option to be considered if and when we get emerging gas shortages in the east and increased oil prices. A further option for a responsible Federal government to consider is, of course, a methanol plant in Western Australia, at Perth or Dampier, based on an immediate one-third reduction in proposed export levels and eventually, if and when a trans-continental pipeline is completed to Central Australia and then on to Sydney, a methanol plant in Sydney.

I wish to mention two other matters. The pricing policy of natural gas is in a shambles. At present the pricing levels are completely untenable. It is 3c a therm in Victoria and ranges from that level to a proposed equality with import parity with crude oil for Pilbarra in Western Australia; a massive 21c a therm. I understand that that is what import parity with crude oil would now be. In this situation the management of iron ore companies- particularly Hamersley Iron- might well say:

  1. . our view is that we simply can’t afford to take the risk of using Australian gas.

A price escalation formula, which is dependent upon actions taken by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, is a recipe for economic disaster. We would argue that there is no logical basis for insisting that North West Shelf gas, being supplied to Pilbara based exporters of iron ore, should be priced on the same terms as Middle East oil. Of course, that is true. Why should the Australian firms, which are trying to upgrade iron ore to increase their export level, have to pay such an enormous price for natural gas- seven times the Victorian price- when they are the closest people to the North West Shelf? They are going to pay the same price as the regasified price in Japan. I am sure that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) knows that that is true.

I am aware that other people want to speak in this debate and that I should finish before my time is up. A number of major pipelines will surely be constructed in Australia in the next few years. We should try to ensure that the maximum amount of Australian pipe is used. I know that Tubemakers of Australia is the major pipes manufacturer. It has two plants, one at Port Kembla which employs about 150 people and which produces pipes of up to 20 inches; and one at Newcastle which employs 1,800 people and which produces only six-inch pipes. That is a disgrace for a major gas and energy nation. I am told that these tubemakers will be in the race to tender for the supply of the pipe for the Young to Albury line. As yet they are not in a position to tender because they do not know what the chances of major orders might be, or whether future tenders will be accepted. We know that there is going to be a major line if the North West Shelf development goes ahead and a line is constructed from Dampier to Perth. At this stage it seems that that would require at least a 26-inch to a 30-inch pipe, and that no Australian producer would be involved. What is required immediately are negotiations between government and industry to see that industry has a chance to gear up. Industry should be instructed to gear up if we are going to have the pipelines. We have got to see that we maximise employment opportunities.

In a sense this Bill proves that the Connor national pipeline grid concept still lives on. The pipelines that now exist in Australia are, of course, Moomba to Adelaide, Moomba to Sydney with spur lines to Wollongong and Newcastle- which is under construction- and this line which will link Young to Wagga and, hopefully, eventually, Albury. The probable new pipelines are the Dampier to Perth line, and, hopefully, the Moomba to Redcliff line, if and when that much needed petrochemical plant gets off the ground.

I am surprised, and so too are many others, that the Federal Government has done virtually nothing to encourage this development in South Australia. I do not expect that the new Liberal Government in South Australia under Mr Tonkin will do much either. I have a feeling that when Labor is returned to office in South Australia in three years time that this crowd will still be talking about Redcliff and it will be up to that Labor Government to get down and do something about it. One thing is certain and that is that the fields that will be discovered in South Australia will be increasingly wetter fields which will produce increasing quantities of LPGpropane, butane, ethanol and liquid condensates. If nothing is done about Redcliff in South Australia it is virtually certain that these valuable energy and plastics reserves will simply stay in the natural gas pipeline and be consumed in Sydney and Adelaide. Eventually we might have the big one- the trans-continental pipeline.

I conclude on this note, that it is very likely that by 2000AD all or most of these pipelines will have been completed, or be under construction, and that the great dream of the national pipeline grid will then be a reality.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government which rules Australia at the moment is comprised of a group of smallminded and feeble men, dedicated to doing nothing of any significance. On any question of debate in this House the Government comes in and pours the bucket on the Whitlam Labor Government of 1972 to 1975. It is time that something was said about the positive things that the Government of 1972 to 1975 managed to achieve. I am not denying that we made some mistakes. If the people of Australia saw fit to tip us out at the ballot box, well so may it be. It is interesting to note the number of young people from schools sitting in the public galleries tonight. The voting age might reflect back to 1 972 when 1 8-year-olds were being sent to Vietnam to die in the war and they did not have a vote.

Mr Yates:

– What has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Holt will remain silent. The honourable member for Parramatta must remain relevant to the Bill.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will allow me a minute I will become very relevant to the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is required to become immediately relevant.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask only that you be patient. 1 would like to make a passing reference to the positive things that happened in that period, and just compare them with what has happened in the four years of this Government’s rule. Mr Deputy Speaker, could you, or could anybody, tell me one thing of significance that has happened in those four years that is going to be remembered as a testimony to this Government? The Government tells us loudly of its enormous effort to reduce inflation.

The Government has got inflation down from 1 2 to 1 0 per cent in four years and in so doing has doubled the number of unemployed in Australia. That is the testimony to this Government’s efficiency. The Government is dedicated to the dismantling or destruction of anything worth while in the public sector in Australia. The reason we are debating this Bill is that the legislation of May 1 978 emasculated what was one of the great public utilities in Australia, the Pipeline Authority. Because of that legislation we have to pass legislation in this House tonight- as we will have to pass a continuing series of Bills- to provide money to enable the Pipeline Authority to build even the most small linking line to the main line that was built by the great Rex Connor. That is why we are debating this measure tonight. I think that is the testimony of this Government’s small-mindedness. It sends the Pipeline Authority back to Parliament with cap in hand like a naughty school boy to get approval to build this small spur. The Pipeline Authority was a tribute to the vision of Rex Connor. I well remember that in a moment of sweet illusion to the Muses Rex Connor stood in this House one night and said: ‘Give me men of vision’. I wish there were some men of vision in this Government. I wish there were not blinkered, hooded, prejudiced little men who are dedicated to destroying the good, positive things that happened to Australia’s advantage in those years 1972-75 that the Government seems so very keen to malign. We deplore the fact that we have to come into this House tonight to try to give the Pipeline Authority the right to build this small spur.

The Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill 1979 seeks to authorise the Pipeline Authority to construct a natural gas pipeline from Young on the main Moomba to Sydney pipeline, to Cootamundra and Wagga. When completed the pipeline will carry natural gas from the Cooper Basin gas fields in South Australia. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, for very good reasons; because the vision of Rex Connor prescribed that all of these spur lines linking these other towns to the main line should be built. This Bill is implementing one of those smaller projects. The pipeline will have several advantages for the area. By improving opportunities for fuel substitution it will, to some extent, aid the cause of fuel conservation. It should also provide a stimulus to employment in the Wagga and Cootamundra areas. Given the efforts of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher)- whom I notice to be absent- to destroy whatever employment was available at the abattoir of Conkey and Sons Ltd in Cootamundra, we need some stimulus there. Perhaps the project to some extent will effect some job creation. That would also be welcome.

Whilst we are not opposed to the Bill- the construction of the pipeline is a satisfactory measure as far as it goes- we are opposed to the

Government’s energy policy in general. The Government ‘s decision to construct the Young to Wagga pipeline was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in what was termed a major energy policy statement in June of this year. In fact the statement was typical of this Government’s energy policy. We were very hard pressed to find any policy in the statement at all. The speech was largely an attempt by the Government to justify years of inactivity in promoting energy exploration and conservation and to sell to the public its one major initiative in the field, the iniquitous decision to charge import parity prices for locally produced petroleum. This is raking thousands of millions of dollars into Government coffers at the expense of the Australian motorist. If we look carefully we see that the loudly trumpeted new initiatives announced by the Prime Minister in the speech were a combination of vague half measures and policies which were suggested years ago by the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum and by several parliamentary inquiries since. Increased research funding, the reduction of the tax on liquefied petroleum gas, fuel saving campaigns in government buildings and a reduction in the sales tax charged on solar heaters are all laudable enough, but in the short term they are unlikely to have much effect on energy conservation. Even in the long term their effect will be little more than negligible. The Young to Wagga pipeline was one of the more constructive measures announced in the Prime Minister’s speech. The Opposition gives the Government at least some regard for that. In effect, the Government’s so-called major policy speech was a case of too little too late. Given that at the time it was delivered Australians were facing a fuel crisis and petrol rationing, the speech can be seen as little more than a panicked response from the Government. What is needed is a co-ordinated, national energy policy.

Such a policy is obviously lacking in relation to natural gas, which is the only concern of this Bill. Natural gas policy lies in the hands of the State governments which have been known in the past to make decisions which were more beneficial to themselves than to the nation as a whole. Largely because of this lack of a co-ordinated national policy, little has been done by the Federal Government to encourage exploration for natural gas. The deposits which have been discovered have usually occurred in conjunction with oil exploration and have represented little more than a useful fringe benefit. Yet natural gas has the potential to play a significant role in lessening

Australia’s reliance on liquid fuels and in alleviating the gradually worsening world energy crisis.

Natural gas has been used for household and commercial purposes for some time as a substitute for coal and oil. But its value to industry has been recognised only fairly recently. Natural gas can be used also as a feedstock for the manufacture of fertilisers and methanol. New techniques have been developed by which natural gas can be converted to gasolene and gasolene substitutes. Natural gas can also be used to provide heat for furnaces and to generate electricity, given sufficient reserves. Australia may even find that it represents a profitable source of export revenue. Whilst current known reserves are estimated to meet domestic demand until about the year 2000, it is generally believed that the prospects for new discoveries are high and that the potential contribution of natural gas to Australia’s energy requirements is considerable. So far very little of this potential has been realised.

In 1975-76 natural gas was used for some 8 per cent of Australia’s energy needs. It is estimated that by 1985 this figure will have increased to about 1 5 per cent. I refer anybody listening to this oration on natural gas to the speech made by our shadow Minister for minerals and energy, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. It contains much very useful information and his very prescient forecast of what Australia’s policy on natural gas should be. Australia is so well equipped with reserves of natural gas that it is in front of the rest of the world. We also have a great abundance of coal, and therefore should not be in our present energy position. The fact that we are in a nasty position is tribute to the fact that this Government really does not have an overriding energy policy.

In order fully to utilise our reserves of natural gas, the Government must act effectively to coordinate policy. It must iron out the gas price anomalies which currently exist between the States. These are causing distortions in production, consumption and investment in the energy market. Domestic gas prices should bear a realistic relationship to domestic oil prices if exploration is to be encouraged. The wastage of gas thereby should be avoided. Obviously the price of gas must remain competitive if its use as a substitute fuel is to be encouraged. The Government must also give greater attention to encouraging exploration for new natural gas deposits, especially in the south-east of Australia where known deposits are relatively scarce, and where the mass of our population lives. In addition, attention needs to be given to the best use of our natural gas reserves; for example, whether Australia would gain more from exporting our surplus supplies to offset the cost of our oil imports or from converting natural gas to methanol. All these factors must be taken into account if Australia is to take maximum advantage of its natural gas deposits.

Given the severe energy crisis which is facing the world, Australia has an obligation not only to itself but to the world to do everything in its power to promote energy exploration and conservation. This cannot be done without a coordinated and constructive approach by the Federal Government. This Government has done nothing to introduce such an approach. Its sole initiative is its major policy announcement of the construction of the Young to Wagga pipeline. This lack of action is nothing short of gross irresponsibility and it is thoroughly condemned by the Australian Labor Party. However, we do welcome the addition of this spur to the main pipeline. It is at least a step in the right direction which we hope will be followed by many others. The vision of Rex Connor which led to the formation of the Pipeline Authority and the construction of the continental pipeline in the first place, taken to its full and logical conclusion as envisaged by Connor, would see a grid covering the whole of Australia, giving all of Australia and particularly the remote areas of the country access to our great supplies of natural gas. Whilst we deplore the fact that we need to pass this Bill in the House tonight- because we feel that the 1978 legislation which virtually emasculated the Pipeline Authority should never have been passed- we at least are prepared to admit that the Government is doing something.

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 Killen) read a third time.

page 3312

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– Opposition members have been limited to 15 minutes for discussion of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1979. That is a little outrageous when one considers that six people spoke in the Senate for a total of some hours. However, the order of discussion was a matter for the Presiding Officer in the Senate as it is for you in this chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are many ramifications of land rights which can legitimately be commented on in debating this Bill. However, I must confine myself mainly to reiterating what has already been outlined in the Senate. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Government as soon as possible should extend by legislation the rights of Aborigines in the Northern Territory to Aborigines in the Australian Capital Territory ‘.

The reason for moving this amendment has been put succinctly in the Senate debate. What this amendment amounts to is that Aborigines at Wreck Bay have had their reserve land progressively whittled away in the interests of the sort of economic exploitation that has occurred in relation to Aboriginal land from the day of white settlement in this country. The Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay are the traditional owners of the land, the descendants of the traditional owners and their visitors and friends. When their land is taken from them, it it used largely for the recreation of people who do not want to settle there for such long periods as do most of the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginals there are just as entitled as the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory to have an independent determination of their attachment to the land, their traditional ownership of the land and their need for the use and development of the land.

The response of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) in the Senate was to the effect that he thought that it was more appropriate to deal with the matter as the Northern Territory Government dealt with land claims in such cities as Darwin and Alice Springs. I submit to the House that that is not an appropriate course. The whole aim and spirit of land rights legislation indicates that this land should be dealt with on the same basis as any other land which is assigned, recognised and reserved for Aborigines as their traditional land. Because of the limits of time and because I desire to leave time for other speakers to follow me in this debate, the Opposition does not propose to divide on its amendments. We believe that the divisions in the Senate indicate the position of the parties and the commitment of the Government to oppose all of our amendments. Nevertheless, we will put them to the vote merely on the voices.

I turn to the other points in the Bill to which we wish to object. I refer, first of all, to the fairly arbitrary assignment of money from the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account to the land councils of the Northern Territory on the grounds that they have had exceptional expenses. The Ranger agreement was arrived at after very expensive expert opinion had been called by the Northern Land Council. That agreement was then recognised as legitimate by the Government. It was written into the Ranger agreement that special funding would be given by the Government to cover those costs. The Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account formula is for 40 per cent of the royalty payments for minerals extracted from the land to be paid to land councils, 30 per cent to be paid to the local traditional owners of the land concerned, and the remaining 30 per cent to be paid towards the general welfare of Aborigines in the Northern Territory. That formula is to be departed from by taking some money out of the 30 per cent for the general welfare of Aborigines in the Northern Territory and giving it to the land councils to cover extra administrative costs.

If it is good enough for the Government to recognise that in the case of the Ranger agreement costs beyond that 40 per cent should have been met from other than the agreed mineral royalty payments, surely it is also good enough for other unforeseen administrative expenses to come from general government revenue and not from particular benefits that are gained under royalty agreements. Certainly, that is not laid down in the terms of the Ranger agreement, but there is an understanding which the Aborigines are entitled to have honoured in the 40:30:30 formula. In my view the Minister has not given an adequate reason why this understanding should not be recognised and honoured. There is also provision in the Bill for legal aid to be given to persons other than Aborigines who appear before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Surely, if the administrative costs of others are seen to be costs which can legitimately be met from general revenue they should not also have to come out of land council funds by manipulating the formula in relation to royalties.

