House of Representatives
29 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 3.5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2331

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown, Mr Burns, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Lloyd, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Les McMahon, Sir William McMahon and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families,
  2. All marriages should be recognised as partnerships by allowing partners to divide their joint income for tax purposes,
  3. The family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, should be an economic unit in tax laws,
  4. Children are Australia’s future and their individual care by a parent at home should not be discouraged by extra tax.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will:

Reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Blewett and Mr Clyde Cameron.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 10 per cent by 1990 and about 16 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare:

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised Investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

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

Petitions received.

Olympic Games

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

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

That the Australian Government is attempting to use sport as a political weapon, and that its interference in the participation by Australian sportsmen in the Olympic Games tarnishes Olympic ideals and undermines the Olympic movement as a whole.

We believe that Australian participation in the Olympic Games will help to broaden the understanding and to deepen the friendship amongst the many peoples in the world. On the other hand, a return to the old ‘cold war’ hysteria can only damage Australia, and endanger world peace.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government support the Olympic Games in Moscow, as an important step towards reducing international tensions and promoting understanding and co-operation among the world ‘s peoples.

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

Petition received.

Mr Ken Matime

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

To all members of the Australian Government, Parliament House, Canberra:

To members of the Australian Government in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

That Ken Matime is a black South African student who was studying for a law degree when his government decided to place a ‘banning’ order on him. This effectively put an end to his studies. The South African Government has refused Ken Matime an exit visa even though he has been accepted by three Australian Universities: University of Western Australia, Monash and the Australian National University.

Although no reason for the refusal has been given we the undersigned believe that Ken Matime ‘s only ‘crime ‘is to have belonged to an organisation- the South African Students Organisation- which opposes the racial policies of the National Party Government in South Africa.

Consequently your petitioners request the Australian Government to urge the South African Government to allow Ken Matime to leave South Africa so that he can resume his studies in Australia. by Dr Blewett.

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 Braithwaite.

Petition received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

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

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

That the retail price of Australian rum is too high and should be reduced to enable the average Australian to buy it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to reduce the excise duty on Australian rum.

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

Petition received.

Service Pensions

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:

Whereas the Government has recently extended the eligibility for Service Pensions to include members of Allied forces, eligibility for merchant seamen remains excessively restrictive.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: the Government extend eligibility for Service Pensions to all merchant seamen whose service took them into a theatre of war and that the practice of relying exclusively on forms T124X and T124T to establish eligibility be abandoned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrDawkins.

Petition received.

Taxation

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Government has failed to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to overcome the anomalous position of the self-employed person in relation to superannuation.

That this anomaly arises because the self-employed person must pay for superannuation provisions out of his or her after-tax income and is restricted by the Act in the amount of the contributions which he or she is allowed to make.

That the same situation does not exist for the employed person who can have large contributions made by his or her employer into superannuation benefits and such contributions are fully deductible by the employer.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Government act to achieve effective parity of treatment between the self-employed and employees in the matter of superannuation.

That the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act in section 23ja (self employed persons fund) be amended to bring them into line with the provisions of section 23f (employees fund).

That a self employed person be entitled to an allowable deduction for contributions to a 23ja fund of up to15 per cent of the tax-payers personal exertion income from selfemployment. This figure at15 per cent is chosen as representing the total of employer and employee contributions which would be expected in a reasonable employee superannuation fund.

That, as five per cent of lump sums from an employees scheme is taxed, then a similar provision should be included for lump sums from self-employed schemes.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Legislation

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 equal opportunity regarding Human Rights and fundamental freedoms is not enjoyed by all Australians irrespective of the race, colour, or ethnic origin of certain groups, particularly Aboriginal and Islander groups.

That the Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill do not advance the causes of Australia’s oppressed Aboriginals and Islanders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament affirms:

  1. . That all Australians regardless of race colour or ethnic origin are equal before God and man. The Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment

Bill as at present proposed do not create public confidence that they will preserve human rights or extend those rights to Australia’s oppressed racial and ethnic groups.

  1. That Parliament rejects or withdraws for re-drafting those Bills until the Government secures the confidence of Aboriginal and Islander communities and all ethnic groups that those Bills enhance the international and national commitments that the Commonwealth has undertaken.

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

Petition received.

Acquisition of Land in Balmain

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

We request that the land currently used by the Australian National Line at Morts Dock, Balmain, be immediately made available for combination development of open space for public use and low cost housing such as Housing Commission one level units, hostel and nursing home, accommodation for aged persons, pensioners, single parent groups and low income earners.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House consider this Petition.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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

The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as

Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games Boycott

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia submits:

  1. That the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games proposed by the present Government be withdrawn forthwith.
  2. That the current planning for an alternative games be brought to an immediate halt.
  3. That the Government give an undertaking to refrain from the politicisation of sport, especially in regard to the OlympicGames.
  4. That the Government notify the Australian Olympic Federation and the International Olympic Committee of these steps without delay to allow preparation for the Moscow Olympic Games to continue unhindered.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Gaines Boycott

To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the sportsmen and women and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

Valuing the Olympic movement as an historic expression of all that is worthwhile in human endeavour and conscious of the important role competitive sport plays in maintaining health and the spirit of achievement in everyday life.

Honouring the high principles consistently pursued by the International Games Administration of keeping the movement free from religious, racial and political considerations.

Realising that the Olympic movement owes its resilience and very existence to the citizens of the nations from whom spring the participants in the contests and that the survival of this movement is the cherished hope of all communities.

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 19 July to 3 August 1980.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. . by Mr Baume, Dr Blewett, Mr Dawkins, Mr Holding, Mr James, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Kerin and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Olympic Games Boycott

To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 19th July to 3rd August, 1980.

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

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 Australian Government promotes carcass trade and that all future shipments of live animals overseas for slaughter be banned, and thereby stop a repetition of the shocking loss of life through burns or drowning as occurred with the incineration or drowning of 40,000 sheep on a ship to abattoirs in the Middle East, or the more recent cruelty to horses being exported for slaughter in Japan.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of 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 11.2 per cent while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3 . 4 per cent.

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

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

Petition received.

page 2334

SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

That this House condemns the action of Comrade Rogov, Minister-Counsellor of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, for lying to the Australian public in a radio interview on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program PM on Thursday evening, 24 April last, when he repeatedly and falsely claimed that Soviet troops had not invaded Afghanistan.

page 2334

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2334

QUESTION

JAPANESE FISHERIES: GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Does the Minister for Science and the Environment know whether the Australian and Japanese governments have entered into jointly funded scientific research programs in respect of conservation in the Australian fishing zone, as is foreshadowed in Article VII of the current agreement on fisheries between the two governments? Can the Minister give details of the nature and funding of all current and prospective research programs in the Great Barrier Reef region? Is the Minister aware whether the Government will allow foreign fishing activities within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region, as defined by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act?

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-I am not aware of the precise details of any research projects entered into by the Japanese and Australian governments in relation to fishing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region. I assure him that in very large parts of the marine park, when it has been declared, trawling will not be allowed. Commercial fishing will be permitted in certain areas. The only Japanese fishermen allowed there will be those who have been licensed by the Queensland and Australian governments. This is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, and I am sure that it will be kept under very close control to ensure that there will be no damage to the reef or to its marine life.

page 2334

QUESTION

Q ANT AS AIRWAYS LTD: HOBART-CHRISTCHURCH SERVICE

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Transport. Has the Government agreed to pay Qantas Airways Ltd a subsidy of $ 1 m a year to operate a service between Hobart and Christchurch? If so, what is the economic or political principle which could possibly justify subsidising this route? Does such a principle have general application? If it does, will the principle of direct taxpayer contribution to provide artificially low air fares also be adopted to subsidise uneconomic domestic routes, rather than requiring Western Australians and others to crosssubsidise them by paying artificially high air fares on the profitable long-haul routes in Australia.

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

-That is the kind of question that evokes a little emotion, particularly between Western Australians and Tasmanians. I would not like to comment on the Press speculation because the Government has not yet made a decision about the proposal. There is before the Government a proposal to provide an air service between Hobart and Christchurch in an effort to promote tourism. There are some problems with respect to the cost of the service to the intending airline. Indeed, it is true that Qantas has agreed to provide a service between Hobart and Christchurch on the condition that the domestic carriers provide a suitable aircraft for that purpose under a charter arrangement. Another proposal was submitted to the Government by one of the domestic carriers to provide a service, in its own right, between Hobart and Christchurch, but that would conflict with the Government’s current policy, which is to give to Qantas the sole right as the international flag carrier.

On the wider question of the subsidisation of domestic and international routes- the question of cross-subsidisation- the Government is currently concerned about that issue. Indeed, the Government ‘s proposal to set up a public inquiry into the air fare structures on the main domestic routes is consistent with its concern to ensure that if there is to be a subsidy for certain routes at least it should know whether the service is to be subsidised through the air fare structure or by direct subvention.

page 2335

QUESTION

IRAN

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer him to the political turmoil that has arisen in the United States in the wake of Secretary Vance ‘s resignation.

Mr Hodgman:

– Whose side are you on?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The honourable member for Denison has made that interjection on many occasions. I warn him not to do so.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I commence again. I refer the Prime Minister to the political turmoil that has arisen in the United States in the wake of Secretary Vance’s resignation. I refer him also to the muted but unmistakable signs of disquiet that have arisen among the allies of Western Europe in the aftermath of the unsuccessful attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the United States Government is informed that, despite Australian support for the problems it faces in releasing the hostages and despite our sympathy for the tragic events of last week, Australian support cannot be assumed for any attempt to resolve the hostages problem by escalation of military pressures?

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

– I believe all members of this House and all Australians will be very seriously upset by recent events. I think we all regret very much the matters that caused the United States to act as it did. For my pan and for the Government’s part I can find no criticism of President Carter’s seeking the release of the hostages. I think we need to understand the immense difficulties of a great and powerful nation and the sense of frustration that would clearly be felt within the leadership and within the nation itself at finding members of its own community held hostage by a government which has acted without the law and in defiance of all normally accepted codes of behaviour. I am sure that all honourable gentlemen in the House would agree with me that if the practice that has been adopted by Iran in this instance were pursued by other countries, normal and sensible exchange between nations would be totally impossible.

It is against that background of the behaviour of Iran, which has caused this problem, this difficulty, that we need to judge present events and to consider, in the quietest and most sober way possible, the future course that we and others ought to take.

I do not underestimate the difficulties and problems that exist for Europe and for the United States- indeed, for the entire independent world- not only as a result of Afghanistan but also as a result of the compounding problems caused by actions in Iran. I believe that all members of the Australian community, and again all members of this House, would have the greatest sympathy for President Carter in the very real dilemma and difficulty in which he has found himself as President of the United States with his own citizens held hostage. He is the leader of the most powerful free world nation, but in a sense he is unable to apply that power in a way that would achieve an immediate resolution of the difficulties. I think we are all conscious of the fact that subsequent events could lead to an even more dangerous situation. They could lead even more swiftly than anyone could envisage- even more swiftly than I envisaged when I introduced the debate on Afghanistan some time ago- at worst to Soviet influence over oil supplies in Iran. That could happen more quickly than anyone felt at that time. So, nobody should underestimate the seriousness of the situation which confronts the United States, Europe and all those independent nations which are dependent upon the strength of the Western Alliance.

Heads of government of the European Communities and their Foreign Ministers have been meeting yesterday and today. It is our purpose to find out, as urgently as we can, the nature of their deliberations and the conclusions to which they have come. We will be talcing those decisions into account in whatever actions we might need to take and in whatever decisions we might need to make. We discussed very fully this morning recent events in Iran and what actions Australia might need to take, but the discussion was put into suspense for a while until we can get the results of the conference of European heads of government.

I would like to add only that up to this point Australia has been very much in support of the United States and remains so. We have taken actions which have supported the United States not only in relation to Afghanistan because we believe she is right, but also in relation to Iran and the problems created by the Iranian Government ‘s inability to establish control oyer its citizens and by its inability to secure the proper and appropriate release of the hostages. We have felt it necessary to support by trade measures and by diplomatic measures the position taken by the United States. Indeed, last week there were statements from Europe indicating again strong support for the requests of the United States in these matters. The thrust of the position we have taken is very similar to that taken by European nations, strongly in support of both the United States and of the President’s efforts to achieve a release of the hostages. I welcome the nature and the tone of the statements that were made by the Opposition over the weekend. I hope very much that on this issue as we move, as I believe and as the Government believes, towards a graver and more serious situation, Australia can preserve a degree of unity on the attitudes that we express and the attitudes that we adopt.

page 2336

QUESTION

OVERPAYMENTS TO PHARMACISTS

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Health aware of concern amongst a number of pharmacists that his recent statements to Parliament on the question of payments for dispensing items under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme have been interpreted as a questioning of their integrity?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Yes, I am aware that some pharmacists have been criticised in relation to the statement I made. I think that criticism is utterly unfair because, as honourable members will recall, when I made the statement there was no question or criticism of pharmacists’ integrity in any shape, sense or form. Pharmacists could not have known about the error in the input of the program which took place in 1974. There was no way they could have known about that error in the programming of the automatic data processing procedures. Therefore, any criticism levelled at individual pharmacists in relation to this matter is utterly without foundation.

page 2336

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA DAY FUNCTIONS AT AUSTRALIAN EMBASSIES

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Foreign Minister or his Department instruct our foreign embassy posts overseas prior to the last Australia Day that diplomats of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were not to be invited to Australia Day functions and that any invitations that had been issued were to be revoked? Does the Minister consider this action necessary and the best way to win friends and influence people?

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

-I spent Australia Day in Manila during a visit through South East Asia. My recollection of actions taken in regard to the Soviet Union on Australia Day is rather hazy. I would have to go back and check the record. I do recall that Soviet representatives attended at various embassies. I understand from those people who attended Australia Day celebrations here, which I was unable to attend for the reasons that I indicated earlier, that a representative of the Soviet Union was at those celebrations. But what I have said is all subject to my checking the record.

page 2336

QUESTION

IRAN

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the important role the Commonwealth plays today in world affairs, and in view of the events that have taken place recently in Iran, with which we sympathise, has the Prime Minister consulted the Commonwealth heads of state to inquire whether the Commonwealth could take action which might help to resolve some of the more dangerous differences that have arisen between the governments of Iran and the United States, taking into account that there are all sorts of reports about future action the United States might like to take, concerning not only the Ayatollah Khomeini but also other matters, in another effort to relieve the hostages?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Commonwealth was able to play a role in relation to what was then Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe because that was very particularly a Commonwealth problem, set in the Commonwealth environment and providing opportunities for joint Commonwealth action to help come to the solution that happily we have seen to this point. I think that there would be a quite different set of circumstances in relation to Middle East or South

West Asian matters. When I was in Zimbabwe, obviously I had wide-ranging discussions with a number of Commonwealth leaders and also with non-Commonwealth leaders or Foreign Ministers- with Lord Carrington, Herr Genscher from Germany, Prime Minister Gandhi, President Kaunda, and a number of others. I do not see at this moment a role the Commonwealth could usefully adopt in these circumstances, but certainly if such a role unfolded the Australian Government would stand ready to do whatever it could, to pursue whatever path it could, to help secure the release of the hostages and, at the same time, to help relieve the very dangerous and sensitive tensions which have been unleashed over the passage of months as a result of the holding of the hostages by Iran.

page 2337

QUESTION

ARREST OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS IN TURKEY

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent arrest of the Babalis brothers, who are constituents of mine, by the Turkish authorities for an alleged violation of Turkish territorial waters while fishing off Cesme which is a resort on the Greek Aegean coast. Will the Minister confirm that these Australian citizens were brought before a Turkish court today? Will the Minister advise the Parliament what action the Australian Government is taking to assist the Babalis brothers?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– I recall the representations that have been made urgently on this matter by the honourable member and also by the honourable member for St George. It was through those representations that I learned that two Australian citizens, Peter and Jim Babalis, together with two Greek nationals, were arrested by Turkish authorities on approximately 18 April and charged with, as I understand it, illegal entry into Turkish territorial waters. I am advised that the Australian Embassy in Ankara has been informed by the Turkish prosecutor’s office that a court hearing will be held today. I understand that the two brothers have engaged a lawyer for their defence and that the Australian Embassy is monitoring the developments closely. I am informed that when the Embassy first made contact with the prosecutor’s office the prosecutor was unaware that the brothers were in fact Australian citizens. I can assure the honourable member that the Embassy will do its utmost to ensure that the brothers’ interests as Australian citizens are protected, but until the results of the court hearing are known I am unable to say what further action can be considered by the Australian Government. I will keep in contact with both honourable members on the matter.

page 2337

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. The Prime Minister recently launched the national Aboriginal employment campaign in Sydney. Can the Minister advise the House of any effects that campaign has had on the high level of unemployment amongst Aboriginals, particularly in the Sydney district?

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

– I can inform the honourable gentleman of some very significant results from the launching by the Prime Minister of the national campaign on Aboriginal employment, and I speak particularly of the impact of the campaign upon metropolitan Sydney. The figures have been most encouraging, particularly those for March, which reflect a doubling of Aboriginal referrals over the figures for the same month last year and a threefold increase for the same period in the placement of Aboriginals in employment. That is shown by these statistics, which I will provide for the information of the honourable member: In March 1979 there were 108 referrals; in March 1980 there were 234; in March 1979 there were 44 placements in employment; and in March 1980 there were 126. We have seen already a quite remarkable increase in the number of placements of Aboriginals in employment as a result of that campaign. Following the campaign I have written over 300 letters to chief executives of leading companies in Australia. The House will recall that I informed honourable members earlier that at the national launch of the campaign significant and prominent leaders of industry, commerce, trade unions and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were present. I am quite sure that there will be a significant response to my personal approach to the chief executives of those companies.

I take the opportunity also to thank the media for the part they have played in this national campaign. I have said often in matters concerning Aboriginals that governments alone cannot do the job that is required. It requires a total community effort. In Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, commercial and national public television stations have shown, at no cost to the Government, a special film prepared by Government advisers for this national campaign. In addition, radio stations have made available free air time and newspapers have carried articles advertising the campaign. I wish to thank the media for that and I hope that they will continue to join with the Government in this very important cause that we are undertaking for the Aboriginal people.

page 2338

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon Mr Dhanabalan, Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in Singapore. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 2338

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2338

QUESTION

IRAN

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Prime Minister aware that the economy of Iran rests largely on oil reserves discovered by the proceeds of mining at Mount Morgan in the electorate of Capricornia? Is he aware also that those resources were largely developed by British technology and British Petroleum Ltd, and that the disposal of those resources was a major factor in determining the overthrow of the Mossadegh Government and the installation of the Shah which many of the extreme elements in Iran are blaming on the American authorities or agencies? Will he therefore look at the question raised by an honourable member opposite, not from the point of view of what the British Commonwealth’s involvement may be, but in the wider sphere of international peace in which all nations are involved? Will he use the good offices of Australia to encourage Britain and other major nations to sit down and negotiate, as he did in the matter of Zimbabwe and as will have to be done ultimately, whether or not we adopt warlike measures in the meantime?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I was not aware of the precise details contained in the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question. From my knowledge they may or may not be correct. There has been a significant number of attempts to negotiate and to talk. Different groups, including the Secretary-General of the United States, have visited Iran.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The United Nations.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. I thank the honourable gentleman. There have been continuing questions in the international community as to how best to approach Iran and the Iranian Government. Honourable gentlemen would understand that one of the very real problems is that within Iran itself there is no one power centre; obviously there are several power centres. For example, it might be possible to come to an agreement with the President but there could be no certainty that the President would be able to give effect to that decision. Quite extreme, but not necessarily inaccurate, language has been used about what is happening in Iran and about the nature of some of the people who are exerting power and influence over current affairs within that country. All the norms of accepted international behaviour have been put aside within Iran. That makes it very difficult to negotiate or to consult. But I am quite certain that the international community- the United Kingdom and other countries- will continue to look to all means of securing a release of the hostages.

I emphasise again that I believe that the United States Government and the United States people have shown great patience and great restraint over many months of provocation. I think that needs to be taken into account and understood. We might believe that we can understand the feelings of President Carter and the citizens of the United States, but the people who are being held hostage happen to be American citizens. I do not know that we could truly judge the strength of their feelings unless we were in a similar situation- unless Australian citizens were being held hostage and we were relatively powerless to secure their release in any direct way.

Whilst negotiation and consultation may well have a part to play in this matter, we need to understand the very real predicament in which the United States has been placed, the patience and restraint that President Carter has shown and the need for Iran to recognise, in the interests of all the Iranian people, that this matterwhatever its causes; whatever the reasons for the taking of the hostages in the first place- cannot and will not advance the cause of Iran or of the Iranian people. There can be an attempt to start rebuilding in that country, to establish a concerted governmental structure, only when this argument and the holding of the hostages are put aside and when the Iranian people stop looking back to the past, to grievances real or alleged, and start looking to the future and the working out of their own future. Until they are prepared to do that and until they are prepared to release the hostages, it is very difficult to see how this issue will unfold over coming weeks.

page 2338

QUESTION

CHEESE

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– The Minister for Primary Industry will be aware of the growing frustration in the dairy industry over the long delay in the resolution of the problem of subsidised cheese imports from New Zealand and Europe, particularly as it is now over 12 months since the presentation of the Industries Assistance Commission’s final report on this subject. Can the Minister tell the Parliament and the industry whether the import duties and other restrictions on European cheese negotiated at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations are now in force? Has the New Zealand Government agreed to restrain cheese imports to the current level? When will the IAC’s final report be made public?

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

– The Government is certainly aware of the industry’s concern about competition from cheese imports, particularly from New Zealand. The Government has repeatedly expressed its concern, both in international venues, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and MTN discussions and, more recently, in discussion with the representatives of the Commission of the European Communities who were in Australia last week, about the level of non-tariff support accorded to dairy industries by some major trading partners, particularly the EEC, and about the disruption to international trade caused by the surpluses which are encouraged by such subsidised support. The GATT-MTN agreement between Australia and the European Common Market provides for unrestricted duty free entry for certain fancy cheeses, including camembert and Stilton, which do not receive any export subsidies, and for a binding at the current duty rate within a tariff quota of 1,000 tonnes per annum for edam and gouda and 2,500 tonnes for certain other varieties, comprising mainly hard Italian cheeses. In return, Australia gained a guaranteed annual access to the EEC for 3,000 tonnes of cheese. The honourable member asked whether that agreement is in operation. It came into operation on 1 January.

The Government has been seeking to come to an arrangement with New Zealand which would remove the danger of disruption to Australia’s marketing arrangements for New Zealand cheese imports but which would be in keeping with our commitments under the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. My colleague, the Minister for Trade and Resources, recently put to the New Zealand Government a specific proposal for regulating New Zealand cheese imports which accords with the views expressed by the executive of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. The New Zealand Government has responded to that and that response is now being considered. At the opening of Farm World at

Lardner some weeks ago I made the point that the Australian Government would not allow the Australian dairy industry, which has gone through a period of reconstruction over past years, to be unfairly affected by New Zealand cheese imports. I am able to say to the House that the Prime Minister in his speech to the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association the other night made a quite excellent statement. He said:

We will not allow the Australian dairy industry to be unfairly affected by these negotiations and we are making this point most plain in our negotiations with New Zealand.

That is where the matter rests at the moment. My colleague, the Minister for Trade and Resources, will be taking up the response with his New Zealand counterpart in due course. A decision on the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations will be taken by the Government when the negotiations with New Zealand have been made public. At that time the report of the IAC will be made public.

page 2339

QUESTION

BEHAVIOUR OF AIRCRAFT PASSENGERS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. As a teetotaller and a confirmed coward especially in relation to air travel, I draw the Minister’s attention to reports of examples of drunken violence by passengers on Qantas Airways Ltd flights and, I am sure, on other airlines both internal and international. Will he investigate this problem urgently and report to the House on possible ways of dealing with it? Will he at least stop airlines from encouraging the drinking of alcohol on aircraft by eliminating free and cheap drinks?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I have asked for advice in regard to the matter to which the honourable gentleman has referred. I have been most concerned about some of the Press reports that I have read. Certainly, I have been concerned about the reaction of the stewards and others to the events that have occurred. I certainly would want to take the latter part of the honourable gentleman’s question on notice and give it some considerable thought before I gave an affirmative answer.

page 2339

QUESTION

FOUR CORNERS’ PROGRAM

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It concerns last weekend’s Four Corners program. Is the Minister aware that the Four Comers team seriously misled the Reverend Father Gillam, and through him the congregation of Our Lady Help of Christians Church, Hendra, Brisbane, in relation to participation in that program? Is he aware that 50 seconds of an 18-minute program was devoted to an alternative view on what was presented to him, and therefore his congregation, as a program on abortion? Does objectivity and balance remain a legitimate aim for the Australian Broadcasting Commission? If so, will the Minister contact the ABC commissioners- Mr Laurie Short is already interested- and through them request the Four Corners team to make a public apology to those whom they misled?

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

-I did not see the program referred to by the honourable member. I will pass his query on to the commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. As honourable members know, these are matters for the Commission and not matters for the Minister or for the Government.

page 2340

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BONDS

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Acting Treasurer. I refer him to a statement of the Treasurer of 13 April regarding the soon to be introduced tap issue system for marketing Commonwealth bonds. Were the last official sales of bonds at an interest rate of about 1 1.2 per cent? Is the present market rate about 1 1.7 to 1 1.8 per cent? Since the interest rates struck on tap issues are to reflect market conditions, would the introduction of the system at the present time require a rise in official rates of at least a half of one per cent if the Government is serious about selling long term bonds? Does this mean that semigovernment public issue rates would also rise from the present rate of 1 1.7 per cent to more than 12 per cent? In the circumstances, does he still believe it advisable to proceed with the implementation of this system at this time, with particularly tight liquidity conditions developing? If the Acting Treasurer is determined to proceed, what offsetting steps would he have in mind to avert quite obvious severe liquidity problems in the months ahead?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– An announcement will be made shortly regarding the tap issue of bonds. I cannot be precise as to when that will be. Before the Treasurer left Australia, he indicated that the matter would be handled very shortly. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be a little patient.

Mr Willis:

– You have been saying that for a week.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I ask the honourable member to be patient also. At the appropriate time, when the machinery that has to be gone through is completed, an announcement will be made. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether it is wise to proceed with the issue now. A decision has been taken. There is not likely to be a large sale of government bonds in the next few months, but towards the end of this financial year the opportunity for the sale of bonds will improve substantially. My recollection with regard to the interest rates on the last issue, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, is that he is correct. Again I ask him to be patient. When the announcement is made the interest rates will be announced, as will whatever term of loan has been decided upon. The semi-government rates and the usual margin no doubt will be reflected in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition would expect.

page 2340

QUESTION

HOME BUILDING COSTS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Treasurer. I preface my question by pointing out that the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance continue to boast that the Government is containing inflation. Is the Minister aware that the price index of materials used in home building rose by 1 4.9 per cent over the year to March 1980? Is he also aware of the major increases of over 20 per cent in the cost of electrical installation materials and metal products, except steel, during that same period? With rising interest rates and the rising prices of building materials, does he agree that home ownership is beyond the reach of most young Australians under this Government?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The figures that I have read lately indicate that the housing industry has shown a worthwhile improvement and that home ownership is still very much within reach of a large majority of the Australian community. The opportunity to own one’s own home has been part of the Australian way of life and that remains a basic tenet of the Government. The honourable member referred to the fact that the Treasurer and I rightly claim that we are doing very well on the inflationary front. I remind the honourable member for Reid that not many years ago when his party was in office the rate of inflation in this country was three or four percentage points above the average of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In other words, we were losing our ability to compete. Now the rate of inflation in this country is two to three percentage points below the OECD average and our ability to compete has vastly improved. When we see what is going on in other countries, particularly in the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan, we can take a great deal of credit that this Government’s policies on the money supply and controlling Government expenditure are containing the rate of inflation and we are having a marked degree of success. That is being recognised by everyone in Australia other than a few obstinate members of the Australian Labor Party.

page 2341

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the nature of advice given by Chancellor Schmidt on behalf of the West German Government to its National Olympic Committee in respect of support of a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I can give the honourable gentleman advice about the nature of the speech which Chancellor Schmidt gave and the substantial arguments in it when he announced his Government’s decision in the Bundestag. The Chancellor said:

The Federal Government decided this morning to recommend to the National Olympic Committee for Germany not to send a team or individual sportsmen to the 1980 summer Olympic Games in Moscow and Tallin . . . The Federal Government considers that participation in the 1 980 summer Olympics will be inappropriate as long as Soviet occupation of Afghanistan continues . . . The Federal Government did not arrive at this recommendation lightheartedly. On the contrary, we know that millions of people in the East and West, together with us, deeply regret the developments that have made this decision unavoidable. But the Federal Government’s recommendation inevitably ensues from the careful position regarding the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan it has adopted, explained to the House and maintained without change for months.

To this very day, the Soviet Union has not created the conditions which would enable sportsmen from all countries to take part in the summer Games. Nor is there any indication that the Soviet Union will create those conditions before 24 May, the time limit for entries by the National Olympic Committees. Serious and lasting violations of international law are an unsuitable framework for peaceful sporting competition.

The Chancellor continued:

No one who wishes to remain faithful to the Olympic idea and the principles underlying the Olympic Charter can take part in the 1980 Olympic Games. For two of the aims of the Olympic movement are: To educate young people through sport in a spirit of better understanding between each other and a friendship, thereby helping to build a better and more peaceful world; and to spread the Olympic principles throughout the world, thereby creating international goodwill.

He went on to say:

The Federal Government realises that it will be a severe blow to many of our sportsmen not to take part, especially to those who have spent years training hard for this event with personal sacrifice.

The Chancellor well understood their distress and had every sympathy for those who were affected. He went on:

But Olympic Games cannot be seen in isolation from world events. No one can remain unconcerned by the impact and the effects of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, including sportsmen. The conduct of sportsmen, especially top athletes who are at the centre of public interest attracts attention well beyond the domain of sport.

He continued:

Sportsmen know that medals won in Moscow and Tallin would have been a wonderful confirmation of their sporting achievements- but what really counts is the feat itself, even if it is performed elsewhere, even outside Olympic Games.

The Federal Government went on to point out that it had not made things easy for itself in making this recommendation and trusted that the National Olympic Committee for Germany would not make things easy for itself either. Quite plainly the Chancellor of Germany believed that the decision to boycott the Games needed to be supported on the highest international principles. The House, of course, will by now know that the Canadian Olympic Association endorsed the Canadian Government’s view to boycott the Games by a massive vote of 137 to 35.

page 2341

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR SERVICES

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My question to the Minister for Transport is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Perth. Has Ansett Airlines of Australia offered to undertake a Hobart-Christchurch air service and asked that no subsidy be paid to it for such a service? Will the Government urgently reconsider its attitude towards the status of Qantas Airways Ltd as sole international carrier with the possibility of Ansett’s operating this service and the Townsville-Singapore service with no subsidy by the Australian taxpayer?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has, in fact, submitted a proposal to provide a service between Hobart and Christchurch in its own right rather than on a charter arrangement to Qantas. It has also, as we know, submitted a proposal to provide a direct flight from Townsville to Singapore. These proposals, of course, do involve Government policy. They involve the established policy of the Government, which was announced in 1 978 and reaffirmed last year by the Government, that Qantas would remain the sole Australian flag carrier until 1 98 1 when there would be a review of the international arrangements for our flag carrier. The reason for that was to enable the international civil aviation policy to settle down after the hard negotiation that took place between Australia and no fewer than 1 8 other nations.

There have been 33 rounds of negotiations between Australia and 18 other countries during the last 18 months. The result has been, of course, that we have now achieved for air travellers lower advance purchase excursion fares than existed two years ago. There have been reductions of up to $660 for a round trip between Australia and Italy. This has created a tremendous climate for tourism in Australia as a whole. The number of passengers coming to Australia on international flights has increased by 26 per cent.

Mr Uren:

– What about the number of those going out of the country? What has that increased by?

Mr HUNT:

-The number of passengers leaving Australia has increased by 13 per cent. It was against that background that the Government decided the year before last, and reaffirmed last year, to maintain the role of Qantas as the sole Australian flag carrier. In due course, the Government will be giving consideration to the applications that have been made.

page 2342

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND NORTHERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact, as has been reported in statements attributed to Government members, that the Minister has said that he favours in principle the Ansett organisation’s proposal to operate a new air service from Singapore to north Australia? What communications of any kind have taken place between the Government and the Ansett organisation in respect of that proposal? What other organisations have been given an opportunity to lodge an application for such a service? Finally, to ensure that priority is given to protecting the needs of air travellers and the national interest, will he undertake to ensure that the Ansett proposal, together with all other proposals concerning the Singapore service and other new international services, will be subjected to exhaustive public inquiry, as happens in the United States and the United Kingdom, thus preventing backroom dealings in the allocation of air routes?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The honourable member’s question relates to Government policy. It concerns a formal application that has been . made, in writing to me as the Minister, by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. For the information of the House, I mention that I have received’ a similar proposal from Trans-Australia Airlines for operating rights on the same route should the Government decide to approve Ansett ‘s application. The matter will be considered by the Government in due course as one of policy.

page 2342

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware of a report in the Cairns Post today alleging a ‘monstrous deception’ by the Government about the Great Barrier Reef? If so, is the allegation correct?

Mr THOMSON:
NCP/NP

-I am aware of the statement, which is alleged to have been made by the honourable member for Robertson. I suggest that the honourable member should inform himself of the facts. He should read the statements of both the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland on the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. He should also read the terms of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill, which was introduced in the Parliament by the Prime Minister last week. The honourable member for Robertson is guilty of deception and of misleading the people of Australia.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent. I ask the Minister to withdraw the imputation in relation to the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr THOMSON:

-I withdraw. The honourable member for Robertson is trying to sow in the minds of the Australian public the suspicion that this Government is not absolutely and categorically firm in its determination to protect the reef.” On 4 June the Prime Minister said in this Parliament that the Government would not permit exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef area and would not permit the renewal of petroleum exploration permits in the region until the results of both short and long term research into the reef ecosystem are known. On 14 June, a joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland was reported as follows:

Both the Premier and the Prime Minister confirmed that it was the policy of their respective Governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

The honourable member for Robertson claims in his Press statement that all territorial seas round the islands and the Great Barrier Reef will be owned by Queensland until further sections of the Marine Park are declared. This claim is quite inaccurate. The Prime Minister indicated in his second reading speech -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr THOMSON:

-The honourable member for Robertson has made a most inaccurate statement. I quote from the Prime Minister’s second reading speech, as follows:

The Commonwealth recognises its international responsibilities for the Great Barrier Reef and so the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will continue to apply to the whole of the reef region as defined. The rights and title to be vested in the State of Queensland in respect of the seabed of the territorial sea are to be subject to the operation of that Act.

page 2343

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the shocking standard of Aboriginal housing in northern Australia, especially in Queensland? Is it true that there is a net and rising current deficiency of over 1 1,000 dwellings in Aboriginal national housing requirements? Does the Government intend to tackle the problem via the use of Commonwealth Aboriginal housing cooperatives or to continue to defer to the deadhand, reactionary and anti-Aboriginal policies of the Queensland Department -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member uses those sorts of argument in asking a question, I will have to rule him out of order.

Mr WEST:

-I defer. I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman should ask for facts.

Mr WEST:

– I conclude my question. Does the Government intend to continue to defer to the reactionary policies of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement?

Mr VINER:
LP

– My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I are conscious that in many parts of Australia the housing conditions under which Aboriginals are obliged to live can be described only as shocking. For that very reason this Government has consistently put a high proportion of its funds made available to the Department and to State governments into Aboriginal housing. Also this year my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction, through the welfare housing account which he administers, required the States to allocate a significant share of that money to Aboriginal housing. It is a fact that in different States of Australia different means of building houses are employed- in some States through Aboriginal co-operatives, in other States through State governments and in a number of States through a combination of both. I know from my time in the portfolio that in Queensland money is provided to Aboriginal housing co-operatives as well as to the State Government. I will obtain for the honourable member detailed information on the level of housing grants made in Queensland and in all the other States so that he can inform himself and appreciate the high level of priority which this Government gives to providing housing for Aboriginals.

page 2343

RETIREMENT OF MR EDMUND JOSEPH DONNELLY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I draw honourable members’ attention to the retirement of Mr Edmund Joseph Donnelly, known to many of us as Ned Donnelly, from the position of Secretary, Joint House Department. Unfortunately Mr Donnelly’s health has caused this early termination of his service to the Parliament. Before his appointment to Parliament in 1979 he served Australia in many areas, commencing with the Royal Australian Air Force and subsequently as a Commonwealth public servant in the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Territories and the Department of the Treasury and as Chief Auditor, Canberra. Although Mr Donnelly’s service here has been brief, it has been of a very high calibre. On behalf of all honourable members, I acknowledge the valuable contribution he has made and I wish him a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Honourable members:

– Hear, hear!

page 2343

REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

Mr SPEAKER:

– I present pursuant to statute the report of the Auditor-General dated 28 April 1980 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts and completed as at 3 April 1980.

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

  1. 1 ) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-April 1980.
  2. That the paper be printed.

page 2343

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to subsection 12D (5) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present a copy of a determination and report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal in relation to the rates of salaries of academic staff employed on a part-time basis. The Tribunal has determined that salary rates shall be increased by 4.5 per cent with effect from 4 January 1 980.

page 2344

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr COHEN:

- Mr Speaker, I Was in my office doing some work when I understand that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) accused me of being deceptive in a statement on the Great Barrier Reef. I would like very briefly to repeat what I said in the statement. I said that the Government has granted a moratorium on drilling and exploration on the Reef. That does not guarantee with assurance the security of the Reef. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that he will not permit drilling on the Reef. That does not, as I pointed out, stop people from drilling near the Reef and damage near the Reef can be just as bad as, if not worse than, damage on the Reef. He said that he will guarantee there will be no damage to the Reef. I have said that neither he nor the Minister, not being King Canute and not having supernatural powers, is able to give that guarantee if drilling occurs on the Reef. Finally, I have said that there is no way in which there can be guarantees that the Reef will never be damaged until the whole of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been declared.

page 2344

LEAVE TO MAKE STATEMENT NOT GRANTED

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I regret I would have to oppose granting leave at this stage. The statement was given to me a matter of seconds ago. It concerns allegations which have appeared publicly in relation to Sir Garfield Barwick.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order -

Mr Hayden:

– I have not had the opportunity to read it at this point.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, is it not the task of the Leader of the Opposition either to grant leave or to refuse leave and not to make a speech about the substance of the matter?

Mr Innes:

-What about the convention of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. Will the Leader of the Opposition grant leave?

Mr Hayden:

– There is usually a two-hour arrangement- that is, the Opposition is given two hours notice of any statement. This is of such a nature -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted?

Mr Hayden:

– No. I want to explain why. It is not granted, and I regret having to do it. But I find there is no choice because I have not -

Mr Viner:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I think the honourable gentleman should say whether he is granting leave or not granting leave.

Mr Hayden:

– I have explained why I regret having to refuse leave. I have done so for the simple reason that we have not had a chance to consider this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that the Leader of the Opposition has made his point.

Mr Hayden:

– If the Government cares to negotiate with us we will try to bring it on early but I have not even looked -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

page 2344

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister making a ministerial statement concerning the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-This matter is being rushed through this Parliament in haste. The Opposition opposes the suspension of Standing Orders for this purpose. There have been conventions in this House for as long as this House has existed. One of them has been that statements of this sort should be given to the Leader of the Opposition -

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 77

NOES: 34

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 76

NOES: 34

Majority…… 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Viner’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 77

NOES: 34

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

page 2346

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– Any allegations involving the Chief Justice of Australia are matters of serious concern. The position of Chief Justice is one of the highest positions in the country. The Government treats the allegations as very serious matters. I know that the Chief Justice similarly treats them as very serious matters. There has been speculation in the Age newspaper, although no imputation of any standing whatsoever has been made against the impartiality of the Chief Justice. The purpose of the newspaper’s research is not clear, but the newspaper has expressly disclaimed any imputation against the impartiality of the Chief Justice. Nevertheless, the newspaper article has led to speculation and suggestions, and at the outset the facts of the matter need to be made clear. The Chief Justice has written to me and has authorised me to make his letter available to the Parliament. I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

My dear Prime Minister

As publicity has been given to the affairs of Mundroola Pty Ltd, and as political advantage is obviously sought to be made of them and my former connection with them, you should know the following facts.

As a young man, I formed Mundroola Pty Ltd to benefit my two children, both during my lifetime and after my death. With the exception of a relatively small shareholding taken by my wife for a purpose which I will later mention, our two children have always been the sole proprietors, legally and beneficially, of the shares of the company and therefore of all its assets.

I have never had any proprietary interest, legal or beneficial, in the company or in any of its assets. I have never derived any income, nor any personal advantage in taxation, from the existence or the activities of the company.

With the assistance of Mr L. J. Thompson, a man of high repute in the business world, I managed and controlled the company’s affairs during my children’s minority and for some time thereafter. But the making of returns, including income tax returns, was left respectively to the solicitors and accountant employed by the company. The company was never a trading company and confined itself to investment in land and shares in companies.

As my son progressed in his legal studies, I progressively involved him in the management of the company’s affairs and lessened my own participation therein. Consequently, for some years prior to 1974 I had ceased to be actively engaged in that management. I had decided that my son, in consultation with his sister and with the assistance of Mr Thompson, should completely take over that management.

In 1974 my attention was called to the fact that legally I retained control of the company. I then formalised the situation which had developed and resigned from the directorate of the company.

My wife remained as a shareholder and as a director so as to be available to arbitrate between the children in the event of their disagreement about the company’s affairs. She has never actively participated in those affairs and has never had any need to act as arbiter between the children.

Since disconnecting myself from the active management’ of the company, I have not kept myself informed of the details of its activities and, in particular, of its share portfolio or its movements.

Mention has been made of my being a member of a Full Court deciding cases in which public companies were litigants and in which Mundroola Pty Ltd held some shares. It is not suggested, I gather, that my views in any of these cases were in any wise influenced by the circumstance that my children, then adult, were entitled in their own right to shares in the companies concerned: but it is suggested that justice might not appear to have been done in those cases.

Justice is seen to be done if any informed and fair-minded person could not have honestly entertained doubt as to the impartiality of the judge. The identity of the judge, the nature of the issues in the case, the possible effect of their decision and, where shareholding is involved, the extent of the shareholding in question would no doubt all be included in the fair-minded person’s consideration. Further, in considering the possible effect of the decision of the case either way upon the rights of a shareholder it would be remembered that it is only in the market value of the shares and the extent of a dividend that the rights of a shareholder are likely to be affected.

I am certainly quite sure that no decision of mine has been in the least influenced by the fact that Mundroola Pty Ltd had any shares in companies in litigation before the Court. I cannot and do not believe that a fair-minded person, knowing the facts as I have indicated them, would in all honesty have entertained any doubt of my impartiality in the resolution of an appeal, particularly an appeal involving, as mostly they do, matters of legal principle: that is to say, I feel sure that no informed and fair-minded person would have honestly thought that my views might have been influenced by the fact that my adult children beneficially owned shares in the litigant company.

I notice that reference is made in the press to the fact of my bankruptcy in the 1920’s, no doubt hoping by the reference to discredit me in the public mind. In those circumstances, I may be permitted to refer to the facts of the matter, something which I have not heretofore troubled to do.

I had allowed a business run by my brother to be conducted in my name because he was then a minor. When the business failed I was legally liable for its debts. The principal creditors were three oil companies. I negotiated with them and asked for time to pay, undertaking to do so as promptly as I could. They refused and preferred to bankrupt me.

Notwithstanding the bankruptcy and my discharge from it, I fully paid out of my subsequent earnings all the creditors of the business and all my own creditors, including my bank, all the moneys formerly due to them, with the exception of the oil companies. I felt no moral obligation to make payment to them, having regard to their choice of my bankruptcy rather than the acceptance of my offer to pay.

You are at liberty to publish this letter or to use its information as you may see fit.

Yours sincerely GARFIELD BARWICK

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I draw the attention of the House particularly to the fact that the Chief Justice’s letter states categorically that he has never had any proprietary interest, legal or beneficial, in Mundroola Pty Ltd, or in any of its assets- Mundroola being a family company formed to benefit the Chief Justice’s two children. The letter indicates that prior to 1974 the Chief Justice had ceased to be actively engaged in the management of the company. In 1974 he resigned from the directorate of the company and since then has not kept himself in touch with the company’s activities. Let me quote two paragraphs of the Chief Justice’s letter. It states:

Justice is seen to be done if an informed and fair-minded person could not have honestly entertained doubt as to the impartiality of the judge. The identity of the judge, the nature of the issues in the case, the possible effect of their decision and, where shareholding is involved, the extent of the shareholding in question would no doubt all be included in the fair-minded person’s consideration. Further, in considering the possible effect of the decision of the case either way upon the rights of a shareholder it would be remembered that it is only in the market value of the shares and the extent of a dividend that the rights of a shareholder are likely to be affected.

I am certainly quite sure that no decision of mine has been in the least influenced by the fact that Mundroola Pty Ltd had any shares in companies in litigation before the Court. I cannot and do not believe that a fair-minded person, knowing the facts as I have indicated them, would in all honesty have entertained any doubt of my impartiality in the resolution of an appeal, particularly an appeal involving, as mostly they do, matters of legal principle: that is to say, I feel sure that no informed and fair-minded person would have honestly thought that my views might have been influenced by the fact that my adult children beneficially owned shares in the litigant company.

These are the facts of the matter: In 1979 the Government received the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest- the Bowen report. The Bowen report deals with questions of conflict of interest in respect of holders of judicial office. The Government has accepted the Bowen report in general terms. The report has this to say about holders of judicial office:

Conflict of interest situations involving members of the federal judiciary are currently regulated by the criminal law, by legal doctrine and by convention.

There is no suggestion that the Chief Justice has broken the law. The Bowen report goes on to say:

It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated with business institutions, for example as director, trustee or adviser. The law disqualifies a judge who has a pecuniary interest in one of the parties before the court, although it is accepted that the parties to a case can waive the disqualification. For example, a judge is disqualified if one of the parties is a company and he is a shareholder in it.

In England, it has been assumed that the disqualification applies whether the shares are the judge’s personal holdings or those of his spouse. However, in the Bank Nationalisation case, where the wife of one judge held shares in one of the parties and another judge was joint holder of shares as a bare trustee for someone else, the judges were not disqualified.

The Bowen report then considered whether there was a need for further rules in Australia along the lines of either United Kingdom practice or United States practice. It concluded that there was no discernible need for such extension. In other words, the Bowen Committee satisfied itself as to current Australian practice; and current Australian practice would not regard a conflict of interest situation as arising simply because of shareholdings by members of the immediate family of a judge or chief justice. So here there is no impropriety. I would like to draw particular attention to the statement in paragraph 1 1 .6 of the Bowen report, which reads:

It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated with business institutions, for example as director, trustee or adviser.

Having regard to what the Bowen report said about Ministers, I suggest that this statement should not be read as preventing a judge from being the director of a family company which holds land or a portfolio of shares. I suggest that the type of circumstance it is directed to is this: That a judge should not, for instance, be involved in the daily conduct of a business which brings him into contact with members of the public, nor should he be a director, trustee or adviser of a corporation which carries on a business, such as a retail trading company, an insurance company or a trustee company, which has substantial dealings with the public. A judge who is merely the director of his family company which owns a portfolio of shares or land is not in this position and I do not think this sentence should be read as applying to such a judge.

I understand that six particular cases have been mentioned in which the Barwick family company is said to have had shares in one of the parties appearing before the court on which the Chief Justice sat. There is no evidence that any of these cases was in any way affected by the interests held by members of the Chief Justice’s family. Four of the six cases went against the public company concerned on the Chief Justice’s vote and other judges’ votes. None of the decisions turned on the views of the Chief Justice alone. That is, the decisions were either unanimous- indeed, in five of the six cases- or, as in the sixth case, by a majority of four judges, including the Chief Justice, to one. The decision as to whether a conflict of interest situation arises is one for the individual to make. It is clear from the Chief Justice’s letter that he does not consider, and never did consider, that such a conflict of interest ever arose. Allegations some time after the event that there has been or may have been carry little weight. They are amply and absolutely refuted by the facts presented in the Chief Justice’s letter and by the findings of the Bowen report as to what is and should be practice in Australia.

As I started off by saying, the Government regards any allegations surrounding the position of Chief Justice, or of any judge for that matter, as matters of serious concern. We have considered the matter seriously and find no basis for believing that any conflict of interest situation exists or existed. It has been spread in the news medium that the Opposition sees this matter as an opportunity of great electoral advantage and is set to pursue the Chief Justice publicly and in the Parliament. I can understand the Opposition’s electoral worries. It is, however, singularly unfortunate if it has decided upon this matter as an election device. In the first place, it demeans the Opposition. In the second place, the facts do not support what is said to be a case against the Chief Justice. There is no case in anything that has been presented for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee, a parliamentary inquiry or any other inquiry. I present the following paper:

Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia- Ministerial Statement, 29 April 1980.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The making of the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in this way is a desperate move which is stamped with arrogance. This matter has been brought into the Parliament in an arrogant way. The Opposition received the Prime Minister’s statement at 10 minutes past four this afternoon. We were aware that the Prime Minister was making last minute changes to the statement during Question Time. I concede that the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) came to me and asked me at that stage whether leave could or would be given. I said to him that if the Opposition had the statement in time to be able to assess it, because of the gravity of the situation of course the Opposition would give such leave in order that the matter could come before the House and be debated properly.

It is a grave matter and one which the Opposition in no way relishes to debate in this chamber. We have not promoted the subject. This matter has appeared in the Press for a whole week. If the Opposition did not raise this matter, because of the grave imputations against the person of the standing of the Chief Justice of this nation, then, of course, the Opposition would be roundly condemned for not undertaking its proper duty of airing such a grave issue in this chamber. That is precisely what was done when a senator from Victoria, Senator Gareth Evans, gave notice properly yesterday of his wish to bring the matter before that chamber after so much had been canvassed in the Press. Of course this desperate move is an attempt at the last moment to try to pre-empt that matter coming before the Senate. In no way has the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers or government members of the back bench given any consideration to what Senator Evans is about to bring before the Senate. I ask why is that? It is because Senator Evans had not- at least 20 minutes ago he had not- commenced his speech in the Senate on the subject. In no way has the Government had an opportunity to be able to assess what the senator, or anybody else who follows him in the Senate, will say on this subject. I repeat: It is a desperate move by desperate men in order to pre-empt something which has not yet come before the Senate for debate.

I have had only a short time in which to consider this matter but I wish to go through some of the issues which have been raised by the Prime Minister. First of all, let me agree that grave issues have been raised in the motion moved by Senator Evans in the Senate. They have not been answered, either by the Chief Justice or by the Prime Minister. I say that with this qualification: I have seen, only very briefly, the quotations from the letter of the Chief Justice in the Prime Minister’s statement. Such is the way that this subject has been brought before this chamber that I have not yet had the opportunity to be able to view the complete letter from the Chief Justice. The Opposition is not satisfied, however, with either the Prime Minister’s statement or that part of the Chief Justice ‘s letter which I have had the opportunity, at this stage, to view.

This matter has been raised by the Opposition in the Parliament yesterday, in the form of Senator Evans’s notice of motion, only after extensive and disquieting reports in the news media. I repeat that it is our duty to raise these matters in the light of the very serious allegations that have been raised by Senator Evans’ motion. The Opposition sees no electoral advantage in raising this issue. Nevertheless it is our duty- I repeat, our duty- to bring these matters, when they are raised, before this chamber for debate in the way in which Senator Evans has done in the

Senate. It is the Prime Minister’s action which has brought the matter to this chamber in the desperate way that he has done this afternoon. The Prime Minister has affirmed the principles expressed in the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry on Public Duty and Private Interest in this hastily devised statement which he has brought to this chamber. Today he has completely degraded those principles by a completely anomalous interpretation of those recommendations. It seems that there is one law for the Chief Justice and one law for all other judges. That is the message of the statement. The Prime Minister’s attempt to whitewash this issue will not satisfy the legal profession which is extremely uneasy about the issues which have been raised.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the honourable member for Adelaide withdraw the remark that there is one law for the Chief Justice and one law for the judges. That is not fair and not right.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not find the remark unparliamentary.

Mr HURFORD:

– Not only is it parliamentary but also the fact is that the honourable member for Holt has not given me an opportunity to even substantiate what I have declared. I will do so. Incidentally, the way that this subject has been brought into this Parliament- in a whitewash way- is only part of a long line of whitewashings that have been undertaken by this Government and, particularly, by this Prime Minister. At the beginning of this Parliament we had the IBMFacom Australia Ltd affair. That was the first whitewash that took place. We all know what happened to that. Then we had the Queensland redistribution affair. Look where that bounced along to. How much concern was there about that matter? We then had the so-called Sinclair affair which is still before the courts. We had pretty grave news for everybody today in the media about that affair. Let me make this claim. Just as, in those cases, the grave issues could not be brushed under the carpet so, indeed, in this case as well grave matters like this will not be brushed under any carpet. The issue will live to haunt the Prime Minister and his colleagues if they continue to treat it in the way in which they have this afternoon.

There is, I assert, a fatal flaw in the Prime Minister’s argument. He says that there is no case, in anything that has been presented, for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee or for a parliamentary inquiry. I repeat that the case is yet to be presented. As far as I know, Senator Evans is not on his feet in the Senate or, if he is, it is only in the last half an hour. What sort of a whitewash is it that claims that there is no case before even the submission is made? How does the Prime Minister come into this Parliament and make an assertion like that when he has not heard the arguments that Senator Evans is to put in order to substantiate his case? The Prime Minister and the Chief Justice would be laughed out of every court in the world if they put up an absurdity like that on any other occasion. They ought to be laughed out of this court of Parliament in this case because they sought to pull the wool over our eyes by way of this statement.

In this whitewash today the Prime Minister has said that the decision as to whether a conflict of interest situation arises is one for the individual to make. This is not true. It is a question of law as to whether a conflict of interest arises. What the Prime Minister states is quite contrary to legal authority. The Chief Justice has acknowledged this in the decision in the case In Re Watson: Ex parte Armstrong. If another legal authority is needed I have another case before me to which I can refer the House. But let me take the first case that I have mentioned. In weighing up consideration of the issues, a legal authority on the topic stated:

The intensity of the reaction of the profession and the public in general to the deviation of a judge from the accepted standards of behaviour reflects the strength of the system and is evidence of the high standards expected from judges.

The authority later went on:

The high standards of conduct are secured by professional tradition and public opinion. The strength of the tradition is measured not only by its observance but also by the intensity of the reaction to its violation . . . Strong public reaction to a breach of tradition demonstrates that the violation will not pass unnoticed.

I could quote from other cases but I want to come back to this case. I have only had a short time to prepare these remarks. The Chief Justice has had many grave matters about his private affairs drawn to the attention of this country.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to make that remark or to proceed along that line. Under the Standing Orders no reflection can be made on a member of the judiciary except by a formal motion.

Mr HURFORD:

-Mr Speaker, I have to accept your ruling. I am sure that at the same time, you will sympathise with me that this matter has been brought into the Parliament by the Prime Minister in this way when there is a substantive motion before the Senate where these matters are to be unfolded, if the Government does not use its numbers to prevent them from being unfolded. Your pulling me up in that way merely highlights the difficulties that this House is being presented with in allowing this statement to be brought in here in this way to answer charges that have not been given in detail in another place. Bearing those difficulties in mind, I will merely summarise what I have to say by making a few more comments on the Prime Minister’s statement.

We all agree on both sides of the chamber that this is a matter of great concern. We do not agree on this side of the House that only matters which are raised in the Age newspaper are of concern. Indeed, other newspapers in this country have outlined facts and figures which should be brought before this Parliament and are to be brought before the Senate, if the Government does not use its numbers to prevent that happening. The Prime Minister ‘s statement suggests that all the dealings took place prior to 1974. As I read the statement, it seemed to me that nothing of concern has occurred since 1974. The point that I would like to make, from my brief examination of the statement, is that so much of the Prime Minister’s defence of the Chief Justice related to the dealing in shares. There was no reference whatsoever to land dealings and the implications that they have relating to recommendations by Mr Justice Bowen.

If the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) is to follow me in this debate, he may like to apply his mind to that implication as well. From what I remember of the Prime Minister’s statement, I would also say that being a governing director of a company, as indeed the Chief Justice was a governing director of Mundroola, does mean that there is a proprietary interest in that company. I believe that it is false for the Prime Minister to assert as he did in his statement that the Chief Justice’s proprietary interest was minimal and that the interests of Mundroola were such that they were for the children of the Chief Justice. This is a point that could not be substantiated. A governing director is a person who has the governing power in any company and it is a power that also has to be pursued.

In conclusion, I suggest that what has already been stated in the media is such that it requires much more notice to be given than has been given of this debate in this Parliament for the subject to be properly considered. I suggest that we ought now to adjourn this debate until the case has been made out properly in the Senate, where there is time for such a case to be made out. It is completely indefensible for the Prime Minister to come into the House with a hastily devised statement like this and seek to whitewash this affair when he has not even heard the case substantiated in the Senate, where it should and will be substantiated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Armitage:

– This is his cousin.