The Opposition agrees with the Minister when he says that there should be funding to persons other than Aboriginals who incur legal expenses in appearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. The Minister did not spell out- if a Minister is to respond to this debate I would like him to spell it out- that among those appearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner whose legal expenses will be met by the Government will be pro-Aboriginal organisations other than land councils. Land councils have shown themselves not always to be fully apprised of the rights and interests of local traditional land owners. In fact, they have caused quite a deal of dissillusionment, particularly in the Ranger case, through their lack of communication and consultation with the traditional owners. I think it would be most appropriate if the Minister were to indicate clearly that legal assistance would be given to anyone who appeared before the Commission and who had legitimate interests on the side of the Aboriginal claimants. I refer to such organisations as the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal legal services or voluntary organisations like the Campaign against Racial Exploitation.

We appreciate the co-operation of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in accepting what he defined as the Cavanagh amendment. Senator Cavanagh, on behalf of the Opposition, suggested the amendment to him as a means of ensuring due supervision by the Parliament of changes to statutes. However, I think the Minister did not adequately explain why he does not accept a similar principle in relation to clause 6, proposed section 37A, sub-section ( 1 ), where we have foreshadowed an amendment to omit the word ‘Minister’ twice occurring and substitute the word ‘Parliament’. If it is good enough for the Parliament to supervise anything, surely it is good for it to supervise the land council reports that are proposed to be made to the Minister? I propose to discuss the amendments further at the Committee stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Wallis:

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-In the brief time I have at my disposal I would like to discuss some of the irrelevancies brought up by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). Firstly, his amendment is nonsense, and I will not worry about that. Secondly, his discussion of the move to have the Wreck Bay settlement and the Aborigines in the Australian Capital Territory included in these considerations was completely out of order. His reference to the matter in the other place was also out of order. This Bill is to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and it refers to the Northern Territory, so we will scrub -

Dr Everingham:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to rule that those remarks are out of order.

Mr Killen:

– Why?

Dr Everingham:

– The Presiding Officer in the Senate was prepared to accept the amendment. I have heard no objection from any other source. It is my understanding that the Tables Office has accepted my amendment. I have accepted its advice and, as far as I am concerned, it is open to any member to move any amendment that comes within the ambit of the Bill, no matter what the title.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Ruling on the point of order, I believe that this debate is a free-ranging one that could encompass most arguments regarding Aboriginal land rights.

Mr CALDER:

– I represent the Aborigines and the other people who live in the Northern Territory. This Bill refers to my people in the Northern Territory and therfore I raise these points. As the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) stated, the point of this Bill is to clarify the intention of some sections of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and to give assistance in certain cases to people who are drawn into litigation which has been caused by that Act. The Act brought about situations such as the Borroloola land claim. The whole of Australia, and certainly the Parliament and the Opposition, looked at that situation and said: ‘It is the big companies that are asking for assistance from the Government’. But most of the station owners in that area and most of the fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria area are battlers. They were lined up against the Commonwealth Government and the Department of the Northern Territory, and all the legal aid which was bought and paid for by the Commonwealth Government, was on the side of the Aborigines.

As one who has lived and worked with Aborigines for 40 years, I know that they are a very fair and understanding people. In the face of what has been perpetrated in what one might call the Utopia land case, and this all pertains to this Act and the remarks that were made at great length in the Senate- 45 minutes a throw; good heavens!- the Aborigines said: ‘We would like to be the same as white people of Central Australia. We want to run our station’. I bring up this matter because of the misrepresentation by the Australian Labor Party, the media, and by other people, who consider that they are the ones who should interpret what Aborigines wish. Another example is Tea Tree station. Their objections are actually in the form of petitions they virtually say the same thing. The say: ‘We have a good property, we have a good manager, and we want to run this place ourselves for Aboriginal people’. When we are considering legislation such as this, those are the sorts of attitudes that should be taken into consideration.

This Bill is to give effect to the decision to grant financial assistance in certain cases to people who wish to be represented at future hearings before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. There are various other people living in the sticks. There are the Farrands at Rabbit Flat, which is some 300 miles northwest of Alice Springs, and the Savage family at ‘Supplejack’ station, some 40 or 50 miles north of the Farrands. Aboriginal land claims were made over their pieces of land and they had to front up to the courts and pay the legal expenses. These people are battlers and they were scrounging to get the money to pay those legal expenses. This Bill supports people such as the fishermen at Borroloola whom I mentioned and others in various areas around the Northern Territory, and I say the Northern Territory reservedly because this Bill refers to the Northern Territory, regardless of the remarks made by the honourable member for Capricornia, who is sitting at the table. The Borroloola land claim once again was objected to by the advisers and urgers who were trying to get the Aborigines to block access across the Borrolooa common, which runs from the hinterland to the McArthur River. That brings the Aborigines into conflict with the other people, whites or whoever they may be in the Northern Territory. Once again, that is something which the Aborigines themselves do not wish, and they say that over and over again.

In the truncated time available to me I would like to mention something which backs up that statement absolutely and very strongly indeed. I have in my hand a letter written by a man 1 have known for 13 years or 14 years and for whom I have great respect, David Burramarra, M.B.E., Chairman of the Mala Leaders Council, Galiwin’ku, Elcho Island. I address my remarks not just to members of the Labor Party but also to anyone who deals with Aborigines. I speak as a fellow who has lived in Aboriginal areas for 40 years, as someone who has lived with the people and as someone who knows people such as this man. Burramarra said:

There are many branches and organisations concerned with Aboriginals, such as the NLC, the NAC, the Institute Tor Aboriginal Studies and many others, each one of these-

Let us face the fact that all members of the Labor Party imagine that they are doing something for the Aborigines. I leave my comment at that. They imagine they are doing something for the Aborigines. Burramarra continued:

Each one of these are good on their own and they try to help us-

Further on, Burramarra said:

Some Aboriginal people have been given recognition by our Government-

I repeat that Burramarra has an M.B.E. Another Aboriginal who has been recognised is Nangiwarra of Groote Eylandt. Although I cannot think of the names of Aboriginals who have received awards, there are several. They are the leaders in their communities. They are potential leaders on a wider stage but to some extent they are being cut down not only because of our politics but also because of their own politics. Burramarra said:

  1. let’s look to these people who have been recognised.

That is, he is asking us as the Parliament, not as political parties, to liaise with those people who are the leaders. In this article entitled ‘A Mirror to the Man’, Burramarra said: . . look at ourselves truly and openly in this mirror-

That is what we can do in this place:

Then let’s look at one another, faults and merits belong to all men, white or black or brown or yellow, let’s look at our faults and merits, put things right and start along the road walking hand in hand and side by side . . .

This is the point I am making to the members of not just the Labor Party but also my own party and anyone who is interested or thinks he is interested or tries to be interested or, if I may say so, tries to bluff other people that he is interested in the welfare of Aborigines. We should start along the road walking hand in hand and side by side, not as two people but as one people with one country. David Burramarra, M.B.E. , from Elcho Island, writes:

  1. . but as one people with one country, AUSTRALIA!

That is the message of a learned man.

Mr John Brown- Does Joh Bjelke-Petersen know about this?

Mr CALDER:

– I consider that interjection to be complete and utter rubbish. It indicates to me that the honourable member knows nothing and cares nothing about Aborigines.

Mr John Brown- You are scared of Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Mr CALDER:

– I am telling you -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will address his remarks through the Chair. I invite the honourable member for Parramatta to cease interjecting.

Mr CALDER:

-Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have expected to hear that from the honourable member for Parramatta and that is exactly what I would have expected from the Labor Party. But I would not expect to hear it from the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham), a former Labor Minister who is sitting at the table because he understands the plight of the Aborigines. The honourable member’s cohorts are completely ignorant of the position. I appeal to the Parliament and to the nation to pay attention to these remarks of Burramarra. This Bill aims to help Aborigines and whites- claimants and defendants- to live together. That is why I have participated in this debate.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-In speaking to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, I refer to the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham). I will not read the amendment but it does refer to Commonwealth Government land in Jervis Bay in the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that under Australian Capital Territory legislation Aboriginals cannot get land in these areas other than by lease. I am told that one of the problems is that although Aboriginals can get a lease on land any area which is a burial area is excised from the lease. I am told that in the Australian Capital Territory leases are not issued for cemeteries. That means that Aborigines cannot get control of their burial grounds which are of great significance to them. Nevertheless, I support the amendment.

The Labor Party introduced the land rights legislation in 1975 following the Woodward report. That legislation was before the Parliament when the Whitlam Labor Government was dismissed by the Governor-General in 1975. The incoming Liberal-Country Party Government introduced its own style of land rights legislation. Although that legislation did give effect to many of the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward, there were some differences of opinion between the two parties. I think it can be said in all fairness that, although we differ on the emphasis in and the areas dealt with by the legislation on the question of land rights there has over the last four or five years been what could in some respects be called a bipartisan policy. I hope that that continues in the interests of the Aboriginal people. It would enable the implementation of what was in effect recommended in the Woodward report. People can talk about health, education, housing and all sorts of things but unless the Aboriginal people who still live in tribal communities are given land rights the other things do not seem to matter a great deal. Land to Aborigines is their religion. Their whole lifestyle is concerned with land. Unless they are able to control their land, the other things do not seem to matter so much.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) in his speech in the other place said:

The view was taken by Mr Justice Woodward in his report- he was asked to report only on the Northern Territory- that an examination of the State position would take much longer but that what was done in the Northern Territory would provide something of a precedent. So far, it has not provided a precedent in the sense of complementary legislation being enacted in the States.

Various means are being adopted by State governments to ensure that Aboriginals have secure access to land. In each State the Commonwealth has taken a positive interest in encouraging State action. In New South Wales an inquiry is under way at the moment. In South Australia legislation is proposed. I have had talks with the South Australian Government on that.

The Minister went on to talk about what has happened in Victoria and Tasmania. The area to which I wish to refer, because I have a great interest in it, is that which is occupied by the Pitjantjatjara. We all know that the Pitjantjatjara occupy an area of land that includes not only the Northern Territory but also the State of South Australia and Western Australia- the south-west corner of the Northern Territory, the north-west corner of South Australia and the middle-eastern border of Western Australia. I understand that there have been attempts to get the Commonwealth Government and the two States to agree on a central area for the Pitjantjatjara which would satisfy their land rights claims.

A number of years ago the South Australian Labor Government took the first step in establishing land rights for Aboriginals when it set up the Aboriginal Lands Trust in that State. The role of the Trust was pretty limited. Although its work was effective in the southern areas of South Australia the legislation did not apply to the tribal areas in the north-west of that State. So it was necessary for other legislation to be introduced to give effect to land rights claims in a way similar to that which the Commonwealth Government has introduced for the Northern Territory. These people in the northwest area of my State and of my electorate are still in a highly tribalised state. Their tribal organisation still operates. Their whole lifestyle evolves around the tribe. But of course, as I said, the land trust legislation was not sufficient to cover that aspect. It is rather odd that the people over the border in the Northern Territory, the

Pitjantjatjara people, can make application to the Land Commissioner and be given land in that area. I should imagine that quite a lot of that area is under the control of the Land Council. Steps are being taken in South Australia in this regard and I shall refer to that matter later. I understand that in Western Australia proposals were put to the Western Australian Government for the Government to allocate land to the Aboriginals in that area occupied by the Pitjantjatjara people, but the Premier of that State rejected the proposal.

The South Australian Government introduced what was called the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Bill. That Bill created some opposition amongst some vested interests, big pastoralists and so forth. Finally that Bill was referred to a select committee. That select committee considered the Bill and came down with some recommendations. As a result, some minor changes were made to the Bill. Of course with the defeat of the Labor Government in South Australia a couple of months ago, that Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Bill has now lapsed. So there is a bit of concern as to the attitude that the new Government in South Australia will take. Although that Government has said that it will introduce a new Bill, it is quite obvious from a statement made by the South Australian Premier, Mr Tonkin, that it will be a watered down Bill. Of course the question of mineral rights will be given attention. In the previous Bill at least the Aboriginals had some say as to who was going to roam over their land. From the remarks made by the present Premier of South Australia and by the Liberal member representing that area, there is a possibility that mineral rights will be excluded from the .operations of the new Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Bill when it is introduced.

I mentioned earlier that the Minister had had discussions with the States. I hope that in his discussions with the new South Australian Government he will do his utmost to see that this question of mineral rights is not taken out of the Bill for these people who, as I say, are still in a tribalised state. They are now receiving some interest from prospectors and so forth. They do not want to see people roaming all over their land without permission. If people think there are minerals in those areas, I do not think it unreasonable that they should get the permission of the Aboriginal people to prospect. I do not think that is a harsh condition to put on any prospector. But we are concerned at present that in the new Bill this provision may be weakened and the Aboriginals themselves will have no say as to who goes on their land prospecting for minerals.

I have been up there on a number of occasions. I was up there only two months ago. I attended meetings and I know that the Aboriginal people there are very worried about this matter. I conclude on that point. I sincerely hope that the Federal Minister, in his discussions with the South Australian Government, will ensure that the full rights of these people are protected and that he will use his influence with the South Australian Liberal Government to see that they are protected in a manner similar to the way in which the rights of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory have been protected.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

Clause 3 (Recommendations for grants of Crown land, other than that described in Schedule 1 ).

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-We are proposing that the clause be omitted. I propose that we divide on it unless there is an explanation from the Government. If the Government does not have a specific explanation to counter our contentions, then I will ask for a division on this clause. The reason for our wanting to omit the clause is simply that it gives to the Minister a discretion to vary the findings of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in one direction only and that is, against the Aboriginal claimant. It does not give him a discretion to increase the claim put by the Aboriginal claimant against the finding of the Commissioner. We believe that it is a one-sided provision and that it is contrary to any concept of independent arbitration. It is quite understandable that the Minister may, on occasions, want to agree to part of the claim being allowed and not other parts, but unless the Government can assure us that a disallowed claim can be made again on another occasion- I have had occasion to ask the Minister for an assurance on this, which he has not given me in the past- we must oppose this clause. For example, in the case of Borroloola, there was a disallowance by the Commissioner of part of the land claim. The Minister has still not stated whether an opportunity will be afforded to the claimants to prepare a more detailed, revised claim on the parts of the claim that were disallowed. The Opposition opposes clause 3.

Question put-

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Annual Report by Land Councils).

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I move:

Clause 6, page 2, proposed section 37a, sub-section ( 1 ), omit’ Minister’ (twice occurring), substitute ‘Parliament’.

As I explained at the second reading stage we believe that financial statements coming from land councils should be open to the perusal of the Parliament, an elected body, and not just a member of the Executive. In view of the stringencies of time on the debate we have agreed not to divide on this clause but the Opposition stands by this amendment as it did in the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 13- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 14 (Certain payments to be deemed to be, and to have been validly made).

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-As I indicated in the second reading discussion we do not believe that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who represents in this chamber the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has adequately explained this clause. We believe that the original funding formulas are the most appropriate for funding land councils. We do not propose to divide and detain the Committee but we request that the Minister review the question raised by this final clause.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3318

PLANNING IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: REPORT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ministerial Statement

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– by leave- On 9 October I indicated to the House that I would shortly be in a position to make known the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory relating to planning procedures and processes in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was tabled in both Houses on 4 April 1979. The report of the Committee is wideranging and thorough and it deals with a matter of importance for the future direction of the Australian Capital Territory. I congratulate the Committee on the report. The subject matter of the inquiry has presented to the Committee some challenging issues which it has met forthrightly and, I venture to say, wisely. It has made some 25 recommendations and I am pleased to announce that the Government has found only 5 of these unacceptable. It would be a formidable task for me to detail the Government’s attitude in relation to the recommendations and accordingly I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a summary of the recommendations and the Government’s proposals in relation to them.