Mr- SPEAKER-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Chifley will cease making interjections of that kind.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is true.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will cease making interjections of that kind. The implication is a very serious one against the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask for it not to be made.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for the Capital Territory and Acting Attorney-General · Wentworth · LP

– In the absence of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who is overseas, I address this House today as the Acting Attorney-General. I will do my best to inform honourable members on what is a very serious matter. May I say that it is a matter of regret that honourable gentlemen opposite are not ready to participate in this debate. It is quite unbelievable that what Senator Evans did in another place yesterday was not done with the full consent and approval of the Executive of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament. I cannot believe that such a potentially serious motion would have been moved in relation to the Chief Justice of Australia unless it was done with the full consent and approval of the Labor Party Executive.

Mr Hurford:

– I can tell you it was not.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– If it was not, it means that an honourable gentleman in this Parliament has been set loose in an endeavour on which you should perhaps try to curb him. When allegations are made against a judge- for that matter, any judge, but particularly in relation to the Chief Justice of Australia- those allegations ought to be very seriously considered before they are made and they should not be made by any party in this House through a back bench member. I leave that point at this stage. May I go on to deal with those matters which I believe will assist honourable members. If matters of this description are abroad in relation to the Chief Justice, they should be laid to rest as soon as practicable, if it is possible to do so. The administration of justice in this country has as its pinnacle the High Court of Australia. This Parliament and particularly this House should want to lay the matter to rest, if it can be laid to rest.

I first of all remind honourable members of the two basic facts of the matter. The first is that the Chief Justice had no shares in his family company. That is clear. He had no proprietary interest or pecuniary interest in the company and therefore could have no pecuniary interest in the shares which that company held. That is a very important fact. The other matter which is not in dispute and upon which I understand honourable gentlemen opposite in another place might rely is the fact that for some time he was governing director of the family company. Those are the two matters. The family company is a company in which his wife, Lady Barwick, had some shares, but basically it was a company in which Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s children had shares. Therefore, it is a true family company. That company owns shares in other companies and some land. In that respect it is an ordinary type of family company as honourable gentlemen- I hope on both sides of this Housewould readily agree.

In relation to the bank case, honourable members will recall that right at the beginning of the case a question arose as to the holdings of shares on the part of justices of the High Court, in particular, Mr Justice Starke and Mr Justice Williams. Mr Justice Starke did not hold any shares but his wife held shares in one of the banks. Mr Justice. Williams was the joint holder of shares in one of the banks but held them in trust apparently for his sister in England. In other words, we have two situations, both of which are quite similar to this case. I hope that honourable members will draw the analogy. The first is that in relation to Mr Justice Starke, his wife held shares in one of the plaintiff companies. In the other case, Mr Justice Williams was a trusteethat is, he had a fiduciary relationship in respect of the shares. In that case, although it will not appear in the judgment, in argument reference was made by the then Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, to the objections which were taken, I understand, by Dr Evatt who was appearing then for the Commonwealth. I will read from a report contained in the Queensland Law Reporter of 30 June 1966. At page 279 there is a passage in the judgment of Mr Justice Wanstall, now the Chief Justice of Queensland. He said:

In my judgment the right test is that formulated by Blackburn J. in R. v. Rand . . . namely, that to disqualify a person from acting in a judicial capacity on the ground of interest, when (as is the fact in the instant case and as I hold) he has no pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, a real likelihood of bias must be shown.

In this case it was alleged that the president of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was biased because, from recollection, his wife held shares in one of the companies which were the subject of the proceedings. Mr Justice Wanstall continued:

This test was applied by the High Court in its ruling concerning the position of Mr Justice Starke and Mr Justice Williams in the Banks’ Nationalisation case . . . but not on this aspect. Lady Starke held shares in one of the plaintiff banks, but Mr Justice Starke had no interest in her shares; Mr Justice Williams was registered as a joint holder of shares in two of the plaintiff banks but he was only a bare trustee of them for his sister who lived abroad and he had no beneficial interest in them. The court’s ruling was pronounced by Latham C. J. in arguendo, as follows- ‘You draw a distinction, do you not- an actual pecuniary interest and embarrassment in hearing the case? For example, if there is any degree of pecuniary interest, however small, a Judge is disqualified from sitting. If, however, there is no pecuniary interest, then it becomes a matter of a question in all the circumstances of the case whether there is any degree of embarrassment which would prevent a fair trial. In neither of the cases mentioned is there any actual pecuniary interest- none. My learned brothers have said that they do not regard the existence of the facts stated as in any way affecting a fair and impartial consideration of the issues in the case. It appears to me that that has to be accepted. ‘

So the bank case proceeded. I hope honourable members will see that there is a direct analogy, in the one respect with shares held by Lady Starke, and in this case some shares- not a large number, but some shares- held by Lady Barwick. On the other hand, we have the situation of Mr Justice Williams as a trustee but actually on the register holding shares in a fiduciary capacity. The most that one can say of a governing director of a company is that he has a fiduciary capacity to observe. I say to all honourable members in this House- I know that all honourable members will want to be fairminded on this issue- that there is no substance in the suggestion that in this case either the Chief Justice had a pecuniary interest and therefore should not have sat in these cases or, alternatively, that because he was a director or because the family company owns shares for some reason there was some degree of partiality that meant that he should not have sat.

I think it is always important and proper- and when I was Attorney-General I took this course in relation to matters that involved a quasi political subject, and this is possibly a quasi political subject- to consult the Solicitor-General. I have sought his opinion in relation to this matter and I would like to table that opinion. Before I do so, may I just read out what the Solicitor-General says? He sets out some facts and then he says:

No question of direct or indirect pecuniary interest arises. No actual bias is suggested. The only question is whether such facts establish that it might reasonably be suspected by fair-minded persons that the learned Judge might not resolve the questions before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind . . .

He refers to Queen v. Watson to which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) referred. He goes on:

I think the answer to this question is clearly, no. I do not think that a fair-minded person would reasonably suspect that an unfair and prejudiced mind would be brought to bear on the resolution of the judicial questions because of the facts I have mentioned. Family companies are the means by which family investments are held and managed. The New Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the American Bar Association in 1972 states that a Judge may hold and manage investments including real estate but should not serve as an officer, director, manager or adviser of any business. The Bowen Report is to like effect. lt follows, therefore, that no question of bias arises.

I table this copy of the Solicitor-General’s opinion and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

MUNDROOLA

Opinion

Questions have been raised as to the propriety of the Chief Justice of Australia participating in decisions of the Full Bench of the High Court in a number of cases. The Court decided legal questions in which one of the parties was a company shares in which were held by Mundroola Pty Ltd. The Chief Justice was a governing director and managing director of that company until approximately 1 974. He had no interest in Mundroola’s assets, although it seems that company owned the house he lived in. It is a family company formed and persued in the interests of his children. Lady Barwick had a small shareholding in the company in order that she might act as arbiter should any difference arise between the children.

No question of direct or indirect pecuniary interest arises. No actual bias is suggested. The only question is whether such facts establish that it might reasonably be suspected by fair-minded persons that the learned Judge might not resolve the questions before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind; Queen v. Watson (1976) 136 C.L.R. 248 at p. 264. 1 think the answer to this question is clearly, no. I do not think that a fair-minded person would reasonably suspect that an unfair and prejudiced mind would he brought to bear on the resolution of the judicial questions because of the facts I have mentioned. Family companies are the means by which family investments are held and managed. The New Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the American Bar Association in 1972 states that a Judge may hold and manage investments including real estate but should not serve as an officer, director, manager or adviser of any business. The Bowen Report is to like effect.

It follows, therefore, that no question of bias arises.

H. BYERS Solicitor-General 29 April 1980

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I trust that that indicates to honourable members that the second law officer takes the view that in these cases that have been brought to notice in the Press there was no position first of all of pecuniary interest and secondly, of bias. Those are the two issues. There is a suggestion that the Parliament should lay down some code of conduct for the judiciary. I simply say to honourable members that the courts have always taken cognisance of this type of matter; that is to say, they have their own rules. This is peculiarly a matter for the courts to deal with themselves. It is for this reason: The basic rule is that if a judge has a pecuniary interest in a matter then, of course, he should not sit in relation to it; he should disqualify himself. But a pecuniary interest means a pecuniary interest. It means that he has some financial interest, some proprietary interest, in the subject matter before him and he should not sit. Thus, if he held shares in one of the companies then he should not sit. But that was not so in this case. That was laid down in the middle of the last century in Dimes’ case and has long been the law but it is the basic proposition.

The courts then go into another area- the area of bias, the area of partiality. They weigh up the circumstances and the test that is applied is the one that has been laid down and adopted in Watson’s case. I will not labour it; it has already been referred to. But it is there. The courts look at these matters case by case. It is the responsibility of the justice in the course of cases to bring to bear circumstances, such as their pecuniary interest, to counsel. I do not say that this is happening every day of the week, but it is happening constantly. But one thing is clear and that is that in the American code of conduct, the judicial code of conduct, there is no suggestion that judges should not have an interest in family companies or that they should not hold a portfolio of shares or should not hold land.

What is found to be offensive under the judicial code of the United States is that judges should engage in the day-to-day business which brings them into contact with the rest of the public on a daily basis. It is said that that brings them into contact with the public and therefore leaves them in a position where it is much more likely that there would be instances of bias or prejudice because in their business dealings, if they were engaged in business, bias or prejudice would become much more likely. So the courts, in their wisdom, have said that they will look at each case step by step.

I simply support what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said. I have indicated the view of the second law officer. I have indicated also the significance of the decision in the bank case. I suggest to honourable members on both sides of the House that whatever publicity has passed in recent days in relation to this matter, it does not substantiate any impropriety whatsoever on the part of the Chief Justice based on what I have tried to bring before the House, namely, the authorities that are applicable in Australia to this matter. I hope that honourable members opposite will bring to bear and I hope that honourable members behind me will bring to bear what is an informed and fair-minded attitude to this matter and will give due note to what the Solicitor-General has said in his opinion.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The form of this debate has been cast in an extraordinary and rather narrow way by the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The motion has been drawn in such terms- that is to say, ‘That the House take note of the paper’that it is really impossible under the Standing Orders to ventilate in this debate the issues to which the public requires answers. The short statement by the Prime Minister, rushed into the House as it was, gives an answer to general criticisms raised in the Press- the Age in particular but in other newspapers as well- without giving the Parliament the opportunity to canvass the actual issues.

As in Alice in Wonderland, we have the verdict first: That is to say, that the Chief Justice has been cleared by an unknown tribunal, which we can only infer was the Cabinet, deliberating on what evidence we know not but presumably relying very heavily on a letter submitted by the Chief Justice himself. People listening to this debate would be baffled to know what it was all about. They will not have had the opportunity of hearing the notice of motion given by Senator Evans in another place or of knowing what issues were raised in that motion. Perhaps I should quote the initial part. Senator Evans gave notice that he would move:

That the Senate:

1 ) Notes the finding of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry on Public Duty and Private Interest that:

It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated with business institutions, for example as director, trustee, or adviser;

Notes that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, during his tenure as Chief Justice, appears from documents on public record to have engaged in or been associated with extensive business transactions, involving land and share dealings, in his capacity as Governing and Managing Director of the New South Wales registered company, Mundroola Pty Ltd;

Notes further that it appears from documents on public record that Mundroola Pty Ltd had shares in certain companies, namely Ampol, Brambles and

CSR, at or about thetime that such companies, or companies associated with them, were engaged in litigation before the High Court, and that the Chief Jus- tice appears to have participated in the hearing and adjudication of such matters without either disqualifying himself or disclosing the nature of his interest in those companies;

Notes further that it appears from documents on public record that another director of Mundroola Pty Ltd, Mr L. J. Thomson, is or was at the time of the relevant litigation, a director of the companies, or companies associated with them, referred to in (3) above;

5 ) Expresses its concern that the Chief Justice ‘s involvement in the affairs of Mundroola Pty Ltd may in all the circumstances have been such as to involve a significant conflict between public duty and private interest and to have constituted behaviour tending to imperil public confidence in the administration of justice in this country;

The motion then proposes a joint select committee of the Parliament to examine the matter.

I wish to take up one issue of fact in the statement by the Prime Minister. On page 4 there is a misconstruction of the Bowen report. The paragraph reads:

In other words, the Bowen Committee satisfied itself as to current Australian practice; and current Australian practice would not regard a conflict of interest situation as arising simply because of shareholdings by members of the immediate family of a judge or chief justice. So here there is no impropriety.

That is not quite the issue. It is whether there is also trading in land. Trading in land which, because of necessity involves direct contact with the public, is in a quite different category from that which was raised by the Prime Minister. The question is whether the Chief Justice of Australia, as a beneficiary, director and principal shareholder of a family company, sat and adjudicated on cases in the High Court involving companies in which Mundroola Pty Ltd has a pecuniary interest. The fact that the decisions in the case went against Brambles, CSR and Ampol are -as you would well know, Mr Speaker, as a distinguished lawyer- absolutely beside the point. It would perhaps have been infamous if the decisions had gone the other way. The Opposition is not suggesting that that happened. But there ought to be a ventilation in this debate, or subsequently, of whether there has been a breach of convention and of section 308 of the New South Wales Companies Act. It is not suggested that there has been direct fiduciary impropriety of any sort. It is suggested that there has been a breach of the law. I think it is fair to say, and the history books will confirm, that the present Chief Justice has in many ways been a highly political judge. He has been involved in matters of a political nature for very many years. He has used his office in political matters, for example, in his role as adviser extraordinaire to the then Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.

MrSPEAKER-Order!

Mr Yates:

– Malice! Absolute malice!

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask for a withdrawal of that. There is no malice whatever in what I have said. I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Holt interjected that the honourable member’s statement was made in malice. I do not regard that as unparliamentary.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I object to it. It was not made in malice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The fact that the honourable member objects to it does not make it unparliamentary.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There is an implication.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will remain silent while I am addressing him. It does not become unparliamentary simply because he objects to it, but if he finds it objectionable I am sure that in a spirit of co-operation, in a debate as serious as this, the honourable member for Holt will withdraw it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, it is an attribution of ill-will.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Does the honourable member for Holt withdraw?

Mr Yates:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word malice’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Lalor has used certain phrases. I had to wait until I heard them before I knew what was to come. When the honourable gentleman said that the Chief Justice had used his office for political purposes I did not know whether the honourable member was going to refer to contemporary or immediately past situations- while the Chief Justice was in that office- or to an earlier time when he was a Minister in this chamber. I remind the honourable member for Lalor that he is not entitled to attack the probity of the Chief Justice unless the House has before it a substantive motion and such a motion does not exist.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I think that my exact words were: ‘He has used his office in political matters’. The question at issue is whether there is anything improper in Sir Garfield Barwick’s involvement in Mundroola Pty Ltd.

Mr Yates:

– I raise a point of order. I submit that if the honourable member for Lalor wants to pursue his line of argument he should follow the rules of the House and table a substantive motion against the Chief Justice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will take care of that. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat forthwith.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Do the facts disclose conduct falling short of that required of judges and, if so, does this amount to proved misbehaviour for the purposes of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution? High standards of conduct are required of the holders of public office. The Prime Minister, following his dismissal of Senator Withers from the Cabinet, said this of the standards required of Ministers:

The community rightly demands a high standard from the Ministers of the Government.

The judgments on Ministers are more exacting and sometimes more harsh than the judgments which might be passed on those outside the sphere of public life.

If these high standards were not upheld, the people’s confidence in Government- a confidence which is fundamental to Australian democracy- would be undermined.

The Government has an obligation to uphold them even though the cost can be and is in this instance, a high one.

It appears that the standards required of judicial office are higher than those required of Ministers. Another Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said on the subject:

A form of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people is required from judges and, though unwritten, has been most strictly observed. They are at once privileged and restricted. They have to present a continuous aspect of dignity and conduct.

Far more freedom is granted by the convention of our way of life to Members of Parliament, to Ministers or to Privy Councillors . . . The judges have to maintain, though free from criticism (in Parliament), a far more rigorous standard than is required from any other class that I know of in this Realm.

The test is the imperilling of public confidence in the administration of justice and, in a sense, the identity of the particular person involved is almost beside the point. There are clear and obvious examples of misconduct requiring the removal of judges. They involve offences of moral turpitude, criminal convictions, neglect of duty, partisanship, partiality, mental and physical incapacity and misconduct in private life. The universally adopted test to determine whether conduct constitutes sufficient grounds for an address for removal is whether public confidence in the administration of justice is imperilled. Whether or not they are conscious of it, the people repose enormous trust and confidence in the judges. I point for example to the editorial in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review which stated, in part:

Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. This is one of the basic principles underlying our system of law, and its observance is one of the chief buttresses of respect for the law . . .

Sir Nigel Bowen, Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, stated quite unequivocally the principle that judges ‘ought not engage in business or in any way be associated with business institutions’.

To many, this seems a hard dictum. After all, to aspire to the Bench a lawyer will have had to prove himself in the commercial world; if he is successful he will inevitably be a high income earner, and will have invested in property and shares …

It should be sufficient that he be distanced from them, and certainly that he should not be involved in the disposition of their assets. Further, if he knows of any financial connection between his family company and a party appearing before him it would seem incumbent that he inform counsel on both sides of his interest.

All this amounts to less than Sir Nigel recommended, yet it appears to be the very minimum which could be expected of any judge. This is why recent reports concerning the very pinnacle of the Australian legal system, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, must be cause for concern.

I draw the attention of the House to the nature of the rule preventing judges’ involvement in business. Its purpose is to avoid conflicts of public duty and private interest. No man can be judge in his own case and public confidence in the administration of justice is imperilled when the settled principle of our law, that justice must not only be done but also must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, is lost. It is considered unseemly to go into the mind of a judge to see whether there was actual bias in a particular decision. The test to be applied in all situations is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of bias. If so, then the judge ought to disqualify himself from adjudicating on the matter before him. It is possible that a judge, faced with a situation like that, might overreact. It is not inconceivable that a decision might come about which in fact was adverse to the company in which the judge had a financial involvement because he overreacted. Even if the decision goes against that company, it still means that something less than strict justice has been involved.

I think I ought also to draw attention to section 308 of the New South Wales Companies Act. Since 1973 Mundroola Pty Ltd has failed to lodge annual returns with the New South Wales Commissioner of Corporate Affairs as required by law under sections 158 and 159 of the Companies Act. On 6 May 1977 Mundroola Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $40 and ordered to pay $8 court costs for failure to lodge an annual return for 1974. On 30 March 1978 Ross Barwick of Barwick and Co. appeared for Mundroola Pty Ltd and pleaded guilty in respect of failure to lodge annual returns for 1974, 1975 and 1976. It was convicted and fined $60 and ordered to pay $8 court costs on each count. On 30 July 1979 a section 308 action was approved. Despite these convictions, the company has refused to lodge returns for 1975, 1976 and 1977. From the company file in 1979, I am advised, it appears that Mundroola has thus far refused to lodge an annual return. Section 308 of the Companies Act provides that if the Corporate Affairs Commission has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on business or is not in operation it may commence action to strike the company from the register. What is the effect of these convictions? A 1972 report of a justice subcommittee in Britain wrote:

The judge, sitting either alone or with a jury, administers the law. If the law is to be respected, he must be respected, and if justice is seen to be done, he must be seen to be doing it. In many ways he is the embodiment of the law.

In considering proper standards forjudges Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in enumerating the principles, considers:

The sixth principle I would suggest is that a judge should in his own character be beyond reproach, or at any rate should have so disciplined himself that he is not himself a breaker of the law. Time and time again he has to pronounce judgment on those who have offended against the law. He has to rebuke the evil and support the good. He cannot well do this- he cannot without hypocrisy do it- if he himself has been found guilty of an offence against the law. I refer not to administrative offences like exceeding the speed limit but to grave offences which carry reproach in the eyes of the people … If a judge should be found guilty of such an offence, whilst holding office most people would say he should resign: . . . And when it is publicly known it is worse because the people will then point a finger of scorn as they did long ago saying: ‘Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us.’ Such scornful remarks destroy the confidence which people should have in the judges.

The matter should not be regarded as dealt with by the Prime Minister’s statement. It should be debated in full by the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE 1980s

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Mr Speaker, in late 1978, the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) who at that time had responsibility for the employment portfolio, outlined for the benefit of this House the dramatic changes which had taken place in the Australian labour market in the 1970s. Without going over the ground covered by the Minister’s lucid and comprehensive statement I want to remind the House of some of the factors which gave rise to his assessment and point to the markedly improved outlook which we have for our labour market just two years later.

Our view from the watershed between the seventies and eighties is more favourable than the one we had in 1978, although the problems are far from behind us and the same basic challenges remain. We have faced up to the challenges and, as a consequence, have seen health and vitality restored to our economy and improved prospects for our standard of living and employment opportunities.

Review of the 1970s

Ten years ago, at the start of the 1970s, a mere 81,000 Australians were registered as unemployed- only 1.5 per cent of the labour force. This was fairly typical of the whole of Australia’s post-war history to the mid-1970s. We had a labour market record far superior to that of most advanced countries. In the early years of the 1 970s that record continued intact. Between 1971 and 1974 full-time employment grew by an average of 63,000 a year and parttime employment by 50,000. Long before the Minister made his speech in September 1978, however, our proud post-war labour market record had gone.

In the single, catastrophic year of 1974-75, employment in the private sector fell by over 150,000 jobs; more than 120,000 jobs were lost from manufacturing. Youth unemployment grew from 5.8 per cent in August 1974 to almost 13 per cent in August 1975, leaving nearly 100,000 teenagers out of work. A major factor accounting for this disastrous fall in employment was the pronounced increases in real labour costs. In the year to December 1974, the minimum award wages of adult males increased by 36 per cent and average weekly earnings increased by 28 per cent. Over the same 12 month period, consumer prices increased by just over 16 per cent. The net result of the disparity in the movements of earnings and prices, after allowing for growth in labour productivity, was a staggering increase in real labour costs, and a considerable squeeze on profits, forcing businesses to cut back on both investment and employment.

Manpower Reforms

It was hardly surprising, faced with the rapid and unprecedented decline in our post-war labour market and the misguided policy responses, that Australians became more resistant to change and pessimistic about the outlook for employment. A period of review and reform was necessary. Time had to be taken to correct past errors and carefully consolidate progress. Without control on government expenditure, a continuing attack on inflation and consistent economic management, there could be no restoration of employment growth.

The Labor Government’s manpower policy efforts were designed to keep unemployment down in the face of stagnating output. They attempted to do so in ways which, in the names of job preservation and job creation, were to have long term detrimental effects on the economy. As jobs in the private sector collapsed, the Labor Government of the day increased public expenditure in an attempt to hold back the tide. If the spending of more public money was the simple cure for unemployment the Labor Government would have solved it overnight. To the despair of the people more public spending led to higher unemployment.

When we came back to government we gave priority to restoring the fundamental health of the economy. New manpower programs were designed and existing programs modified to increase their efficiency and improve the mobility of labour resources. Priority was given to the essential prerequisites for recovery of employment growth- a reduction in inflation and the rate of growth in public expenditure. At the same time consistent and stable economic management was provided on a long term basis.

Those with labour market difficulties have not been neglected. While the necessary economic reforms have been taking place, and private sector confidence has been restored, we have helped the disadvantaged in a real and substantial way. The National Employment and Training Scheme was among the first of the programs to be restructured. It now gives a great deal more attention to on-the-job training. This is more relevant to those who lack experience and training, as many of the young unemployed do. Additional training schemes have been and are being developed. In Western Australia, to meet the demands for skills arising from development of the North West Shelf and in co-operation with the Western Australian Government, accelerated training of both young and older workers to tradesmen status is well underway. In other States, and for other skills in short supply, similar initiatives are being developed.

The Special Youth Employment and Training Program was introduced for the particular problems of the young who lack qualifications, training and work experience. The latest evaluations show 47 per cent of trainees were still with their employer 4 months after the completion of the training period and a further 20 per cent were employed elsewhere. For those young people who require remedial education or basic vocational preparation the Education Program for Unemployed Youth was introduced.

This approach to fashioning manpower measures, each to a particular problem or group, and with a readiness to revise them whenever it is appropriate to do so, is further illustrated by our approach to relocation assistance. At all times there is considerable geographic mobility in the labour market. In devising a relocation assistance scheme we had to be sure that we assisted only those movements necessary for labour market reasons which would, but for the assistance provided, have been frustrated.

We abandoned the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme and in its place introduced the more effective Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme. This extended the assistance to the whole apprenticeship training period. There have also been substantial increases in funds for technical and further education. This has strengthened this sector of post-secondary education and complemented the other efforts of government and industry to improve the supply of skills. Our care and concern for the unemployed has led to the introduction of the Community Youth Support Scheme; development of pilot community youth programs; assistance with crisis accommodation; greater emphasis on Aboriginal employment and training; and reform of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

It is puzzling, to say the least, that the dramatic deterioration in the labour market which occurred in 1974-75 did not prompt the Labor Government of the day to reassess the effectiveness of the CES. It was only with the return of this Government that attention was given to the role, functions and organisation of the CES in a modern labour market.

More recently, we have embarked upon the development of a comprehensive school-to-work transition program. While our youth unemployment rates are still high, our school retention rates are considerably lower than in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including the United States of America and Japan. So, with the support of the States, we are extending and diversifying the education and training opportunities available to the young, and in particular we are seeking to add a greater vocational dimension to the education of young people.

The foundation for these reforms is to be found in the reports of three important inquiries commissioned by this Government: The Norgard report of the CES; the Crawford report on structural adjustment; and the Williams report on education and training.

We await with interest the reports of two further most important inquiries- the Myers report on technological change and the Campbell inquiry into the Australian financial system. Both are important to the development of the private sector, including small business, on which the growth of employment opportunities is so heavily dependent. I commend to honourable members interested in more detail of this Government’s manpower policy and programs my Department’s recent publication on the first year in the life of the Employment and Youth Affairs portfolio.

For those who think that bigger is better, that the absolute level of expenditure on manpower programs is the yardstick of success, let me point out that we are now helping more people overcome labour market problems, more effectively and at a lower per capita cost, than the Labor Government ever did. Overall in the 4V£ years we have been in office over $400m has been spent assisting over 400,000 people in training, work experience and youth support programs.

Recent Labour Market Changes

Having contrasted our approach to manpower policy with that of the Labor Government, I want now to indicate briefly the substantial improvement in performance our reforms have produced. Between 1974 and 1978, full time employment actually declined- by about 27,000 jobs each year. In the 12 months to February 1 980 full time employment has increased by over 1 10,000- substantially more than the annual average increase in full time employment growth of 63,000 between 1971 and 1974, which was in itself a period of strong employment growth. In fact in the 12 months to February 1980, the total employed labour force increased by over 155,300- significantly outpacing the growth in the labour force. The average of the annual growth in total employment to each of the last six months has been well over 130,000. This kind of growth has not occurred since the early 1970s and represents a marked change from the trend - since 1974.

Manufacturing employment has also recorded an increase in recent months. Over the previous five years there had been an annual average decline of 2.9 per cent- that is a total of over 170,000 jobs. The number of unemployed seeking full-time employment in March 1980 - 341,000- was 11,900 fewer than at the same time last year, and this has been the consistent pattern over recent months. These basic facts illustrate the dramatic turn-around which occurred in 1979 and yet is not fully comprehended by many sections of the community.

Confidence is a key factor in restoring economic and employment growth and any government’s contribution to sustaining confidence must be through stable and realistic economic management. There are limits, however, to what government alone can do. There are always fools and villains waiting to persuade the nation that they have economic and employment solutions which provide painless remedies for today’s problems. We certainly cannot afford to participate in dangerous follies if the prospects for the future are to be realised. Therefore, before I examine the prospects and challenges ahead, let me expose the fallacies, and the follies, in the Labor Opposition’s latest proposals for achieving employment growth.

The Fallacy of the Opposition’s Proposals

If the 1970s demonstrated one thing, at least to impartial observers of developed economies, it was the futility of trying to boost employment growth by ever-increasing calls on the public purse. In one way or another, raising the rate of public expenditure increases the costs of private enterprise and hence weakens the prospects for growth and development. The only sure way of expanding employment is to keep costs down. Private enterprise- not least the export and import competing sectors- is thereby enabled to become more competitive and to expand production and investment. It is no coincidence that the past 12 months have witnessed not only a pick up in employment but also further strengthening in output.

As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) pointed out in his economic statement to the Parliament on 6 March, the value of recorded exports in the first seven months of this financial year was nearly 40 per cent higher than in the equivalent period a year earlier. Business investment is recovering and is set for further, broadly based, strong growth. Private dwelling investment has also grown strongly in recent months. Production growth has occurred on a wide front and retail sales have been rising. This strengthening in activity, which lies behind the employment recovery of 1979, has been achieved, not in spite of Commonwealth budgetary restraint but because of it. Responsible budgetary policies have played an important part in keeping down Australia’s inflation rate, restoring consumer and business confidence, and improving the country’s international competitive position. The proposals for wage subsidy and public employment put forward by the Labor Opposition would have us embark on an entirely different and a most dangerous route. It claims its proposals would create 100,000 jobs at a full year cost of $330m. But in 1974-75, its economic management and the same basic economic policy and proposals led to a decline in private sector employment of over 150,000 jobs. The Labor Government spent nearly $200m over 15 months before abandoning its Regional Employment Development Scheme in its last Budget. In mid-1975 employment under REDS reached its peak of 32,000 jobs in the public sector.

In noting this lesson of history, it is as well to remind ourselves of the difference between Labor and Liberal economic philosophy for it highlights the real issue between the socialists and the Liberals. As Sir Robert Menzies once pointed out, ‘when acute problems arise the Socialist first thinks of the Socialist solution. Should the Government conduct this matter? But the Liberal seeks first the private enterprise solution. Could private citizens, properly encouraged, solve this problem?’ Time has not changed anything. I take that quote from a paper entitled ‘The Foundations of Australian Liberalism’, given in Perth on 12 May 1970. No one who seriously examines the Hayden- Young socialist proposals could possibly believe the costing is realistic. However, even taking it at face value, they are offering 100,000 more jobs for $330m more in public expenditure. We, on the other hand, have created over 155,000 jobs with restraints on public expenditurespontaneously, at no cost to the taxpayer. One might be so bold as to point out to the honourable members on the benches opposite that there appears to be at least a 50 per cent premium in jobs if taxpayers’ money is not spent on their scheme. The gross average cost of a person employed on a REDS project was $270 per man week. The notional net cost was almost $200. Today, some four years later, the Opposition tells us it can do the same thing for half that price. Will it never learn the consequences of its own follies? Its economics is poor, but its accounting is appalling.

As a former Labor Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) knows that the outgoings in the Budget are not calculated on a basis in which notional savings are taken into account. The outgoings must reflect the full and true cost, whether or not there are notional savings or revenues on the other side of the ledger. In this case, on the basis of what we know of REDS and the cost of similar overseas schemes, its proposals would have to cost at least $ 1,000m. The Opposition knows that the full cost of its schemes must be at least $ 1 ,000m in a full year. The man in the street knows that its costing is unrealistic; he knows it can be paid for only by increased taxation or government borrowing or reduction in expenditure elsewhere. REDS by any other name may smell as sweet to the Opposition but will cost as much and prove to be the same folly as before.

There is, of course, an equally serious side to the Opposition’s misunderstanding of economic facts and manpower policy. The simplistic reasoning underlying its proposals is that all wage subsidy and public employment programs create jobs. It is assumed that if a person who is unemployed is placed on a public sector job program or taken on by the private sector through a wage subsidy, he or she will represent one additional employed person. No account is taken of the complexity of the economic system and the likelihood that financing of the worker on-the-job creation project will result in a diversion of funds from elsewhere which will put someone else’s job at risk. Nor is it apparently realised that the job creation project may result in reduced spending elsewhere; or a reduction in the demand for capital or labour from some other area; or that the output produced by that subsidised worker may be competitive with and therefore substituted for the output of a nonsubsidised worker. Moreover, in the promises of the Opposition it has totally ignored the extent to which people may be encouraged to enter the labour force by the availability of the job creation program. Not only is the program likely to lead to a loss of jobs elsewhere in’ the economy but also it may encourage more people to come into the labour market to obtain the promised jobs, and thereby aggravate unemployment. The only route to steady employment growth is through sustained economic growth and development of the human and natural resources of the nation. Fortunately, the prospects for Australia on that road are good, though some formidable challenges still lie ahead.

The Challenges

In broad terms, the key challenges we shall have to face up to if we are to realise our potential for employment growth are the need to push back the constraints on faster economic growth; to promote greater adaptability and flexibility in our labour force; and to maintain an equitable distribution of employment. They are the sorts of challenges Australians thrived on in the 1950s and 1960s, when we prided ourselves on giving people a ‘ fair go ‘, working hard and not standing ibr any nonsense. Our caring for the underprivileged, our social welfare and our labour market record were renowned.

I do not pretend the problems which underlie the challenges will easily be resolved. They have proved stubborn in Australia and elsewhere; but we must develop the will to tackle them. There must inevitably be changes in the patterns of labour demand and industrial structure. As Sir John Crawford has pointed out, we need to revitalise our manufacturing industries- which has already begun- based on a high degree of skill, advanced technology and exploitation of our natural advantages. However, if we are to do this, in terms of our human resources we must promote greater skill and competence. Already we have serious shortages of tradesmen and worse shortages in prospect as large scale development gets underway. The rigidities in our trade training system are one of the problems we must face. They should no longer be tolerated. Businessmen, trade unions and those in government responsible for the administration of the apprenticeship system, among others, acknowledge the deficiencies of that system. The community can see the paradox of shortages of skilled tradesmen which exist side by side with a surfeit of qualified young people who cannot get trade training.

The challenge before us is how to make our training systems more flexible so that they can cope better with today’s and tomorrow’s problems. I am examining the Government’s training programs to see what scope there is for other initiatives like the accelerated trade training program in Western Australia and the sheet metal training initiative in Victoria. I am aiming to target the training programs on groups and situations which need to be assisted and, once assisted, can be left without Government support. I shall be looking to the National Training Council to assist me in this task. The Council represents the voice of industry, the unions and training authorities, and it is to them that I turn for advice on this vital issue. All this presupposes the availability of better information and broader understanding of the changes taking place in the labour market. The establishment of the Bureau for Labour Market Research is a first and important step toward those essential improvements.

It is also essential that young people are provided with better knowledge and advice about employment and careers. In the past too great an emphasis has been given to counselling about tertiary careers. A balance has to be restored which re-establishes the dignity of manual work and helps that large proportion of young people who want to choose a career in the crafts and trades and other manipulative occupations. Moreover, it is here that the greatest demand for skills will lie in the 1980s. Renewing and revitalising our industrial relations system is another of the important and urgent challenges we face.

The level of industrial disruption in recent months, if it were to continue, would sabotage our recovery before it had time to mature. Our system of industrial relations, which has been of great benefit to us, is in need of selfappraisalnot just changes in the law. Many of the most serious of the inefficiencies in our labour market are rooted in our wages system. Wage systems can be a major hurdle to the mobility and adaptability of the work force and the balancing of demand and supply in the labour market. For example, it is undeniable that if the wages of juniors had not reached their present levels the problem of teenage unemployment in Australia would not be what it is today.

I must emphasise among the challenges we face the importance of restraining overall wage costs for unless there is proper restraint not only will the employment opportunities stemming from Australia’s development be pared back, but the very development itself may be placed at risk. Increases in real wages- as was so clearly shown in the mid-1970s- increase costs, reduce competitiveness and result in lower demand for goods and labour. It may not be very palatable, but the fact is that if one group of workers takes more of the cake through increased real wages there is less available to provide for those who are looking for jobs- that is, the unemployed. I wonder how many of those trade union leaders who press for higher real wages are concerned at the plight of the children of their members who cannot get jobs. I seem to recall a union leader, Mr Hawke, fleetingly flirting with the humanity and the reality of this proposition.

Technological change is another challenge to be overcome but not to be feared. Technological change may put strains on the existing pattern of production and employment as all market changes do. However, that is a manageable problem. What are a good deal less manageable are the economic and social strains of a stagnating economy. A Luddite approach to technology is no way of avoiding disruption and difficult choises. If the competitiveness of our industry falls, and costs increase, we shall be faced with even more severe adjustment and a much smaller range of options for accommodating it. These are the main challenges I see from my portfolio. They are important, urgent and difficult; but they are not overwhelming given Australia’s prospects for the 1980s.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr VINER:
LP

-I shall proceed with the statement I was making prior to the suspension of the sitting.

The Prospects

No one who has visited or lived in this country would deny that Australia has the potential for immense economic development in the 1980s and very favourable opportunities for strong and sustained employment growth. In the short and medium term considerable benefits will flow to Australia, as oil importing countries seek our alternative sources of energy, such as coal, gas and uranium, and as industries which are large users of energy seek to establish plants closer to energy sources. Importantly, because of the impact of higher energy prices on transport costs, other manufacturers will also be forced to consider processing closer to the sources of raw materials.

As I have pointed out on an earlier occasion, energy is at the heart of this potential. It provides a development imperative for Australia. It changes our status from ‘promising’ to ‘assured ‘, and makes us an attractive place not only for investment but also for development technology. When energy, capital, technology and markets are put together in substantial doses they provide a potent mixture for development and jobs. This is the energy equation which favours Australia. We have access to those ingredients, and the right formula, for the first time in a long while.

The first signs of these developments and their potential benefits are already apparent. By April last year major mining and manufacturing projects, either firmly committed or close to commitment, were valued at the very sizable sum of $ 12,400m. Six months later, the October 1979 survey showed that the total value of such projects had increased by 31 per cent to reach $ 16,300m. Forty-four per cent of this total was accounted for by manufacturing products and some 70 to 80 per cent is expected to be spent on Australian materials, goods and services. This provides prospects for a revitalised and competitive manufacturing industy. Employment directly generated by those major development projects is already estimated to be more than 60,000 jobs by 1985. These estimates do not take into account the employment potential of the major enterprises at Rundle and Roxby Downs. Yet large as these figures are they undoubtedly underestimate the size and impact of the investment.

The scale of the projects will require additional capacity in roads, docks, harbours, railways, water, power and many other services from industry, commerce and government. The income these developments will generate will flow into further demands for goods and services. A large range and number of new jobs, skills and technical expertise will be demanded. It is nonsense to suggest, as some people do, that because the initial projects themselves may be capital intensive their impact on employment will be relatively small. Wealth generates employment. With a larger income the nation extends the range and volume of the goods and services it demands to convert the wealth into higher living standards. The spin-off or multiplier effects of these developments can extend the demand for additional labour right through the economy into every occupation and industry requiring new skills and new technologies as they go.

Let the economists argue and the commentators cavil at whether the multiplier effect on jobs is 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 times the number directly created. One thing they cannot do is to deny the reality of such development in Kalgoorlie, the Pilbara, Mount Isa, Gove, Weipa and Broken Hill, just to mention a random sample. I suggest that a few of them visit these places and light industrial areas like those in my own electorate which feed off resource developments. They are not flights of fancy. They are real and the jobs in the mines, plants, ports, towns and cities which service them are real.

We stand at the threshold of a new age of growth and development. The prospects for job creation arising from the host of projects now in view are equally real, even more exciting and of a magnitude little understood. Such projects include natural gas out of the North West Shelf feeding into the Pilbara and 1,000 kilometres south to the $ 1 ,500m bauxite and alumina developments in south-west Australia; diamonds in the Kimberleys; the deep mines in the Golden Mile being reopened at last; another iron ore mine in the Pilbara; the great uranium province of Arnhem Land being opened up; aluminium smelters to be built in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria; the vast steaming coal deposits of Queensland and New South Wales to be exploited for an energy hungry world; the rich mineral deposits at Roxby Downs; and the immense oil shale project promised for Rundle.

Australia’s prospects are greater than at any time in its history. Just for one moment consider the Rundle oil shale development near Gladstone. It promises to be Australia’s largest single resource project. The project indicates substantial employment impacts. In the first phase up to the mid-1980s, the Rundle project will create more jobs in construction than were needed to develop the Bass Strait oil fields. The operational stages of the first phase will provide employment for 500 to 800 people. The second phase of the project will require a construction work force of 6,000 from the mid-1980s to early 1990s, while the operational work force will be more than 3,000 over this same period.

However, it is not only the massive size of Rundle which is striking but also the opportunity the project presents to introduce into Australia new technology and new skills. Australia will be at the forefront of world technology in the commercial extraction of oil from shale, and will be well placed to make significant gains from this expertise. New skills in plant operation, processing and maintenance will be developed through retraining and the upgrading of existing skills. The Rundle project further adds to the status of the Gladstone area as one of Australia’s key growth regions. When the first phase of the Rundle project is combined with other committed development 7,000 additional jobs in construction alone will be created in the Gladstone region during the first half of the 1980s. Many further jobs will be created in local support industries and community facilities. The growth of the Gladstone region is a clear example of how resource development gives impetus to economic growth and employment opportunities on a wider scale.

In addition to the prospects for our own development we live at the heart of a developing region. Continued economic growth and rising living standards in the Pacific Basin region, East and South East Asia and China will add to the markets already available to us and provide potential for expansion of the productive capacity of our industries and a whole range of ancillary services. Furthermore, as the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) pointed out in his ministerial statement on 21 April, the countries of the Arabian peninsula have an obvious desire to increase trade and economic and technical co-operation with Australia. We are already a major supplier of commodities to these countries. There is now signficant scope to expand trade with them in manufacturing and services as they go through a process of rapid development and modernisation brought on by the recycling of oil revenues. Is this then a picture of a nation as it enters the 1980s, about to repeat the stagnation of the 1970s and the destruction rather than the creation of employment?

It is the particular prospect of restoring full employment which this statement has been all about. That cannot seem any more daunting a task now than it did at the end of the Second World War. Given the will to take on the challenge facing us, I do not see any reason why we should be any less successful. As I stated at the beginning of this statement, Australian employment prospects are at a watershed. We can see from this vantage point what dangers and difficulties can arise from poor and careless government; how injurious it can be to economic growth, employment and the welfare of our community. We can also see how sensible economic management by governments can contribute so substantially to confidence and opportunity. But nothing can be achieved in the long run without the support of the community.

The things we see or acknowledge to be wrong with our economy cannot be put right by governments alone, acting unilaterally. Indeed, in a free enterprise economy like ours the momentum for change must come from the private sector- the employers and employees who make up that sector. Certainly the economic and manpower policies of the Government are important to the strategy for meeting the challenges of the 1980s. Economic policy has the fundamental task of producing the environment for a healthy economy. Manpower policy has the critical role of sharpening the responses of the labour market to changes in the demands of the economy and facilitating the necessary adjustment. However, in the absence of the active co-operation of employers and trade unions in achieving economic growth and, in particular, without their readiness to tackle labour market restrictions, the prospects for Australia in this decade are greatly diminished. Employers must lift their horizons and show that they are the entrepreneurs they profess to be. Trade unions must demonstrate their concern for the labour force by removing restrictions which constrain jobs and training.

In 1979 we returned to the route to full employment. The evidence of growing economic strength, greater development and expanding job opportunities steadily increased. Our focus on the labour market changed as some problems lessened and new problems, like skill shortages, emerged. The economy can now be seen to be healthier; employment can now be seen to have grown; and unemployment is lower. The Opposition has set up a diversion which must be ignored. We have set our sights further along the route we are already on; a route that will lead to improving employment prospects throughout this decade. I present the following paper:

Challenges and Prospects for Employment in the 1980s- Ministerial Statement, 29 April 1980.

Motion ( by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Port Adelaide speaking for a period not exceeding 40 minutes.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– If I were asked to describe the 28-page statement just read to the House by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) I would have to say that it resembled something like fairy floss- a little bit of sugar, but no substance. It reminded me of a child’s first experience of eating that commodity. He is in such excitement when he first sees it but at the first bite he knows there is nothing very much to it. So it is with the Minister’s statement. It is a great tragedy for this Parliament, for this Government, for the thousands and thousands of people who are unemployed and for the tens of thousands of families who are affected by unemployment that this Minister neither cares for the responsibility he has nor understands what he should be doing in terms of his responsibility as Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

This statement ignores completely the major sectors of the Australian community which employs most of the people in the work force. This may have been a good statement for the development that will occur in the mineral industry in the 1980s. But the fact is, as everybody in this House knows, 1.4 per cent of our total work force of almost six million people work in the mineral industry. If all of the development predictions made by the Minister in this statement came true it may be- this is being terribly optimistic- that perhaps at the end of the 1980s 2 per cent of the Australian work force could be employed in the minerals and mining industries of this country. The Minister is great on the multiplier effect. He keeps using these figures to show that it is not just those who are directly involved or directly employed but it is those who might be employed in other industries which can be utilised in assisting the minerals industry. Tonight, of course, he reached new heights of absurdity when he tried to dismiss the accusations which have been made against him about the way in which he used this famous Viner multiplier effect. I refer honourable members to page 23 of his statement. In the second paragraph he states:

Let the economists argue and the commentators cavil at whether the multiplier effect on jobs is 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 times the number directly created. One thing they cannot do is to deny the reality of such development in Kalgoorlie, the Pilbara, Mount Isa, Gove, Weipa and Broken Hill.

These are all establishments which are well under way and which have their work force. They are not going to be substantially altered in the years ahead. We still have only 1.4 per cent of the work force involved in these industries. There is no mention, as I said earlier, of the major industries of this country and what is likely to happen to them. But the absurdity of the Minister’s statement is exposed in the second paragraph of page 23 when he, as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs for some time now- since Mr Street was sacked in September of 1978- cannot even tell us the number of people who are likely to be employed indirectly and associated with the mining boom that he predicts for the 1980s. He wants to leave us in cloud cuckoo land about the number of people who may be employed. Of course, the Minister ought to know that his predictions are taken down from time to time. Let us have a look at them. In regard to Roxby Downs where the Western Mining Corporation Ltd is still carrying out its feasibility studies, the Minister, in Hansard of 1 1 September last year, stated:

A capital investment of $2,000m will involve 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs, 5,000 permanent jobs and 50,000 additional jobs through the multiplier effect . . .

This implies a multiplier effect of 10 to one. Now the Minister knows- everybody in this House knows- as Henry Lawson would say, that ‘that is claptrap. That is just not true. The Minister knows it is not true and he uses figures. I do not mind discussing the developments that may be taking place in Australia in the 1980s but we happen to have a quarter of a million young Australians out of work. The Minister is lifting their expectations by saying that all this development will go ahead and that they will all get jobs. This is what this statement implies. It is a lie. The only reason this statement is being made is that we are getting close to an election again. So out comes the big lie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to restrict himself to parliamentary language.

Mr YOUNG:

– Let us have a look at what else the Minister has said. Two statements have been made by the Minister in relation to the North West Shelf. The first appears in Hansard of 30 August 1979. He said:

  1. . with an 800 permanent operational workforce. Through the multiplier effect . . . there will be a spin-offworkforceof11,000to 12,000. .

This implies a multiplier effect of about 14 or 15 to one. Again, that is nonsense. Every comentator and every economist- the Minister seems to disregard them in his statement tonight- will say, regardless of where they come from, that that is nonsense. It is about time that the people who are unemployed in this country were told the truth.

If the Minister in his statement, is talking about 1.4 per cent of the work force being unemployed, why do we not talk about where the other 93 per cent or 94 per cent of the people work and what is to happen to their jobs? Why do we not talk in realistic terms about how many people in this country are unemployed? I will tell honourable members why we do not. It is because this Government does not give a damn about the unemployed. It never has and the statements tonight that we are on the road back to full employment are absolute rubbish. They ought to be regarded by everybody who observes this Parliament or any speech made by this Minister as rubbish. Many young people who are unemployed today in Australia will be unemployed for a long time. Let the Minister who stood at the table tonight and made this statement repudiate the statement of the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, of September 1978. Anybody following the debate on unemployment does not repudiate it. That statement of Mr Street stands.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member will not refer to honourable members by their names. He will refer to them by the name of their portfolio or electorate, whichever the case may be.

Mr YOUNG:

-Mr Street, who was then the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, had the decency to tell this Parliament the truth on unemployment as his Department saw the problem in September 1978. He could not see Australia creating the number of jobs that were necessary to get unemployment down to 5 per cent of the work force in the early 1 980s. He could not see Australia generating jobs that would overcome the problems of people in their early twenties who never had any work experience. It may be convenient for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the present Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to repudiate this statement, but this statement stands. This is the most honest, decent statement on employment and the problems of unemployment that this Government has made.

Following the statement that was made to the Parliament, there was an opportunity for this Parliament, through its committees, to look at the problem but the Government was not prepared to do it. All the Government was prepared to do was to sack the Minister for having had the audacity to tell the people the truth about employment and unemployment. One would think, from what the Minister has told us today, that we are living in a rose garden as far as employment is concerned. One would think from the variety of paragraphs that made up his speech that there are no more problems. He did not talk about the impact of Australia moving into a global economy and what it meant. He did not talk about the ramifications of technology. He just criticised those people who raised the question and said perhaps there is going to be some problem.

He did not tell us the extent to which the Government believes Australia is being affected by unemployment. He did not tell us what the Government would do about the social costs of unemployment. He did not tell us about the elderly people who are being forced into retirement because there are no jobs. He did not tell us about the kids who are forced back to school because there are no jobs. It was one big hollow exercise. Obviously, because the speech is so poor, the Minister must have written it himself. No one could describe the bureaucracy as being as stupid or as callous as to provide a speech such as the Minister delivered to this Parliament tonight. He talked about the private sector and it being a saviour in providing all the jobs. Since this Government came to power at the end of 1975 it has spent approximately $2.5 billion helping the private sector. It has provided investment allowances, the trading stock evaluation adjustment and special depreciation allowances for selected industries. There may be some argument about the exact number of people who are working in the private sector but certainly no more than 14,000 additional people have been employed.

The figure may have increased from 3,475,000 to 3,489,000 in the four years in which this Government has been in office. We have spent $2.5 billion creating 14,000 jobs in the private sector. If honourable members do their sums they will find that this Government has spent between $ 1 70,000 and $ 1 80,000 in creating each new job in the private sector. The Minister had the audacity to suggest that the Australian Labor Party wants to spend money creating jobs which the Government has not got. The Government has spent $2.5 billion on job creation.

The Minister is vulnerable in another area. He keeps telling us that the Labor Party policy would cost $1 billion, not the $300m which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and I announced at the launching of our employment program. He said that it would cost $ 1 billion -

Mr Carlton:

-It will, too.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member who always speaks after the Minister says that is right. I seek leave of the Minister to have incorporated in Hansard the calculations that were made by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Labor’s employment program. Honourable members will see from these calculations that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs reached the same conclusion on costing as did the Labor Party, the only difference being that the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs included materials in doing its sums and the Labor Party did not include materials as they were included in the old Regional Employment Development Scheme. Surely the Government does not have any opposition to having that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Mr YOUNG:

-The Government will not allow it to be incorporated in the Hansard record because it has told so many lies. It is not prepared to allow Hansard to show what the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has said in its own program.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide that he has already been requested to restrict his language to the use of parliamentary language. The Chair cannot permit the use of unparliamentary language.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member to withdraw his remark.

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw. It is a Government of lies. It continues to tell lies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr YOUNG:

– I am not talking about any person. I am talking about the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The term is still unparliamentary. I call on the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw, but it is certainly how I feel. I want to run through the Minister’s speech quickly and then say something more constructive about this massive problem of unemployment that we have in this country. Firstly, on page one of the statement the Minister says that as a consequence of the Government ‘s policies we have seen health and vitality restored to our economy and improved prospects for our standard of living and employment opportunities. That would have to be one of the greatest overstatements ever made in this Parliament. The Minister has not talked about inflation going back into double digit figures. He has not talked about interest rates, health costs and about the Government’s policy on petrol. He ought to have been informed- if he was not I inform him nowthat the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in September last year issued a document stating that the greatest barrier to youth employment opportunities in the Western world was now the rapidly increasing price of oil. The Government ought to be analysing what its policies are doing to employment opportunities in this country. We should know the answers to those questions that are being posed by the OECD about what our policy on oil is doing to employment opportunities in Australia. We cannot allow a charge such as that made by the OECD to go unattended because no country has been affected as rapidly by increasing petrol prices as Australia. The Government ought to take note of what the OECD is saying about these things.

Further on in his speech, the Minister told us that the number of unemployed was down 1 1,000 in the last 12 months. If we continue to be able to provide jobs for all the school leavers every year from now on and if we continue to decrease the number of unemployed by 11,000 a year, according to the Minister, we will get back to full employment in 30 years time. This was contained in the Minister’s speech. Then he had the audacity on page 10 of his speech to say that anybody who questions the Government’s policy on employment and anybody who dares to raise the subject and say that the Government should be doing a lot more about it is either ‘a fool or a villain’. The Minister implied that no one should dare question this Government about what it is doing. Apparently, the fact that we have at least 300,000 more people unemployed than we had 41/2 years ago when Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister should never be questioned. We should not raise the social costs of unemployment. If we and other people outside this Parliament who are members of organisations such as the Australian Council of Social Service, the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, the Catholic Church or the leader writers of some of our newspapers dare to raise the question of unemployment, this Minister will blast us and describe us as either fools or villains. I can assure the Minister that there will be a lot more fools and villains in Australia over the next few years because we know that what this Government has in store is mass unemployment to try to cure all the other ills it sees.

On page 12 of the statement, the Minister shows the great philosophy of the Liberal Party. He says:

But the Liberal seeks first the private enterprise solution.

As I said at the outset, private enterprise has had $2.5 billion worth of assistance in the last four years and has created perhaps a maximum of 1 4,000 jobs. And we on this side of the House are called socialists because we want to use government resources to bring decency back to employment by creating jobs. Call us what you will, we are going to put Australian people first. We are not going to scour the world for migrants to come here and take jobs that Australians should be doing, whether it be skilled work, unskilled work or semi-skilled work. We will refute this Government’s policy of bringing in migrants or relying on the private sector rather than shouldering the responsibility as a Federal government and doing something about the situation. But this Minister tells us that the Government is going to rely on the private enterprise system.

Further on in the statement the Minister tells us that our trade training system is no good. That is a bit different from the story he has been telling us in the last couple of years about the amount of money that has been spent on the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme. It is only since the Government has been exposed in the last fortnight for not being able to spend the amount of money it appropriated for the CRAFT scheme in the Budget of last year that it has said that it is the rigidities of the trade training system which are the problem, and that the Government has made the money available. But this Government has been in power for five years. It did not come to office last month. If it wanted to do something about the trade training system, why did it not move to do it? Why has it not put some suggestions forward? Why has it left a situation where we are 10,000 tradesmen a year short? The rigidities could be easily overcome if that is what the Government wanted.

On page 18 of the statement the Minister says that we have given too much emphasis to counselling about tertiary careers. One of the great contradictions of the Minister’s speech is that it is all about the mining boom which employs very few people- as I said at the outset, 1 . 4 per cent of the work force- but the tertiary industries, narrowly defined, employ 70 per cent of the work force. So why would there not be counselling for young people who want to work in the tertiary industries? The Minister’s speech on these matters is absolute hogwash. Of course, he has to attack the wages of juniors, a factor which has absolutely nothing to do with the way in which employment opportunities are available in Australia. The one group of people in Australia who have had a greater escalation of wages than any other group in the past six years is the adult women. The group that has been able to find employment easier than any other group is the adult” women. So it cannot be said that wages keep people out of jobs. Adult women have had the biggest increase in wages and they have formed the biggest intake in employment areas in Australia. But of course it suits this Government to continue with its argument on the wages scene because it has inflation so high again it will have to say in its submission in the national wage case that everybody should not get a wage increase, that everybody should be living on the poverty line.

The Minister referred very briefly to technological change at page 20 of his statement. Let me remind the Minister that in spite of our request to debate these matters, week after week, month after month, year after year, in spite of our requests that we have parliamentary committees on technological change and in spite of our requests that we look at the social cost of unemployment, all these things have been refused. We have had one 50-minute debate on technological change in this Parliament which works out at roughly 40 seconds for every week that this Parliament has sat. That is how interested the Government is in technological change. Despite all the knowledge that is now being made available throughout the world of the impact of technological change, we do not even monitor the impact of technological change in Australia. This Government cannot tell us how many people have lost their jobs as a result of technological change. We do not know to what extent technological change will take place in the labour-intensive industries of this country. It cannot tell us anything about the work force that we ought to know when we are planning for the young people of Australia during the 1980s and the 1990s. This Government wants to let the market place operate without interference from the government. Of course, it is wholesale nonsense to believe that in the 1980s a country can be governed in the laissez-faire style that this Government has adopted.

I referred earlier to the Minister’s great attraction to trying to ignore the multiplier effect. Having been exposed in every State in Australia for the way in which he uses it, he casts it aside tonight to say that it does not really matter if economists or commentators cavil about it. He invites us to visit some of the places he has listed on page 23 of the statement. Most of us have been to those places. I have lived in some of the places and I tell honourable members that those places mentioned by the Minister are not the panacea for providing all the jobs that will be required in Australia. Unless this Government takes a far more sophisticated stand and a far more sophisticated approach to unemployment in this country, we will be in a far greater mess than we are in at the moment.

In March this year 445,000 people were officially registered as unemployed. It is common knowledge in the community that the situation is far worse. Official unemployment statistics are now virtually meaningless. Many thousands of young people, married men and women and older workers approaching retiring age, have simply dropped out of the labour force- a stark acknowledgement of the hopeless task of finding employment. These people are not worded as officially unemployed. A far better guide to employment and unemployment in Australia is a thorough examination of the participation rates. If the participation rate at November 1975 is used to calculate real unemployment, the figure in February 1980 stands at 582,100 or 8.6 per cent of the work force- not 444,500 as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Even the Department of the Treasury, not the most radical of economic analysts, does not deny this trend. In fact, it takes positive delight in observing- and I quote:

Should the declining trend in the participation rate continue, the level of unemployment . . . would remain broadly unchanged . . (these people) do not feel the need to work under circumstances where it is much harder to find.