Leave granted.

Summary of Recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the A.C.T. relating to Planning Procedures and Processes and Government’s Response Thereto

  1. LEASEHOLD PROVISIONS

Recommendation Al “Lease purpose clauses continue to be the basis of development control in the Australian Capital Territory. “

Supported. This is basic to the leasehold system of land tenure in use in the Territory.

Recommendation A2 (a) “Applications under section 10 of the City Area Leases Ordinance for temporary non-conforming use by bona fide residents should be made to the Department of the Capital Territory rather than the Minister as at present. “

Supported Applications are presently received by the Department and handled under authority delegated by the Minister except in contentious cases where, because no right of appeal is available from a decision, the matter is placed before the Minister.

Recommendation A2 (b) “Section 1 lA of the City Area Leases Ordinance should continue to be the provision under which a land use change is sought.”

Supported but amendment of the legislation to implement new arrangements is required.

Recommendation A2 (c) “Applications to vary lease clauses under section 1 lA of the City Area Leases Ordinance should be made to the Department of the Capital Territory rather than the Supreme Court.”

Supported. Amendments to the City Area Leases Ordinance will stipulate that a variation which conflicts with N.C.D.C. Policy cannot be granted by the Department. A right of appeal from the applicant or third parties against the Department’s decision will be available. Amendment of the City Area Leases Ordinance is required.

Recommendation A2 (d) “Section 11a of the City Area Leases Ordinance be amended to ensure the full recovery by the Commonwealth of any increment arising from change of land use. ‘ ‘

Not supported. At present a charge is payable equal to half the increment in added value less $1,500. The 50:50 sharing of the increment in value was adopted in 1971 after lengthy debate inside the Department and with private enterprise bodies and is seen as fair to both parties.

The Joint Committee’s recommendation does not take account of the higher risk to investors in most redevelopment proposals. Adoption of the recommendation would constitute an unnecessary disincentive at a time when Canberra is in need of development incentives.

No change to present arrangements is proposed.

Recommendation A2 (e) “There should be a right of appeal by both the applicant and third parties against decisions made on these applications.”

See Recommendations A2 (c).

Supported. In the case of applications under section 1 1 a of the City Area Leases Ordinance it will be necessary to ensure that variations cannot be granted in cases where there is a conflict with planning policy.

Recommendation A3 “Section 9a of the City Area Leases Ordinance be amended to provide that:

  1. the Minister or the Department of the Capital Territory acting on his delegation should serve on a person in contravention of a lease, notice of intention to enforce the lease provision unless the illegal use is terminated within a specified time.
  2. failure to comply with the notice of intention would then become the basis for ensuing prosecution.
  3. substantial fines be the penalty for the offence.
  4. continued failure to comply should lead to termination of the lease under section 22 of the Ordinance. “

Not supported. The current provision was incorporated into the legislation in 1977 after considerable controversy. It was put in its present form at the insistence of the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The Senate Committee opposed previous arrangements which invoked criminal sanctions on the grounds that the basis of land use control in the A.C.T. is contractual and that civil procedures are the appropriate means for enforcement.

Acceptance of the Joint Committee’s recommendation would again bring the issue under criminal jurisdiction and lead to possible further conflict with the Senate Committee.

The legislation is working effectively and unless problems arise in future no change to the present legislation is proposed.

Recommendation A4 “Section 10 of the City Area Leases Ordinance be enforced both as to duration and the need to be a bona fide resident.”

Supported. This is the present practice.

Recommendation A5 “A land use tribunal be established.”

The concept of appeals in relation to land use is supported in principle. It is proposed to provide a right of appeal on the following land use and development control decisions made under A.C.T. Ordinances:

Decisions of the Department in respect of applications made by bona fide residents under section 10 of the City Area Leases Ordinance for approval to conduct a profession trade or occupation from a dwelling.

Decisions of the Department in respect of applications for a variation of purpose of lease.

Decisions of the Department in cases where using the powers contained in a covenant of lease, approval to construct or alter a building was withheld.

Decisions of the National Capital Development Commission in respect of applications to refuse to grant approval of a building proposal in respect of siting and external design and decisions granting approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

Decisions of the Building Controller under the Building Ordinance related to: refusal to approve building plans and specifications; refusal to grant or cancellation of a builder’s licence; issue of a stopwork or demolition order.

Amendment to Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance, Building Ordinance and City Area Leases Ordinance will be required. Consideration is currently being given as to what is the most appropriate avenue of appeal.

Recommendation A6

Action be taken to improve liaison and co-operation between the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory to overcome problems of co-ordinating land planning and management. ‘

Supported. This has always been an objective. Positive steps have been taken, including establishing regular liaison meetings between the Secretary of the Department, the Commissioner of the N.C.D.C., and senior officers. The Canberra Development Board has been established on the basis of co-operative arrangements to co-ordinate development promotion in the Australian Capital Territory.

Recommendation A7

Government departments and instrumentalities be obliged to conform with statutory planning provisions and lease purpose clauses ‘.

Supported. It is proposed to issue leases to statutory authoritities occupying land in the Australian Capital Territory to bring these land uses under normal land use and development controls. In the case of land occupied by departments and non-statutory bodies new administrative arrangements will be implemented.

  1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Recommendation Bl

To make public participation more effective the Minister for the Capital Territory:

  1. develop a programme to inform the community of the objectives, procedures and language of planning so that the participation of the community in planning will become increasingly informed and instructive; and
  2. ensure that the planners are trained in the skills of communication with the public and to recognise the range of values in the community for which they are planning’.

Supported. N.C.D.C. public information and publication programmes have this objective. Training programmes are being implemented to improve communication skills of planners.

Recommendation B2

There should be provision for the Minister for the Capital Territory and the Government to be informed of local views on future works. To enable this to happen at an early stage the Committee recommends that the three-year proposals and any firm long term programmes of N.C.D.C. should be tabled in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly which could report to the Minister making recommendations. ‘

Supported in principle. It is proposed that discussions first be held with the Department of Finance as to the extent to which the disclosure of financially relevant information might preclude the identification of programme detail.

  1. STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Recommendation C1

The National Capital Development Commission Act be amended so that N.C.D.C. ‘s role with respect to planning and development of the City of Canberra be extended to include the whole of the Australian Capital Territory. ‘

Supported. Amendment of the National Capital Development Commission Act is required.

Recommendation C2

The National Capital Development Commission Act be amended to provide for a system of Structure and Development Plans.’

Supported in principle. The Committee’s description of Structure and Development Plans and their content is similar to that presented by N.C.D.C. in its submission to the Committee in 1977.

The Commission has further developed its Plans System and the current Policy Plans which are progressively being prepared and made public, cover the intent and content of the Structure and Development Plans recommended by the Committee.

Policy Plans identify the Commission’s commitment to land use policy. They are not related to a time scale but focus on areas where there is an intention to change from the existing land use. Policy Plans can be prepared at the appropriate metropolitan, town, district, local or site specific level. They take into account the physical, economic and social structure of the area under consideration and provide the context for future development decisions.

The N.C.D.C. Plans System is being implemented. To give effect to the Committee’s recommendation procedures governing the preparation, exhibition and ministerial endorsement of Policy Plans will be prescribed by regulations made under the N.C.D.C. Act. It is proposed to retain existing procedures under the Seat of Government Act for the gazettal of the Plan of Layout of Canberra.

Recommendation C3

The responsibilities of the Minister for the Capital Territory, as final arbiter in the preparation of the plans, be set out in the legislation.’

Not supported. It is proposed the existing system of shared responsibility between the Parliament, the National Capital Development Commission and the Minister for planning of the National Capital will be retained.

Recommendation C4

Under the legislation the Minister for the Capital Territory be responsible for securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a comprehensive policy with respect to the use and development of all land in the Australian Capital Territory in accordance with the Structure and Development Plans for the Australian Capital Territory.’

Not supported. It is proposed existing Ministerial and N.C.D.C.responsibilities for ensuring consistency and continuity will be retained.

  1. LAND USE TRIBUNAL

The Committee recommends that a land use tribunal be established.’

Supported in principle. See statement in relation to Recommendation AS.

Recommendation Dl

All relevant Australian Capital Territory ordinances and other laws relating to the Australian Capital Territory should be reviewed and amended where appropriate so that, as far as is practicable, matters concerning land use in the Australian Capital Territory should be able to be taken on appeal to the proposed land use tribunal and so that the ordinances and laws are consistent with the Committee’s other recommendations in this report. ‘

Supported in principle.

Recommendation D2

Matters which are open to appeal to the land use tribunal should not at the same time be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. ‘

Noted. See comments on Recommendation AS.

  1. COMMUNITY COUNCILS

Recommendation El “The establishment of community councils on a voluntary basis.”

Supported.

Recommendation E2 “That the Minister for the Capital Territory propose the establishment of community councils and suggest the appropriate geographic areas that would constitute ‘communities’, the population that should be covered and functions to be administered.”

Not supported. While establishment of community councils on a voluntary basis is supported, the A.C.T. House of Assembly provides a formal forum for presentation of community views.

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Recommendation Fl “The operations of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act be examined in relation to the proposals put forward in this report for the preparation of Structure and Development Plans.”

Supported. Work is proceeding on the preparation of Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of Science and the Environment and both the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission.

G.

REGIONAL PLANNING

Recommendation Gl “The Commonwealth Government and the State Government of New South Wales give immediate attention to the establishment of a regional advisory body for the South East Region of New South Wales and the A.C.T. as recommended by the South East Region Joint Steering Committee.”

Recommendation G2 “Both Governments concerned table in their respective Parliaments a statement on joint policy for the region before the conclusion of the 32nd Commonwealth Parliament.”

The recommendations have been noted by the Government. Discussions at officer level with the New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission are proceeding.

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

– The implementation of the proposals which have been accepted is, of course, the next step in the process. Some of the proposals can be put into effect immediately and relatively easily. Some have already been put into effect. Others involve the amendment of Australian Capital Territory ordinances and the National Capital Development Commission Act.

Some will have administrative and resource implications. The Parliament may nevertheless be assured that the Government, within its capacity, will work speedily towards the implementation of the recommendations to which it has agreed. It looks forward to a continuing fruitful relationship with the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I present the following paper:

Report on planning in the Australian Capital TerritoryGovernment response- Ministerial Statement, 2 1 November 1979.

Motion (by Mr Peacock) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I think the motion proposed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) would prevent the Opposition from commenting on the statement by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott).

Mr Ellicott:

– You go ahead.

Mr INNES:

-The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) interrupts me to say that I can proceed, but the Opposition wishes to state some objections to the procedures that have been adopted. They have put the Opposition at a disadvantage in replying to this ministerial statement. I could have made a brief statement by leave and then the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) could have moved that the House take note of the statement. That would have given other members of the Joint committee on the Australian Capital Territory, and myself the opportunity to speak to the statement at some later time when we had more time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

It is my understanding that the debate may continue after the honourable member makes his observations tonight.

Mr INNES:

– Let me enlarge on what I am saying. This statement was erroneously presented in the Senate this afternoon, not by the responsible Minister, but by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) without the prior knowledge of the Chairman of the Committee or any other honourable member on the Committee. We cannot help it if the intelligence of the Minister for Science and the Environment is such that he may have disregarded advice, or acted on his own behalf in presenting the statement in the Senate; but his action placed the Opposition and, I dare say, the Minister for the Capital Territory in a most embarrassing position.

Mr Ellicott:

– Oh, no! I am never embarrassed while you are here. .

Mr INNES:

-The Minister says that it did not. That must be the understatement of the century. That might be a cynical or wisecrack remark, but the fact is that we were not given sufficient opportunity to examine the statement before it was read by the Minister. It was presented in the Senate and the Opposition spokesman there was not given the courtesy of sighting it beforehand. Surely that was an unprecedented action in this Parliament. Because of that action the Opposition has been placed at a disadvantage. In fact, our Whip supplied us with copies of the statement just prior to the House suspending the sitting for the dinner. On the eve of the closing of the Parliament for the year, a ministerial statement is made on this matter. We have many criticisms to make concerning the actions of the Government and many things to say about the Committee’s recommendations and the lack of Government action on them. In the main, the Committee’s recommendations have been totally ignored. The Government has had the Committee’s report for seven months. The Government is obliged to respond to committee reports within six months of their tabling. That is the deadline. In this case the Government has exceeded the deadline by one month and on the eve of Parliament rising for the Christmas break the Government ‘s response is presented in haste.

Mr Ellicott:

– I announced my intention on 9 October.

Mr INNES:

-On 9 October the Minister did say that he would endeavour to make the Government’s response known before the end of the year. He did not say that he would do it at the eleventh hour. It might not have been worse if he had made his announcement tomorrow at 4.55 p.m. and the Parliament rose at S p.m. But in effect, we have not been given much more time than that notwithstanding the fact that the Minister indicated he would make every effort to report to the Parliament on the Government’s response before Parliament rose.

I am critical of the Minister’s actions because the Committee has not been given sufficient notice of the Government’s response and is not able to seek clarification on why some of its recommendations have been rejected. It is all very well for the Minister to come here and to say that only five of the Committee’s recommendations are unacceptable. The report was the unanimous report of members from both sides of the Parliament. It is misleading to say that there are only five unacceptable recommendations. That may be a statement of fact, but only 1 1 of the recommendations have been supported without qualification, and a further five are unacceptable.

New arrangements are to be made. The Minister has not elaborated on these matters. He has read a one page covering letter attached to the summary of recommendations and the Government’s decisions on those recommendations. There is nothing more than that. Five of the recommendations have not been accepted in principle and three are to be noted. As far as the Opposition is concerned, very few legislative policy changes will result from the support of 1 1 recommendations. Two recommendations are supported because they represent the present situation. Seven are supported only in principle. One example is recommendation Bl. However various parts of these recommendations involve little or no change whatsoever.

This great statement by the Minister means very little or nothing. Even though accepting the Committee’s recommendations could have involved much more, it seems to me that the Committee ‘s deliberations deserve better consideration than they have received. I put it to the Minister that he should have a meeting with the Committee as soon as practicable to show why the Committee’s recommendations were rejected and to give some reason for the attitude of the Government in this matter. If the actions of the Minister are to be taken as an example, they make a farce of the committee system. I will not elaborate further this evening but I will have something more to say about the matter at a later stage. The Deputy Government Whip is indicating to me that I should wind up. I have always co-operated with the Whip, particularly at this time of year. But I can assure the Minister that if this matter had arisen at some other time of the year and under different circumstances I would be really giving him the treatment over the botch of the operation that has been carried out today by the Minister in tabling this statement.