The Government delights in the enormous growth of hidden unemployment for it distracts from the enormity of the unemployment crisis.

The most spectacular record of which this Government can boast is the real unemployment level of at least some 700,000 people, given the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research estimate of some 300,000 hidden unemployed. Yet the statement today is based on the premise that there is and will be in the future a bonanza of job opportunities for Australians.

Up until now Government policy said that there were ample job opportunities in the community and if only the unemployed would travel, if only they were better motivated, educated, they could find work. The Government now expects us to believe that in future there will be a labour shortage and that the migrant intake must be boosted to take up the shortfall. Nothing could be further from the truth. At present there are 23 people unemployed competing for every job. -Four years ago the figure was 12. For juniors the ratio is currently 35 people looking for work for every job vacancy. Four years ago it was 3 1 . Figures like this barely even begin to describe the enormity of the problem. The average duration of unemployment for people aged 15 to 19 is 22 weeks. Four and a half years ago it was 16 weeks. For people aged 55 and over the average duration of unemployment is 58 weeks. Four and a half years ago it was 26 weeks. As the Bulletin of Labour observed in its December 1979 edition:

There are at least 150,000 older workers (55 years and over) currently outside the labour force who could have reasonably been expected to have been in employment were it not for the recession.

It is no coincidence that the decline in participation rate for this group has paralleled a 123 per cent increase in their average duration of unemployment. Unrealistic work tests combined with constant harrassment of the unemployed by senior Government Ministers as dole bludgers have now produced a situation where at least some 20 per cent of persons aged 15 to 64 classified as not in the labour force would like a job.

The enormity of the problem does not end with the hidden unemployment. The enormous growth in part time employment camouflages significant under-employment in the economy. Between August 1975 and February 1980 full time employment increased by 3.7 per cent but part time employment increased by 18 per cent, or five times the full time rate. In addition, during 1979, which produced the best employment performances to date, although total employment grew by 2.3 per cent, there was a nine per cent rise in part time male employment and a 6.5 per cent increase in female part time employment. In the last year alone, the number of part time employees who preferred to work more hours increased by 43,000.

But from where are the job opportunities to come? The then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was certainly not optimistic when he addressed the Parliament in September 1978 as follows:

If new jobs were created at an average of 130,000 a year for each of the next five years, we could expect to reduce unemployment to about 4.5 per cent . . . If we achieved that rate of growth . . . consistently for the next five years we would match the very best of our post-war experience. . . it would appear unlikely that more than 10 per cent of new employment will be generated in manufacturing industry or that rural or mining industries will produce large numbers of additional jobs. The bulk of the new jobs will have to come from the services sector . . . Put simply, if we overcome our present problems and restore economic growth … to more normal levels, we still face a formidable problem. If this situation develops, as it has in a number of other countries, there will be real dangers to the fabric of our society.

What could possibly have happened in the intervening 19 months to change such an essentially honest but pessimistic forecast? As is well known, the new Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs is the Prime Minister’s staunchest lackey. Late last year leaked documents from Liberal Party headquarters revealed that the Prime Minister intended to ‘neutralise the unemployed ‘, an insidious slogan that is well in tune with the Goebbels streak of the Government, a task to which the Minister has warmed wholeheartedly. If the Australian public can be convinced that there are thousands of job vacancies, how can a person genuinely seeking work be unemployed? So we have been treated to a parade of optimistic employment statements which have culminated in the Minister’s own version of Mein Kampf, as presented in the House today.

We have been told that projects will bring an avalanche of new and exciting job opportunities. None of the developmental projects so far announced has the potential to make any significant impact upon unemployment levels. For example, jobs created under projects funded by Loan Council borrowings have an average cost of $130,000. On that basis, it would cost $50,000m to get unemployment down to a level of two per cent. Labor recognises that, with the restoration of economic growth through a responsible fiscal and economic policy, the private sector will not be able sufficiently to extend employment opportunities. That is why we have advanced our job opportunities program, which is the most ambitious and forward-looking manpower policy ever presented to the Australian electorate. It recognises that investment growth will not be sufficient to prevent the tragedy of prolonged and high levels of unemployment. Labor will not resort to the lunatic ravings of the Government, which is presently claiming a multiplier of 1 1 for jobs created by projects such as the Roxby Downs and North West Shelf projects. As Greg Hywood pointed out last week in the Australian Financial Review.

Officials in Mr Viner’s Department are particularly bemused at the relationship the Minister makes between potential development projects and employment creation. A multiplier of four is regarded through the western world as the highest attainable and then only under exceptional circumstances.

Using a multiplier of two, the jobs resulting from the development projects worth $ 16,300m that the Government claims are in the pipeline would, over five years, create only 36,000 jobs directly. That is, as Hywood observes, a figure well below the 110,000 annual increase in the labour force.

But the Minister’s insanity does not end with bogus multipliers. Our trade training system has collapsed completely and we are now witnessing the facade of Government immigration officials and members of the Metal Trades Industry Association cavorting all round Europe seeking to attract skilled migrants while thousands of suitable well-qualified young Australians are denied trade training opportunities. As the National Training Council, the chief Government advisory body on manpower policy, stated in January:

The plain facts are that there are not enough tradesmen being trained in Australia.

The Minister’s claims about apprenticeship training are about as accurate as his multipliers. The Minister claims that 85,000 rebates will be paid during this financial year. That would represent an increase of 142 per cent on last year’s achievement. During 1978-79 there was a reduction in apprenticeship intakes of 4. 1 per cent, yet between 1976 and 1978 the number of imported skilled tradesmen increased by 52 per cent. No wonder in recent weeks we have seen a carefully orchestrated Press campaign to soften the Australian electorate to accepting a further increase in the skilled migrant intake.

The Minister is not interested in training Australians for jobs that will result from investment in new mineral and resource projects. During the period from 1971 to 1977, skilled migration accounted for 18 per cent of the annual supply of new tradesmen. Given that immigration contributes some 8,000 to 10,000 tradesmen a year and that the projected increase for skilled tradesmen is 8,000 a year above projected apprenticeship completions, in the years ahead skilled migrants will account for 36 per cent of our annual supply, unless the Government takes urgent action to train young Australians. No longer can we rely upon the immigration of skilled tradesmen when so many Australians who are suited to trade training, and who are seeking apprenticeships, cannot get them. Labor, as we have said repeatedly, will scale down progressively the skilled migrant intake and boost current apprenticeship intakes by 50 per cent, or 20,000 young people, to ensure that the skilled manpower needs of this country are met.

The Minister skimmed over the question of technological change. As Labor sees it, technological change has the potential to disseminate employment opportunities in the services sector of the economy, as well as to abolish large numbers of existing jobs. Thornton and Stanley, who prepared one of the most recent objective surveys on this question, argue that some 200,000 jobs have already been displaced in offices alone. They concluded:

As a conservative estimate after allowing for 53,000 people involved in data processing and operation there would be in the region of 1 50,000 low grade clerical jobs abolished as the net result of computerisation.

The figure of 150,000 clerical jobs eliminated is important in explaining much of youth unemployment. For example, between June 1975 and June 1978, the number of staff aged 17 years and under employed by banks fell by 47 per cent. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that in the period August 1975 to January 1980 the percentage of people unemployed under 25 years of age increased from 51.7 per cent to 60.6 per cent. Australia now has the third highest rate of youth unemployment in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, trailing only Finland and Spain. As Mr Street was honest enough to admit in the Parliament on 14 September 1978:

Looming over the whole tertiary sector are changes in computer and related technology and the effects are beginning to bite . . . If we overcome our present problems and restore economic growth to more normal levels, we will still have a formidable problem.

Today the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has anticipated the result of the Myers inquiry into technological change, which shows every sign of being a whitewash, and has continued his 18-month line of deception- that technology poses no threat to job opportunities and job security. Perhaps the Minister should read the publications of this own Department. I refer to a document entitled ‘Education for Leisure’, which was produced by the Office of Youth Affairs. It states:

The workers, the semi-skilled and unskilled union members face a rapidly decreasing demand for their time as automation takes control of industry within Australia . . .

The statement continues:

If all this group are to be employed, a pattern of working in which members will have more time to kill will evolve.

I put it to honourable members that the Minister’s Department has reached new heights of absurdity and offensiveness in redefining unemployment as ‘ time to kill ‘.

But it is not only the tertiary sector that suffers. In an excellent booklet published late last year by the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, the union put forward a comprehensive catalogue of changes within industry. So we can see that the Minister’s Alice in Wonderland approach to technological change is a farce. The union produced figures which show that in the next six years Telecom Australia will reduce the number of maintenance workers by 20 per cent, but there will be an increase of 60 per cent in the number of lines available to consumers in Australia. The speed of the development of the new technology is such that many tens of thousands of jobs are under threat. The advent of the microprocessor has the potential to disseminate traditional employment patterns. The Nora report, commissioned by the French Government, estimates that 30 per cent of jobs in banking, insurance and the public sector could be lost through technological change. This changing microprocessor technology threatens the most vulnerable groups in the community- school leavers, the semi-skilled and older workers. But the Minister today rejects any responsibility, refuses to consider public support for those left on the ledge and continues to delude himself that computerisation creates jobs.

In November 1979, 82,000 people were employed directly in mining operations, representing 1.33 per cent of the work force, as I said earlier, compared with 79,000 in August 1975, or 1.35 per cent of the work force- a decrease of 0.02 per cent in just over four years. If we are to be dependent upon employment growth in the minerals sector to soak up massive levels of unemployment, we will reach the situation that the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations predicted in September 1 978 of unemployment being a real challenge to the social fabric of our society. The situation in manufacturing industry holds little hope for immediate growth. By November 1979 the number of people employed in this sector was 41,700 less than those employed in August 1975. The percentage of the work force employed has fallen from 21.6 per cent to 19.5 per cent Over this period. Between August 1976 and August 1978, 67,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing. The construction industry shed 17,700 jobs during this period while the wholesale and retail trade and transport industries lost 8,000 and 35,000 respectively. In total, these sectors shed 96,900 jobs over this two-year period.

I wonder whether employees in these industries share the Minister’s optimism. Certainly the previous Minister did not. He in fact argued that the bulk of future jobs would have to come from the services sector. Employees in this sector are faced with a dual threat to their job security- on the one hand, the effects of the microprocessor and, on the other, savage cuts in public expenditure which restrict employment growth in community services and public administration. In just over four years, as I said earlier, this Government handed out $2.5 billion to the private sector by tax handouts, investment allowances et cetera. We were told that this would provide jobs for all and would get the private sector moving again. As I have told the House, very few jobs in the private sector have been created by all those initiatives. This means that we have spent an amount approaching $200,000 for every job we have created in this area.

I conclude by dealing very briefly with the problems and the social cost of unemployment. They were totally ignored by the Minister and this Government in the Minister’s speech tonight. His Department has put out a booklet which I referred to earlier and which is called Educating for Leisure’. I quote from it as follows:

The fifth group are the disadvantaged. They include the invalids, the unemployed, the housewife without a skill who cannot find work, the aged, those who retired prematurely because there was no longer a job available, the Aboriginal population and youth without a skill who cannot find employment. This disadvantaged group has grown rapidly within Australia and the unemployed among them have increased fivefold in the past four years. It is becoming increasingly apparent that they will form a permanent and substantial sector in our society.

The more truthful material from the Department comes out in official documents. It is a great pity for this Parliament that the material which has been produced on occasions by the Department does not form the Minister’s speeches. Unfortunately for this Parliament the Minister does not read documents coming from his own Department. We welcome debate on this subject because it exposes the Government’s lack of activity with regard to employment and unemployment.

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

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-We have just heard from the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) 39 minutes of shouting rhetoric which has not answered one of the problems facing this nation-indeed, the world-in relation to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. During the last minute of his speech we heard an identification of the real problem- I respectfully agree with the honourable member- which is facing this Government; that is, how we cure the social ills which flow from unemployment. We are concerned about the social and economic problems which flow from unemployment. Whenever employment and unemployment have been discussed in this House from time to time much emphasis has been given by members of the Australian Labor Party, including the honourable member for Port Adelaide, to a speech by the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 14 September 1978. Apparently that speech has been accepted without demur, without criticism, tonight and probably on other occasions. Therefore, I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs which that Minister uttered in relation to these matters and which, it ought to be recognised, are apparently accepted by the Australian Labor Party. The first one reads as follows:

During the time of the Labor Government, we saw wages outstrip productivity, inflation and inflationary expectations increase at an alarming rate, and demand, investment and confidence fall. As a Government we believe these problems are fundamental to the present predicament in the labour market.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide, who has just resumed his seat, also said that the Government is not aware of some of the issues which have caused the present predicament. Yet the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in the same speech which was so highly lauded by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, identified three main influences on the labour supply in the period from 1950 to the late 1960s. The first two influences were the immigration program and the influx of married women seeking employment- of which the honourable member for Port Adelaide chose to say the Government was not aware. A number of statistics followed. Then the Minister said: . . the number of females in the labour force rose from 23 per cent in 1954 to 32 per cent in 1971. Over the same period, the married women component rose from 7 per cent to 18 per cent.

Then he said that the third main influenceanother point touched on by the honourable member for Port Adelaide- related to the teenage labour force. He said that that was the third major factor influencing the labour supply over the last 20 years. Yet the honourable member chose to ignore those parts of the speech. He chose to ignore the fact that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who prepared the paper entitled ‘Challenges and Prospects for Employment in the 1980s’, identified in the first paragraph of that paper the contribution which had been made by the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations by illustrating the dramatic changes which have taken place in the Australian labour market in the 1970s. The present Minister incorporated in the text the problems which the previous Minister had so clearly and aptly identified. Before I turn from the previous Minister’s statement I will quote one more section of it which I think identifies what the real problem is all about. It is not about the Australian Labor Party’s shouting in this chamber that there is some problem in relation to unemployment. It is about a parliament trying to cure a social ill. I think this was again very succinctly put by the previous Minister when he said:

The Government has demonstrated its concern for the problems of the young. I acknowledge that there are differences of view about the role of government. Differences in political approach and philosophy are to be expected and are perhaps a sign of the basically healthy state of our system. Whatever these differences of view, however, I want to point out that with all the widespread variations in approach to the contemporary problems of unemployment in the industrialised countries of the world, not one has yet solved all the problems.

I think that hammers home what I would like to develop over the next 10 minutes in relation to unemployment and why we should be looking at this as a parliament and not on a party political basis. In developing the theme I would like to be quite unashamedly parochial because I think we need to look at some of the facts rather than to have rhetoric as our only answer and as our sole cause for logic, or apparent logic, in this debate. The Minister, when referring some two hours ago to the challenges, said that there is some realisation by our Government of the potential for employment growth. He referred particularly to maintaining an equitable distribution of employment. I refer to that aspect. Reference was made to a number of mining developments- Gove, Mt Isa, Rundle shale oil and so on. One which was not mentioned was the brown coal deposits of the La Trobe Valley in Victoria which will become so significant as time passes that the whole of Australia will focus its attention on those brown coal deposits, which are the largest known in the world. They currently comprise an estimate of 123,000 million tonnes of which 70,000 million tonnes have been confirmed and 35,000 million tonnes have been committed for electricity production. The Loy Yang project, costing $2,800m, is currently being developed. If we try to relate that project in money terms to other known projects, it would be about equal to the total cost of the Sydney Opera House, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and the Tullamarine Airport. It is a massive development and it is only the start of a number of massive developments which are going to take place in the area.

I want to talk about the Latrobe Valley because social problems presently exist in that area as a result of the unemployment situation. In spite of the work that is going on in this area and the fact that over 300 adult male job vacancies were recorded at Morwell, there are 315 people registered as being unemployed. That situation is unique in Australia. On the other hand, we have a very worrying situation in that 559 junior females were registered as unemployed at 28 March. There are only 1 5 jobs available for those 559 junior females. Why should we look at this situation? I emphasise that a sociological change is taking place and that this study which I am developing can be applied throughout Australia. If we look at sociological changes in regional centres, we must also look at what is going on in the rural centres. In that area, we saw three years ago the dairy industry on its knees. It was not earning any income. People were in receipt of the unemployment benefit as a result of a major policy change by this Government and the farm and the family were being held together because the women were able to go out into regional centres and get employment- I emphasise this- in the clothing, textile and footwear industries.

One of the problems which has been identified by the Minister in his speech tonight is that there must be an equitable distribution of employment. What comes to mind, of course, is the current Industries Assistance Commission draft report which suggests there should be some changes in relation to tariff protection in the three industries which I have mentioned. Let me look at those changes and indicate how they would have an effect in an electorate like mine which could be reflected in other electorates around Australia, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National Country Party electorates. Let us look at what is happening. We are not just talking about jobs in factories. We are looking at a total community effort by local government, by State government and by the Commonwealth government. For example, in the Commonwealth government area, money has been made available under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program. In the Geelong area of Victoria the industrial estates and modular factories were developed under a grant or a loan of $1,044,000 under the program between March 1978 and 20 February 1980. 1 assume that there will be a great effort to attract decentralised industries to those areas and other areas. Those industries that are likely to be attracted are those which perhaps will fall into the category of clothing, textile and footwear industries.

In my own electorate an industrial estate is being developed in the Latrobe Valley by the Shire of Morwell where $370,000 has been made available by way of a loan. I have no doubt that the shire will develop, as it has in the past, an attractive package which will attract clothing, textile and footwear industries- clean and labour intensive industries- which will give employment to the people of the Latrobe Valley, particularly to those 559 junior females who are presently unemployed.

We should look also at the existing projects. The Housing Commission of Victoria, as part of its decentralisation program, has built many houses in Churchill which is a satellite township of the city of Morwell. This area also has an industrial estate at which the Exacto factory, which is part of the Bradmill organisation, employs 109 people. The jobs of those 109 people will be in jeopardy if the recommendations of the IAC report are accepted. Yet we have had the infrastructure applied for and built in by local government, by State government and by the Commonwealth government. All this could be put in jeopardy because of a decision which could emanate from this Government if the terms of the IAC report were implemented.

They are the sort of issues we have to identify when we talk about unemployment and whether further acts should be undertaken by governments which could prejudice the unemployment situation even further. The work undertaken in other areas of my electorate could be undertaken also in areas in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Money has been made available to the Burrough of Wonthaggi for the development of services for industrial estates where major factories are likely to be developed in some of the categories to which I have referred. Also, 118 people are employed at the Dowds factory at Warragul. The jobs of these people would be placed in jeopardy if the recommendations of the IAC report were implemented. We could also look at the shire of Buln Buln and the township of Drouin where substantial funds have been outlayed or arranged through the local shire. Those funds are going to be put at risk because there may be a downturn in employment, particularly in the high labour intensive areas of clothing, textiles and footwear. I think I have made the point in relation to the IAC inquiry. The major point I wish to make is that if we are talking about unemployment, we are talking about people. In particular, I want to talk about people in rural and regional centres whose jobs will be jeopardised by the failure to protect their interests and the social interests, which are very important.

I turn to a report of a committee of this Parliament. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation made a number of recommendations on the impact of the Commonwealth Government’s decision on the urban environment. It is a very important document. However, there has been absolutely no response to date. I refer particularly to the acknowledgement of the population distributions which are currently evident intrastate and interstate. These distributions have been identified in the Borrie report. They have been identified by witnesses who appeared before this Committee. The committee has made a number of recommendations on the role of the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee. The parliamentary Committee commented on whether this Committee had done anything in the past few years- I suggest it has done very little- in looking at the question of an equitable distribution of employment in Australia. I do not have time to refer to all the recommendations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard recommendations 11(c), 12, 13(a) and 13 (c) from the Committee report.

Leave granted

The document read as follows-

  1. the terms of reference of the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee be re-drafted to specifically identify the need for detailed examination of the impact of locational proposals on the urban environment. (paragraph 22 1 ) 12 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be given the Chairmanship of the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee and be responsible for the servicing function. (paragraph 224) 13 (a) joint Commonwealth/State Government working parties on office accommodation and location be established in each State;
  2. as far as Commonwealth Government employment is concerned the working parties be integrated with the operation of the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee;
Mr SIMON:

– In the two minutes available to me now I would like again quite blatantly to give a plug to a futures direction conference in which I hope everybody will co-operate. This conference is being arranged through Australian Frontier Inc. and delegates will be invited to apply their minds to many of the problems facing this nation which have been identified by the Minister tonight and by the former Minister in September 1978. 1 appeal to speakers at the conference and to members of the Opposition to approach this conference in a non-partisan way. This conference will take place from 10 August to 14 August at the Latrobe University in Melbourne and will be under the chairmanship of Mr Jim Wolfensohn, a very distinguished expatriate Australian who is living in New York. The conference will examine a number of major issues in respect of the future of Australia. It will consider what directions we are taking and what values if implemented will guide us in the way in which we aim towards the year 2000. Without in any way pre-empting the debate or discussion which will be developed by the 105 to 120 representatives who will be in attendance, a section of debate undoubtedly will look at- this has been listed on the agenda- employment, unemployment and leisure and the way in which we as a Commonwealth Government and as a community are going to face up to these issues. They are matters we have to look at. We are not concerned about whether a particular program is successful. We must look in globo at a situation to ascertain whether we are doing enough at the Commonwealth Government level to solve what is a social ill, namely, unemployment in this country.

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I rise to speak in this debate particularly to that aspect of the speech by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) which dealt with the mining and manufacturing industries and the El Dorado proposition which the Government is now holding out to members of the Australian public, particularly those unemployed, as a panacea for unemployment. The Minister in his speech referred to a survey carried out by the Department of Industry and Commerce on manufacturing industry and on major investment in mineral projects. He talked about $16.3 billion supposedly creating 60,000 new jobs by 1985. A quick calculation shows an investment of $260,000 per job. We have seen this list of projects often in the past. I remember the same Minister in the election campaign in 1977 outlining a whole pile of mineral projects that were to be commenced during the life of this current Parliament under the Government of which he is a member. The same old runners are mentioned every time. In Western Australia, where the Minister lives- it is his home State- we were to see the development of the iron ore deposit in Goldsworthy ‘s area. We were to see the development within the life of this Parliament of the Marandoo deposit. We were to see the development of the Hail Creek coke and coal deposit in Queensland, of Nebo and the others. They are still not developed. They are the same projects the former Labor Government was criticised in 1 975 for not developing.

The truth is that development prospects in these minerals are related to demand, and because the steel industry, particularly in Japan, has been languishing in the years since it peaked in 1974, the demand has not been there. The long-term contracts therefore have not been issued and, because they have not been issued, they cannot be banked and money raised against them for developments. So the projects have not begun. But the Government lists these projects and, quite dishonestly in this kind of debate, cites them again as some kind of employment panacea for the future. Only one-third of the projects that were mentioned are in the committed category; the remainder are at the feasibility stage. Of course, the feasibility stage really can mean anything. It depends on the economic viability of projects, on markets, on demand in the Northern Hemisphere, and on the state of the international economy. In addition, many of the projects are dependent upon each other. Some projects, particularly mineral processing projects, are dependent upon some of the other mining projects. If the mining projects do not proceed, the same situation applies to the processing projects. So to add the lot up in a cumulative way to arrive at this figure of $16 billion is very misleading, as the Government well knows. Very interestingly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) recently made some comments on this subject in New York, and there is a report in the Australian

Financial Review that I will read into Hansard. It states:

The effectiveness of Prime Minister Fraser ‘s plans for major energy development projects in the 1980s as a way of defeating Australia’s unemployment problem has been questioned by one of his senior Cabinet colleagues.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lynch, said that the outcome of these development plans was highly dependent on international growth prospects which did not appear favourable.

The Minister also touched on the problems Australia will have in establishing new development projects if it cannot export finished products to such countries as the European Economic Community nations because of their high tariffs.

In a just-released address to the Australian International Business Opportunity Program delegation lunch in Switzerland, the Minister said: ‘The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund have each produced a rather sombre view of international growth prospects in the wake of recent OPEC oil price increases- and sustained noninflationary growth is absolutely fundamental to our plans and aspirations.

It is the only path to the creation of permanent productive jobs for our unemployed. It is the basic economic engine producing higher living standards and greater leisure.

And Australia’s prospects are inevitably constrained and circumscribed by the outlook of the international economy. ‘

That was a rather frank statement which I suppose the Minister believed would not be reported back in Australia. However, what is obvious to everybody is that there will not be very high rates of growth in the major economies of the world this year for some of the reasons mentioned in that article, including higher oil prices and galloping inflation. In the United States the prime interest rate for lenders is now about 19 per cent. Economic activity therefore will decline and so too will the demand for raw material and semifinished products leaving Australia. All of this El Dorado nonsense the Government puts up about a great jump in mining capacity saving Australia’s employment situation and eradicating its unemployment is just not believable.

The Minister refers to the North West Shelf as if in some way it is something he created. Both the Government and the Opposition have an equal stake in the project, and of course we on this side of the House have supported it. I believe that while it has not reached the contract stage at the moment, that project will succeed. The statement mentioned the smelters for smelting aluminium in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland as though the development was part of a grand strategy which the Fraser Government had developed. It has nothing to do with the Fraser Government. The point is that the world’s aluminium industries can find cheaper electricity in Australia through the burning of Australian coal than they can in any other part of the world. They are setting up here, aided by the offers that have been put to them by State Governments, particularly those of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales. This has very little to do with the Prime Minister. Interestingly enough, at the last Loan Council meeting the States were given authority by the Commonwealth to borrow for infrastructure related to these developments, with the risk being borne by the States and with no risk to the Commonwealth. Now this is to be cited as the Fraser Government’s national development plan. The Government thinks it can pull the wool over the eyes of the public and get itself returned at the next election on some phoney basis of creating employment. The latest El Dorado is Rundle. Two years ago it was the North West Shelf. The Rundle project may succeed, but at this stage it will have no effect on Australian employment for at least four to five years. Even if the consortium decides after the feasibility study to go ahead, the employment consequences will be so late and so small in the total context of Australian employment that it will not cut the mustard.

The Government talks about 60,000 jobs being created by 1985. The most likely estimate I have seen recently is of about 36,000 jobs in mining. Interestingly, the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, the Minister’s own Department, said in a submission to the Crawford committee on manufacturing industry that it estimates that at least until 1985 Australia would need an increase in job opportunities of 1 10,000 per year just to meet the net additions to the labour force, without eating into the current level of unemployment. Even assuming that the Government’s optimistic figures are right and there are 60,000 jobs accumulative by 1985, what we need is 1 10,000 jobs each year just to meet the net addition, not to eradicate the existing level of unemployment. Five years at 1 10,000 jobs a year is over half a million jobs cumulative, compared with the 60,000 jobs we are being offered in this El Dorado proposition that the Government thinks will be the panacea.

My colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), mentioned the fictional multiplier effect which the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has been talking about, this ratio of 10 jobs in indirect employment for every one job in direct employment in the mining industry. Being most generous, let us say that the ratio is four to one. There is no other place in the world where it is as high as four to one. Even on that basis, there cannot be any major improvement in the indirect work force that is related to rnining. In Australia at the moment only 75,000 people are employed in mining and 75,000 in smelting , and other processingrelated industries. One estimate is that for every 10 jobs in mining another nine will be created in other industries. So it is roughly a one to one ratio and not a ten to one ratio. .A study of Canadian industry, which is far more developed than our own, particularly in mineral processing, shows that there are an additional 18 processing jobs for every 1 0 in mining, which is a ratio of 1 to 1.8 or 1 to 2. Even granting the Minister a ratio of 1 to 4, we are still not finding very much improvement.

The Minister talked about the great bonanza in rnining. When we look at the Journal of Industry and Commerce produced by the Department of Industry and Commerce we find that the major boost in expenditure on manufacturing- a much more labour intensive area- is in New South Wales. In New South Wales there was a survey of major mining and manufacturing investment projects committed to the final feasibility stages. New South Wales is spending $720m on mining and $3, 144m on manufacturing compared to, say Western Australia, which will be spending $5,000m on mining and $1.3 billion on manufacturing between now and 1985. The Labor State of New South Wales is doing more than just pulling its weight in terms of investment in manufacturing compared to investment exclusively in mining. Of course, manufacturing investment pays much greater dividends in respect to employment. The mining industry currently accounts for 1.4 per cent of the work force. Even when it had a massive boost right through the period from 1967 to 1975, when mining capacity developed, the figure still remained at about 1.4 per cent. In 196 1 it was 1.3 per cent of the work force and in 1971 it was 1.4 per cent. It is still 1.4 per cent. Even if it grows and grows it will not be very much above 1 .4 per cent; it may be 1.5 per cent or 1.6 per cent. The truth is that the manufacturing industry has fallen apart under the Fraser Government. Employment in manufacturing fell by 7 per cent in the years 1975 to 1978. This is by far the worst percentage among all the industrialised nations. In France it declined by about 3.8 per cent; in the United Kingdom by 2 per cent; in West Germany by 0.5 per cent; and in Canada by 1 per cent. In Italy employment in manufacturing grew by 3.8 per cent; in the United States it grew by 1 1.7 per cent; but in Australia it fell by 7 per cent. This fall occurred after 1975 and cannot be blamed on the Labor Government. It happened five years ago and this was after 1975.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) quoted from what the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, had to say. He said:

It would appear unlikely that more than 10 per cent of new employment will be generated in the manufacturing industry or that the rural or mining industry will produce large numbers of additional jobs. The bulk of jobs will have to come from the service sector.

We have been treated to a charade tonight by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in an effort to sweep the unemployment issue under the carpet. To rely upon the national development program- as the Minister put it- is so hollow and so abominable in its essential dishonesty that it does not deserve a serious answer. There are 445,000 people registered as unemployed in March of this year with about 300,000 hidden unemployed people who just do not bother to register, particularly older women and older men who have dropped out of the work force prematurely. At the moment there are 23 people registered for every job vacancy compared to 12 people registered four years ago. There are 35 young people registered for every job vacancy. Honourable members opposite cannot talk about jobs becoming available in other parts of the country when those kinds of figures are staring us in the face. There are about 150,000 people of the age of 55 and over who have been put out of the work force, who would have had an active part in the work force for perhaps another 1 0 years of their lives.

The impact upon employment under the Fraser Government is quite disastrous. There will be no change by any dramatic boost ;in mining. I do not believe that that can happen. There will be a languishing period in the world motor economies, a demand for raw materials from Australia with the exception of, say, steaming coal of which there are only 2 million tonnes exported each year. Even if that figure grows dramatically it will not change the picture and will not solve the employment issue. This is just a red herring put forward by the Government. The Opposition will attack it for all it is worth.

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

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) deserves the congratulations of this House for his very comprehensive and honest assessment of the challenges and prospects for employment in Australia in the 1980s. The statement of the Minister highlighted the problems which emerged for Australians during the Labor era and the initiatives required by the Fraser Government, when it came into office, to overcome those problems. The Minister explained the effective reforms that this Government initiated in the sphere of manpower programs. Of course, he clearly showed the improved employment situation over the last 18 months derived from the policies of this Government. The statement also demolishes the validity of the recent proposals put forward by the Labor Party, which give full vent to its socialist intentions, supposedly to solve the problems of unemployment by more government intervention and more government spending. The Minister did not shirk from the need for the continued efforts which are required of all of us- government, private enterprise, trade unions, indeed the whole community- to ensure that the opportunities of the 1980s and the potential for improved employment are fully realised. He indicated the tremendous economic growth which has now taken off thanks to the stable economic environment created by the Fraser Government, and due also to Australia’s bountiful resources in an energy starved world.

The Government’s approach to economic management is well known and well accepted in the community. It has been overwhelmingly endorsed on two occasions at the polls and it assuredly will be so again later this year. When it returned to office the Fraser Government made it very clear to the community that recovery would be a long haul. It indicated also that improved employment would be the last problem overcome because all the other economic imbalances required correction before employers would hire more labour. We now are reaping the positive benefits of the Government’s persistence with that policy through an improved employment situation.

But the Government has not abandoned those who suffered most from the recession which was created by the Labor Government’s disastrous policies- that is, the unemployed- during this necessarily extended period of economic recovery. Existing manpower programs were reformed when the Liberal-National Country Party Government returned to office to increase efficiency and improve the mobility of labour resources. A range of new programs also was introduced. These programs recognised that those most at risk in the employment market were those who left school at an early age. Indeed, they were most unlikely to have completed secondary school. Such people have low levels of academic attainment and skills, especially in numeracy and literacy, and low levels of motivation.

The range of programs developed by the Fraser Government dovetailed to ensure that attention was given to these needs of the ‘at risk’ group so that they attained the necessary skills to compete effectively in the labour market. The National Employment and Training System has given increased attention to on the job training by subsidising employers to allow training in occupations for which there is an unsatisfied labour demand. It also provides a training allowance for the unemployed to receive full time education in skills which are in short supply. The National Employment and Training System has allowed 100,000 people to benefit from training in the four years since the Fraser Government reformed its operation. This includes 30,000 people who will benefit in the current financial year. A program of great significance to young people has been the Special Youth Employment Training Program.

Mr Yates:

– Quite right. Any number have benefited.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-It is affectionately known as the ‘Sweetpea’ scheme, as the honourable member for Holt would well know. Under this scheme, an employer received a $50 a week subsidy for 17 weeks to take into employment for training purposes young people who have been unemployed for four months or more. Since this program was introduced in 1976-77 by the Fraser Government 142,000 young people have upgraded their skills through government funding of $ 164.3m. The effectiveness of SYETP has been shown in a recent evaluation which demonstrates that 47 per cent of those people trained under the program were still with their training employer some four months after the training subsidy had ceased, while a further 20 per cent had obtained permanent employment elsewhere. So, over two-thirds of those people assisted under the program have obtained regular, private employment. Furthermore, 52 per cent of people who had trained under the scheme in Commonwealth departments are also in regular employment.

A major criticism of SYETP has been that it was exploited by certain employers. It was allegedly exploited in two ways. Firstly, employers would employ only those who had been unemployed for four months or more, so that they would receive the subsidy, instead of employing people who came immediately on to the employment market. The second way in which the scheme is alleged to have been exploited and abused is by employers sacking employees taken on under the scheme after the 17-week subsidy period had finished and then taking on another employee who was eligible for the subsidy. Certainly, there were examples of this abuse when the scheme was initiated. But more recently the Government has modified the scheme and tightened up its administration in order to overcome this abuse. The result has been a significant reduction in reported abuses. However, there are still occasional examples of such abuses in what has been generally an effective program.

Employers who are guilty of abusing this scheme and of playing with the lives of young people in such an abhorrent way deserve the strongest condemnation of this House and, indeed, of the broader community. They are completely abdicating their responsibility, as leaders of the community, to contribute in a positive way to the employment prospects of young Australians. In this way they contribute to the cynicism and despair which may develop among the young unemployed to the detriment of community stability. People should have no compunction about reporting such abuses to the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs or to their local members of parliament so that such abuses can be rooted out. Despite some abuse which, as I have said, has now been minimised, this program is effective.

The literacy and numeracy of young unemployed people has been significantly improved by the Education Program for Unemployed Youth. Since this program was initiated three years ago some 12,000 people have been assisted to upgrade their skills. Under the EPUY young people referred by the Commonwealth Employment Service attend specially designed courses which are administered by technical and further education authorities. In the sphere of trade training, under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme, large rebates are given to employers who take on additional apprentices. Over three years the Government has provided $98. 5m for this program, with $54.3m of that amount being provided in the current financial year. This means that 85,000 young people will be assisted through this program in the current financial year. The Community Youth Support Scheme is the other major program which has been in operation for some time. There are now some 300 CYSS projects throughout Australia. They are helping to maintain morale and job orientation among young people and to develop job skills. A pilot Volunteer Youth Program has been added this year. There is also a number of other manpower and training programs of importance but less significant than those I have mentioned.

During its term of office the Government has also commissioned five important inquiries of relevance to employment. A major result has been the development of a comprehensive school-to-work transition program which is now underway.

Mr Porter:

– Very important.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– It is, as the honourable member for Barker says, a very important program. Under it, the Commonwealth Government has provided $ 1 50m for the next five years. This year $25m will be provided by the Commonwealth to give attention to three major areas of concern. The first area of concern is the significant minority of students who leave school when they are so ill-prepared to make the transition from school to work that they face a very bleak employment future. The education system clearly does not provide adequately for these young people at present. The second area of concern to which the program is directed is the fact that there is room for substantial improvement in the vocational preparation received by the majority of school students. Thirdly, attention is being directed to the fact that the problems of young people making the transition from school to work are not only matters for action by the Government and the educationalists but also matters for which the whole community should take responsibility and in which it should become involved. The Fraser Government has demonstrated concern for the unemployed by developing and maintaining a range of manpower and training programs which are designed to improve the chances of employment of these people. Critics of these programs claim that, so long as high unemployment persists, these programs will only shuffle the cards in the pack.

Mr Yates:

– You are joking!

Mr CHAPMAN:

-But that is not so, as the honourable member for Holt interjects. I have already indicated that a significant number of trainees have gained stable employment through involvement in these programs. By upgrading their skills they become more productive and therefore generate more wealth, which will in turn have a multiplier effect on job opportunities. So training programs make a real contribution to increasing employment. The beneficial results of the combined effects of a sound economic policy and training programs have been shown in the improved employment situation which has been evident during the last 12 months and is continuing to be shown in the most recent figures- those released for March. The number of people in full time unemployment fell by 34,100 between February and March this year. Furthermore, the number of unemployed fell by 1 1,900 in March this year compared with March 1979, representing a fall in the level of unemployment from 6.5 per cent in March 1979 to 6.1 per cent in March 1980.

Mr Yates:

– A very good speech.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I thank the honourable member for Holt for his support. Combined with that, the number of employed has increased over the last 12 months by 155,200, which is the largest increase in employment over a 12-month period since May 1974. The specific success of our training programs is emphasised by the improved position of teenagers. The number of unemployed teenagers fell by 22,400 between February and March 1980 and by 11,200 between March 1979 and March 1980. So the group most at risk- the teenagers- has contributed almost entirely to the drop in unemployment over the last 12 months. Surely this is an endorsement of the Government’s training programs, which have been directed mainly at this group.

Significant progress has been made in employment, some aspects of which I have covered in my remarks and other aspects of which are dealt with in the Minister’s worthwhile statement. The prospects for the 1980s are favourable, with billions of dollars worth of projects getting underway.

I noticed that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) did not give any credit to this Government for these projects getting underway. Any credit which he gave was given to the State Premiers. Let me remind him that it is the stable and prosperous economic environment created at the national level by this Government which has provided the incentive for these development projects to get underway. I hope that we will not ever have to put that to the test, but it surely would be put to the test if there was ever a return, disastrous as it might be, of a Labor government at the national level. I would predict that in such a situation those projects would die overnight.

We must therefore be aware of the threat that is posed to these prospects by both the political and industrial arms of the labour movement. The recent policy announcements by the Labor Party demonstrate a determination to recycle its disastrous programs, which plundered the Australian economy for three years to the severe detriment of us all. Nowhere is that recycling better demonstrated than in the Labor Party’s recently announced employment policy, which it claims will create 100,000 jobs at a full year cost to taxpayers of $330m. In fact, the cost would be nearer $ 1,000m a year. Let us compare that with the 155,000-odd jobs that have been created in the last 12 months under the policies of this Government at a cost to taxpayers of only $ 1 3 9m through the very effective manpower programs to which I have referred. Of course, the Labor Party never lets the facts and economic reality fly in the face of its determination to implement its socialist philosophy.

The other threat comes from the industrial wing of the labour movement- the trade unions. This is so firstly through its hide-bound institutionalism which prevents necessary reforms in trade training and wage relativities, especially for young people. Secondly, economic recovery and growth are placed in jeopardy by the currency given to the economic madness of the principle that every wage earner is entitled to the benefits of collective bargaining, work value wage hikes, indexation and productivity increases added together. To argue in this way is to raise the expectations of the Australian wage earner beyond economic reality. But the trade union movement- in particular, Mr Hawke, who on occasions has expressed concern for the unemployed- gives scant attention to the problems of the unemployed when the trade union movement is before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission arguing for massive wage increases. Clearly, this economy can sustain only wage increases which are in line with increased productivity, if there are wage increases beyond that, they will place in jeopardy our improved employment prospects for the 1980s. It is essential, if these prospects are to be realised, that the Liberal-Country Party Government continue in office and continue to implement its worthwhile policies.

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

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-In the short time I have been in this Parliament I do not think I can remember when it has been subjected to a 28-page statement of nonsense by a Minister. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) aptly describes himself and his Government in the second paragraph of page 10 of his statement. He said:

There are always fools and villains waiting to persuade the nation that they have economic and employment solutions which provide painless remedies for today’s problems.

This Government does not have a policy on unemployment. All it has is a knee-jerk reaction to the unemployed. It reacts, it does not respond. It discredits those on unemployment benefits by calling them dole bludgers and treating them like statistics. This Minister acquired the unemployment portfolio over the body of another Minister who had too much honour and backbone to allow the worsening unemployment to go unheeded by the Government. He spoke up and was cut down by his friend, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This present Minister has the Employment and Youth Affairs portfolio because another Minister was not dishonest enough to cover up the Government ‘s gross negligence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member had better watch his language and not refer to any Ministers as being dishonest.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you are trying to waste my time. It is a very important matter. I know that the Government does not take any notice of this speech because it does not intend to take any notice of the unemployed. The present Minister is making sure he does not fall into the same trap. Nobody could accuse him of frankness or sincerity. Instead of letting figures speak for themselves and then responding to the problem, the present Minister has attempted to twist the figures and sweep the problem under the carpet. He has become the Minister for unemployment statistics. The Minister’s motto is: Forget the unemployed people.

The Minister obviously finds it easier to manipulate statistics than people. As the Prime Minister’s lacky he has served his master well. The clear intent of the Minister in the last few months has been to get the unemployed off the dole queues and out of the statistics but not into jobs because, in the absence of direct Government initiatives, no jobs have been created. So where have all the statistics gone? If they no longer represent unemployment benefits or workers, where can they be? The answer is that they are joining with large groups of discontented, disaffected youth referred to by the Minister in his answer to my question on notice, No. 4652, as the discouraged job seekers. Let me quote from that question on notice. I asked the Minister:

  1. What is his Department’s estimate of the number of persons who have left the work force (those who are neither working nor registered for unemployment benefits) as at 1 September 1979.

The Minister answered:

  1. This question appears to refer to the concept of ‘discouraged job-seekers’ which has been the subject of a number of special surveys carried out by the Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS). According to the results of the latest ABS survey of this type conducted in March 1979, there were an estimated 63,400 ‘ discouraged job-seekers ‘ in Australia-

If anyone would like to read that answer it is very informative. I do not have the time to read the whole of the answer now. In other words, those who are neither employed nor registered for employment are known as discouraged job-seekers. Who, might we ask, has discouraged these jobseekers? The answer is well known. It is known to the Minister but he will not make the same mistake as his predecessor and actually take it to the Parliament.

Over the last few months the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs has been actively engaged in selling to reluctant employers the Government band-aid job program. Commonwealth Employment Service employees around Australia have been directed by the Minister, through the Department, to give job priority to firstly the work test and secondly selling their manpower programs. The express aim of course is to get those kids off the unemployment benefit and off the CES and Australian Bureau of Statistics’ sheets and to ease the embarrassment of the Government which will be facing an election within six months.

Let us take a look at the latest exercise in glossy public relations to which the Minister seems to be so attracted. In answering a question asked by my colleague, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the Minister praised the promotional campaign information kits which went out to employees from CES offices. I have taken up the Minister’s invitation to obtain a copy of the kit. It comprises colourful pamphlets containing individual leaflets on manpower schemes and what is known as an easy reckoner. This is a clever little PR device which serves no useful purpose. In a number of ways the kit epitomises what this Minister and this Government are all about in relation to the unemployed. It is a glossy, showy sort of publication; but it does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It is long on PR and short on delivery. What is more, it is full of mistakes. Even after it had been patched up glaring inadequacies remained.

So this PR exercise really says little about this Government. It is an accurate reflection of the superficiality of the Government and particularly of the Minister. I have all of these glossy programs here. One pamphlet has written on the front of it:

Young people get experience you get $850.

The Minister on page 12 of his statement said blatantly that this was not costing the taxpayer any money at all and it was getting people off the unemployment list. We all know how he is getting people off the unemployment list. Only recently we have seen the Minister in his shirtsleeves splashed across the pages of the nation’s newspapers and television screens at a cost of $115,502 for the one week in which the advertisements were seen. I have a full page advertisement here of which a photograph takes up over three-quarters of the page. It is a picture of the Minister in his shirt sleeves with his hands on his hips telling the employers that they have to do something about the unemployed. There are 9 1 words on that page. It is a big page. When I asked the Minister how much the advertisement cost and why he had his photograph in the paper, he said that he took advice from the public relations bureau.

Again on page 12 of the Minister’s statement he said that the advertisement cost the taxpayer no money. How stupid does he think the people of Australia are? Firstly, he says that the advertisement cost $115,502 and then he says that it cost the taxpayers no money. It is a disgrace. The PR company of Monahan, Dayman Adams Pty Ltd which I understand has a good deal of business with this Government and the Government of Victoria was the brains behind the advertisement. What brains they were too. That company weighed up the media appeal of the Ministerwhich we all know is very limited- and the practical appeal of the Government’s program, which is even more limited. It chose to highlight the Minister who, after all, comes from a marginal seat and play down the Government’s actual manpower programs. This is a very political choice. The advertisement served two purposes. Firstly, it gave the appearance of positive Government initiative. For that the Government should be taken to the Trade Practices Commission for misleading advertising. Secondly, it indicated the Department’s panic over the 1979-80 underexpenditure in its major manpower programs.

The Government has only itself to blame for underspending in relation to the National Employment and Training System and the Special Youth Employment Training Program. In 1978 the SYETP subsidy was cut to $40 a week and entry was restricted. The numbers in SYETP fell as a consequence and did not pick up when the subsidy was raised to $50 a week late last year. A campaign to reverse this gives evidence to the same flawed logic and planning which got the Department into the mess in the first place.

I understand that CES zone managers were apparently flown from all over Australia at great expense to the Melbourne headquarters for a high pressured pep talk. I also understand from information that has reached me from within the Department that some zone managers expressed reservations about their number one priority, the hard sale of failing Government training programs at the expense of counselling and assisting the disadvantaged unemployed. One zone manager said that his conscience would not allow him to alter priorities to the degree required by the Department. I am reliably informed that the secretary of the Department told him that if the zone managers had consciences and did not want to take part in this campaign then they had better leave the CES. All CES branches throughout Australia have been given quotas to reach for training program applications by 30 June. All along the chain of command at the CES, officers have been told more or less that their employment future with CES is on the line. So much of the Minister ‘s style seems to have rubbed off on the officers of his Department. If there are -

Mr Carlton:

– They are being encouraged to look for jobs.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-The honourable member is full on honey. Why does he not go home? If there are members of this House who doubt my veracity in this matter, I ask them to listen to these words which were included in a telex sent from the acting secretary of the CES to all CES staff. The secretary refers to the overriding need to meet manpower program requirements and how nothing, particularly work bans, must impede the realisation of this goal. The telex stated:

Failure to recognise this basic point can only have the most regrettable results for individual officers and in the long run to the standing of the Department.

If there are any doubting Thomases who refuse to acknowledge that the hard sell by CES of Government public relations programs will mean less attention to counselling and to disadvantaged groups, let me read a CES zone officer’s report. It states:

The major objective for CES in this zone during the forthcoming quarter is to achieve local and zonal targets for training scheme approvals, and managers have been informed that this is to have top priority in office organisation. As a start towards this all managers and assistant managers have been given individual targets for field work to be achieved during each month. If these priorities are to be achieved at the current level of staffing, it will be necessary to reduce the emphasis on special progams to assist special client groupsyoung people, handicapped, disadvantaged and long term unemployed.

Finally, let me quote from the minutes of a meeting of CES office managers. Before doing so, however, I should say that I have refrained from providing too many details about the background of this material in order to avoid any repercussions which might befall the sources of the information. This was a report from one manager to the zone managers. The report states: . . the secretary had made it clear that the future of the CES would be in jeopardy if training scheme targets for 1979-80 were not met. The targets were not negotiable. . . In order to assist with this some modification to eligibility criteria and nomination of training vacancies had been made.

This is a very serious allegation and I trust the Minister will reply to it. The report continues:

Managers were very critical of many aspects of the campaign. It was pointed out that 80 per cent of vacancies notified were already being filled without training assistance. The attitude of employers especially large firms to training schemes was at best luke warm, and in many instances openly hostile. It was important that staff engaged in promotional work be experienced, committed and positive in their outlook. Also employers’ attitudes could be influenced by the standards of referrals. Clients referred to training vacancies should be of good quality lacking only particular required skills. Managers and staff were to treat the attainment of training scheme targets as being of top priority. In accordance with this managers should try to minimise staff units deployed to applicant interviewing.

In other words, they should cut down interviews with the unemployed. That certainly is enlightening information about the feedback from the CES towards this campaign. Obviously the Minister, after reining in his programs and keeping a tight fist on economies, has become embarrassed by the unexpected shortfall in expenditure on manpower programs and, with indecent haste, he has commissioned what has turned out to be an extravagantly planned public relations campaign.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I submit to the Parliament that the statement which was put down by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is an apology for doing nothing about unemployment. That is the basic concept of the statement, particularly so far as youth unemployment is concerned. Undoubtedly, it is a defensive knee-jerk reaction to the proposals introduced by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Those proposals would provide 100,000 jobs in the first 12 months of a Labor government through such projects -

Mr Yates:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am sure the honourable member has a very important speech to make, but I stood in my place and you allowed him to speak first.

Mr Humphreys:

– You are a humbug.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark immediately.

Mr Humphreys:

– I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed two members of the Opposition to speak in the debate. Is it not the normal practice for the occupant of the chair to call one speaker from either side?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The answer is yes. I did not see the honourable member for Holt rise in his place.

Mr Humphreys:

– You have seen him drinking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! A little while ago the honourable member for Griffith referred to another honourable member as being full on honey. I am not quite clear about that analogy, but I will not allow any member of this House to accuse any other member of being under the influence of alcohol or anything approaching it. I warn the honourable member for Griffith for the second time to watch his step. I call the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I repeat that this statement is undoubtedly an apology by the Government for doing nothing about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. As I said, it is undoubtedly a quite hysterical knee-jerk reaction to the proposals of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as the Australian Labor Party’s policy to provide 100,000 jobs in the first year of a Labor government through schemes such as the community youth corps. I think that the Minister summed up the statement very well when in the last paragraph he said:

The Opposition has set up a diversion which must be ignored. We have set our sights further along the route we are already on;

In other words, the Government will do nothing. It will continue the same policies that it has followed throughout the years and do nothing about this very important and deep-seated problem in the economy. It is also a very deep-seated problem of our social framework. I will deal with that later. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) who has just spoken in the debate mentioned the waste of money on a publicity campaign- the public relations campaign -in which the Minister is indulging in an endeavour to make it look as though the Government is doing something on this issue. In reality he knows that this is only window-dressing; he is endeavouring to sell a product which is absolutely useless. It is a similar situation to a person trying to sell a cake of soap which will not even wash a person. That is the type of approach that the Government is taking.

When one goes through the statement page by page one sees that its whole context is an apology for not altering the Government’s policies and for allowing unemployment to continue on its way and to continue to grow as it has been growing. The Minister at one stage referred to an increase in employment of 110,000 in the 12 months to February 1980. We know that he was really referring to part-time employment. I will quote some figures on unemployment from two areas in my electorate- Blacktown and Mt Druitt. The unemployment situation in Mt Druitt is dreadful. Youth unemployment is absolutely tragic. The figures show the rate of unemployment in the period between February 1978 and February 1 980. In Blacktown in February 1 978 a total of 3,376 persons were registered as unemployed, as recorded at the Commonwealth Em- . ployment Office in Blacktown. The total number of youth unemployed was 1,748. In Mount Druitt the total number of unemployed as at February 1978 was 4,306 of which the youth component was 2,131. In Blacktown as at February 1980 the position was that the total number of unemployed was 3,346 of which the youth component was 1,742- well over 50 per cent of the total unemployed. In Mount Druitt, the total number of unemployed was 4,689 of which the youth component was 2,481. In other words, in the two years between 1978 and 1980 there was a reduction of only six in the number of youth unemployed in Blacktown. Keeping in mind that the total number of youth unemployed in Blacktown as at February 1980 was 1,742, there has been a reduction in the number of youth unemployed of only six since February 1978. On the other hand, in Mount Druitt there was an increase of 350 in the number of youth unemployed in the two-year period between February 1978 and February 1980, bearing in mind that the total number of youth unemployed in Mount Druitt as at February 1 980 was 2,48 1 .

Let us now look at the figures for job vacancies. In Blacktown, as at February 1978 there were 20 vacancies for young people; that is, 20 vacancies for a total number of young unemployed of 1,748. In Mount Druitt as at February 1978 there were 21 vacancies for the 2,131 young unemployed whereas as at February 1980 there were only 13 vacancies for the 2,481 young unemployed. In Blacktown, as at February 1980 there were 14 vacancies for the 1,742 young unemployed. This is an absolutely dreadful situation, a heartrending situation. This large number of young people have no job expectations whatsoever.

I am one member of this House- the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) is another- who chairs his local electorate Community Youth Support Scheme Committee. I chair the committee for one reason only. I do not chair the committee because I think the scheme is a good one. Frankly, I think it is only window dressing, but it does look after a few people who are otherwise unemployable. I chair the committee because I find it is a very interesting exercise in getting to know and understand the problems of these young people. I find that the story that is coming back to that committee through the young people I meet is one of utter and complete frustration. I ask honourable members to try to put themselves in the position of a young person who leaves school. He is walking along the main street of his town when he runs into some of his mates from his class at school. He is unemployed and they have a job. So he then has to find some weapon to protect his pride. This is where we get the story.

Mr Yates:

– They should have helped him to find a job.

Mr ARMITAGE:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, will you stop that chatterbox?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I think the point is well taken. Would the honourable member for Holt contain himself for a while?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– As I said, this young person sets up an automatic mechanism to protect his pride and this is where we get a lot of the socalled dole bludger philosophy. Because another young person who was in the same class at school has a job and this young man has not, he says: Oh, you mug. I’m on the dole. I don’t have to work’. That is his natural mechanism to protect his pride. From that time on, he starts to believe it. So we get some people acting in this way. On the other hand, I give the example of a young lass I know who had tried and tried to get a job. Finally she would not even leave the house. Her mother was very worried about her. It so happened that this girl’s father had died about five years before. It- was only when the mother appealed to the girl to remember her father’s good name that she finally went out and got a job locally. From that time on, she was a completely different girl.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Because she had found a job.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– She found herself a job and she solved her problem. Prior to that, she would not even leave the house because, one might say, her personality had been so severely damaged by the situation.

Mr Humphreys:

– Who causes that?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Such’ cases are caused essentially by government policies. I give examples of what could happen. In Italy, for example, there is a vast army of young people who sometimes do not get jobs until the age of 30. The universities are absolutely crammed full. When I was in Rome a senior officer told me that he could see all the ingredients. of the situation in Italy coming to Australia; These young people roam the squares at night. The riot cars are called out in the middle of the night. Unless something is done about youth unemployment in Australia we will see the sort of violence that is occurring in Italy today.

Let us face reality. The Government is opposed to increasing expenditure in the public sector. The fact is that government is the biggest purchaser from the private sector and when government purchases from the private sector employment in the private sector rises. But by the same token, there is room for the proposals outlined by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)- proposals such as the community youth corps which would not only provide work for our young people but which would also provide community facilities throughout the different areas and, in particular, in the new and developing areas such as the western suburbs of Sydney. I see the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron)the architect of the Regional Employment Development Scheme- in the chamber. The RED Scheme was a very fine scheme. In my electorate alone it put in about $4m worth of very important projects for the community.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But only because of the strong representations that you made.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for that comment. The fact is that that was the type of scheme which provided employment for our unemployed. That is the type of proposal which needs to be introduced today to provide employment for our young people. I give the warning once again that we do not want to see happen in Australia what is happening in Italy at present, where young people become frustrated at not being able to find jobs. The ingredients are here just as they are in Italy. That frustration finally breeds massive unrest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr YATES:
Holt

-The work done by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and by the Government to help the young people to find jobs and receive training is certainly something of which we should all be proud and something which every person in the community should be helping. We remember the Regional Employment Development Scheme of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). We were sorry that the RED Scheme was abandoned: But who abandoned it?

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You did.

Mr YATES:

-No, the Australian Labor Party did. Would the honourable member for Hindmarsh like to mention the number of youth unemployment schemes that were arranged during the Labor Government’s term of office? Was there a Community Youth Support Scheme? The answer is no. Was there then a process of transition from school to industry? Again the answer is no. Was there a genuine attempt on the part of this nation to assist young people to find jobs, to ask industrialists to help them? There was not. The honourable member for Hindmarsh and other honourable members opposite must concede, to be perfectly fair, that they did absolutely nothing for the young unemployed. For that they stand condemned by young people, so let us forget about that aspect.

What are we to do about the situation today? The majority of people in this country, industrialists and trade unionists alike, do not pour scorn on what Mr Nolan said when we discussed the matter, do not pour scorn on what the trade unionists think about helping young people.

Mr Innes:

– I know what they think about you. They would eat you.