I hope that the Minister is not going to have another go in the debate on this matter this evening. I would have thought that it would be far better to achieve some equity in the discussion of this matter to hear at least some other people in this Parliament who are members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and at some time in the future give the opportunity to the Parliament to discuss it. Time should be given to me, as Opposition spokesman on the Australian Capital Territory, to reply to a statement that is made in haste. It was presented in another place before the Minister tabled it here. Further, if we are to do justice to the work of the Joint Committee and other committees in this place, we ought to be given the opportunity in a reasonable way to receive reports and to comment on them. Moreover, sufficient time should be given for us to look at them intelligently and then to respond. If we are to carry out the work of this Parliament properly, that should be done. It will be intolerable if the Minister is to have a second go at this matter after the brief statement that he has made. He made a botch of presenting it to Parliament and he now stands over the people who worked on the Committee and who would like to respond to the principles contained in the recommendations. I ask the Minister to allow some time in the future for the debate of these reports. In the meantime he should give the Committee that courtesy and an opportunity to hear why some of the recommendations were rejected.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I make some brief comments on the statement by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott). I am very concerned about the procedure that has been adopted in this situation. It is a very irregular procedure, to say the least, that a statement brought down by a Minister in this House should be tabled in the other place without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory or the Deputy Chairman or of any member of the Committee. The Chairman may be happy about it, but I can assure honourable members that, as Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I am very unhappy about it.

In the way in which this statement has been presented, I think the Minister has treated the Committee and the Parliament with contempt. I did not sight the statement until a few minutes ago. The Minister said that 20 of the 25 recommendations included in the report have been adopted. Of course, that is not the point. It is the ones that have not been adopted that are important. He has adopted all the less important recommendations but the rather more important ones, the ones that are most significant in terms of the commercial aspects of the leasing system in Canberra, are the ones that he has not adopted. These are the recommendations that we are all very concerned about.

In his statement, of course, he says that the implementation is the next process. He said that there will be some resource implications. That is a polite way of saying that, because of staff ceilings, many of these recommendations which have been adopted will not be implemented. We know how long it takes to get legislation prepared in the Department of the Capital Territory. Some of it has been going on for years and years and years. Now the Minister is making the very significant statement that there will be administrative resource implications. Why does the Minister not say that the Department does not have enough staff facilities? Staff ceilings prevent it from carrying out the recommendations. Do not let us have this humbug about administrative resource implications. The problem is that there has been a very long-lasting problem with important legislation concerning the administration of Canberra. Here we are to have further delays. The Minister is practically admitting that he will not be able to implement a lot of these recommendations because of the implications.

I know we have not much time for this debate tonight. I think he has treated the Committee with contempt. I think he should come back to the Committee and let the Committee have the opportunity of commenting on the particular proposals that he is not prepared to accept, particularly the proposals about community participation and community councils. The Minister says that these proposals are accepted in principle but he is not prepared to take any intiative to set them up. The Committee took the initiative and made specific recommendations about setting up community councils. It is not good enough for the Minister to say: ‘Yes, we accept them in principle but we are not going to do anything about them’. Certainly the Committee said they should be voluntary but the Minister should spell out some guidelines and define areas and then leave it to the communities concerned to set up those councils.

I register my protest at the procedure and the way in which this matter has been dealt with. I think it is most irregular for the Minister’s statement to be tabled in the other place first without advising the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman or anybody else on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will do something to give the Committee further opportunity to consider these proposals which the Government has rejected.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3323

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANBERRA

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to deal with an answer to a question which I gave this morning. I feel I should correct part of that answer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister may proceed.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– This morning in answer to a question from the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) regarding a project by Jobless Action which it wishes to undertake at the

Ainslie bus depot, I said that the Government was having expressed to it objections from the unions and also that others in the community had some worries about the project. At the time when I answered that question, my recollection was that I had been told that it had run into opposition from the unions. I have clarified the information that I had. The information I had was that that project may produce opposition from the unions. I clarify that aspect of the answer so that honourable members will be aware as soon as possible of the true position.

page 3323

CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-This debate embraces two Bills, the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3). It is the first of these Bills which is of major significance and on which I wish to make most of my remarks. The purpose of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill is to enact changes in the rates of coal export duty announced by the Treasurer in the 1979-80 Budget and the subsequent changes announced by the Minister for Trade and Resources on 25 October this year. The decision announced in the Budget was to decrease the rate of duty on high quality coking coal from $3.50 a tonne to $ 1 a tonne for coal produced from an underground mine, from a new mine commencing production after 30th June 1980, and from a major extension to an existing mine if production commences after 30th June next year.

This Bill also legislates for the changes announced by the Minister for Trade and Resources ( Mr Anthony) in October. These changes provide that coal with an ash content of more than 12 per cent will be exempt from duty and also reduces the rate of duty from $3.50 a tonne to $ 1 a tonne for coal mined from depths of more than 60 metres. These decisions became effective on 1 November. The Opposition opposes this Bill for the same reasons as it opposed similar legislation in 1976 and 1977. In 1976 1 stated:

The Opposition opposes this legislation . . . primarily because the Government has not announced its intention of introducing a tax measure as a substitute for the present coal export levy.

This remains the case today. The situation is even worse now because this Government has progressively decreased the level of duty payable. The present method of taxing the coal industry is inequitable and indiscriminate and the decreases in the coal export levy provided for in this Bill mean that the Australian public will receive an unfair return from highly profitable coal ventures. This industry is healthy enough to sustain a selective tax to increase the return to the Australian people. The Opposition is of the view that existing duty arrangements should be abolished and replaced with a resources rent tax, or secondary profits tax of some sort, which takes into account the level of profitability of each venture. For this reason, on behalf of the Opposition, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that the existing coal export levies are indiscriminate and unworkable and their variations have resulted in a lower level of receipts from highly profitable coal ventures than would have been the case had a profits related taxing mechanism been established, and therefore calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to abolish the coal levies and replace the same with a resource rent tax which takes into account the real level of costs and profit’.

Since 1976 the Opposition has been arguing consistently for the introduction of a profit related taxing mechanism which would discriminate between high and low cost coal mining operations. We recognise that the coal levy has imposed a burden on some marginal producers, particularly underground mines in New South Wales. But this is no reason for decreasing the rates of duty as is now being applied by the Government. In fact, this is an argument for a taxing mechanism which takes production costs into account. Under such a system high cost operations would pay little or no tax, while highly profitable ventures would provide some return to the Australian public over and above company tax. By decreasing the duty rates, the Government is not only assisting marginal mines but is giving a significant amount of money to the highly profitable operations. This is further evidence of the political favours this Government is prepared to bestow on coal mining operations, particularly the highly profitable ones operating in Queensland.

How can the Government justify decreasing revenue collections from companies such as Utah? The Utah Development Co.’s gross profit for the year ending December 1978 was $340m, on which the company paid $1 19m in company tax and $ 13m in branch profits tax, which comes to a total of $177m, leaving $l73m after tax. That included $45m paid by way of a coal export duty levy. The Utah Development Co. pays almost half of total collections of duty under the coal export duty arrangements. So we find a company with a total asset base of $520m, earning $340m in a full year and retaining, after tax, $173m. The total asset base is $520m. I do not know whether that works out, but it is over a 30-odd per cent return after tax on that kind of asset.

In this year’s Budget the Treasurer (Mr Howard) estimated that the rate changes then announced would decrease revenue collections by about $20m in a full year. With the additional decrease in duty announced in October, this will represent an addition of revenue to Utah of over $10m. It is understandable that the Government wants to encourage the development of new mines and, therefore, has decreased the rate of duty on new mines to $1 a tonne. What about the new mines that prove to be highly profitable? The $1 a tonne rate ignores this possibility, whereas a resources rent tax would take this fact into account. Further, such a taxing mechanism would take into account the fact that costs are high in the early years of developing a mine. In these years little or no tax would be payable as large capital expenditures would be incurred, but in later years, once the major production costs have been written off, the Australian people would share in the benefits if profits proved to be exceptionally high, as has been the case with many developments in the past.

It is only reasonable that companies should pay more than just company tax when the projects have been operating for long enough to write off their capital costs and when they start producing fairly large scale profits. After all the deposits are given to the companies by a State government to be mined and exported or to be produced locally and exported, and it is, therefore, reasonable that they are not treated for tax purposes in the same way as say a manufacturing business which is not given an asset by the State. Another major reason for a resources rent tax on coal is that a very high proportion of the coal industry is indeed foreign owned. This can be easily demonstrated by looking at the major companies that are involved in the mining and export of Australian coal and the level of foreign ownership in these companies. I will now list a few of these companies. In Queensland the main producers are the Utah Development Co. which is 89.2 per cent owned by Utah International of the United States of America; Central Queensland Coal Associates, 76.25 per cent owned by Utah Development Co. and 12 per cent by Mitsubishi Development Co.; Theiss Dampier, Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd, 22 per cent owned by Theiss Holdings, which is 1 6.5 per cent owned by Shell, and 20 per cent owned by Mitsui; Collinsville Coal Co. Pty Ltd, wholly owned by Mount Isa Mines Ltd which is 49 per cent American owned.

The New South Wales producers are Bellambi Coal Co.- the Shell Co. of Australia and Mcllwraith McEacharn have recently purchased 64.8 per cent of Bellambi; Clutha Development Pty Ltd, 100 per cent owned by British Petroleum; Austen and Butta Co. Ltd, 37 per cent owned by Shell and 10 per cent by two Japanese companies; and Kembla Coal and Coke Pty Ltd, 50 per cent owned by Conzinc Riotinto of Australia. Of course, most of CRA is owned by Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation of Great Britain.

Because of this high level of foreign ownership, profits earned by many of these companies are repatriated to parent companies overseas. If the companies involved were Australian the bulk of the profits would be retained in Australia. If the benefits from developing Australian resources are to remain in Australia, a resources rent tax must be implemented. There are other measures which have been bandied about from time to time, such as a graduated withholding tax. That also is an alternative to measures such as resources tax.

Examination of the likely future of the Australian coal industry also demonstrates the need for a secondary taxing mechanism on this industry. At the moment the future for Australian coal looks very promising. Prospects for increased coking coal exports are good. The world steel market has improved significantly. For Japan, Korea and Taiwan, all significant importers of Australian coal, steel output rose by 11.7 per cent, 60.4 per cent, and 59 per cent respectively during the first half of 1979 compared with the same period in 1 978. Recent sharp increases in crude oil prices and growing uncertainties regarding the future availability of supplies have also directed increasing attention to Australian steaming coal as a source of energy.

Australian coal exports are currently running at about 38 million tonnes per year, 34 million tonnes of coking coal and about 4 million tonnes of steaming coal. By 1985, coking coal exports are expected to be between 45 million and 50 million tonnes, and steaming coal exports over 15 million tonnes. Although coal export prices have not increased in recent years in real terms, increasing demand for coal should exert upward pressure on prices.

If large profits are to be earned in the coal industry, in many cases by foreign companies, some mechanism must be established to share these profits equitably between producers and the Australian public. If coal prices fail to increase, a resources rent tax would take this into account but if, as is likely to be the case, coal prices increase, in line with oil prices, some benefit to the Australian public must be forthcoming. After all it is the people’s resources which these companies have been given to mine and export and there must be a commensurate increment to the national wealth from this activity.

A future Labor government would certainly seek to apply a resources rent tax to the coal industry. The tax would be carefully designed in consultation with the industry so that the objectives of such a tax would be met without some of the distortionary effects which can arise from taxes which are ill designed or hastily improvised. Some sections of the coal industry can afford to pay more than just company tax and, in my view, they should be obliged to do so. No sensible person believes in penalising companies to the point where development is stymied or where exploration is discouraged. But there is a sensible medium in all things. Imprudent talk by industry leaders about confiscatory policies does little to establish a sensible point of agreement between government and industry in relation to the nature and incidence of any resources tax.

Public opinion will eventually force this Government to abandon its overly protective attitude towards the coal industry. It is to be hoped that some of the more responsible elements in the Government will see the need for a proper sharing of the tax burden amongst these institutions in Australia that can afford to make a greater contribution to the nation’s wealth and so get away from the situation which we have witnessed in recent years in which the growth in tax income has come mainly from the payasyouearn category of ordinary taxpayers.

The other Bill being considered is the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3). The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I reiterate support for the amendment which I outlined and moved earlier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr West:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-The Government totally rejects the amendment. It was interesting to note from what the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said that he regarded the export levy as a tax which was ill-designed. We totally agree with him. It was an ill-designed tax introduced by his Government in 1975 during the period when the late R. F. X. Connor was Minister for Minerals and Energy. At that time the levy was $6 a ton for hard and semi-hard coking coal and $2 a ton for soft coking coal. The levy was lowered under this Government to $4.50 and $1.50 in the 1976 Budget. It was further lowered to $3.50 and $ 1 in 1977. In the 1979 Budget the levy was reduced to $ 1 a tonne for hard and semi-hard coking coal won by underground methods- the same as for soft coking coal. It seems to me that what the honourable member for Blaxland is saying in his amendment- apart from the usual antimultinational attack which has become a bit boring apart from being totally inaccurate- is that there is a balance of disadvantage to Australia by having these enormous developments in our coal industry. He is saying that there is a balance of disadvantage solely because these major corporations are being funded from overseas.

He has not proved, nor have any of the speakers on his side established, that the balance of disadvantages to Australia, which he sees as so serious that he thinks that the multinationals should not be allowed in- that is the point made by some of his colleagues- or should be taxed at punitive rates. His view, on balance, is totally opposed to the huge multinationals in the coal industry. This was established in the debate the other day.

Mr Keating:

-That is right.

Mr BAUME:

– The honourable member accepts that he is opposed to the multinationals in the coal industry. Yet if Australia did not have these multinationals we would not have the massive developments, investments and expansion that we have had in this industry which have brought such enormous benefits to Australia.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want it recorded in Hansard that I am opposed to oil companies aggregating coal profits.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr BAUME:

– I am accustomed to that kind of nonsensical interruption which has progressed every time I have spoken on coal in this House. The Opposition does not want to hear the facts on what is happening in the coal industry and it will use any device, including perpetual, phoney points of order, for the purpose of stopping me. It is interesting to see that the scheme of taxation that the honourable member for Blaxland favours involves taxing efficient producers much more than the inefficient producers. I do not think he has thought through the consequences of what he is saying. In other words if a huge Australian resource is being mined out- a wasting resource- if the person doing it is inefficient he need pay nothing, but if he is efficient he should pay through the nose. This is an interesting concept. I am interested to see that the honourable member for Blaxland embraces that concept along with his anti-multinational attitudes in regard to the coal industry.

I dramatise to this House the point that there is a good case for getting rid of the remnants of the coal export levy, and I would favour it. I believe it unfairly impacts on the soft coking coal industry. The decision to reduce the levy on hard coking coal won by underground mining has already served to bring forward the date of development of at least two New South Wales mines with a combined capacity of three million tonnes. This is the vital issue: Are we going to get more coal out of this nation and what is the best way to do it? We have not heard from the Opposition an effective and coherent way of guaranteeing the development of our resources. For three years we saw an effective way of preventing the development of those resources- by punitive taxes, by frightening investment out of this nation. We have had the experience of it.

Mr Hurford:

– Rubbish.

Mr BAUME:

– The honourable member for Adelaide said: ‘Rubbish’. Is he denying the experience of those three years? Did not all our drilling rigs leave Australia? All those things are part of a non-fact, are they? The facts are that investment in our resources during the disastrous period of the Labor Government was decimated. 1 repeat that the essential thing which we cannot forget is the absolute need to guarantee that there is going to be development and expansion in our resources industries, particularly in the coal industry and more particularly in the south western region and the southern region of New South Wales. I want to dramatise the fact that unless this development can be achieved and the coal taken out of this nation we will not get the benefits of increased employment, increased tax on the profits of the corporations and increased tax on the wages of the employees. The burden of benefit is so dramatically in Australia ‘s favour that it is extraordinary to me that there is such violent and non-thinking opposition to it by the Opposition.