Mr YATES:

– I note that the local talent, the honourable member for Melbourne, has arrived. When he has finished I will continue. Honourable members opposite know perfectly well that in their electorates they have people coming to them in their offices and seeking work. There is not one honourable member opposite who does not help a young person who comes to him seeking a job. I am certain that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) has put four or five young people into a job by helping them along the road. That is what I would expect parliamentarians to do. It is part of their duty to their electorate and to the community. The majority of members of the Opposition, when people wishing to work come to their offices, are willing to do everything that they can to find them a job. Therefore, it is of no use to try to play party politics with youth unemployment. The young people know the answer. The majority of us want to help. We do not want to see develop the situation that has developed in Italy.

The majority of Australians face the reality that at present we have a large number of young unemployed. Credit is due to the Minister that he has gone out, of his way- by advertising and speaking on television and the radio- to give encouragement. Honourable members opposite actually complain that he has gone on television and radio and has asked for the nation’s support. That is the finest thing that he could have done and the majority of young people in this country would thank him for it. If honourable members opposite do not agree with me they should say so. They would be resoundingly defeated at the ballot box. They should not try to mess up the situation in that way. They have a responsibility in their own electorates. For example, I ask the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) how many CYSS projects he has in his electorate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair and not across the body of the chamber.

Mr YATES:

– I understand that direct debate is not encouraged in this chamber but I was trying to learn from him and from the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the honourable for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh how many CYSS schemes they have supported in their areas.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Four.

Mr YATES:

– The honourable member for Lalor has four, which proves that he is a supporter of the Minister’s policy. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), who is a very respected member of this House, also has youth support schemes in his area and is assisting them.

The average person is deeply concerned about the young people and their employment. This Government, to its eternal credit, has done everything that it can to help them. When it comes to deciding which party has supported the young people, our youth will know that the policies of the Minister have been helpful. There are many young people in the electorate of Holt, and in Dandenong in particular, who would like to thank the Minister personally for what he has done. 1 would like to thank the industrialists in my electorate for their help in assisting young people from the unemployed groups through CYSS, the Dandenong resources centre and similar groups in my electorate. We have been able to assist such people to obtain jobs in industry. So, whatever one wants to say about the situation, I believe that the speech of the Minister has been valuable and that the Government will continue to do everything that it possibly can to encourage young people who want to work to be given the opportunity to do so. I congratulate the Minister and note that in my electorate his four CYSS programs are exemplary. We are grateful for the funding that he gives us. I would like tonight to thank him for the work that he has done to support the young people in Dandenong, Noble Park, Springvale and Berwick. I hope that he will continue to support our CYSS movement. I thank him also for the work he is doing for the Dandenong Technical College and for everything that he is doing to help young people find jobs. It is an excellent piece of work. I thank the Minister for what he has said tonight and hope that he will continue to support us.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is about time that we had in the Parliament a long and comprehensive statement about the challenges and prospects for employment in the 1980s, but this statement is not it. Firstly, a fundamental absurdity runs throughout the statement. There is an enormous concentration on the new job opportunities that are being created in the minerals sector. I do not disagree with that. It is very important that the minerals sector should be developed, but in view of the fact that it employs only 1.4 per cent of the Australian work force it becomes absurd to believe that one can extrapolate from that figure and project it right across the board in Australia. Also, it is notorious that Western Australia- the State of excitement from which the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) comes- is, of all the mainland States, the one with the largest degree of unemployment.

A very high proportion of the Australian work force is engaged in highly-protected manufacturing industry- that must be examined as we move further into a global economy- and the provision of services. Next to the United States, Australia has perhaps the largest proportion of people, broadly speaking, employed in the provision of services. I direct the attention of the House once again to a study conducted by Dr Duncan Ironmonger of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research of Melbourne University. He makes the very plausible point that in examining the growth in the potential labour supply throughout the 1960s and later and considering the increasing pattern of female participation in the work force and also the demographic bulge- the birth pattern over the last 20 or 30 years- we have at the moment an atypically high number of people of work force age very many of whom, indeed more than ever before, are offering for work. On that basis, he concludes that the potential labour supply in Australia has risen from 5,624,000 in 1971 to a forecast figure for 1980 of 7,051,000. In 1971 the actual number of employed was 5,515,000, and there were only 107,000 unemployed persons. I apologise for saying ‘only 107,000 unemployed ‘. Even that is far too many. But the projected number of employed persons this year, which is of course very much greater than it was in 1971, is 6,080,000. On that basis there is a shortfall of very nearly one million. The estimated figures are: Surveyed unemployed 462,000, hidden unemployed- which I will mention in just a moment- 509,000, and the total figure being about 971,000. The Commonwealth Employment Service figures do not tell the whole story. They indicate the number of people who are seeking work and who are eligible to receive the support of CES.

Six categories of people must be considered in measuring the extent of unemployment and underemployment. The first category is unemployed registered with the CES and eligible for benefits and assistance- people sometimes categorised as ‘dole bludgers’. The second category is unemployed not eligible for CES benefits and assistance- for example, if they have an employed spouse or are excluded by a means test. But they are still entitled to work if they want to work. Very many thousands of people would like to work but have an employed spouse, although the spouse’s wage may be very low. The third category is the unemployed who are excluded by health or other incapacity from receiving CES assistance. They may wish to work, but no appropriate jobs are available; or they may be too old, too young or the wrong sex for any available job. The fourth category is the underemployed, the part-time workers who would like to be in full-time work, particularly women. Statistically they are regarded by the CES as employed, even if they work for only one day a week although they might prefer to work for five days. The fifth category is discouraged job seekers. They wish to work but feel pessimistic or apathetic about their chances of employment and have withdrawn from the labour market. This is often the case when a spouse is already working or when pupils decide to stay on at school. The sixth category is temporary job placements- for example, city-based people who become seasonal fruit pickers. As soon as they take a part-time job they are dropped from the CES lists. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are very reluctant to take a short term fruit picking job because they say: ‘If I go to Shepparton of Mildura this week, next week the very job I want may come along and I will not be here to get it’. I can understand that view. A tremendous dilemma faces those who take the risk of accepting short term jobs far from home today and who may lose the chance of long term and more appropriate work closer to home tomorrow.

I draw the attention of the House to something that the Minister may recall but which other honourable members were not treated to. When Estimates Committee B considered the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs on 23 October last year I tried to get from the Minister and from his departmental adviser, Mr J. Limbrick, an indication of how comprehensive statistics were in giving us the full figure of unemployment in Australia. I cited the estimate by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) that the actual unemployment and underemployment figure in Australia in 1978 was about 12.5 per cent of the potential labour force; that is, at that stage 845,000. I then cited Keith Windshuttle’s estimate in his recent Penguin book Unemployment that the total figure might be about 1 8 per cent. I characteristically took an intermediate figure and suggested 15 per cent. When I asked the Minister to confirm or deny which of those figures was correct, or whether none of them was correct, the Minister answered:

It becomes a matter of definition of terms. ‘Hidden employment’ was referred to by Mr Young, underemployment’ was referred to by you, and ‘discouraged job seekers’ is another phrase which is used. I do feel that in all of these areas different words mean different things to different people.

It cannot be said that he is not a master of language. To continue:

Therefore you can produce a wide range of statistics which in the end do not serve any particular purpose. I have recently referred to what I think is the Statistician ‘s latest series which produced the results of the survey of why people are not in the workforce and why they are not seeking work.

Honourable members will notice that there was no denial of the point I am making. I leave out the next part of the answer simply because time is running out. But I have given honourable members the citation. It is Estimates Committee B on 23 October. I then said:

But has your Department reached a quantifiable conclusion about the overall figure?

The answer from the Minister was:

No. We use the results of surveys of the Statistician as a primary source of information. There have at different times been some surveys of CES registrants, for example to ascertain whether they are in fact unemployed at the time that they register. But these are surveys for specific purposes. Mr Limbrick may like to add to what I have said. But I think as you have indicated, different people will come up with different figures or different statistics which in the end depend upon their own definitions of who are the hidden unemployed or the discouraged workers or the like.

Again there was no repudiation of what I said. So, I took the pitcher to the well for the third time. I asked:

Your reaction is not to reel back and to say that those figures are outrageous?

The Minister said:

There is a well-known saying about statistics and I guess we are all guilty of that in different ways. I do not react one way or another to your statistic as against Mr Wilson’s statistic, for example.

In other words, he was saying: ‘I do not know whether it is 12 per cent or 15 per cent. That is not my problem. I only work here’. I found that a quite extraordinary statement from the Minister. Then Mr Limbrick commented:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates of unemployment and underemployment and surveys of the work force, to make it as general as possible are based on samples and in theory anyway they can reach all the categories to which Mr Jones has referred. The CES cannot reach all those categories. At least one but probably two categories here are probably not normally contacted by the CES.

In other words, within the CES there is an extremely limited survey. I was disturbed by the very casual reference in the Minister’s speech to the question of technology, which has not been examined really seriously by this House. We have never had a serious debate on the question of technology. There has been a single debate on a matter of public importance on the subject since I have been a member of this place. The result is, I believe, that we have moved into an era of technological determinism in which we simply have government by somnambulism. We have a whole collection of sleepwalkers, not even led by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who is at the table, who say: ‘There is nothing we can do about it. It is all happening. We are not in a position to do anything about it’. The result is that we are not informed about the impact of technology or about its social consequences.

I echo what was said earlier by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon)- we ought to be talking about the social consequences. If we are to adopt the new technology, well and good, provided that the benefits of the new technology are shared equitably and are not confined to the fortunate owners of that technology. Let us remember this: We are moving into an era which has been described as the era of artificial intelligence- AI. I know that members of the National Country Party will be more familiar with the other AI- artificial inseminationalthough I do not know what they produce from it. Artificial intelligence means that the capacity of machines- the intelligence of what are now called ‘smart’ machines- is doubling every two or three years. If the ‘smart’ machines are doubling their capacity every two or three years, can it be said of human beings that their capacity is doubling every two or three years? Or is the discrepancy, the gap between the capacity of machines and technology, increasing? Does that mean a relative diminution in the power of people who do not have access to the machines? L et us remember what this does to the political power of the people who own the machines and who control the technology. Australia is becoming in many ways not a democratic community but a hegemonic community, a community where -

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– Oh!

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member may yawn about it all, but this is the reality we are facing. There is an enormous concentration of power in this community, in whichthe new technology increases the discrepancy between the power of the few at the top who are powerful and the power of the many at the bottom of the social pyramid who are weak. That is the problem we have to look at. When is this Parliament going to consider it? When is this Parliament going to examine the issues? When are we going to have a full scale debate?

Debate interrupted.

page 2386

ADJOURNMENT

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE 1980s

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I still have another couple of minutes in which to speak. I have been told to wind up. If I am wound up now I will be wound up by a human being. IfI am here -

Mr Cotter:

– You won’t be. You will be wound up by a machine.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is absolutely right. For once the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, quite late in the night, understands the point that is being made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2387

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Assent reported.

page 2387

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980.

States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 2387

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

-by leave- I move:

That the Committee of Privileges, when considering the matter referred to it on 23 April 1980, have power to send for persons, papers and records.

The Committee when undertaking its present inquiry may wish to have the power granted by the motion and in accordance with practice the motion is proposed for the concurrence of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2387

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

On 21 November 1979 Senator Bonner introduced into the Senate the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979. He said then that the Bill would place in the hands of Aboriginals important instruments for their own advancement. On 17 April 1980 Senator Bonner introduced a reprinted Bill entitled the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1980, incorporating more than 40 amendments, which was subsequently passed without further amendment by the Senate on 23 April 1980. The amendments contained in the new Bill strengthen the commitment to self-management and are further steps down the road to making equality a reality for Aboriginal Australians. I am happy to be able to introduce this measure into the House of Representatives.

The Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979 was left to lie to allow public comment and discussion during the summer parliamentary recess. Fifteen hundred copies of it together with explanatory notes and a ‘plain English’ version were distributed to Aboriginal individuals and communities, and other interested bodies throughout Australia under cover of a letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). Time was allowed for public comment to be received and assessed by the Government before debate and passage of the Bill. The task of examining and evaluating submissions and comments was assigned to a task force set up in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assume responsibility for the development of the Bill. The task force made a substantial effort to consult with Aboriginal communities and groups throughout Australia and visited all State capitals and eleven major provincial centres in all States and the Northern Territory between December 1979 and March 1980.

In addition to numerous submissions made orally at the meeting with the task force, 1 1 formal written submissions outlining views on the proposals were made by interested Aboriginals and Aboriginal organisations including the national executive of the National Aboriginal Conference which set up a sub-committee to examine in detail the provisions of the Bill, the Council for Aboriginal Development and the Aboriginal Loans Commission, all of which provided valuable comment and suggestions. When the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979 was introduced the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to the Premier of each State and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory sending a copy of the Bill and the second reading speech and inviting comments on the Bill. Six governments responded and their views were taken into account along with submissions received from Aboriginal organisations in developing the final form of legislation.

Key Aboriginal organisations, including the National Aboriginal Conference, the Council for Aboriginal Development, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd made major detailed submissions on the Bill. These submissions in general terms favoured a reduction in the role of the Minister in favour of an expanded role and greater responsibilities for the Commission; and an all Aboriginal Commission. After careful examination the Government has adopted more than 40 amendments, the more important of which I will mention later.

The amendments themselves are detailed in Part 4 of the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members with the Bill. The amendments have the effect of reducing the role of the Minister; creating an all Aboriginal Commission; and conferring powers and responsibilities on the Commission greater than those in the original Bill.

The primary purpose of the Bill remains as announced by me in my statement made to the House as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 26 October 1978, to establish the Commission to embrace the present functions of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Aboriginal Loans Commission, and take over from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs the administration of its enterprise grant-in-aid program. The changes, although significant, do not alter the main functions of the Commission which are to acquire land for Aboriginal communities and groups, lend money to Aboriginals for housing and personal purposes, lend and grant money to Aboriginals for business enterprises and to give advice and make recommendations to the Minister with respect to the furtherance of the economic and social development of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The Bill results from careful consideration of the matters raised in many hours of discussion with Aboriginal communities and groups. There has been greater participation by Aboriginal people than ever before in the development of the proposals in the Bill.

In response to submissions received, including one from the Queensland Government, amendments have been made to clauses 3 and 4 to make it clear that the Bill is for the benefit both of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. An amendment has been made in clause 4 to the definition of ‘business enterprise’ to give effect to a suggestion made by the Government members’ committee on Aboriginal affairs. The amendment is consistent with a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs’ report on ‘Alcohol Problems of Aboriginals’. It enables moneys administered by the Commission also to be applied for enterprises which have primarily social rather than profit-making objectives. The amendment also takes into account a representation by the Northern Territory Government seeking the encouragement of programs of a socio-economic nature. Their submission indicated that in terms of learning, selfmanagement, Aboriginal involvement and employment there is scope for programs to be developed in that field.

The National Aboriginal Conference recommended in its report that the Commission should be completely free of ministerial direction and that clause 1 1 should be deleted because, as the NAC itself said, any control, even minimal, contradicts the spirit and letter of the legislation as set out in clause 3 regarding the selfmanagement and self-sufficiency of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The Government believes that the Minister cannot meet his responsibilities as required by the Administrative Arrangements Order which will confer responsibility on him for this measure once it is enacted, without a power of general direction. Nevertheless, clause 1 1 has been extensively amended to provide that the Minister may not give directions to the Commission in repect of advice, information or recommendations the Commission may provide to a Minister, department or authority of a State or Territory. The Commission will have discretion to tender information and advice it thinks appropriate. The Minister’s power to give directions is, therefore, limited and he is required to table the directions in the Parliament within 15 sitting days of giving them. This will make his directions subject to immediate public scrutiny. In addition, the Commission will be required to include any directions in its annual report. Special account has been taken of Aboriginal cultural values, and any general directions tabled in the Parliament shall not be able to disclose matters known to the Commission to be held sacred by Aboriginals. The effect of the changes proposed to clause 11 indicates that Government’s willingness to have its directions to the Commission made subject to early public disclosure and scrutiny. This attitude is consistent with the Government’s intention to confer maximum independence and autonomy on the Commission.

The membership proposals contained in the original Bill reflected the Government’s acceptance of initial advice given by the all-Aboriginal Council for Aboriginal Development prior to the introduction of this legislation. The advice was that the Commission comprises a single national board, seven members of which should be Aboriginal, including the chairman. Council stated that the three remaining positions should be reserved for persons, not necessarily Aboriginal, with expertise in either banking, property-land laws, values or business enterprises. The

National Aboriginal Conference in its recent report recommended that the Commission be comprised solely of mature, responsible Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who have appropriate experience and expertise.

The Government has accepted retention of the concept of a single national board and proposes that the board should be comprised entirely of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the light of widespread and strong representations by Aboriginals throughout Australia on this matter, and in response to the National Aboriginal Conference’s recommendations. In addition, the Government was influenced by the fact that an all-Aboriginal Board of 10 members will provide greater scope for achieving a balanced and adequate representation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders from throughout Australia. This was a theme strongly pressed by Aboriginal people in all the consultations undertaken by the task force. The Government believes that the Aboriginal Development Commission will need access to expertise and considers the substantial powers in clause 33 will enable the Commission to engage or make arrangements for persons with suitable qualifications and experience to assist the Commission.

The Government also was mindful of representations in particular from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress concerning the special requirements of Aboriginal minorities and the need for regional or local influence within the Commission. As a result, the Government has accepted an amendment to clause 45 to allow the Commission itself, without reference to the Minister, to establish committees. The power to establish committees, coupled with the power to delegate conferred by clause 44, will provide scope for the Commission to regionalise or localise its operations and activities.

Clause 1 7 provides for dismissal of a member by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. As widespread concern has been expressed by Aboriginal groups and individuals, in particular the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service, about the expression ‘misbehaviour’, the clause is now amended to provide a role for the Parliament in the termination of a member’s appointment. The proposition was put forward as an alternative by the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service as a means of reducing the possibility of arbitrary action by the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The amended clause provides that in the process leading to the termination of a member, the Minister is required to cause a statement of the ground of the suspension by the GovernorGeneral to be laid before each House of Parliament within seven sitting days. A House may, within 1 5 sitting days, by resolution, declare that the member ought to be restored to office and, if resolved by each House, the Governor-General shall terminate the suspension.

The clause has been further amended in response to concern expressed about the mandatory power of the Governor-General to terminate a member’s appointment, particularly if he is absent from three consecutive meetings. The Government has accepted that the power of the Governor-General in clause 17 should be amended to provide a discretion as to whether he proceeds to the termination of a member’s appointment on the grounds specified. Concern has been expressed by the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd about the Minister’s power to grant leave of absence in Clause 14. The Government has also accepted that the Commission should have a role in relation to leave of absence and has placed an obligation in the amended clause 14 on the Minister to consult the Commission in this regard.

Strong concern was expressed by the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service about the relationship of the Bill to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and the extent to which this Act impinges on the principle of Aboriginal self-management. In response, clause 31, which makes provision for dealings in land has been amended to provide that the Commission, as the land granting body, also has the power to approve of the disposal of land held by an Aboriginal body where it is satisfied, after consultation with the Minister, that the disposal will further the economic and social development of Aboriginals. Clauses 4 and 43 have also been amended to reflect this altered aproach to Aboriginal corporations and to remove the requirement that corporations be incorporated under the Commonwealth legislation.

Clause 32, which provides for the recording of requests for land to be entered into the Aboriginal Land Register, is amended to ensure that an application for land is recorded immediately it is received, and once granted, also is entered into the Register. Provision has now been made for appropriate consultations by the Commission with State and Territory land use planning authorities in clause 23 and by reference to clause 27, which are the functional clauses relating to land.

The Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1980 incorporates changes which Aboriginals themselves have had a significant role in shaping. The approach adopted of responding to Aboriginal views reflects the Government’s wish to achieve mutually acceptable arrangements between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal Australians.

Because this is a most significant advance for the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia, I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– I move:

This Bill combines the functions of the Aboriginal Land Fund Act, the purpose of which was to purchase land and to acquire leases on behalf of Aborigines and Aboriginal communities, and the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act, the prime purpose of which was to effect loans to Aboriginals for personal purposes, for housing loans and for Aboriginal enterprises. The Bill incorporates into the role of the Aboriginal Development Commission the funding of Aboriginal enterprise projects which were previously funded by the grants in aid section of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs ‘ yearly budget.

The Bill was first introduced in the Senate in November, and various submissions were invited from individuals and organisations. A couple of weeks ago a new second reading speech and a redrafted Bill were introduced in the Senate. It is true that submissions were received from a number of Aboriginal organisations- the National Aboriginal Council, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Land Fund Commission- the Government’s statutory authority itself- many Aboriginal groups and individuals. It is also a fact that there were 40 changes in the redrafted Bill. I will return to that aspect later. Some changes have been worthwhile but there are definitely remaining major deficiencies that need to be rectified.

I want to spend a few minutes paying tribute to the Aboriginal people in their resurgent efforts to nurture their own culture and destiny. They have existed on this continent for some 40,000 years- sixteen hundred-odd generations- since the time that this country was joined to New Guinea. Aboriginal people have never had a static culture, as is believed by white Australians. Over that period they have had to adapt to many great geographic arid historical changes. During this immensely long period in human history they were able to live completely in harmony with nature and the land until the coming of European white man some 200 years ago. We have seen the population of Australia ‘s Aborigines fall from 300,000-odd in 1788 to a mere 60,000 in 1921 and then rise to some 160,000 today. Throughout that period Aborigines have been subjected to contact with the European settler state and to colonisation. They have suffered repression and genocide and periods of patronisation and deprivation.

They have been reduced to their present state of living in semi-tribal societies; in fringe dwellings around country towns throughout Australia; in dwellings on reserves; and farm sections of our depressed urban society. Lately there has been a resurgence of Aboriginal community life on traditional lands achieved under the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and on pastoral leases which have been allocated by the Land Fund Commission.

I turn now to the policies of various Australian administrations over the last several hundred years. Certainly the attitudes of Australian governments have been similar to attitudes of settler states towards indigenous inhabitants throughout the whole period of European colonisation. Essentially it is the same as the treatment that the United States colonists handed out to American Indians; that the Europeans handed out to the African races; and, more recently, that the Israelis handed out to the Palestinians. Basically, it has been the attitude of colonists taking over a settler state and dispossessing the indigenous inhabitants of their land. Until the 1880s, treatment has ranged from sheer genocide, repression and exploitation to the changes of the 1930s when we saw a myriad of laws to control Aborigines, to set up agencies to supervise them, to restrict their movement, to regulate their employment and so on.

We had yet another change in the decades between the 1940s and the 1960s when assimilation was the name of the game. Aborigines were supposed to Ipse their identity completely and just merge into a white society. They were to forget their culture and their ancient traditions. By the 1960s there was a steady dismantling.of the laws that had been set to hamstring the Aboriginal race. The regulatory laws were starting to break down except in Queensland and Western Australia, which have had the two most reactionary governments in Australia over those years. We have seen a revival of Aboriginal culture and a move towards integration by the Aboriginals meaning they have a choice of either living in a white society or renurturing their ancient and traditional cultures. Concomitant with these steps, we have seen the emerging land rights movement and the demands for access to land by Aboriginal people.

I shall quickly run through the chronology of what has been happening on the legislative scene in the last decade. The referendum of 1967 gave the Federal Government the right to pass laws on behalf of the Aboriginal people. The Land Fund Commission was set up in 1975. In 1974 the Woodward committee of inquiry was set up by the Whitlam Labor Government to inquire into the best way to legislate for Aboriginal land rights. In December 1976 the Labor Party’s legislation, which had lapsed in 1975 with the sacking of the Government, was substantially amended and passed in a much emasculated form. In 1980, tomorrow, we will be debating again substantial amendments to that Northern Territory land rights legislation- amendments in favour of mining companies. Of course, tonight we are debating the incorporation of these three areas of Aboriginal funding into one Development Commission.

An Aborigine’s relationship to the land is very special and is. not easily understood by fellow white Australians. This relationship is well expressed in a publication of the Australian Museum entitled ‘Renewing the Dreaming’ which describes the relationship of tribal communities to their land. It states:

Aboriginal tribes did not own land in the European sense. Each Aboriginal clan/group held in trust a series of Dreaming sites where particular Ancestors had travelled in the past and periodically at these sites the initiated men re-enacted, in chant, mime and dance, the actions of their Dreamtime Ancestors. The performance of these ceremonies was essential, otherwise the annual cycle of life, the periodic reproduction of species, indeed the whole total functioning of the cosmos, would not continue in the manner ordained by the Ancestors. The events of the Dreaming thus formed the basis of Aboriginal religion, spiritual values, law, food collection and distribution, and social relationships. An Aboriginal deprived of his homeland, and therefore his Dreaming sites became nothing, a non-person, without vitality or hope for the future.

So identification with the land and the local environment is vital to an Aborigine’s spiritual and material well-being. It can be argued that this Bill is not traditional land rights legislation, and that is true. It takes over the land lease acquisition functions of the Land Fund Commission. Therefore, the Development Commission will be in the business of making large tracts of land available to Aboriginal communities as was the Land Fund Commission before reactionary State governments commenced refusing to transfer pastoral leases. Given the present lack of co-operation by the States in federal initiatives which provide land access to Aborigines, it will surely be necessary to assert Commonwealth responsibility and power held under section 51 of the Constitution if we ever hope to meet Aboriginal land rights aspirations.

One can see an important role for the Development Commission in this area as part of a package of Federal-State legislation involving traditional land rights legislation, the Development Commission and the Aboriginal heritage legislation to identify and protect sacred sites and further, the use of section 51 as an overall power successfully to embrace if necessary such legislation in the event of intransigence on the part of reactionary State governments which may wish to defy Commonwealth attempts at cooperation and liaison. The modest Aboriginal gains in land acquisition and in the socioeconomic areas will be expanded and must be protected by a future Federal Labor Government.

I wish to deal briefly with the protection of the sacred sites of Aboriginal communities. The fact is that at present leases for these areas are acquired by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. Such leases, it is to be hoped, will be acquired in future by the Development Commission. The situation with CommonwealthState legislation is as follows: the Commonwealth, through its Commission, can acquire a lease. The area of that lease may contain an Aboriginal sacred site. The lease is still subject to State mining legislation, as is the position now in Western Australia. Under the State mining legislation mineral rights supersede the rights under pastoral leases. In Western Australia Aboriginal sacred sites are supposed to be protected by Western Australian heritage legislation under which museum trustees define sacred site areas. That would seem to be acceptable except for the fact that State Ministers can override the findings of the museum. Of course, such was the case at Noonkanbah station. We have debated that matter several times in this House and I do not wish to go over it again tonight in depth. Certainly, the position is that the Aborigines at Noonkanbah have been successful for the time being in that they chased the Amax drilling team off their property on 2 April.

The misrepresentations of Premier Court in Western Australia in accusing white stirrers of being responsible for the actions of the Aborigines and in saying that the Aborigines were interested only in royalties rather than the protection of their sacred sites has resulted in a severe hardening of the position of the Aborigines at Noonkanbah. Reactionary State positions, such as is the case in Western Australia now, are something with which we in the Federal Parliament have to contend. Earlier the Aborigines at Noonkanbah were saying that they wanted no mining on sacred sites, whereas they are now saying that they want a moratorium on all mining for three years. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a direct result of the belligerence of Ministers responsible for mining and of the Premier of Western Australia. I am glad that certain honourable members opposite are in the chamber.

Mr Martyr:

– We came in here to listen to you.

Mr WEST:

-I hope that the honourable member is learning something because he could do with a bit of knowledge of history. The position now is that drilling will resume at Noonkanbah only under massive police protection. Sir Charles Court may be willing to provide that protection but I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who is sitting opposite, are willing to provide it. I do not think the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) wants to do that, either. So there is a real dilemma in Western Australia, caused by the intransigence of the Government of Western Australia.

I wish to draw attention also- I note that there are some Queenslanders in the House- to the hypocrisy of the Queensland Premier. Let us consider his appalling gall. The Premier of Queensland, the gung ho mining man, sought to have his own property excluded from the provisions of the State mining legislation. This is how the conservative State Premiers act. Sir Charles Court forces mining on Aboriginal land in Western Australia, while Mr Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland seeks exemptions from mining on his own land. I wish to draw attention also to the refusal of these State Premiers to transfer pastoral leases to Aboriginal groups and land trusts after tender by the Land Fund Commission.

What will the new Development Commission do to prevent this discrimination? A handout sheet issued by the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs states that as at 30 June 1979 the Commission had participated in the acquisition of 45 properties in all States and the Northern Territory totalling $4.8m.

However, no transfer of pastoral leases has been sought by the Land Fund Commission in Western Australia since 1977. There has been only one major transfer in Queensland since that Commission was set up. That has been the acquisition of the Murray Upper Land pastoral lease of 1783 square kilometres. Nothing has been acquired in Western Australian since 1977. There are two main instances of refusal to transfer pastoral leases in Western Australia. One concerns Gordon Downs station and the neighbouring Coronado station. A small vacant area of Crown Land was involved but the application was finally rejected by the State Government despite the willingness of the Lands Fund Commission to pay compensation and despite the agreement of the operators of Gordon Downs and the Australian Investment Agency, more commonly known as Vesteys Ltd to the excision. I note the quotation from the United Nations Association of Australia report on this matter.