I shall shortly conclude my remarks because for some extraordinary reason we do not have much time to debate this matter. One of the disturbing features of the coal industry, particularly in New South Wales, is the disastrous attack by the New South Wales State Government on the capacity of our nation to get coal out of Australia through export points in New South Wales. It is appalling that the State government has rejected- I said this the other night- proposals for an adequate road corridor into Wollongong by which trucks could make up the inevitable shortfall in the capacity of the railways to cope with providing the capacity to export coal.

The results of an expert investigation have been published. Various members of Parliament could have heard about the report if they had bothered to attend the meeting in Narellan on this serious matter that was called by coal proprietors. Two Labor members, one from this House and one from the State House, did attend the meeting. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) decided not to attend. At that meeting this very significant Report demonstrated that there was no way that railways will be able to carry sufficient coal to meet the capacity of the Port Kembla coal loader, and that is as a result of deliberate and determined anti-coal policies by the New South Wales Government. This will have a disastrous impact on the’ environment in Wollongong because the State Government said that it wants to bring all coal except for two million tonnes into Wollongong by train. That means that by 1 985 there will be between 58 and 64 coal train movements per day through North Wollongong, at least half of which will be at night- probably more- because of the other needs of that railway system.

This is a vital point: Diesel locomotives hauling coal trains make as much noise as a jet aircraft landing at Sydney Airport. Yet a curfew is imposed at Sydney Airport to avoid resident disturbance. But the New South Wales anti-coal and anti-Wollongong State Government has decreed that these coal trains will run through the night into Wollongong. The fact is that we do need an extra access road. We do need a situation in which the inevitable shortfall in capacity is met by a new road, which would have the side benefit of getting all coal traffic off Mount Ousley. It would take not only coal traffic but also all truck traffic. Coal trucks provide only half the truck traffic into the Wollongong area. It is intriguing that the New South Wales Government not only is determined to disrupt the environment of Wollongong with train traffic, but it is also determined to maintain a high density of truck traffic on the Mount Ousley road despite a proposal to the contrary. This will lead to a situation in which that road will probably reach saturation point by about 1985. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government totally rejects the anticoal proposition proposed in this House by the honourable member for Blaxland which simply maintains a consistent anti-coal mining, anti-coal miner policy which is opposed to investment in and development of the coal industry in this nation.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-After listening to that little diatribe it is perfectly obvious that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) is completely owned by the New South Wales Colliery Owners Association and the Road Hauliers Federation. Why else would he go into that useless diatribe against rail transport?

Mr Baume:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take it as totally offensive to suggest that I am owned by anybody and I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr Keating:

– They buy you like they buy coal trucks.

Mr Baume:

– I ask for that to be withdrawn also.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-If the honourable member objects, I presume that the honourable member for Cunningham would not mind withdrawing a personal reflection.

Mr WEST:

– In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw, but it is perfectly obvious that there is some particular reason why the honourable member is -

Mr Keating:

– If the little grafter is sensitive, I withdraw.

Mr WEST:

– Coming out so strongly in favour of the road hauling of coal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Baume:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Blaxland intends to withdraw something that he is not invited to withdraw, would he please get to his feet and withdraw it, not slouch there.

Mr Keating:

– I was not slouching there; I was sitting there. If you do not behave in the way -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member should get to his feet if he wishes to withdraw. If not, he should not do either.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not ask me to withdraw. If you wish me to withdraw, ask me to withdraw, and I will withdraw. If you do not ask me to withdraw, I will not withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Cunningham.

Mr WEST:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition demands that the Government drop this Bill, which provides for variable coal levies, and impose in its place a resources rent tax based on profitability. Let me just mention two instances to show the unfortunate discriminatory effect of tonnage levies on coal. In 1978-79 the Bellambi Coal Co. Ltd, which operates an underground mine in New South Wales, paid $4.5m in the coal levy and ended up with a $2. 9m pre-tax operating loss. On the other hand, during that same period the Utah Development Co. in Queensland turned in a payment of $45m in the coal export levy and still finished up with $ 1 38m in profits for that year.

This legislation reduces the coal export levy from $3.50 per tonne to $1 per tonne in the case of underground mines, open cut mines which come on stream after 30 June next year, and open cut mines which are operating at depths greater than 60 metres. Certainly, as far as it goes it improves the position of the New South Wales underground mines, but major problems still remain. The Government has cast the relief net far too wide. The reduction in the levy to $ 1 in the case of open cut mines after 30 June 1980 could be too generous in the long run, in the same way as the reduction to $1 in the case of open cut mines operating at depths greater than 60 metres could be too generous in the long run. For instance, the capital costs of opening a major open cut mine, if we use the Norwich Park mine as an example, is about $250m to $300m. Utah would cover that amount with its profits in two years. Similarly, a bucket wheel, a new installation infrastructure which is used to get down to greater depths than drag lines can reach to extract the utmost amount from the coal seam, costs $50m to $60m. For how long after this infrastructure is paid for does the Government expect to extend the tax concession? Obviously, what the shadow

Minister for Minerals and Energy has said is correct. We need a resources rent tax based on profitability.

A tremendous loss of revenue is involved for the Federal Government. Without citing too many figures, I will use Utah as the prime example. For instance, in September 1977- in one month- out of a total profit of $141 m, it sent $130m to the parent company in the United States. The next year the company’s profits went down slightly. It made $ 138m after the payment of company tax, the coal export levy and the branch profits tax. Nevertheless, $116m was paid out in dividends. I am sure that most of that money went back to the United States. Then again in the first six months of 1979 the profit was $71 m

I want the House to compare the situation under the coal export levy with what could happen under a resources rent tax. Applying a resources rent tax introduced at the threshold level of, say, 14 per cent, with the Government taking 100 per cent thereafter, Utah’s figure for capital development expenditure on its three minesPeak Downs, Saraji and Goonyella- is $440m. I repeat, that is Utah’s own figure. A resources tax of that nature would have supplied an extra $76m to the Federal Government in 1978. Utah would have finished up with a final profit of $62m.

An important question when considering resources rent tax is whether or not a threshold should be guaranteed to operate after the development capital has been recovered. There is a possibility of applying a resources tax other than the way in which I just illustrated. It could operate in the same way as the British petroleum rent tax, that is, a flat 60 per cent tax could be imposed on gross profits followed by the 46 per cent Australian company tax. Under that sort of system, on 1978 figures, the Government would end up with approximately $266m, but Utah would still make $74m profit for the year. There is no argument about it. The resources tax returns to the Federal Government more revenue than a levy and is the fairest tax on the industry. To impose such a tax is not only in the interests of the industry but also in the interests of rationalising coal production in the best interests of the nation.

The Australian coal industry has experienced two major phenomena in the last several years. Firstly, we have seen the extremely bullish demands being made to commit reserves, and, secondly, we have seen the penetration of that industry by the oil majors, which matter we dealt with in this House last week. We see predictions of massive export levels of up to 300 million tonnes of Australian coal by 1995. We see huge commitments to power generation for aluminium smelting. Whilst we in the Opposition are not opposed to that per se we say that there ought to be a rationalisation of the industry in that regard. For instance, the value of the proposed tonnage which would be produced by the developments so far announced in New South Wales alone could possibly be over $ 1,000m. It seems to me that if there is no proper taxation at the coal input end of power generation there will be a case in future to impose a resources tax on the exports of aluminium. Of that there can be no doubt. We also see that there will be a continuing need to monitor the needs of the local Australian steel industry possibly to provide reserves for future coal liquefaction.

All of this inevitably points to the Opposition’s coal policy of establishing a national coal authority with powers similar to those of the New South Wales Joint Coal Board. I just mention one clause in the Board’s charter to show the House how desirable it would be to get all of the States of Australia to come in with the Federal Government to establish a national coal authority in the same way as the Chifley Government established the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Coal Board in the late 1940s. The relevant clause in its charter simply states that the Board has the power:

To ensure that the coal resources of the State(s) are conserved, developed, worked and used to the best advantage in the public interest.

Of course, the Joint Coal Board of New South Wales has the complete power either to reject or to approve permits for the opening of new mines. The second major feature which I mentioned is the penetration by the oil majors. As I said, we dealt with that matter last week. I will not go into it again now except to say that the British Petroleum Company controls 100 per cent of the Clutha Development Pty Ltd mines in the Burragorang Valley in the southern coalfields of New South Wales and that the Shell group of companies has a 50 per cent interest in such major developments as that at German Creek in Queensland. Now, very close to my own electorate, it is moving in to take control of the Bellambi coal mine.

I want to conclude on this note, perhaps being a little parochial, but as the honourable member for Macarthur spent all of his time being parochial, I am sure you will excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Recently a spokesman for Shell stated that his company would provide extra capital to improve coal production from this underground mine. Having recently been underground in the mine and observed the long wall mining technique, I do not think it needs extra capital to produce more coal. What it needs is a better transport system than road transport to the port of Kembla. No concern has been registered by Shell or British Petroleum on this issue, which vitally affects the local community in which these mines operate. The coal companies are now demanding- what absolute audacity!that the New South Wales Government should spend millions of dollars on new coal roads, the worst possible system of coal transport. They are demanding that rather than supporting a fair and equitable tax on the industry for the construction of coal rail lines. It is cheaper for an oil major such as BP to screw low freight rates from private truck owners and to demand new coal roads from Labor State governments than to help finance rail lines. We do not support inequitable levies on underground mines, but these problems must be solved now. There is no question about that.

On the south coast of New South Wales, in the city of Wollongong, 4.5 million tonnes of coal were transported by road to the coal loader at Port Kembla in 1978-79. Coal trucks carry between 35 tonnes and 40 tonnes of coal. Thus, in that year, about 125,000 truckloads of coal were delivered to the loader, that is, 400 loads a day for a six-day week, or 800 round trips a day. Under stage 1 of the new Port Kembla loader, exports may reach 15 million tonnes per annum. If we take notice of the honourable member for Macarthur, that would indicate that Wollongong will receive some 2,500 truckloads of coal through the main city area to the port in one day.

I see that my time has virtually expired. I conclude by saying that there is no question that this amendment ought to be carried. A resources rent tax ought to be imposed on the industry instead of these interminable variable coal levies. When we get such a resources tax, I hope that to some extent it will be used in the interests of rationalising open cut coal mining vis a vis underground coal mining, and to help produce adequate transport systems, not only in the interests of coal owners and workers in the industry but also in the interests of the communities in which the mines are situated.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition did not divide on the amendment because of the pressure of business on the House. I want that clearly understood.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3330

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3330

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of this Bill is to protect the collection of the duties associated with Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 31 to 35, which have already been submitted to the House. This Bill, as I have suggested, protects those proposals against legal challenge pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill in the next session of the Parliament. It is necessary for me to explain very briefly that the tariff decisions include, firstly, the Government’s acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission’s advice contained in its report on furniture; secondly, the Government’s rejection of the IAC’s advice on protection for wines and spirits; and thirdly, changes to certain developing country duty rates following a limited review of the Australian system of tariff preferences for developing countries.

Arising out of that explanation of what this Bill does, I want to deal briefly in this debate with two issues. The first is the Government’s handling, some would say- I would assert mishandling- of the wine and brandy industry. The second is the inadequate procedures adopted by the Government in announcing and explaining decisions to the Parliament on advice from the IAC.

If there had not been such pressure on debating time in this chamber I would have liked to speak in this debate about the Government’s tariff policy generally, particularly as quite an amount of publicity has been given to the views of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch). I assert that he speaks with forked tongue. He has been saying one thing to businessmen in the community and another when he has to answer to some of the various forces in his own party in this Parliament. We have also noted the publicity given to the stated views in this area of Mr John Stone, the Secretary to the Treasury. Although the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) nods his head in apparent approval of all that Mr John Stone has said, and although there is much in what he has said of which I approve, I would have liked time to say something about the Opposition’s attitude to those items of publicity. However, now is not the time.

Let me talk about wines and spirits. The Government has been grandstanding over its decisions regarding customs duties on imported wines and spirits. In rejecting the IAC’s advice that the majority of goods under reference should have their protective margins reduced to 25 per cent in the long term, the Minister bragged: a reduction in protection at this time would hamper the effort being made by wine producers and grape growers to adjust their production to market requirements.

Later he made a statement to this effect: the Government has been concerned at the difficulties facing grape growers because of the importance to them of brandy distillation as an outlet for grapes.

Whilst the Opposition strongly supports the decisions taken to protect the welfare of wine grape growers, and I understand and recognise your interest in this measure, Mr Deputy Speaker, I assert that the Government has not gone far enough. What makes matters worse is that the Government is portraying this decision as a magnificent gesture to the industry. Relatively that is so, but absolutely it is not. It ignores completely the fact that the problems currently facing the industry are to a large degree attributable to the actions of this Government. In other words, having knocked the industry to its knees it is now trying to get some kudos or benefit out of seeking to bring it back onto one leg.

In particular, in the 1978 Budget, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the honourable member for Wakefield would remember so well, this Government raised the excise on Australian produced brandy from $10.21 a litre of alcohol to $18.75 a litre of alcohol- a terrible rise of 83.6 per cent. The marked decline in grape usage for brandy as well as the effect of the sales drop on Government revenues as a result of this impost is the reason why the Government has been forced to act in the way that the Ministers have acted. In addition to maintaining protection for the local industry, the Government has removed some of the excise it imposed in the previous year. But the reduction was only a small percentage. The excise was reduced by $2.75 to $ 1 6 a litre. A very large excise impost remains, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, well know and as your constituents are so often telling you.

Not only is the Government to blame for much of the industry’s current problems, but also an announcement in the Senate would seem to indicate that the Government is considering damaging the industry even further. I think it was as late as yesterday that the Government seemed to give notice that the tax free days of the wine industry are numbered. In making a statement on the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce report entitled ‘Tax and the Wine and Grape Industries’ Senator Webster, a Minister in the present Fraser Government, explicitly rejected one important recommendation of that Committee. In the report the Senate Committee recommended that a period of notice be given before a tax is imposed. In Senator Webster’s statement, the Government rejected this, saying that the question of a wine tax was one which should be considered from year to year in the Budget context. His exact words were:

Questions as to whether taxes should be imposed on the wine industry are matters which should be decided in the Budget context from dme to time.

What a terrible thing it is that the Government did not take that opportunity to say categorically through that statement made by that Minister that there would be no tax on the wine industry. The Minister went on to say:

In the last Budget, of course, no tax was imposed on wine.

He said nothing about the next Budget. The Committee’s report was tabled over two years ago- on 16 August 1977. Now, out of the blue, this unsatisfactory statement has been made. The fact that the Government has chosen to make this gratuitous announcement in this way must make us wonder about its motives. If it does signal that the Government intends to introduce a wine tax in next year’s Budget, the former Minister for Primary Industry, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), will have some explaining to do, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would know because you have taken him to your electorate of Wakefield to face the angry- and understandably so- grape growers, wine producers and brandy producers. Last December the former Minister for Primary Industry gave an unequivocal assurance to a meeting of Riverland wine grape growers that there would be no wine tax. So much for that aspect of the Bill.

Because I have agreed to take only 10 minutes of the half an hour speaking time which is allocated to me under the Standing Orders, I will speak only briefly about the tariff change procedures. Last week when another Customs Tariff Bill was being debated in this place, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) was in Darwin. Because of his absence at that time, I will not be boring him tonight as much as I might be boring some of his officials who have to sit through these debates, when I again mention the inadequate procedures adopted by the Government in announcing and explaining decisions in this House on advice from the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority.

As I have yet to receive a positive reply from either the Minister or the Government I am compelled to raise the matter again. I intend to move a second reading amendment to challenge those members on the Government back bench who have paid considerable lip service to the need to defend and to extend the watchdog activities of this Parliament. The purpose of the amendment is in effect to bring about better procedures in this House. As much as I would like to call for a division, I will not do so because of the constraints of time.

Instead of repeating the arguments which I put forward last week I can do no better than quote what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said of this subject in 1975 when he was Leader of the Opposition. On 10 April 1975, during a discussion on a matter of public importance in this House the then Leader of the Opposition, the present right honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:

I take this first opportunity to give what are personal views but at the same time views which I believe can advance the cause of this House of Representatives.

He went on to say:

The problem that we have is a problem in the House of Representatives. There has been a slow process of erosion of its authority and its status and we need to ask ourselves how this has occurred and why it has occurred.

He went on to say:

There is too much rush, not enough time for significant legislation, not enough time for major debates . . There is not enough time for those who have a particular interest to give true and proper attention to reports of the Industries Assistance Commission.

He went on to say:

I believe also that there would be room for a special committee to examine Industries Assistance Commission reports to see that consistency and common sense are shown in the way in which the Commission is going about its business. With present procedures there is generally not adequate dme for these reports to be examined as we now go about our business.

It can be seen that my ideas which are supported by my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party Opposition would appear to have the support of the Prime Minister. I again raise those ideas by moving:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Tariffs and Excise should be established to examine each change in tariffs and excise following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other hand ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Keating:

– I second the amendment.

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

– Briefly in reply, I indicate that the Government will vote against the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). In so doing, I reiterate what my colleague, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee), said in my absence on IS November last. The honourable member for Adelaide, and indeed other honourable members, will recall that the Minister gave an undertaking that the Government would give consideration to this general proposition and also to finding ways and means to improve the handling of these matters. I reiterate that undertaking. I will do that during the coming recess, but we oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third dme.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I merely explain that because of the constraints of time the Opposition did not force a division on the second reading amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3332

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Fife:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3332

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The purpose of this Bill is to validate all duties of excise collected on or before 30 June 1980 in respect of stabilised crude petroleum oil, saccharin and cyclamates and grape brandies. The Opposition is not opposed to the excise changes for saccharin and cyclamates and grape brandies; in fact it welcomes these changes. However, we are opposed to the increase in excise on crude oil from $11.30 to $16.25 a barrel which results from the determination of new import parity prices on 1 July last in line with the Government’s import parity pricing policy. This increase in excise is a direct result of the Government’s oil pricing policy. The Opposition does not object so much to the increase in excise on crude oil production but objects strongly to the policy of pricing Australian oil at world parity and to the use of an inequitable and inefficient method of taxing oil production. It is for these reasons that I will be moving the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude the validation of the collection of any increase in excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil ‘.

I will be moving this amendment because this Government has imposed a considerable burden on the Australian public through its import parity pricing policy and the associated system of crude oil levies. The Opposition believes that this policy should be abandoned. The price we pay for petrol in this country is determined by the Government, not by the Arabs as we are led to believe. This Government increases Australian oil prices by the same amount as increases in overseas oil prices. Whenever the world price of oil goes up, Australian prices go up by the same amount as a result of the Fraser Government’s policy. The Fraser Government has locked us into international oil prices and the consequence of these increases. Since the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) took office in 1975, petrol prices have more than doubled. In November 1975 the price of petrol was just over 60c a gallon; in most parts of Australia it is now $1.35 a gallon. During this year alone petrol prices have increased by 25c a gallon. The price of oil went up by $5 a barrel only last July. In 1975, oil was priced at $2.33 a barrel. It is now $ 1 8.66 a barrel. The reason for this Bill is to ensure that the Government gets most of this $5 a barrel price increase. While the Australian consumer is forced to pay higher petrol prices, most of the revenue from the increases is going straight to the Government. In the energy field, several benefits are claimed for charging the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price for oil which is produced in Australia. But in fact the Government has not been able to produce a comprehensive energy policy. Furthermore, its policy on crude oil pricing is dictated solely by the need to raise extra revenue. Every petrol pump in Australia has become a branch of the Taxation Office. This year, the Government will get $2,500m in the form of excise on crude oil and company tax on oil producers plus an additional $950m in excise on petroleum products. This amount of revenue from crude oil is equivalent to the total collections from company tax; that is, this year the total amount of revenue from crude oil and petroleum products will be $3,450m.

Import parity pricing is claimed to do several things. It is claimed that higher prices for petroleum products lead to energy conservation; but it does not work that way. People have to use their cars, particularly as the Government is cutting back on funds available for public transport. Farmers and industry have to run their machinery, even at higher prices, and no practical alternative is available. There is no evidence that higher prices have led to petrol conservation. During the first six months of this year, petrol consumption increased by 3.3 per cent, diesel fuel consumption increased by 10 per cent and aviation gasoline consumption increased by 15 per cent. In April last year, the Department of National Development predicted that motor spirit consumption would increase by 2.7 per cent; this was before the introduction of fuel import parity pricing. The latest Budget Papers show that consumption is now expected to increase by up to 5 per cent this year. That is almost double the 2.7 per cent estimated by the Department of National Development. Even the Government does not believe in the conservation argument.

It is also claimed that import parity pricing for old oil encourages exploration. But that also is not the case. In 1975, the Labor Government introduced a policy that provided that the world price would be paid for any new discoveries made after September 1975. This is what provides the stimulus for exploration, not the price paid for oil discovered 10 years ago. It is also claimed that world parity pricing gives encouragement to the development of substitute fuels. This can be true if the price increases slowly enough so that the right preparations are made for alternatives such as liquefied petroleum gas, ethanol and methanol. But the rapid oil price increases forced on us by this Government have not brought about the use of these substitutes. The price has increased too rapidly and there has not been time even to produce these fuels, let alone build up a market for them. So we have had all the disadvantages associated with higher oil prices and none of the advantages which should flow from them.

One of the major disadvantages of this policy is the effect it has had on Australia’s inflation rate. The petrol price increases granted this year have increased the consumer price index by over 3 per cent. Under a Labor government, this situation would not continue. We would abandon this Government’s import parity pricing policy. We would not automatically pass on world price increases to Australian oil prices. Petrol would be cheaper under a Labor government than is the case under this present high tax party in officethe present Government. A Labor government would not push up Australian oil prices every time OPEC increased its prices. Of course we would have to pay the price for the 30 per cent of our oil requirements which we are currently importing, but we would not force the Australian public to pay world prices for oil which is produced in Australia.

The other reason why the Opposition is opposing a section of this Bill and why it will be moving this amendment is that the present taxing arrangements for crude oil are unworkable, inefficient and inequitable and should be replaced with a resources rent tax, or a secondary profits related taxing mechanism. No one denies that the oil industry should be subjected to additional tax, to company tax, but what this Government has done is introduce a system which works against the maximum production of Australian oil and discourages expenditure on exploration and development within the oil industry. We have a situation at the moment of six different levy rates. These arrangements have become so complex that the Government will have to do something about replacing them with a resources rent tax. The rates have had to be changed every year since 1975. They have already been changed twice this year. The crude oil levy is a regressive form of tax as it represents a direct addition to cost rather than a sharing of profits. It creates distortion in investment decisions and is subject to many arbitrary changes. The levy system is inefficient as it promotes the premature abandonment of existing producing fields. On the other hand, a resources rent tax would ensure that maximum production is obtained because the tax payable would vary with changing production costs.

Similarly, the levy discriminates against the development of marginal pools. This situation should be avoided at a time of domestic oil shortages. A resources tax can be structured to take a large share from highly profitable projects without inhibiting investment in marginal projects. A future Labor government will rectify this situation. It will abolish the existing system of crude oil levies and replace them with a resources rent tax which takes into account the level of profitability of each oil project. The amount of tax payable will be a function of the level of profitability of each venture. The resources rent tax will not discriminate against the draining of reservoirs, the development of marginal pools or exploration for new fields. Such a tax will ensure that the revenue from crude oil is shared equitably between Australian producers and the community, and not in any arbitrary fashion as is the case at the moment with the crude oil levy.

Before concluding my comments on this Bill I would like to make a few remarks on the decrease in excise on grape brandies by $2.75 per litre of alcohol. The Government is portraying this decision as a magnificent gesture to the grape growing industry, while ignoring completely the fact that the problems currently facing the industry are to a large degree attributable to the actions of this Government. In particular, in the 1 978 Budget, this Government raised the excise on Australian produced brandy from $10.21 per litre of alcohol to $18.75 per litre-a rise of 83.6 per cent. The Opposition strongly supports the decision to decrease the excise payable on brandy and believes that this Government has not gone far enough in rectifying the situation it created in last year’s Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude the validation of the collection of any increase in excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil’.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Wallis:

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

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I indicate that the Opposition did not divide on the amendment to the motion for the second reading because of the pressure of the business of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3334

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition does not oppose the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill. It has already passed through the Senate. It is a technical Bill which makes amendments to the Tribunal which are based on the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council chaired by Mr Justice Brennan. The amendments will not change the operation of the Tribunal in any major way. Probably the most important area of reform is the need to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, particularly in respect of the Social Security Department. Unfortunately, the Bill does not do that. One hopes that the Government will look at that issue. We are not opposing the Bill. It has been debated in the Senate. The amendments are technical and in accordance with the recommendations of the

Administrative Review Council. We wish the Bill a speedy passage.

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 Staley) read a third time.

page 3335

ADJOURNMENT

Death of Mr Bill Colbourne- Accommodation Programs for Elderly Persons

Motion ( by Mr Staley) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-On Monday, 19 November a dinner was held at Broken Hill to honour Tony Crowhurst who is the stalwart of the Australia Labor Party in Broken Hill. At the dinner a long time former General Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, a former Federal President of the ALP and, for many years, a former Federal Vice-President of the ALP, passed away. The dinner, had been arranged for Tony Crowhurst and Bill Colbourne of whom I am speaking. It was his birthday. He turned 84 years of age on that day. He had been brought to Broken Hill especially to attend the dinner, to speak and make a presentation to Tony Crowhurst. He had just finished his speech and was about to make the presentation when, as I understand it, he sat down and passed away. I speak tonight as a former assistant general secretary of the Labor Party. Senator Tony Mulvihill and I were the two assistant general secretaries of the Labor Party who worked under Bill Colbourne. We have both continued the tremendous respect that we learnt for him in our work with him throughout those years. Accordingly, I feel very concerned about what has happened.

I shall give a little of the history of Bill Colbourne. I first met him in 1951. 1 first served under him as a member of the central executive of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales in 1954. 1 became Assistant General Secretary in 1965. During that period I learnt to have tremendous respect for him as a man who could smell trouble and as an individual who had tremendous loyalty to the Party. I say without equivocation that although the people of Broken Hill must feel very upset about the circumstances, Bill died the way he would have wanted to die, at a Labor gathering speaking with his tremendous capacity- he was a great orator- and amongst his friends. He was speaking of a very old friend of his, Tony Crowhurst. Bill would not have wanted it any other way. During the period of the Lang split, when J. T. Lang took most of the Labor Party away from the Federal Party in New South Wales, Bill Colbourne served as a young general secretary under Ben Chifley who was the President of the New South Wales branch of the Federal Labor Party. Years later when unity came Bill passed into the wilderness for a while. He then came back on to the executive of the New South Wales branch in, I think, 1950. In 1952 he was elected as President of the Party. In 1954 he was elected General Secretary of the Party.

He was a man of very great sincerity and loyalty to the Labor movement. He always gave loyalty to the State sphere but essentially he was a federalist. He was one of the great underestimated men in politics. His lovely wife Hycie was a very close friend of my wife. They gave their sons to the church, both of them being priests of the Capuchin order. The ‘Colbourne family has many members. I have often said that if all the Colbournes were put into one electorate the Labor Party could not fail to win it. I convey sympathy- I feel I am joined by many people in the Parliament- to the whole Colbourne family, particularly the two sons.

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

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-I bring to the notice of the House tonight a most disturbing matter in my electorate that has come to my attention. It concerns officers of the Health Department in Tasmania. It appears that senior officers of the Health Department in Tasmania have been advising organisations in my electorate that the Commonwealth Government will no longer fund accommodation programs for elderly persons.

Mr Neil:

– Lies.

Mr BURR:

– As my colleague the honourable member for St George says, it is lies. I contacted the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to have this matter clarified. She confirmed that the claim was untrue. It appears that senior officers of the Health Department in Tasmania have been advising organisations that they might as well scrap their fund raising programs because the Commonwealth will’ not be providing subsidies to get the building programs under way. This matter has caused considerable concern in my electorate, both to the organisations who have been raising funds for these projects and also the elderly people who want accommodation for their retirement years. In order to clarify this matter, I contacted the Minister for Social Security. In reply she stated:

I can assure you there is no substance in this rumour and I cannot comprehend how that view would be considered. The Government regards the Aged Persons’ Accommodation Program as ongoing and will determine future levels of funding for the Program at an appropriate time.

That was a quite definitive and unequivocal statement by the Minister. But despite those assurances, I still have it reported to me that these senior officers in the State Health Department in Tasmania are still advising organisations that the Federal Government will scrap this program. In fact, I was contacted only this week by one organisation which is planning a quite extensive project. This organisation went a little bit further and said that a senior officer in the Health Department told it not only that the Federal Government would scrap this particular program but that in fact the Federal Government is planning to have an election in July of next year and intends to use $ 1 m in this program in Tasmania as election bait. That is what the officers told this organisation. What made the matter even more disturbing to me was that the officer then went on to ask the organisation and its officers to treat the conversation as being in camera. I found this to be extremely disturbing. It is a scurrilous, underhanded, malicious campaign that is being conducted by the officers of the Health Department.

These people are public servants, and yet without question of doubt they are trying to use their position as public servants in what is obviously a party political way. They are trying to undermine the confidence of the community in Tasmania in the Federal Government and to destroy the credibility of the Government by using their position as public servants to spread untrue rumors. I find that particularly offensive. I am not certain whether these officers have been spreading these rumours on the instructions or at the instigation of the State Health Minister, Mr Barnard -

Mr Neil:

– Is he a Laborite?

Mr BURR:

– As my colleague, the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) suggests, he is the Labor Minister for Health in Tasmania. It may be at Mr Barnard ‘s instigation that these rumours are being spread-I am not certain. But whether it is at his instigation or not, I take the view that he should be condemned for not exercising discipline over his officers. The House should condemn Mr Barnard and his officers for causing great distress in the community in Tasmania; for causing great distress to the elderly people seeking satisfactory accommodation in their remaining years; and for causing great distress to the organisations which are working most diligently to raise funds to provide accommodation for elderly citizens but which are being undermined and led astray by unthinking and, in fact, Labor oriented officers of the Health Department. I think that these people should stand condemned by this House.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-In the course of the debates last Thursday night, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), as is the custom of honourable members on the other side, endeavoured to denigrate everything that took place during the three years of the Whitlam Government. Talking about constitutional development in the Northern Territory, he said:

Honourable members can say what they like but the previous Government, although it made a lot of noise about it, certainly did nothing whatsoever from 1972 until it was put out of government in 1975 -

Perhaps we can point to the truth and show that what the honourable member had to say was completely false. On 5 April 1973, the first move was made in this House to establish a joint committee on the Northern Territory to report on Constitutional Development. A delay was caused by the then Opposition in the Senate. The matter came back into this House on 1 1 September 1973 and was eventually okayed by the Senate on 30 August 1973. That committee was established under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). Its terms of reference included:

  1. the Government’s wish to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory by 31 December 1974;

That committee met on a number of occasions and brought down its recommendations on 26 November 1974. It was said that the Labor Government did nothing, but the report by the joint committee on constitutional development states: 1974 a fully elected Legislative Assembly of nineteen members was established.

That is what was recommended by the committee. The Government moved immediately and established that Assembly. The report continues:

The Administrator’s Council was reconstituted to comprise the administrator and five elected members. The Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1974 was passed by the Parliament giving the Northern Territory two Senators in the next election.

How can it be said that the Labor Government did nothing? That report. was presented on 26 November 1974. Everybody knows that on Christmas Day 1974 Darwin was hit by Cyclone Tracy. After that matters had to be looked at again. The Minister for the Northern Territory wrote to the chairman of the committee asking him to: . . inquire into and report whether in view of the devastation of Darwin caused by cyclone Tracy the Committee sees a need to vary any of the recommendations on constitutional development for the Northern Territory contained in the report presented to Parliament by the Committee on 26 November 1974.

So the committee did reconvene. It went to Darwin and took evidence from various people in Darwin. This was a valid thing to do because we must remember that quite a number of the electorates that were to be established were to be in the Darwin area. On this point to the report stated:

The population of Darwin before cyclone Tracy was approximately 48,000. After the evacuation it was approximately 1 1,000 in early January 1975, and it has since increased to about 30,000.

That would be about May 1975. The report continued:

The total available accommodation of an acceptable standard by 3 1 July 197S is expected to house 30,050 people.

The report further stated:

Evidence was given to the Committee that the Darwin Reconstruction Commission has not yet finalised its plans for the reconstruction of Darwin and it is not possible to indicate the future distribution of population. Accordingly it is not possible to indicate the future number of electors in each electorate.

The committee’s second report was brought down on 28 May 1975, towards the end of the autumn session of the Parliament. The ensuing legislation was to come down in the Budget session. I do not think I have to remind honourable members what happened during the Budget session of 1 975. It is all very well for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to say that nothing was done in that period but I mention things: There were the Administrator’s

Council alterations; the fact that a 19-member elected House was established before the end of 1974; and the Northern Territory was given Senate representation.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-In the short time I have I admit that a committee was formed. I was the deputy chairman and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) was the chairman. We managed to have passed under the Labor Government the things that the Northern Territory wanted. But let me read from the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory on constitutional development in the Northern Territory. Section 1 1 8 states:

  1. that one Australian Government Minister have the executive responsibility . . .
  2. b) the establishment of a Committee comprising the Minister for the Northern Territory and ‘Ministers’ of the Territory Executive-

They were called Executive Members of the Northern Territory- to co-ordinate and consult on major issues, this Committee being chaired by the Minister for the Northern Territory and meeting as required.

What I said is that nothing happened, and under that -

Mr Wallis:

– What about the senators?

Mr CALDER:

-That did not happen. Because the Country Liberal Party won all the seats except two won by Independents- the Labor Party won none- nothing was done about that report. The Minister never met with the committee recommended in the report. I was on the Joint Committee, and I know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3338

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Primary Industry: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4313)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

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

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister for National Development to Question No. 4328 (see Hansard, 6 November, 1979, page 2657).

Transport: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4316)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

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

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4328 (Hansard, page 2657, of 6 November 1 979 ), provided by the Minister for National Development.

Prohibition of Strikes (Question No. 4590)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

Did he state in his Alfred Deakin memorial lecture at Melbourne University that in a democracy people could not be forced to work and that in the period before the 1930 amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration An which prohibited strikes absolutely, there were more strikes than at almost any other period in Australia’s history; if so, does he still stand by this statement.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Yes, I did make statements in the Alfred Deakin memorial lecture similar to those referred to by the honourable member and I do stand by them. However, as I made clear in the lecture, this does not mean that the problems of industrial disputation cannot be tackled positively and constructively. In this regard, the Government recognises that there are limits to what can be achieved by legislation. However, the Government also believes that its responsibilities to the public and to individuals make it imperative that it use all its available powers to encourage trade unions and employers to work within the established framework and, where necessary, to take strong measures to ensure that they do.

In the longer term, the Government believes that what is needed is a change of attitude by all the parties, greater understanding of the impact of industrial relations on the community and more effective communication and consultation. We believe that legislation can facilitate and encourage a climate in which traditional sectional interests are abandoned and replaced by attitudes which emphasise common goals. Greater understanding can be brought about by better education at a number of levels. In particular, the Government considers its continuing financial support of trade union training is a most important contribution in this regard. As far as communication and consultation are concerned, the Government has acted by example in establishing the National Labour Consultative Council as a means of communication and consultation at the national level. I believe the principle of discussion with a view to reaching agreement where appropriate on which the Council operates, should be the principle on which industrial relations generally should be conducted and we will need to work further towards that end.

Social Security: Reciprocal Agreements with Malta (Question No. 4638)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. Further to the Minister’s answer to Question No. 4528 concerning Mr Sellwood s visit to Malta in June 1975 to discuss social security matters *(Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, page 982) did Mr Sellwood make a written report on the result of his discussions in Malta; if so, what was the substance of his report and his recommendations.
  2. What are the outstanding matters of contention on social security matters between Australia and Malta.
  3. What follow-up action has been taken since June 1975 to enter into reciprocal agreements with Malta on social security matters.
  4. What approaches have been made by the Government of Malta since June 1975 on the subject.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. As indicated in my reply to Question No. 4528 (Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, page 982), the discussions in Malta, at officer level, were of a preliminary nature only and concerned general principles in relation to a basis on which Australia might commence negotiations for entering into a reciprocal agreement on social security. There was no written report or recommendations to the Government following these discussions.
  2. As formal negotiations for a reciprocal agreement between Australia and Malta have not taken place, there are no outstanding matters of contention between the two countries.
  3. The general question of Australia’s participation in reciprocal agreements on social security with a number of countries is under examination.
  4. Representatives of Malta have kept in touch concerning the Government’s attitude towards entering into negotiations with Malta for an agreement.

Air Charter Services from United States to Australia (Question No. 4673) Mr Morris asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. Does his Department readily grant approval for United States of America air passenger charter operators to fly back to back charters from the US to Australia.
  2. Is a requirement for the charter operators to set artificially high fare levels.
  3. What are the comparative air fares charged by US charter operators for travel between Australia and the US with current Apex fares.
  4. Is he able to state whether charter operators and 4 organisations are unwilling to risk expending large sums on advertising if they are not guaranteed in advance approval to fly charters to Australia.
  5. 5 ) What are the prospects of US air charter operators receiving an assurance from the Government that all applications for Australian approval of passenger charter operators will be granted in the reasonable future.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Since 1972, approval has been given to a number of programs of inclusive tour charter flights by US air carriers whose purpose was to bring additional toursits to Australia from the US. However, the carriers concerned did not avail themselves in all instances of the approvals they had sought.
  2. There are no fixed requirements in relation to fares to be charged for inclusive tour chaner flights. A chaner operator must seek approval of the fares he proposes to charge on each such flight or program of flights. Individual proposals are considered on their merits.
  3. No applications to operate inclusive tour charters have been made by US air carriers since lower APEX fares for travel between Australia and the US were introduced in February 1979.
  4. No US chaner operators or tour organisers have raised the matter. Their current interest in operating inclusive tour charters to Australia is not known.
  5. Australia advised the US in December 1978 that it would continue to treat sympathetically any applications by US air carriers to operate inclusive tour charters from the US to Australia. No applications have been received since then.

Aid to Non-Government Schools (Question No. 4762)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

How do non-government schools account to the Government for money given in government aid.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

In 1979 funds for non-government schools programs in the States administered by the Schools Commission are provided from grants available under Pan III of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1978. Grants are provided for building and equipment projects, general recurrent expenditure, migrant education, disadvantaged schools, special schools, and for schools in need of short-term emergency assistance. Grants provided under this legislation are made available on condition that the recipient furnish to the Commonwealth Minister for Education, within a specified time, a certificate by a qualified accountant verifying that the grant money has been applied for the purpose for which it was given.

For all grants, other than building and equipment grants, the Minister may require the recipient to provide a statement of such other financial or statistical information as he deems necessary.

In addition the Schools Commission obtains extensive financial and non-financial statistics from non-government schools on a regular basis. Summary data from these statistical surveys are published in Schools Commission reports and statistical bulletins.

A summary of financial assistance granted to each State in respect of non-government schools is tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate as soon as practicable after the 30 June following the cessation of the year to which the Act applies.

Asian Language Training (Question No. 4769)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the Official Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan in July 1978, and to its recommendations, and in particular to the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to question No. 4496 (Hansard, 25 September 1979, pages 1 530-1 ) with respect to recommendation No. 1 of the report
  2. If so, what action is being taken to encourage Asian language training in general in Australian schools and Japanese language training in particular.
  3. Is he able to say what has been done by State Governments in this respect.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to the Official Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan, July 1978, to its recommendations and to the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs about Recommendation 1 of the Report

In the last ten years, whereas the number of students enrolling in the European languages traditionally taught in secondary schools, has declined, numbers enrolling in Asian languages have shown a substantial rise. Between 1969 and 1975, for instance, the numbers taking Japanese multiplied nearly sevenfold, in Indonesian/Malay enrolments trebled, and in Chinese almost doubled.

It is interesting to note that a public opinion poll conducted for the Report on the Teaching of Asian Languages in Australian Schools (The Auchmuty Report), which was tabled in March 1971, listed Japanese, Indonesian/Malay and Chinese (in that order), as the most important languages to be taught in Australian schools.

Since 1975, although no statistically reliable Australiawide survey has been made, the Curriculum Development Centre estimates that in all three subjects, enrolments have come close to doubling yet again, even though enrolments in European languages have continued to decline. Indonesian is now the third most widely taught modern language in Australia after French and German. These growing enrolments are clear evidence of recognition by State Education Departments and schools of the importance which needs to be attached to the teaching and study of Asian languages. These recent developments are attributable at least in part to the work of the Asian Studies Co-ordinating Committee, which was established in 1972, as a result of the recommendations of the Auchmuty Report. The Committee comprised representatives of all State Departments of Education, as well as of my Department, and its life was to have been five years. It was extended for a sixth year but at 30 June 1978, it was incorporated within the CDC which has continued to both publish the Committee’s materials and complete development where needed. The networks of communication established among teachers of Asian languages and Asian Studies, and others involved in the Committee’s various projects, continue to function unofficially. The Committee funded a major materials development project in Japanese language. This is the Alfonso: Japanese course, of which the materials so far published are in use in most of the Australian and New Zealand schools which are teaching Japanese. The project is now being administered, and further materials published, by the Curriculum Development Centre.

Since the Auchmuty Report, people and groups interested in the teaching of Asian Studies in general, and of Japanese in particular, have become considerably more organised. The Asian Studies Association of Australia has brought together academics and teachers at two major conferences, and is at present, with funding from the Myer Foundation, working on an Asian Studies Inquiry, which will include a rethinking of the Auchmuty Report. The Japanese Studies Association of Australia is planning its first conference for May next year, and Monash University is planning for next year its second conference of teachers of Japanese language. The Japan Foundation, which has a very strong interest in the encouragement of Japanese studies, particularly Japanese language, has now established an office in Canberra, and the Australia-Japan Foundation spends a significant proportion of its budget on educational activities, including funding of the One- Year Intensive Course in Japanese established by the Australian National University. Australia-Japan Societies and Japanese and Modern Language Teachers’ Associations are also active in the field. There is, therefore, no lack of organisations devoting their energies and funds to the encouragement of Asian Studies and particularly Japanese teaching.

The Australia China Council whose establishment was announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in June 1979, with an annual budget of $500,000, is becoming actively involved in encouragement of Chinese Studies in Australia. The Council is also supporting exchanges between Australia and China.

Advance Purchase Air Fares (Question No. 4804)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Are cancelled flight seats which are purchased on an advance purchase basis from (a) domestic and (b) international airlines resold to other passengers.
  2. If so, does this result in airlines collecting a double return on some aircraft seats.
  3. If the position is as stated, does this practice have Government endorsement.
  4. Is he able to say how many seats paid for on an advanced purchase basis were:

    1. not used by the purchaser and
    2. subsequently resold by:
    1. Ansett Airlines
    2. Trans Australia Airlines and
    3. Qantas Airways Limited

In each of the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 to date.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Cancelled flight seats which are purchased on advance purchase basis are made available for resale. Seats cancelled prior to the relevant close out period are freely offered for resale to other passengers on an advance purchase basis, but within the period they can only be made available to passengers paying higher level on demand fares.
  2. Airlines may only gain double returns when cancellations are effected i.e. the passenger does not use the APEX ticket or convert it into another fare, and the particular flight departs fully loaded. The likelihood of this is not great, Qantas load factor on Australia-UK route February to September 1979 was 80.6 per cent. Le. about 15 seats not occupied for every seat cancelled by an APEX passenger.

Domestic airlines at present operate on an average of 70 per cent load factor. However cancellation of an APEX booking does not necessarily mean cancellation of travel. Passengers on domestic airlines may upgrade their tickets to economy class and undertake travel at some later time.

  1. The domestic airlines are required to submit proposed fares to me for approval. I have approved the level of fares and associated conditions for advance purchase fares available in Australia. The advance purchase conditions relating to international fares are an integral component of the low fare arrangements negotiated between Australia and the other governments concerned. Without such conditions the airlines would not be able to provide fares at the current levels. The whole concept of the new fare arrangements is based on achieving high aircraft capacity utilisation levels so that airlines are able to achieve the economies which permit the low fares to be offered. To provide the degree of certainty in this regard, conditions such as those relating to the period for payment and penalties for cancellation are placed on the lower fares.
  2. The airlines do not keep separate records on cancellations of advance purchase fares. However Qantas has estimated that in respect of flights on the Australia/UK services in recent months about 1 .5 per cent of APEX fares have been cancelled within the 45 day advance purchase period.

International Airline Employees: Language Skills (Question No. 4821)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many staff and aircrew are employed in Qantas.
  2. How many staff and aircrew of Qantas are reasonably fluent in (a) French, (b) German, (c) Russian, (d) Chinese, (e) Japanese, (0 Malay/Indonesian, (g) Italian and (h) Greek.
  3. How many staff and aircrew of Qantas are reasonably fluent in (a) 2 languages, (b) 3 languages, or (c) more than 3 languages.
  4. What facilities are available for language training for Qantas personnel and are language skills regarded as a prerequisite for Qantas staff and aircrew.
  5. Is he able to state what proportion of staff and aircrew are bi- or tri-lingual in (a) Pan American Aiways, (b) Lufthansa, (c) K.L.M., (d) Alitalia and (e) S.A.S.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. At 9 October 1979 Qantas employed 13,590 staff world-wide including 681 technical crew and 2,021 cabin crew.
  2. (a) French, S3 cabin crew and 234 other staff; (b) German, 61 cabin crew and 165 other staff; (c) Russian, 2 cabin crew and 19 other staff; (d) Chinese, 1 cabin crew and 37 other staff; (e) Japanese, 4 cabin crew and 8 other staff; (f) Malay/Indonesian, 1 cabin crew and 32 other staff; (g) Italian, 27 cabin crew and 120 other staff; (h) Greek, 12 cabin crew and 54 other staff.

Figures do not include locally appointed staff overseas speaking mother tongue or those not normally required to use multi lingual skills as part of their job.

Information for most staff not readily available, however, following information is available on the number of aircrew who have more than one language other than English.

  1. (a) 30 aircrew; (b) 5 aircrew; (c) 2 aircrew.
  2. Qantas has a foreign language learning facility based on University of N.S.W. Institute of Languages package providing instruction at elementary level in French, Dutch, Italian, Greek, German and Spanish. Future consideration will be given to extending these to advanced level as well as adding Japanese, Malay/Indonesian and Russian at both levels. University of NSW has also developed for Qantas cabin crew an individual programmed instruction package available either on campus or at home. Preference is given in the employment of customer contact staff to applicants with multi language skills provided they meet all other selection criteria. However, all local staff appointed overseas must have English as second language.
  3. No.

Uranium Enrichment Study (Question No. 4823)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he state on 23 January 1 979 that the Government will study the feasibility of the establishment of a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia.
  2. If so, (a) when did the study begin, (b) who is conducting it, (c) which foreign companies or Governments are involved and (d) which State Governments and private companies in Australia have been involved in the study.
  3. Will the study recommend possible sites for an enrichment plant; if so, what sites have been considered.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In accordance with the statement of 23 January 1979, arrangements for the proposed study of the feasibility of undertaking commercial uranium enrichment in Australia are being discussed with State Governments, the Northern Territory Government and private industry. Consultations are also proceeding with potential collaborators including the Governments of France, Japan, the United States and the Urenco/Centec organisation.
  3. This would be a matter for those who will undertake the proposed study to consider.

There is also considerable scope for the discovery of additional high-grade deposits in Australia. A recently completed international study- ‘World Uranium Potential An International Evaluation’ (OECD-NEA/IAEA, December 1978) estimates that the speculative resources of the Australian and Oceania area range from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tonnes of uranium. The great majority of these speculative resources are believed to be located in Australia.

In reaching its decisions on the further development of Australia’s unraium resources the Government had special regard to the issues of nuclear non-proliferation and world energy requirements. The possible deferral of the plutonium economy was one of the considerations of the Government in reaching its decision to allow the further development of Australia’s uranium resources. While some countries plan to establish or keep open the option of using fast breeder reactors and the associated fuel cycle, the economic incentive to turn to them will decrease if secure supplies of uranium are available at fair and reasonable prices.

Only as a major exporter of uranium is Australia in a position to exert influence and to take initiatives to strengthen nuclear safeguards whilst supplying essential sources of energy to an energy-deficient world.

Air Freight Industry (Question No. 4867)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What consultations have been held with the air freight industry concerning recommendations on possible changes to the industry in the report on the review of Australia’s civil aviation policy.
  2. When were the consultations held.
  3. 3 ) With whom were they held.
  4. When will he announce the outcome of the consultations.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Following the release of the Review Report I invited comments on the Report’s recommendations. No comments specifically relating to air freight were received. However, I have on a number of occasions met with members of the air freight industry at which time these recommendations have been discussed. I do not consider it appropriate to advise details of these meetings.

  1. As I have previously indicated I hope to be in a position to make a statement during the current Parliamentary session.

Travel Insurance (Question No. 4879)

Mr Humphreys:

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

Is it a fact that all insurance firms offering travel insurance regard medically certified sickness or death as the only allowable circumstances in which the cost of a cancelled advance purchase ticket can be recovered; if so, has this been the case for the last 10 years.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

I am not able to comment for all firms offering travel insurance. However, of the four insurance companies whose policies are available in Qantas’ ticket offices, one company allows claims for sickness or death to a passenger or near relative; the policies of the other three companies cover unforeseen circumstances outside the control of the person insured.

Travel Insurance (Question No. 4922)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. Does Qantas recommend any specific insurance company to its passengers; if so, for what reasons and what are the terms of the agreement between Qantas and that insurance company.
  2. 2 ) Is it a fact that insuring with that company must be carried out either on the day that the Qantas ticket is purchased or as near as possible to the day, while other travel insurance companies offer insurance at virtually any time in the period between purchase of the ticket and departure.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that Qantas does not recommend any specific insurance company to its passengers. However, the policies of four insurance companies are available in Qantas ticket offices. The four companies were chosen on the basis of advice from Qantas’ insurance broker as providing a comprehensive range of cover, all of which are competitive within the insurance industry.
  2. 2 ) There is no requirement that insurance must be bought on the day the Qantas ticket is purchased. Three of the companies, whose policies are available in Qantas ticket offices, will accept cover bought up to the day of departure. I am informed that it is Qantas’ policy to recommend to passengers that they buy insurance cover at the time of ticketing to afford the greatest level of protection, particularly where advance purchase conditions are involved.

Fishing Agreement with Japan (Question No. 4923)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he state in an answer to a question without notice in the House on 9 October 1979 (Hansard, pages 1723-4) that there was a complete lack of scientific evidence to back decisions to allow the Japanese to fish off the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. Has research into black marlin and other fish in Australasian waters been completed by (a) the Institute of Marine Science, Univeristy of Miami, (b) the United States of America Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service in California, (c) Mr J. W. Anderson of the International Game Fishing Association in a report on the subject and (d) the Cairns Game Fishing Club in its Tagging Report, 1977.
  3. Were these studies taken into account in negotiations with the Japanese in respect of an Australia-Japan fishing agreement.
  4. Is it a fact that a study of this subject is currently being undertaken and sponsored by his Department and due to be completed in about 2 months time.
  5. If so, why was the signing of the agreement not delayed until after the findings of that study were available.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I did say that complete lack of scientific evidence, and by that I meant that there have been no definitive studies on the relationship between longlining and gamefishing in the Coral Sea, has been a problem in the discussions. Further, I said in the House on 17 October 1979 all information on the various examinations that have been carried out has been available to the Department of Primary Industry and has been used by the Department in its assessment of the situation.
  2. Both the Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami and the United States of America Depanment of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service have published documents which refer to black marlin in Australian waters. I am advised that Mr J. Anderson has published an article dealing with black marlin fishing of the Great Barrier Reef in Volume 41 Number 2 of the International Marine Angler, 1979. 1 am also advised that there is a report by the Cairns Game Fishing Club which refers to marlin.
  3. The studies referred to in (2) were taken into account.
  4. An economic survey is being carried out by my Depanment to assess the value of the Cairns Game Fishery both to Cairns and Australia generally. It is expected that the survey will be completed by the end of 1 979.
  5. Delay was not warranted. The agreement will be reviewed annually in the light of information as it comes to hand, including that contained in the economic survey referred to in (4).

Foreign Fishing Vessels (Question No. 4926)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

Did the report of the working group established by the Australian Fisheries Council on the 200 mile Australian Fishing Zone state that licensing foreign fishing operations may not be acceptable since it does not generate any secondary benefits either by way of land based activities associated with the victualling or servicing of the vessel in Australia and the handling, trans-shipment or processing of the catch in Australia; if so, on what advice did the Government rely in choosing licensing as the form of participation by foreign fishing interests in the Zone.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are:

The Working Group’s comments have to be read in the context that it was discussing various forms of participation by foreign fishing interests in the 200 mile Australian fishing zone (AFZ). At page 57 of the report when discussing forms of licensed foreign fishing the Working Group stated:

In the simplest form this involves permitting foreign vessels to operate within the 200 mile zone subject only to the payment of a licence fee and /or royalty and the provision of statistical data. Such an approach, however may not be acceptable since it does not generate any secondary benefits either by way of land based activities associated with the victualling or servicing of the vessel in Australia and the handling, trans-shipment or processing of the catch in Australia.

The Working Group went on to discuss possibilities for additional conditions to be attached to approval of licensed fishing operations, such as port calls and landing of all or a portion of the catch in Australia, in order to maximise benefits for the industry and community as a whole.

In fact the Government when negotiating access to the AFZ has been looking to maximize benefits to Australia including the protection of Australian fishing interests. In this connection it has sought additional benefits of the type advened to by the Working Group.

The Working Group, also clearly recognised that there was already widespread international agreement that coastal States sovereignty over the living marine resources of the 200 mile zone carries with it an obligation to admit foreign fishing vessels to take the surplus above the coastal States harvesting capacity on terms and conditions determined by the coastal State.

Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Co. (Question No. 4928)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What stage have negotiations reached between the Australian Government and the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company concerning access to the Australian Fishing Zone.
  2. Have the Queensland Government and its authorities and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority been kept informed of the negotiations with this company.
  3. Did his predecessor give an undertaking in a letter to me dated 19 June 1979 that proposals submitted by Kailis Kaohsiung and other Taiwanese fishing companies had been considered at Commonwealth, State and industry levels.
  4. In order to avoid the situation in which the Government has found itself over the Japanese Fishing Agreement, will he make available to the Parliament the terms of the agreement which have already been agreed upon by the Taiwanese fishing company.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Agreements providing for access by Taiwanese trawlers and gillnetters to the Australian fishing zone as from 1 November 1979, have been signed by myself, representatives of the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company as agent for the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild and by the Chairman of the Guild.
  2. The Queensland Government has been kept fully informed and have approved the Agreements. Under the terms and conditions of access, the area of operations of Taiwanese vessels will not include areas of concern to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In fact they do not include any areas on the east coast of Australia.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes. Arrangements are in hand for the Agreements to be tabled in the Parliament.

Boeing 707 VIP Aircraft (Question No. 4935)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Why was the VIP Boeing 707 aircraft used to fly the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Lagos when commercial aircraft flights were available at a first class airfare of $205 as reported.
  2. ) What was the cost by category of the use of the Boeing 707 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  3. Was the cost of fuel for the Boeing 707 $17,000 as reported in the Australian media.
  4. To which Department’s expense items was the cost of the use of the Boeing 707 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the trip to Lagos charged and what sum was charged.
  5. What was the precise formula used to calculate the cost of the use of the Boeing 707 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The RAAF B707 aircraft was travelling to Lagos to pick up the Prime Minister and members of his party for the flight to Lusaka. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had completed important disucssions in London and with Commonwealth Leaders in Tanzania and Kenya. He returned to Lagos on the aircraft so that issues relating to the Commonwealth meeting could be discussed between him and the Prime Minister during the flight to Lusaka.
  2. to (5) All charges for ministerial travel in the RAAF B707 relating to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Lusaka will be met by the Department of Administrative Services under Division 140. The aircraft charges cannot be confirmed as all accounts for operating costs for the visit have not yet been finalised.

Hire of Helicopter (Question No. 4940)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of the hire of a helicopter referred to in contract C2/79/37 on page 78 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 1 8 September 1979.
  2. 2 ) What is the duration of the contract.
  3. 3 ) Where was/is the helicopter operated.
  4. By what means are the tasks performed by this helicopter normally accomplished.
  5. What are the names, addresses and tender prices of any unsuccessful tenderers for this contract.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Transport of departmental personnel for inspection/ servicing of marine navigational aids at Deal Island and Wilson ‘s Promontory.
  2. 2 ) This contract was for the month of July 1979.
  3. From Moorabbin Airport.
  4. By helicopter.
  5. Vowell Air Services (Helicopters) Pty Ltd, Tyabb, Victoria. It is not the practice to disclose financial details of unsuccessful tenders.

Transport Administration Courses (Question No. 4944)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the names, designations or sponsoring organisations of persons attending the transport administration course referred to in contract 5 / 1 /354 on page 79 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 1 8 September 1 979.
  2. ) Are these courses held regularly; if so, how frequently; if not, for what reason was this course held.
  3. What is the nature of instruction given at this course, by whom was it given, and at what cost.
  4. What teaching aids/audio visual aids were employed.
  5. Were these aids provided by his Department; if not, by whom were they supplied, and at what cost.
  6. For what reasons was this course held in the Marco Polo Inn of North Melbourne, Victoria.
  7. Have previous courses of this nature been held at the Marco Polo Inn; if not, where were they held.
  8. 8 ) Are further courses of this nature planned; if so, when.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The course referred to has not yet been conducted. It is scheduled for November 1979. Proposed course membership is:
  1. The course will be the seventh to be conducted since 1974. The Department aims for a frequency of three courses every two financial years or at least one course in each financial year.
  2. The course aims to give those attending an overall view of the constitutional, legislative, policy and other factors that impinge upon the administration of transport in

Australia. Lectures and discussions are conducted mainly by senior departmental officers, with officers of other Departments and officials of non-Public Service organisations taking sessions on specialised topics. Outside lecturers who charge a fee are paid at the rates recommended by the Public Service Board. Of the five outside speakers proposed for the November course, only one will be charging a fee. The cost will be $60. A consultant is to be employed as Director of Studies at a fee of $3,800 plus expenses.

  1. The aids to be employed will be chalkboard, overhead projector, 16 mm movie projector, 35 mm slide projector, and tape recorder.
  2. 5 ) The aids are provided by the Department.
  3. Because the Central Office of the Department is located in both Canberra and Melbourne it has been customary to alternate the course between those two centres. The Department does not have suitable accommodation available in either centre. The Marco Polo Inn quotation was the lowest of those received from venues considered suitable.
  4. Course No. 5 in November 1977 was held at the Marco Polo Inn. Other courses have been held at the venues listed below: 28.4.74- 10.5.74-Canberra Hotel, Canberra 17.11 . 74-29. 1 1 . 74-Montmartre Motel, Melbourne 27.7.75- 8.8.75-Kythera Motel, Canberra 5.9.76- 17.9.76-Melbourne Town House, Melbourne 30.7.78- 1 1 . 8.78-Belconnen Way Hotel, Canberra.
  5. 8 ) At least one course per financial year is planned.

Naval Movements in Indian Ocean (Question No. 4958)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 8 October 1 979:

Will he bring up to date the information supplied in his answer to Question No. 894 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2590), regarding foreign vessel movements in the Indian Ocean.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The answer to Question No. 894 was updated in May 1978 (Question No. 937, Hansard, 9 May 1978, page 2590) and again in May of this year (Question No. 3849, Hansard, 28 May 1979, page 2497). Up to date information on the same subject was also provided in October (Question No. 4776, Hansard, 25 October 1979, page 2580). The following table provides a consolidated record of Soviet, US, UK and French naval and naval associated ship deployments in the Indian Ocean during the period 1 May 1977 to 30 September 1979 in terms of maximum number of ships present by month and monthly class/day figures. (Minor variations to information previously tabled are due to more recently available data).
  2. There have been 83 transits of the Suez Canal by a total of 68 Soviet naval and naval associated vessels during the period 1 May 1977 to 30 September 1979.
  3. Indian Ocean ship day figures for the USSR, USA, UK and France are shown in the following table. The PRC did not deploy naval ships into the Indian Ocean during the period. Data for other countries is unavailable.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791121_reps_31_hor116/>.