In a letter to the Chairman of the Kimberley Land Council Mr Jimmy Bieundurry on 15 January this year, the Western Australian Minister for Lands, Mr Wordsworth, said that he could not agree to the only area of land which could be considered for excision because of ‘its totally uneconomic size for operation as a pastoral lease’. And that in fact the Djaru people were not specifically seeking a pastoral lease but a form of lease which would allow them to regroup as a community and re-establish their control over sacred sites. The other area where the Western Australian State Government would not agree to the transfer of pastoral leases to Aborigines involved Laurel Downs station. The Kimberley Land Council newsletter on this matter states:

And according to Federal Government sources, the commission has seen little point in seeking pastoral leases in Western Australia since an abortive attempt about a year ago, when it offered $50,000-85,000 above its closest rivalfor Laurel Downs Station near Fitzroy Crossing.

American interests won the contest. The Western Australian Lands Minister Mr Wordsworth says he cannot recall any offer from the commission.

What guarantee is there that the new Development Commission will be any more successful in combatting the merciless racism of various State governments than was the old Aboriginal Land Fund Commission? The answer lies surely in whether the Federal Government is willing to confront racism in the States. I see no evidence yet that it is willing to do so.

I want to deal briefly with the financial situation of the new authority. One would expect that the two commissions and the enterprise financial vote, which total $ 10.9m this financial year, would be continued; but there is no guarantee that that funding will be maintained in real terms or increased. Clearly it ought to be, because the Land Fund Commission is 80 per cent down in its funding in real terms since 1975. The Loan Commission is 43 per cent down and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs allocated $ 13.9m in 1975 for grants-in-aid to Aboriginal enterprises direct from the Commonwealth Government and only $5.5m in 1979.

One function of the proposed new Commission will be to assist in financing loans for housing. But it is interesting to look at the position of Aboriginal housing. There is a total deficiency of at least 11,000 houses which is increasing yearly. In 1975 $43.3m was allocated for all Aboriginal housing and $45. 8m was allocated in 1979. With inflation having risen by about 55 per cent since then, honourable members can see that there has been a severe drop in real terms.

Last weekend I went to north Queensland with a colleague, Senator Keeffe. We visited reserves at Yarrabah and Palm Island. I suppose that I could describe them as almost hell in paradise. They are in beautiful geographic locations, yet most of the accommodation is absolutely shocking. The unemployment rate is 50 per cent plus. As I have said, the housing is very poor, except for a few houses. The reason for this is that the people on these reserves languish under the dead hand of the quaintly named Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. It is a very quaint name. I am told that the Queensland Government insists that all money for enterprise grants from the Federal Government be laundered or channelled through the State Government. Perhaps this is the reason why, in the last financial year, only $128,000 went to Aboriginal enterprise projects in Queensland and, although things are bad enough in Western Australia, it got almost $lm. Yet there are 41,000 Aborigines in Queensland and only 26,000 Aborigines in Western Australia. It is obvious that the DAIA in Queensland does not want to encourage Aboriginal enterprise projects.

A prime example of this is the situation that exists at Yarrabah. Last Sunday morning I saw a run-down sawmill operated by DAIA, not the Aborigines themselves. The workers there have no right to decide what sort of timber or cuts they will produce. They have no control over their product; they live in poor houses but the timber is sold elsewhere. Despite a ruling by the Queensland Industrial Commission, they are paid less than award wages- $140 a fortnight. The Department says that an inquiry is progressing. However, they certainly pay white man’s prices at local retail stores at Yarrabah, but they get only $70 a week. What is going on? Is there not a case for Federal intervention in Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. At least those Aborigines at Yarrabah have a sawmill. At Palm Island, despite the fact that 190 people are on unemployment benefit and only 230 people are in employment service jobs- once again employed by DAIA- there is not one worthwhile enterprise project on the island. I would say that a fishing and prawning industry could be run by the Aborigines. Certainly gardening enterprises and poultry farmers and perhaps a timber milling project could also be undertaken. Certainly, the settlement is in need of roadworks and a permanent all-weather air strip. These are the works that these people could be doing. Instead they have a 50 per cent plus unemployment rate. What is the Commonwealth Government doing about it? That is the question the Opposition is asking.

We are critical of the performance of the Queensland State Government in the Aboriginal area of administration and critical of the Federal Government for its non-intervention. Let me deal now with some aspects of the Bill. Last October submissions were made and some changes were called for. Some changes have been made. The main objections were that there were to be 10 commissioners on the Aboriginal Development Commission, only seven of them were to be Aboriginals and they were not to be elected or selected by Aboriginals. The people objected to the fact that the Commission would be under ministerial direction, that there was no commitment to the future funding and that there was no power to appoint specialist staff or operational committees. They also complained that the Minister had the power to sack commissioners for ‘misbehaviour’- whatever that means- and that there was no power to declare an Aboriginal body a corporation for the purposes of commission funding and so on. It is true that in this new version of the Bill a number of points about which Aboriginal individuals and groups were concerned, have been met. I will not go through them because I have not got the time.

There are some fundamental questions from which there has been no real shift and which are absolutely vital if we are to say that we stand for self-determination for the Aborigines. In this Bill we see that all of the commissioners are to be Aboriginals. They will still be appointed commissioners so they will still be the Minister’s Aboriginals; they will not be the Aborigines appointees. If they are not to be elected in the same way as are the National Aboriginal Conference representatives, then they could at least be selected by the NAC from a panel provided by the NAC or by the Minister from a panel which is provided by the NAC. The Minister still has the power to direct general policy, although, of course, he has to report to Parliament within 15 days of giving a direction. Another important point, in addition to the selection of the commissioners by the Aborigines themselves, is the commitment to future funding. If we do not make a commitment to increase and to maintain the funding levels in real terms the Aboriginal Development Commission will not be able to carry out the functions that we in the Opposition expect of it and, I would think, that this Government expects of it. I would like to conclude my contribution to this debate tonight -

Mr Martyr:

– Hear, hear!

Mr WEST:

-I hope that at least the honourable member for Swan has learnt something about the history of the Aboriginal people and the problems that they face. It is quite obvious that the smug, well-fed gentlemen opposite who receive $36,000 a year are not concerned about the $70 a week Aborigines on Palm Island and Yarrabah receive. The policy of the Australian Labor Party with regard to land rights and land access for Aboriginals is simply that we recognise that in some parts of Australia and in many other countries freehold title to land includes the mineral rights. Incorporated in our land rights policy are the following principles: Aboriginal and island people shall have the right to refuse permission for mining on their land or to impose conditions under which mining may proceed. To set aside a refusal or a condition imposed shall require an Act of Parliament. We will pledge ourselves to protect their sacred sites, to support their National Aboriginal Conference and to provide the housing, health and other social and economic facilities that are so much needed. In case honourable members opposite think that the Federal Government does not have the power to embrace a workable land rights and land access policy I refer them to the findings of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on

Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland reserves. The report sets out clearly Federal powers and responsibilities.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Everingham:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Falconer) adjourned.

page 2394

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

page 2394

ADJOURNMENT

Anzac Day

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Honourable members opposite will be pleased to know that it is not my intention to attack the Government. Because Anzac Day has just passed and it is fresh in our memories I suggest that we should take some steps to examine our form of observance of it, what it means and how we can get through to our younger citizenry what it is all about. I want to put on record my hope that we can do something about this matter, perhaps by approaching local organisations, local branches of the Returned Services League, and so on. As I read the newspapers and hear comments, I note that to many people in the community Anzac Day seems to lack relevance even though it is a moving occasion and an enormous number of people in the community take part in it. I represent one of the greatest concentrations of migrants in Australia. It is interesting to note that of the three observances I attended last Friday hardly any of those people were present even though we go to great lengths to try to attend their national services and ceremonies.

I can understand the problems of many people in the younger age group and those of my generation who, when faced with the problem of addressing a school or any other gathering about it all, do not quite know how to put it into context. I think that that is easy enough to do if some thought is given to the matter and if some publications are put out about it. My own thoughts are that if honourable members have made speeches which they feel are relevant, we might put them all together and send them off to schools and other institutions so that people can start to do some fresh thinking. There is not much point in talking about the glory of war. The people whom I marched with marched for peace. They marched to remember the folly of war, the sacrifices of it and, I hope, to rededicate themselves to what it was all about in a modern world, which does not mean fighting. It means doing something for people in another form. I suggest that we stimulate a bit of fresh thinking so that we can get some relevance into Anzac Day, moving as it is and important as it is to so many of us. I can understand that the younger generation do not see the point of a lot of it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2395

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 April 1980, pursuant to statute:

Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980, No. 77.

Customs Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, Nos. 78, 82.

Defence Amendment Act- Interim DeterminationStatutory Rules 1980, No. 81.

Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1980, No. 83.

Federal Court of Australia Act- Rules- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 87.

Income Tax Assessment Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 86.

National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980, No. 84.

Navigation Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980, Nos. 79, 80.

Nursing Homes Assistance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, No. 85.

Public Service Act- Appointment- Department of Aboriginal Affairs- S. K. Stack.

Seat of Government (Administration) ActRegulations 1980- No. 6 (Motor Traffic Ordinance).

House adjourned at 11.21 p.m.

page 2396

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 5160)

Mr Hayden:

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

What sums were paid in grants to each Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Electoral Divisions of:

the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (5) Swan, (6) Sturt, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, ( 10) Deakin, (11) McMillan, (12) Isaacs, (13) Henty, (14) Holt, (15) La Trobe, (16) Hotham, (17) Bass, (18) Franklin, (19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot, (2 1 ) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35) Macquarie, (36) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur during: (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78, (iv) 1 978-79 and (v) 1 July 1 979 to date.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

As the Community Youth Support Scheme did not commence until 1 November 1976, it was impossible for expenditure to be incurred under the Scheme in the 1975-76 Financial Year.

The balance of information sought is summarised in the following table.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 5385)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

When computing the consumer price index is allowance made for the fact that large numbers of homes grow their own vegetables and fruit and would be immune from price fluctuation of this component of the index; if so, what weighting is given.

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

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

The weighting given to fresh fruit and vegetables in the Consumer Price Index reflects the estimated average expenditure on these items by wage and salary earner households in metropolitan areas. The present weights are based on estimates from the results of the household expenditure survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1974-75. The average expenditure on fresh fruit and vegetables relates to an average of the amounts spent by all the relevant metropolitan households, including those which grew all, or some proportion, of their own fruit and vegetables. Thus the weight for fresh fruit and vegetables does take account of the fact that some householders grow their own fruit and vegetables and to the extent that they do this are not affected by price fluctuations in these items.

Impact of Television on Children (Question No. 5430)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on the impact of Television on the Development and Learning Behaviour of Children relating to (a) advertising and ( b) education programs has the Government (i) accepted and (ii) rejected.
  2. In respect of those recommendations rejected, what were the reasons for rejection in each case.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I refer the honourable member to my answer to his Question No. 543 1.

Impact of Television on Children (Question No. 5431)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on the impact of Television on the Development and Learning Behaviour of Children, tabled on 23 November 1978, has the Government (a) accepted and (b) rejected.
  2. What is the estimated cost of those recommendations accepted.
  3. What would be the cost of implementing the rejected recommendations.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. The Government decided on 27 November 1979 that there was much common ground between the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts entitled ‘Children and Television’, and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’, which was referred to the Ad Hoc Committee (Drugs). Consideration of the report on ‘Children and Television’ was therefore deferred until the Ad Hoc Committee (Drugs) made its recommendations on the report of the Committee on Social Welfare.

On 17 March 1980 the Government took a number of decisions on the report entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’. Two days later, it took decisions on the ‘Children and Television’ Report.

Before decisions were taken on the recommendations contained in the ‘Children and Television’ Report, some of the recommendations had been implemented, or action commenced, on the initiative of the instrumentality or department involved, namely:

Recommendation 1 (television violence). The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) has already commenced discussions with the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) to ensure that industry codes will include provisions relating to violence in program content and has discussed the question of violence with the Children’s Program Committee. A working party established by the National Health and Medical Research Council also endorsed this recommendation along with recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 17.

Recommendation 2 (stereotyping and unreal lifestyles). The ABT made similar recommendations in its SelfRegulation Report and has raised this matter with FACTS, with the objective of ensuring that it is dealt with in industry codes.

Recommendation 3 (unnecessary portrayal of sex in programming). The ABT has raised this matter with FACTS- to be dealt with in industry codes.

Recommendation 4 (learning behaviour), 5 (neurophysiological effects) and 6 (the role of research). The Department of Education has brought these recommendations to the notice of the Education Research and Development Committee for consideration when initiating research. The ABT has indicated that these recommendations will be discussed with the Broadcasting Information Office when it is established.

Recommendation 7 (moratorium period). A moratorium period is already in operation.

Recommendation 9 (kindergarten programs). The ABT made a similar recommendation in its Self-Regulation Report and determined that such programming should begin on 1 July 1979.

Recommendation 10 (program classifications). The ABT’s recommendation on program classification in its Self-Regulation Report differed from the recommendation in the ‘Children and Television’ Report. The latter recommendation has been referred to the ABT. ‘

Recommendation 12 (amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 relevant to the powers of the ABT). Amendments to the Act are in the final stages of preparation.

Recommendation 13 (industry codes). The ABT has held discussions with FACTS on this matter and further consultation is being held with that body on the final terms of the necessary legislative provisions.

Recommendation 15 (ABC expenditure on children’s programs). This recommendation has been referred to the ABC.

Recommendation 16, Part 1 (advertising during preschool programs). The ABT is pursuing this mutter with the industry and with the Children ‘s Program Committee.

Recommendation 16, Part 3 (health bodies’ proposals on advertising). A Working Party of the Nutrition (Standing) Committee has been set up, with membership as recommended, to examine the detailed issues and to discuss them with the ABT.

Recommendation 16, Part 8 (program advertising). The ABT issued a directive to television stations on 1 1 May 1979 which detailed the manner in which program promotions are to be presented within the various program classifications.

Recommendation 17, Part 1 (media education). The Curriculum Development Centre is funding a number of projects in the development of awareness and discrimination in relation particularly to television viewing amongst school children. This is already involving joint consultation with all State Education Departments in relation to mass media education and the CDC will be providing specific comments on the question of media education courses for all schools.

Recommendation 17, Part 2 (media education). This recommendation has been referred by the Department of Education to the Tertiary Education Commission and the National Inquiry into Teacher Education.

Recommendation 17, Part 3 (media education). The Department of Education has referred this part of the recommendation to the Australian Association of Adult Education (AAAE) for consideration. The Department already provides $ 1 7,000 per annum for the Association ‘s national office. The Department has noted that the AAAE has conducted seminars and conferences in the media field over recent years for which the costs have been substantially met from registration fees. Accordingly, it would appear that the intention of this recommendation is already being met, with the support of funds from the Commonwealth Government.

None of the recommendations were rejected by the Government, but the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal indicated that it wished to defer consideration of recommendation 8 (early morning television) and 1 1 (employment of children). The Government has also agreed to defer consideration of recommendation 14 (Children’s Television Production Unit) until full consultations can be held.

  1. and (3) Costs associated with implementation of the recommendations have not been estimated but I think it unlikely that such costs will exceed, to any significant degree, current expenditure levels in the areas concerned.

Philippines Nuclear Reactor Site (Question No. 5451)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

Is the Minister able to state whether a Philippines nuclear reactor site is in an earthquake zone.

Is there any land on earth known to be free of the risk of an earthquake sufficiently severe to render useless most reinforced concrete buildings.

Should such an earthquake release known stores or dumps of highly radioactive material, how long would decontamination take to enable unprotected re-entry to the area.

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

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Philippine Islands are close to a zone of earthquake activity.
  2. No place on Earth can be regarded as entirely free from earthquakes but reinforced concrete structures can be designed to withstand the earthquake loading considered necessary to meet the conditions anticipated.
  3. It is normal practice for a nuclear power station to be designed to survive without damage the most severe earthquakes expected during its operating life, and to shut down safely in a hypothetical earthquake which represents the maximum earthquake potential of the region in which it is sited. In line with current practice, design measures are taken to ensure that containment barriers would survive an earthquake. If there were an earthquake-caused release of radioactive material the decontamination measures necessary would depend upon the nature of the material, the extent of the damage to its containment and the characteristics of the site.

Physically Disabled Drivers (Question No. 5668)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister able to state whether physically disabled drivers in the United Kingdom receive a mobility allowance of the equivalent of $ 12 per week.
  2. If so, is the Minister further able to state whether the British Government considers that the short-term costs of the allowance are more than offset by the long-term benefits, such as increased employment and reduced demand on home-nursing care.
  3. Can the Minister say whether most disabled drivers are dependent on private cars because they cannot use public transport and are facing financial hardship from large petrol price rises.
  4. Will the Government redistribute some of the large windfall from its petrol price policy in the form of an allowance to disabled people who may have particularly suffered from the petrol price policy.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)I understand that the mobility allowance in Britain is £ 12 sterling a week or approximately $24 Australian.

  1. I am not aware of any material published by the British Government which would provide evidence to show that the allowance has provided long-term benefits to recipients, such as increased employment, and reduced demand on home nursing care.
  2. 3 ) This information is not available.
  3. Persons who have difficulty in travelling because of disabilities may be eligible for Commonwealth assistance through a number of mechanisms, including: sales tax exemptions on the purchase of motor vehicles and replacement parts, under Items 135 and 135a of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act; for persons undergoing a comprehensive program of rehabilitation under the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service the modification of a motor vehicle where the vehicle is to be used for travel to and from training or gainful employment; under the terms of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, subsidies are available on a $4 to $ 1 basis to eligible organisations purchasing motor vehicles for the transport of handicapped persons who attend a prescribed service. They are also available, on a $ 1 to $ 1 basis, to subsidise the salaries of drivers employed by eligible organisations.

Over the last 3 years and in addition to the survey conducted in 1977 (referred to in paragraph 3 above) my department has been undertaking a comprehensive study into the specific transport problems and needs of all handicapped persons. Some of the information obtained from this study was released in 1977. A further report, based on a survey of invalid pensioners, will be available this year.

The question of an allowance in addition to or in lieu of the present taxation concession is a matter for consideration by the Government in the context of its total commitments in all areas of Commonwealth expenditure, including in particular the broad area of assistance to handicapped people.

Afghan Refugees (Question No. 5716)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

Has he considered introducing a special program to assist Afghan refugees wishing to migrate to Australia.

Mr Macphee:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Government views with concern the plight of the Afghan refugees and the events in their country which have brought about this tragic situation.

No international action has been proposed to initiate the resettlement of any of these groups in third countries. Any decision to do so would be premature at this stage. The prime concern for the UNHCR which is the international agency responsible for the protection, care and maintenance of the refugees has been to secure firm undertakings for asylum arrangements from the Pakistan authorities and to make appropriate arrangements for the care of the refugees. In this respect Australia has donated $3,060,000 for the High Commission’s program.

The situation is being watched closely. It is our understanding that very few of the refugees will seek resettlement in third countries and that most will wish to return to their homeland when peace has been restored.

Ocean Island (Question No.5745)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 March 1 980:

Further to the answer to question No. 4386(Hansard, 25 September 1979, pages 1530-1) concerning restitution for damage to and loss of the home of the Banaban community on Ocean Island, has a formal settlement yet been made concerning the payment of interest on the settlement amount.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

No. The position given in answer to Question No. 4386 has not changed.

Company Finance (Question No. 5766)

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What was the (a) total profits and dividends payable abroad by companies, (b) total company income after tax and (c) proportion of company after-tax income payable overseas for each year from 1948-49 to 1978-79.
  2. On what basis are these figures calculated.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) Table 19 of Treasury Economic Paper No. 1, Overseas Investment in Australia, contains the data requested for the period 1948-49 to 1959-60. Data for the period 1960-61 to 1977-78, along with a description of the basis on which it was derived, is contained in a table attached to the Treasurer’s press release of 31 March 1980. (It should be noted that the methodology used in preparing the more recent data is somewhat different from that followed for the Treasury paper. The methodological changes are described in a note to the table that accompanied the press release.) Data enabling an estimate to be made of the proportion of total after-tax company income that was payable overseas in 1978-79 is not yet available.

Mineral Sand Products (Question No. 5787)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

Has Mineral Deposits Ltd applied to his Department for approval to export mineral sand products from any of the company’s leases in the Agnes Waters region, Qld; if so, (a) for which leases has application been made and (b) what response has been given.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

page 2399

No

National Library: Creche (Question No. 5789)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a submission to the corporate board of the National Library of Australia requesting inclusion of a creche in proposed extensions to the Library building for the benefit of (a) 17 families who use it, (b) 70 families of present Library staff who would consider using it and (c) readers and sightseers who are prevented from coming to the Library or have to leave because of children in their care.
  2. Would such a facility overcome problems caused by (a) the cost and inaccessibility of existing private child care facilities especially for users of public transport to the Parliamentary triangle, (b) interruption of breast feeding and parenting, (c) work absences of Library staff due to parental concerns and (d) loss of equal employment opportunity for supporting parents.
  3. If so, does the Government support the submission.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to a submission from the National Library Creche Committee requesting that provision be made for a child care centre as part of the extensions to the National Library building. The Creche Committee conducted a survey in October 1 979 which resulted in 191 responses from Library staff. Of these 136 were in favour of the creche, 70 would consider using the facility and 1 7 would use it if they had children.
  2. (a) and (b) Yes. There is no creche conveniently located in the Parkes/Barton area. The provision of such a facility would no doubt overcome some of the problems for those parents who are users of public transport, breast feeding mothers and other parents who wish to use the National Library..

Occasional care centres are not open during the lunch hour and do not meet the needs of a serious researcher whose requirements exceed two or three hour sessions each week. In any case, priority at these centres is given to parents who have medical appointments.

  1. Yes. Work-based child care would encourage parents to use professional care instead of private babysitters. Professional care is more reliable and provides continuity of care resulting in less parental absence and more peace of mind while at work.

  2. Yes. A substantial majority of Library staff are women and many are or will become mothers. A considerable number are single parents. Many creches in Canberra do not take babies under 18 months. Work-based child care would enable women to continue their careers without interruption after birth of a child.

    1. On 25 February 1980 I wrote to the Director-General of the Library pointing out that the Government has endorsed, within the context of the Galbally Report, a policy of higher priority for work-based child care as part of the range of children’s services required in the community. I asked that sympathetic consideration be given to the feasibility of incorporating the facility within the proposed extensions to the Library. The Council of the National Library, at its meeting on 1 1 April 1980, supported the addition of space to the building extension program for the provision of a creche, provided that this can be done without affecting the services of the Library or creating a security risk, and provided that this does not delay in any way the completion of the approved extension which is urgently required and in which the space has been fully allocated. The National Library will take the matter up with the National Capital Development Commission which is responsibile for designing the extension.

Mineral Sands (Question No. 5795)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government received applications for permits to export mineral sands from either (a) Moreton Island, Queensland, or (b) the Eurimbula-Agnes Waters-Round Hill-Deepwater areas of Central Queensland.
  2. If so, (a) from whom have applications been received and (b) what stage has been reached in the processing of these applications.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a)and(b)No.
  2. Not applicable.

Imports of Crude Oil and Oil Products (Question No. 5804)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Are details of (a) volumes and (b) origins of imports of crude oil and oil products by individual companies recorded by his Department; if so, is the information publicly available.
  2. If the information is not publicly available, why not.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. 1 ) Yes. The information is not available for publication.
  2. Company details are supplied to the department on a strictly confidential basis and are not available for publication.

Study of Coal Liquefaction (Question No. 5805)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the submission of the Institution of Engineers, Australia to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources indicating that, in relation to the current West GermanCommonwealthState (Immhausen) study of coal liquefaction, unfortunately so few experienced process engineers were engaged in the Australian team that the information Australia gains nationally will be very limited.
  2. Further, has the Minister’s attention been drawn to evidence given by Mr W. D. Hatton (Chairman, National Committee on Fuels and Energy, the Institution of Engineers, Australia) that, as a result of the composition of the joint study team Germany will gain enormous information on Australian resources and Australia will gain very little in connection with German technology.
  3. If so, (a) is the Minister concerned about these comments, and (b) has he had them investigated.
  4. Is he able to indicate (a) who selected the Australian members of the study team initially, (b) who these members were and (c) whether the team membership has been subsequently modified, and if so, in what way.
  5. Is the Minister fully satisfied that Australia’s interests are fully protected in the acquisition of information by this team.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (l)and(2)Yes.

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. I see no need to have these comments investigated because they represent a lack of understanding of the real situation and a distortion of the facts relating to the arrangements between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany for the conduct of the study.

  2. (a) Members of the Australian study team are nominated by the participating Governments and approved by the Australian Management Committee comprising one representative each of the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.

    1. Three Australian officers participated in the coal testing program of the joint study: for Queensland- Mr L. Baker; for Victoria- Dr D. Allardice; for New South Wales-DrN. Kelvin.

Arrangements have been made to date for two officers to participate in the technical and engineering evaluation component of the study: for Commonwealth- Mr J. Edwards; forVictoria- Mr J. Everson.

Arrangements will be made for the additional participation of seven officers in subsequent phases of the study.

  1. No.

    1. Yes.

Nuclear Technology Courses (Question No. 5818)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

What is the ( 1 ) name, (2 ) institutional affiliation and (3 ) nationality of each participant in each of the nuclear technology courses conducted by the Australian School of Nuclear Technology from 1974 to 31 March 1980.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Taxation: Small Business (Question No. 5839)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to comments during March 1980 in the national press by the Liberal Premier of Western Australia calling for tax reform.
  2. Since the Government willstart the 1980-81 fiscal year with windfall oil profit receipts in excess of $2 billion and in light of the fact that recent concessions applied only to personal taxation, has he given consideration to granting relief to other sections of the community, in particular to small business.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter raised is one for consideration in a budgetary context and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on it at this stage.

Iwasaki Development Project (Question No. 5840)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether the Queensland Premier on his return to Queensland from his most recent overseas trip stated that Japanese tourism tycoon Mr Yohachiro Iwasaki had proposed to him a special new and secret project separate from his present development at Yeppoon, Queensland.
  2. Has the Premier of Queensland or Mr Iwasaki shared the details of this project with him; if so, what are the details; if not, will he ascertain the nature of this secret project.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. I have no knowledge of what, if anything, Mr Yohachiro Iwasaki might have said to the Queensland Premier.
  2. As the honourable member would be aware, any proposals by Mr Iwasaki for new activities in Australia would need to conform with the requirements of the Government’s foreign investment policy.

Aluminium Industry (Question No. 5873)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1980:

What is the (a) present and (b) projected net return to (i) Australians and (ii) overseas owners, from the aluminium industry in Australia, considering (A) cost savings on Australian consumption of non-imported aluminium, (B) costs to the 3 levels of government of (I) infrastructure, (II) welfare services, (III) pollution control, (IV) environmental safeguards and (V) restoration made necessary by (AA) population shifts, (AB) industrial hazards and accidents and (AC) environmental disturbance, (C) costs to (I) rural, (II) tourist and (III) other industries, especially in the Hunter Valley district, New South Wales and Gladstone, Queensland, and comparative job opportunities in alternative industries, including considerations of the availability of work to those now unemployed in the regions affected, (D) cost concessions to the industry for (I) rail freights and (II) electric power produced using Australian coal at a fraction of world parity prices and (E) the impact of (I) double taxation agreements, (II) transfer pricing and (III) net tax receipts from the industry compared with those from displaced industries.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The material to provide a detailed reply covering all the matters raised by the honourable member is not readily available. I am not prepared to divert the resources of my Department to the major research exercise a complete answer to the question would entail.

National Acoustic Laboratories: Dependent Students (Question No. 5896)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Are persons under the age of 2 1 years who are resident in Australia eligible for the services of the National Acoustics Laboratories, including free hearing aids.
  2. Are dependent students resident in Australia and aged between 21 and 25 years excluded from eligibility in respect to the Laboratories’ services; if so, will he consider raising the age limit to include all dependent students.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. I have requested my Department to examine the question of the provision of National Acoustic Laboratories services to dependent students and provide a report for my consideration.

Taxation: Low Incomes (Question No. 5902)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has he received a resolution from the Taxpayers’ Association expressing concern at (a) the 32 per cent marginal rate of tax being charged to those deriving low incomes and (b) the great number of persons now attracting tax who would still be free from tax had full indexation of taxation rates applied continuously.
  2. If so, will he introduce either (a) an extra stage in the tax scale reducing the marginal tax rate for incomes below $6,500 or (b) a small income rebate tapering away around the $6,500 mark, especially for taxpayers where part of the assessable income consists of means-tested social security benefits.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The resolution was part of the pre-Budget submission of the Australian Taxpayers ‘ Association to the Government.
  2. The submission will be considered during the preparation of the 1980-81 Budget.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800429_reps_31_hor118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant