House of Representatives
27 August 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 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 765

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Preston Institute of Technology

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 a fully-accredited degree course in chiropractic has been established at Preston Institute of Technology, and

Whereas three hundred students who pay their own fees are in allfive years of the program, and

Whereas students and the profession can no longer carry the financial burden amounting to over $1,000,000 per year, and

Whereas a debt of$240,000 is being incurred in 1980, and

Whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and students’ careers placed in grave jeopardy,

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that funding of the Preston Institute of Technology Chiropractic Program by the Tertiary Education Commission be no longer delayed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Baume, Mr Bradfield, Mr Bryant, Mr Bungey, Mr Burr, Mr Cadman, Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr Cohen, Mr Dobie, Mr Gillard, Mr Graham, Mr Hodges, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Lucock, Mr Lusher, Mr Lynch, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Ruddock, Mr Staley and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

Hilton Hotel Bomb Disaster

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they want the victims of the Hilton bomb disaster to receive a fair and just compensation. They remind the Prime Minister and his government that they found the sum of $190,000 to compensate the Hilton Arcade shopkeepers for their loss of business and we the undersigned regard the loss of life and permanent injury even more important than the loss of business. The police involved were guarding the Prime Minister’s life and one of them lost his life, because the Prime Minister and the other international heads of state were inside the hotel. Three other police were seriously and permanently injured as a result of the bombing. The undersigned petitioners call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to compensate these unfortunate victims.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Anthony, Mr Calder, Mr Cohen, Mr Fry, Mr Gillard, Sir William McMahon and Mr West.

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 Mr Bryant, Mr Lusher and Mr Sinclair.

Petitions received.

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’ 70s 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 $100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant, Mr Burns and Mr West.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with

Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

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

Petitions received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed Plant Breeders’ Rights Legislation. The reasons are as follows:

  1. We believe it will restrict free growing and exchange or sale of non-chemically treated seeds.
  2. We believe it will cause a decline in the genetic diversity of plants as evidenced in Europe following implementation of similar legislation there.
  3. We believe that prolonged public debate is necessary as is a referendum before a final decision is made.
  4. We believe that implementation of this Legislation could lead to the control of growing and distribution of food and, through this, the control of the peoples by a few Corporations.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation.

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

Petition received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. . Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Retirement Benefits

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

That 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 1970 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 Bradfield.

Petition received.

Abortion

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

That the government will act to prohibit the use of all public monies for the killing of unborn children. That the said use of government monies is an unacceptable government endorsement of a great national tragedy - the deaths annually of at least 80,000 unborn children.

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

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 Dr Everingham.

Petition received.

Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centres

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens:

Ernestly request that the funding of the Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centre be increased to allow these centres to adequately provide the services vitally needed by the women of NSW. Further to this end that funding be granted to allow new greatly needed Women’s Health Centres and Rape Crisis Centres to be established.

We abhor the continued cuts in funding that have occurred over the past three years and which is creating a situation whereby the centres are facing the likelihood of no longer being able to function.

We submit that the deficit incurred by the cuts be made good by the Federal Government and to this end we submit this petition.

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

Petition received.

Export of Live Animals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, (the undernamed), strongly oppose the live transport of animals to other countries. We feel it is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. Animals, in a deteriorated condition, are being shipped in small, unsanitary cages only to be doomed to die after a long, hazardous journey.

We feel that the animals should be humanely slaughtered in Australia and then refrigerated overseas. If the issue concerns the preparation and method of slaughter, we feel that a representative should come to Australia and indicate his religious wishes about the slaughter procedures.

We have trained and domesticated our animals to serve us and therefore it is also our responsibility to care for these defenceless animals.

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

Petition received.

Dual Citizen Band Radio Service

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully desire to bring to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications showeth that the proposed cut off date in 1982, for 27MHz, in the Citizen’s Band Radio Service is against the wishes of the Citizens of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there is a need for a dual (a 27 MHz and UHF) Citizen’s Band Radio Service and we respectfully request the Federal Government retain the 27 MHz for Citizen’s Band use after 1982.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Act

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

That the Family Law Act should be amended to limit child support orders to a set scale, to provide custody of children to the parent not primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marriage and establish a set schedule for division of matrimonial property that cannot be varied at the discretion of any judge.

These measures would reduce the divorce rate and reestablish stability and security in family life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Act be amended to abolish the maintenance and alimony system.

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

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 New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:

  1. 1 ) General recurrent
  2. Migrant education
  3. Disadvantaged schools
  4. Special education
  5. Capital grants
  6. Multicultural education
  7. Disadvantaged country areas
  8. Children in institutions
  9. Services and Development
  10. Education Centres
  11. Special projects

But increased the money available to the non-government school sector by 5.9 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will restore and increase substantially in real terms, the allocation of funds for government school programs.

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

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 New South Wales respectfully showeth:

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

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1 . 2 per cent while non-government Schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

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

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

Petition received.

Hornsby Post Office

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

That there is an urgent need to establish an annex of the Hornsby Post Office on the Eastern Side of the railway line to meet the growing needs of all sections of the public and commerce in the area.

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

Petition received.

page 768

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Kevin Cairns proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Lilley will resume his seat. I ask the honourable gentleman to put his notice of motion in proposition form.

page 768

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 768

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Lionel Bowen proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Home Affairs -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable gentleman is entitled to ask for information. He is not entitled to assume a factual base for the information if the purpose of the assumption of the factual base is to answer his own question. The question is out of order.

page 768

QUESTION

ECONOMIC STRATEGY REPORT

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Treasurer seen a copy of the document eulogised last night by the Leader of the Opposition as a report of an interdepartmental committee on economic strategy? I am concerned about all those arms of Government policy the Leader of the Opposition said had fallen off. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the nature of this document and its status in relation to Government policy?

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

– Last night the Leader of the Opposition did refer to a document which he described as being a document on economic strategy from ‘the Government’s most senior source of departmental advice on economic management’. He then went on to imply that the Government had reason to give a very restricted classification to this document. The Leader of the Opposition last night did something that he occasionally is wont to do, that is, he did a bit of selective quoting. He will therefore pardon me if I do a little quoting from the same document, or should I say from the final version of that document. I quote-

Mr Innes:

– Tell us who doctored the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. I ask honourable gentlemen on the Opposition benches to remain silent while the answer is given.

Mr HOWARD:

– One finds, for example, and this will interest somebody who is worried about the four arms or three arms or no arms that we would be left with if the Leader of the Opposition had his chance, that the document states:

The immediate need is for firm anti-inflationary policies, including significant tightening of monetary policy -

The Leader of the Opposition would lose very badly on that.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the Treasurer whether he proposes to table the document from which he is quoting and state its source.

Mr HOWARD:

– I will deal with one question at a time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Treasurer whether he is quoting from a document.

Mr HOWARD:

– Yes, I am, and I will come to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the document confidential?

Mr HOWARD:

– I will come to that, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Treasurer: Is the document confidential?

Mr HOWARD:

– I am quoting from a document which I propose to table when I finish my answer.

Mr Young:

– Is it all of the document or part of it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will cease interjecting. I ask honourable gentlemen on the Opposition benches to remain silent.

Mr HOWARD:

– I will start-

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr HOWARD:

- Mr Speaker, how long are you going to tolerate-

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The document that the Treasurer has is a doctored document. The document to which I referred is much more voluminous than that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr HOWARD:

- Mr Speaker, I will continue to quote from the document. I will start that first quotation again because it is obvious that the Opposition does not like it.

Mr Holding:

– Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that if it is a spurious point of order I will have to deal with him.

Mr Holding:

– Mr Speaker, perhaps you ought to hear the point of order before you start making threats.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the point of order.

Mr Holding:

– I understand that under the Standing Orders it is perfectly in order for me to ask the Treasurer not only to table the document but also to inform the House of the document from which he is quoting. He has not informed the House of the nature of this document or what it is. I think the House is entitled to that knowledge.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will rule on the point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports raised a fair point of order. It has been dealt with by the Treasurer. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports did not raise the question of identification of the document; nor did I, because it is apparent that the document from which the Treasurer is quoting is the one in the honourable gentleman’s hands. He has already announced that he will table it and I do not expect any difficulty. I ask that no further points of order be taken while the answer is being given.

Mr HOWARD:

– I repeat the quote:

The immediate need is for firm anti-inflationary policies, including significant tightening of monetary policy–

Not the sort of permissive approach to monetary policy indicated this morning on AM by the Leader of the Opposition when he made it very clear that a future Labor government would go back to the printing presses, just as the Labor Government did between 1972 and 1975. The document continues:

  1. . a further significant reduction–

In the deficit- would be appropriate in 1980-81 as part of the process of dampening inflationary expectations and to help reduce the public sector’s call on the capital market.

It goes on to say:

In order to reduce the growing competition for scarce resources, efforts to restrain the growth of the total public sector should be continued.

It then goes on to recommend that import parity pricing for oil should be maintained. Overall, the document is an endorsement of the sort of strategy that this Government has followed over the past four and a half years.

Mr Hayden:

– Quote the part on taxes and appreciation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I ask the honourable members for Melbourne and Batman also to cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition should show courtesy to the House by listening to the answer in silence.

Mr Dawkins:

– You did not insist on that last night.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I had occasion last night to request the honourable member for Fremantle to remain silent. 1 warn the honourable member for Fremantle to remain silent.

Mr HOWARD:

– The Leader of the Opposition and others are excited about the question of taxation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that he and everybody else will have an opportunity to read everything that this document says about taxation and not almost everything that it says about taxation, which was the subject of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last night. The document, which I table, is entitled Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Economic Strategy’. It has been prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of National Development and Energy, the Department of Trade and Resources, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank - in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, obviously eulogising it, the most senior source of departmental advice available to the Government.

Motion (by Mr Scholes)- by leaveproposed:

That the document be printed.

Mr Hurford:

– Mr Speaker, I second the motion.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, will you ensure that an adequate number of copies of the document is printed? If the normal number is inadequate I would be grateful if that number could be doubled because we want to make sure that adequate numbers are available for perusal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 769

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I again ask a question of the Minister for Home Affairs. Is it a fact that the Minister has had discussions with the Prime Minister and has reached an understanding that he will accept the position of Chief Justice when that position falls due? Would he acknowledge that his appointment would be as divisive and unacceptable as the decision to appoint the former Governor-General to the position of Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation? Does he accept the fact that his statements and actions, both in Opposition and as Attorney-General, could affect impartiality and the credibility of the court? Does he acknowledge that his future lies in the political arena and not in a judicial appointment?

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

– I am the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for the Capital Territory. If the honourable gentleman would like to direct a question to me about my portfolios I would be happy to answer him.

page 770

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Would the Prime Minister indicate the reasons for the Government’s adhering to policies seeking to restrict the totality of government expenditure and how these reasons are advantageous to and in the interests of the Australian people?

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

-The Government is determined to maintain its policies of bearing down on expenditure and restraining government expenditure to the maximum extent possible. But that does not mean that we do not provide additional funds in areas of special need or in areas where there is a special national interest. For example, in this last Budget substantial additional funds are being provided for the disadvantaged and for children of pensioners and welfare beneficiaries. In addition to that very substantial additional funds are being provided for defence. But the Government’s spending over the five-year period has been restrained. The increase has been about one per cent in real terms compared with an increase of something like 10 per cent in real terms in the three Labor years in office, and an increase somewhat between the two in the years leading up to 1972.

We want smaller government spending in the circumstances that we are currently faced with because that does create greater opportunities for private initiatives and for private investment. Indeed last year we saw a very dramatic reduction in the Budget deficit overall. It was one which the Opposition had described at this time last year as being a most contractionary, deflationary Budget. But despite those statements, of course the growth through the Australian economy last year, especially of non-farm gross domestic product, was stronger than for some time and stronger than in many other countries. It is quite plain that in an inflationary environment big spending stifles initiative and kills investment. It means, inevitably, higher taxation or greater inflation. That has the result of greatly reducing jobs. I think it is widely accepted that in the Opposition’s five commitments - let us say six because the commitment made on AM to increase pensions to a certain extent was a firm commitment - these six policy areas involve an increase of $2,500m in a full year. Over 250 other policies are not yet costed. The people of Australia will understand that very well indeed.

The Leader of the Opposition also made some commitments to tax cuts irrespective of the firmer commitments he had given earlier. He said that he had three possible tax cuts and that he would pick one of them in a few weeks time. If we take the figure of an additional $2,000m spending, that is an extra $6.63 a week for every taxpayer in this country. If we take the figure of $2,500m additional spending, that is an extra $8.29 a week for every taxpayer in this country. If we assume for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition ultimately chooses that $3 a week tax cut, the additional spending that he is involved in either through taxation or through inflation and the processes of printing money would be a much greater cost for all of the people of Australia. Therefore, quite plainly, that would be a deception of a very cruel kind. I think it is worth noting one or two points about the Australian Labor Party platform which are relevant to this matter. A document I have here states:

The Labor Party at its Federal Conference every two years adopts a comprehensive range of policies, both domestic and international. This massive policy is printed in the ALP platform, which is a very substantial document. Every member of the Party is bound by the policy set out in this document.

The document also states:

We have to present our policies in an attractive and digestible form. Now this requires us to be selective.

That is selective, of course, in the presentation:

I want this to be perfectly understood in case certain sections of the community feel that they have been left out.

Obviously, therefore, if things are not mentioned they will be picked up. The other 250 commitments in the platform and in other policy statements of Labor Party spokesmen start to be highly relevant. I have quoted from a transcript of a tape recording giving the Opposition’s golden voice to all the Labor Party members in March 1980. It is quite plain that either taxation or inflation has to pay for what the governments spend. The Labor Party is offering the same old prescription again. I have to say that I think Mr Hayden is being a little more open than Mr Whitlam was in 1972 because Mr Whitlam tried to pretend that he was not going to be a big spender. Mr Hayden is making it perfectly plain that he is.

page 771

QUESTION

REPORT OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC STRATEGY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of my friend the Treasurer. In view of the fact that he is prepared to table the sanitised report of the interdepartmental committee on economic strategy of June this year, will he table the report of the same group for May this year including those parts of the report which make searing comment about the extraordinarily high level of tax burden imposed on the community under this Government, the references to the imbalances likely to develop in the economy because of the Government’s development program, the problems of mounting and serious inflation, the view that the Government’s projected development boom is vastly overstated and more specifically–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– More specifically and finally, that section that forecasts that in the course of this fiscal year there will be a series of appreciations in the exchange rate?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I state in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that the report I tabled was the final product of an interdepartmental preparation of a document for the purposes of assisting the Government in the medium term in assessing economic strategy. If the Leader of the Opposition–

Mr Hayden:

– Table May’s report. It devastates you. It kills you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable gentleman does not need me to table it. He has a copy of it himself.

Mr Hayden:

– The Treasurer cannot assert that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Has the Treasurer completed his answer?

Mr HOWARD:

– No, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Treasurer to be seated. The Leader of the Opposition should give leadership to the members on his side of the House. He should not continue to interject. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting while the answer to his question is being given. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD:

– I take this opportunity, because the Leader of the Opposition has used the words ‘doctored’ and ‘sanitised’ in respect of the document that I tabled, to make it quite clear to the House, in response to those words, that the only action taken by the Government in respect of altering the composition of the report that I tabled was to remove the words of classification, namely ‘confidential’, ‘restricted’ or whatever they may have been. Any suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the document has been doctored, altered or in some way changed, I reject completely. It is totally unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition in his position to make such a charge. The earlier documents to which the Leader of the Opposition refers were drafts, preparatory to a final report. It is absolutely absurd of the Leader of the Opposition to imply that we get a–

Mr Hayden:

– Oh!

Mr HOWARD:

– Is he really asking the House to believe that every month we get a 40 or 50 page document from an interdepartmental committee on medium term economic strategy? It shows how long he has been out of office and how long he has been out of touch with the workings of modern government if he seriously believes that that is how it is run.

page 771

QUESTION

WAGE AND NON-WAGE INCOME

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Industrial Relations been drawn to the suggestion that there is a difference between wage and non-wage income? Does the Government support this distinction?

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

– Yes, I have noticed in recent days, in a document issued by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a curious distinction drawn between wage and non-wage income. It is perhaps not so much a curious distinction as an ideologically based one. The Government completely rejects the philosophy behind that proposal. In that document there is a proposal for a royal commission into the distribution of income and wealth which would have the power to subpoena individuals and companies and to interrogate them about their private commercial and business activities. Then there is Labor’s promise to control what it describes as non-wage income. What that exactly means has not been made quite clear, but obviously Labor plans additional discriminatory taxes on people such as small businessmen and farmers who are not on a wage and new and crippling taxes on the dividends of small investors. One thing which is clear is that those proposals would stifle economic growth and would penalise initiative for the sake of pacifying a few extremists in the trade union movement.

page 772

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How does the Prime Minister reconcile the statement that he made in his 1975 election campaign speech, when he said We will reduce the tax burden’, with the fact that total tax revenue for this financial year will be at least $32,000m, nearly twice the amount for 1975-76?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Budget that was introduced in 1975 was in many senses a strange document because it purported to produce a certain deficit; but, of course, it became very clear that the actual expenditure and revenues would not match and that the deficit coming out of that Hayden Budget would be very much larger than had been indicated by the Treasurer of the day. One of the reasons for that is that the economy had ground to a stop, factories were not able to work or to employ and the productivity of the whole nation was being destroyed by the policies of the then Labor Government. Another reason for that - some might call it a dishonest approach- was what I say was the very illadvised approach of pretending that governments can go on printing money, that large deficits do not matter and that, therefore, there can be a much lower level of actual taxation than might otherwise be sustained.

Of course, any proper analysis of the true level of taxation in 1975 would have to take into account everything that was taken away from every Australian by the inflation which had been promoted by Labor’s policies and which during the course of that year, as honourable gentlemen know, had reached 1 7 per cent - very much more than the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and of other advanced Western countries. Therefore, we have to look not only at the average levels of taxation in the Labor years but also at the degree to which inflation was making everyone poorer, including pensioners, taxpayers and all the rest. We have approached the problem by forming Budgets in a responsible manner. We have worked to reduce the total overall deficit until now we have a balanced domestic account. We have done that by reducing the overall command on resources for expenditure from a little over 30 per cent to about 28 per cent. The difference would be greater still as a percentage of gross domestic product and the difference would be greater still if there was the same kind of accounting for family allowances. We have reduced the deficit on that account.

In addition, the deficit has been reduced because we have had a much more honest approach to the totality of taxation than the Australian Labor Party ever had. There is a difference between the payment of family allowances now and the tax deductions on the previous occasion, but if tax were computed on the same basis income tax as a percentage of GDP would be marginally less than it was in 1975-76. That also ought to be taken into account. There is no doubt that the oil revenues have assisted the Government in lowering the deficit and in meeting other important national objectives. That oil revenue has assisted very greatly in lowering the deficit, in meeting the very necessary commitments for defence, and in the tax cuts from 1 July, which cost over $600m. That has been said on many occasions. It just gets back to the fact that any government, any family or any country has to live by what it earns and produces. Governments cannot continually spend more than their countries can produce. Australian governments cannot continually spend more than they are prepared to take in taxes from the people of Australia. The suggestion of the Labor Party that it can spend $2,500m more on six stated policies, with 250 other uncosted policies, and at the same time offer lower taxation than this Government is the greatest fraud of this century.

page 772

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Transport inform the House of the outcome of his most recent discussions with the two major domestic airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines, regarding the withdrawal of discounted fare arrangements from sporting bodies and other groups in the community? Is the Minister aware of the concern among those organisations which have enjoyed concessional arrangements?

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

– I am aware of the concern amongst some of the sporting bodies at the actions by the airlines to cancel all discriminatory discounts to those bodies. I think I ought to talk about the background to the discriminatory discount air fare problem, which arose as a result of a complaint lodged by Ansett regarding the extensive proliferation of discriminatory discounting. Ansett warned that, if necessary, it would be prepared to match TAA in a discount war. Needless to say, I was concerned at such a prospect because of the serious effect that it could have on core fares, such as economy, first-class or standard fares. So I called both airlines together on 6 July to discuss the matter. I asked both parties to consult under the provisions of the two-airlines agreement in the hope that they would be able to reach agreement on the matter and to report back either to my Department or to me. Unfortunately, both airlines chose to cancel all the concessional arrangements forthwith. They did not report back either to my Department or to me.

Last night I concluded discussions with Ansett and TAA and I expressed the concern of the Government at the sudden cancellation of the special fare arrangements which were available to at least some organisations within affinity groups, which would cause some degree of hardship to many of those worthwhile organisations. In view of the Government’s concern, both airlines have agreed to provide an interim measure which includes a IS per cent discount for sporting and charitable organisations. The existing 10 per cent discount of the normal economy fare for common interest groups of 1 5 people or more will continue to apply.

In an effort to reach an equitable long term solution that meets the requirements of those involved, I have decided to refer the whole issue of discounting to the Holcroft Independent Public Inquiry into Domestic Air Fares. The arrangements that the airlines have agreed to will apply until such time as the Holcroft committee reports and the Government has dealt with that report. Undoubtedly, some groups in the community will receive a smaller discount than they were getting but the fact is that under this arrangement all sporting and charitable organisations and other affinity groups will receive the same discount. It will not be available just to a few select groups that were either fortunate enough, or prudent enough, if you like, to have made arrangements with an airline. I believe this is a far more equitable situation since it does make the discount arrangement available to all bodies within affinity groups.

page 773

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr HAYDEN:

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, follows his last rather turgid reply on the deficit.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to eliminate such descriptive words from his question. The purpose of Question Time is to ask for facts.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is a process of futility in some respects but we keep trying, Mr Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that in its efforts in a sort of bookkeeping adjustment process - I am trying to avoid unparliamentary words such as ‘fiddle’, Mr Speaker - to get the deficit down, the Government has reduced the volume of capital funds, the proportion of capital funds, through the Budget available to the States by more than 33 per cent?

Mr Hodgman:

– Rubbish!

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is the consequence of that, that although the Government has been able to reduce to some extent its deficit, it has in turn forced up the deficit of State and local authorities and, consequently, of all public authorities?

Mr Hodgman:

– Poppycock!

Mr HAYDEN:

– ‘Rubbish’, says the honourable member for Denison, and he knows more about that topic than anyone else in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will ignore the interjection and ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is it a fact that this is reflected in the highest public sector deficit - as recorded at page 282 in the 1980-81 Budget Papers- for 1977-78 at 6. 1 per cent of gross domestic product? Does the Treasurer declare on that page of the Budget documents that for monetary policy purposes it has become more important to consider the total public sector deficit and not just the Commonwealth Budget deficit? In the circumstances, will the Prime Minister desist from humiliating himself by displays of economic illiteracy such as we saw a few minutes ago?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the Treasurer, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that quite clearly he is flouting what I asked him to do. The addition of the final words to his question were not seeking information whatsoever. I am sure the honourable gentleman understands that such a practice departs from the norms, practices and Standing Orders of the House. I ask him to desist from such activity.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, I acknowledge the difficulty of your situation. On the other hand, I would like you to acknowledge the difficulty of our position in this House. There are clear restrictions on the way in which we can present a question and limitations, on the wording that we can use. On the other hand, there appears to be no limitations on either the time which the Minister can take to answer a question or the outrageous claims he can make to put his point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I must inform the Leader of the Opposition that there is no point of order involved in the matter he has raised. The Standing Orders are there, clear for all to see. It is my duty to enforce them. The honourable gentleman is not raising a point of order. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Mr Speaker, I was actually going to raise a point of order because I was going to ask whether you would ask the Australian Broadcasting Commission to keep the microphone in front of the Leader of the Opposition turned up so that the kind of remark to which you objected, but which continues right throughout Question Time no matter which Minister is answering a question, can be heard by all listeners in Australia.

Mr Young:

– Point of order!

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– But it cannot be heard unless the Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr Young:

– Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– Malcolm, when are you going to forget that you were a prefect?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid will remain silent. We will have a moment or two of silence. It will be a change from what has been happening. No point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister raised a point which was not a point of order but a point of explanation.

Mr Young:

– But he finished it first. He had the opportunity to finish it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Port Adelaide does not cease interjecting I really will have to deal with him. I do not wish to do so.

Mr Young:

– Let us get the same rules for both sides.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Questions are being asked in the lead-up to this election campaign which are more concerned with establishing political points than with obtaining facts. Answers are given that are more concerned with establishing political points than with giving facts. As this practice proceeds, quite clearly the House must come to a conclusion as to whether it will remain unruly or whether it will observe the practices of the national Parliament which the people are entitled to expect. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his questions concisely, I ask all Ministers to answer concisely, and 1 ask all members on both sides of the House to cease continual interjections. I will now call another questioner.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I asked a question. I am entitled to an answer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I apologise. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Treasurer to answer the question.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister stood up here and dissembled. What he said was not true to fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– How long are we going to put up with this?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– The Prime Minister indulged in–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– A program of misrepresentation. Now he has asked–

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD:

- Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked one of his devastating questions about the public sector borrowing requirement. He asked me - he asked whether or not it was a fact that the overall public sector–

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Question Time has now been proceeding for almost 45 minutes. Throughout that time there has been a considerable number of interjections. I want all honourable members to understand that the dignity of the House must be upheld. I propose to ensure that it is. I do not propose to call the Treasurer until I feel reasonably confident that silence will prevail in the House so that he may be heard.

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The noise continues from my left.

Mr Neil:

– It is feeding time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will remain silent.

Mr Morris:

– On your right.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for St George, on my right, will remain silent. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HOWARD:

- Mr Speaker, in the course of his question, the Leader of the Opposition invited us to agree that really the important thing from an overall public debt point of view and monetary policy point of view is the entire public sector borrowing requirement. He includes in that, as is quite proper, the borrowing requirements of the

States and their instrumentalities and the borrowing requirements of Commonwealth authorities. I agree with him. It has been said on numerous occasions by the Government. I said it at the last Premiers Conference meeting; I said it at the previous Premiers Conference meeting; I said it some weeks after that, in the Menzies Oration, when talking about the size of the overall claim of the public sector on the nation’s resources. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that last year there was a significant decline to 4.3 per cent in the percentage that the public sector borrowing requirement bore to the total gross domestic product.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to establish that all of the reduction has been achieved because the Government has made an undue cut in the provision of capital funds through the Budget and that, in other words, the States and local authorities have been forced to increase their borrowing requirements as a result of Commonwealth budgetary policy. That is not the case, and that is illustrated by the percentage of GDP taken by all Commonwealth authorities which is referred to in the first column of figures on the page at which the Leader of the Opposition obviously is looking, that is, page 282. He will observe from those figures that the Commonwealth authorities’ claim- that is the Commonwealth Budget deficit and Commonwealth statutory authorities, those things over which the Commonwealth has total and sole control and, therefore, those things for which the Commonwealth alone is responsible - peaked in 1 975-76 at 4.9 per cent. It fell last year to 2.2 per cent and will fall even further this year.

Mr Hayden:

– The figure of 6. 1 per cent was the record and Malcolm Fraser was responsible for it. Are you going to try to lie your way through the campaign? Gosh!

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw.

Mr Young:

– What did he say?

Mr Hayden:

– I said that the Government–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– Is going to try to lie its way through the campaign, which is unparliamentary as well as being indecent in public life. I apologise for it and withdraw.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order. I revert to the point I made a moment ago, Mr Speaker. If the microphone in front of the Leader of the Opposition were left on all the time- and the one in front of me can be left on all the time - that kind of remark plainly will go over the air waves so that more people can see the kind of person the Leader of the Opposition is.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have dealt with the matter.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Surely if the Leader of the Opposition has so much pride in what he says he will want to be heard by as many people as possible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease using unparliamentary expressions. I am sure the honourable gentleman will understand that using unparliamentary expressions does not add to the strength of his case.

page 775

DEFENCE PROGRAM

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Swan.

Mr Dawkins:

– His swan song! Twicer!

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether his attention has been drawn to an article which appears in today’s Australian Financial Review. If so, has the Minister had a chance to make any technical assessment of the editorial content and its accuracy? And I will be back again, too. I’ll give you ‘twicer’.

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

– Within reason I am prepared to make whatever meagre contribution I can to harmony and to understanding; but to make an assessment of the editorial views of the Australian Financial Review is something that I would regard as an extreme form of immolation. Nevertheless, I did read the Australian Financial Review. Its editorial views are invariably expressed with an unctuous and oppressive sense of infallibility. It commands a singular unbroken record of error. It is a long time since so much irrationality was put into one editorial in this country. I have culled one of the more balanced parts of the editorial, which states:

There is very little about missile development in either the defence budget or in Mr Killen ‘s speech.

It is almost like a collection of cavalry colonels discussing tactics against the tank.

How profound! The article is headed: ‘The cavalry colonels take over’.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Oh, you loved that, Jim.

Mr KILLEN:

– Indeed, I did. I congratulate the newspaper on its alliteration. In my speech I mentioned the P3C aircraft fitted with Harpoon missiles and I mentioned the TFF project. What on earth does that newspaper think that aircraft will be fitted with? I referred also to the follow-on destroyers, the FFGs- again fitted with the Harpoon missile - the modernisation of the submarines and the reconnaissance fit of the F111s. Both by instinct and by practice, I incline in the direction of charity. I can only conclude and say in charity that the person who wrote this editorial would not know ‘B’ from a bull’s foot.

page 776

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Government members - Ooh!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. 1 ask honourable members on the Government benches to cease those foolish noises.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– It is a very specific question which requires a specific answer. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his pledge of 21 November 1975 that ‘the Government will bring taxes down further, not increase them’ with the fact that total taxes in the 1980-81 Budget as a proportion of gross domestic product are 24.6 per cent as compared to 23.3 per cent in 1975-76? As I have said, I require a specific answer to this question and not the usual running around the mulberry bush that we get.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I should like to read a paragraph of Hansard in answer:

The Prime Minister is constantly asserting that if the tax scales which I introduced as Treasurer in 1975 applied today people would be paying $3,000m more in taxation than they are actually paying. I do not dispute that assertion.

People will know who the speaker was.

page 776

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956 1 present the twentythird annual report on the operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956 for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 776

AUSTRALIAN PLAGUE LOCUST COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Plague Locust Commission annual report 1 978-79.

page 776

MEDICAL MANPOWER SUPPLY

Mr MacKELLAR (Warringah- Minister for

Health)- For the information of honourable members I present a document entitled ‘Medical

Manpower Supply: Report of the Committee of Officials, May 1980’.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 776

PAPUA NEW GUINEA STAFFING ASSISTANCE DETERMINATION

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Termination Act 1976I present a report by the Commissioner for Superannuation on the general administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme and the Contract Officers Retirement Benefits Scheme for the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 776

ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1979-80

Statement of Expenditure

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following paper:

Advance to the Minister for Finance 1979-80- Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1 90 1 .

Ordered that the statement be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting.

page 776

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman may proceed to a personal explanation.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– The Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings in the House contains a record of my speech in the adjournment debate last night relating to serious allegations made about a company which has been operating as a charity. The report of that speech in the daily Hansard contains certain flaws which were not evident in my original speech. As the matters I raised were serious, it is necessary for the record to be set straight as soon as possible. Firstly, I would like to make the point that a number of amendments have been made to the greens which in one or two cases change the meaning of my statement. I refer, for example, to my original statement, in which 1 said:

There are numerous references to sexual activity among certain tenants at the hostels- some of them minorsbetween certain tenants and some members of the society’s management, and among some of the society’s supervisory staff at the hostels.

That has been amended to read:

There are numerous references to sexual activity between certain tenants at the hostels - some of them minors - and some members of the Society’s management and supervisory staff at the hostels.

The changes affect the clarity of my original speech. Allegations have been made of sexual activities involving minors between tenants, between some tenants and some of the hostel’s supervisory staff and among the supervisors themselves. The original was much clearer on that subject. Secondly, the original typescript stated:

Several allegations have been made from different individuals that Mr Keith Ashton provided glue to 15-year-old and 1 6-year-old boys who developed a glue-sniffing habit.

It has been amended to read that Ashton provides’ - present tense - ‘glue to 15-year-old and 16-year-old boys who have developed a gluesniffing habit’. The allegations referred to specific instances which were, of course, in the past and therefore the past tense ought to be used. The allegations which I brought to the attention of the Parliament last night were factual and care was taken to ensure that they were not misleading or exaggerated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman may proceed with a personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It will be recalled that in answer to the last question the Prime Minister quoted me from page 1294 of the parliamentary debates record of 29 March 1979. However, he quoted me only in part. In the circumstances it is necessary for the sake of accuracy, if not for other reasons which I think are obvious, to provide the full quote. I seek your indulgence to quote exactly. I stated:

The Prime Minister is constantly asserting that if the tax scales which I introduced as Treasurer in 1 975 applied today people would be paying $3,000m more in taxation than they are actually paying. I do not dispute that assertion.

The Prime Minister stopped there, but in fact the paragraph continues:

But we have not been in office for three years and the Prime Minister’s assertion assumes that we would have made no changes to the level of tax charges, lt ignores the substantial reductions in taxes effected on several occasions when we were in office, but more specifically it ignores one simple fact, namely that is Sir William McMahon, Australia’s greatest economist - we have that on his own say so–

At that point, Mr Speaker, you interrupted me and I continued by thanking you. I might observe that there is a situation of deja vu about that. I continued:

If the scales of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) had applied- those of 1972 when we took office - in 1975 we would have collected S2,000m more in taxation than we actually collected. What the Prime Minister put forward is a spuriously irrelevant argument.

I go on to make further relevant points. I think I have said enough so that the record is at least accurate and honest.

Mr Dawkins:

– Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Fremantle is seeking to make a personal explanation he should understand that I will not call him unless I know why he is standing.

Mr Dawkins:

– I am seeking to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– To raise a point of order the honourable gentleman should stand and call point of order’ so that I know what he wants to do. I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr Dawkins:

– Mr Speaker, you have so intimidated me that I am a bit apprehensive about saying anything.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not want to embarrass the honourable gentleman in any way, but I want to make it clear to him that he is not entitled to be called except in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is the raising of a point of order. If he wishes to stand and say ‘point of order’ I will certainly call him.

Mr Dawkins:

– Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr Dawkins:

– Mr Speaker, during Question Time you warned me as the result of an interjection which I made in relation to a statement you made concerning the conduct of the House. I did not want to interrupt Question Time as it already had been prolonged sufficiently. However, I have now risen simply to get some clarification from you in relation to the warning you gave me. It seems to me that you have established the circumstances whereby if I were to make even a trivial interjection you would be able to name me and have me thrown out of the House. It seems to me that it is fair enough for me to know exactly the way in which I have transgressed Standing Orders.

I refer you to Standing Order 303, which sets out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) the circumstances under which I could be named and therefore despatched from the chamber. Those circumstances are as follows: If a member persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House- I do not think I have done that; if he has been guilty of disorderly conduct - I do not think 1 am guilty of that; if he has used objectionable words which he has refused to withdraw - I do not think I have done that; if he has persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any standing order - I do not think I have done that; or if he has persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair. I do not think I have done any of those things.

It seems to me that it is vitally important - just in case you are referring to Standing Order 84 which refers to the fact that honourable members cannot interrupt any other speaker- that the Standing Orders be applied in an even-handed way in relation to both sides of the House. I simply refer you to the fact that last night during the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) interjected on exactly 87 occasions. In relation to my own conduct, in four sitting days prior to today, there were reported interjections from me on only two occasions. Yet I seem to have been singled out for special treatment. Today I simply interjected that there was some inconsistency it seemed to me in relation to your insisting that the Opposition show some courtesy to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) when he was answering a question when you, in fact, turned a blind eye to the discourtesy displayed to the Leader of the Opposition by Government members last night. It seems to me that that was an entirely proper observation for me to make. For me to be warned on the basis of that interjection seems to be entirely unfair. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to clarify the position I am in and to’ state whether, in fact, if I make another interjection, you will evict me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is not entitled to interject at all. All interjections are disorderly. I permit certain interjections and do not take any action against them. But when the interjection is clearly loud and designed to interrupt the proceedings of the House I call on honourable gentlemen to cease interjecting. Last night the honourable gentleman interjected in a loud voice on many occasions; he did so today. The content of the interjection was not relevant. It was the noise and the interjection which I would not accept. I warned the honourable gentleman to cease interjecting; I maintain that warning. If the honourable gentleman ceases to interject he will have no problem whatsoever.

Mr Dawkins:

– Does that mean that some members can interject and I cannot?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Dawkins:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Dawkins:

– You said that I could make–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is entitled to look at the Standing Orders and inform himself. He is not entitled to ask the Speaker to give a ruling in advance of an event. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Dawkins:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you have just said is that there are two classes of interjections.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Hodgman:

– I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Denison.

Mr Hodgman:

– I just wanted to say that I have been misrepresented again by the honourable member for Fremantle, but I will not proceed.

page 778

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

National Health Amendment Bill 1980. Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill 1980.

page 778

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I bring up the Committee’s report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs, seventy-first series, together with extracts of minutes and proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

– by leave- This report recommends the approval of works valued at $1.4m which involved 10 changes to the plan of Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly did not object to any of the variations. The report of its Finance Committee was considered in preparing this report. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has approved a variation in the Belconnen Town Centre where, last year, it had rejected proposals to which both the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and the Canberra Revival Centre objected. Since then a draft policy plan for the Belconnen Town Centre has been published and a proposed change referred to in this report is supported by the organisations which objected to the changes considered last year. On this occasion the proposal is for the deletion of part of a road reservation off Chandler Street and the addition of a road off Benjamin Way. This is in accord with the draft policy plan and will provide access to the Belconnen Town library.

The Joint Committee was concerned about the question of access to the library from northbound traffic on Benjamin Way which it did not consider satisfactory. However, the Committee was later informed by the National Capital Development Commission that it has an approved opening planned in the median of Benjamin Way to permit northbound traffic to turn right into the carpark and thus provide access to the cul-de-sac and complete the loop onto Benjamin Way. A road in Civic has also been approved although it will mean the loss of some open space and trees in the area known as Glebe Park. It will, however, permit a proposed major commercial development worth about $50m to go ahead. The Committee has noted that $100,000 has been included in the NCDC construction program for the 1980-81 year for the development of Glebe Park. The Committee has stressed that Glebe Park should be gazetted as a public park under the parks ordinance as soon as possible. It believes the area should be suitably developed as a community facility.

Another variation concerns a proposed commercial development in Deakin. The Committee has sought further information on some of the issues raised during the public hearing on this proposal and may make a statement on it at a later date. At this stage the Committee is not satisfied with the information it has received on this proposal or with the planning of the area involved. It will seek further advice from the NCDC. This variation has therefore not been approved. Other variations were necessary to remedy encroachments or to allow particular developments to proceed and all have been approved.

page 779

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I present the report of the Committee on south-west Tasmania and hydro-electric power development incorporating a dissenting report together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HODGES:

– by leave- The report that has just been tabled is the seventh report of the Committee which was established in the thirty-first Parliament. During the past year the Committee received many representations concerning southwest Tasmania and possible hydro-electric development. At the invitation of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society the Committee visited Tasmania in late February and early March this year. During this visit the Committee held informal discussions with a number of organisations and subsequently decided to place before the Parliament the views that were put to the Committee. From the outset I stress that the Committee is not in a position to oppose or support future hydroelectric developments in south-west Tasmania. The purpose of the Committee’s report is to place before the House the issues that have been drawn to the attention of the Committee.

South-west Tasmania is recognised as being of national and international significance and is one Of only three extensive temperate wilderness areas remaining in the world. Both Commonwealth and State authorities have recognised its importance. The Cartaland Committee appointed in 1975 by the Tasmanian Government concluded that the region contains areas and features of incomparable beauty and significance and recommended that a conservation area be established to cover the whole of the south-west. At the Federal level the significance of the region has been recognised by its inclusion in the Register of the National Estate. The Commonwealth Government is formally committed to assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a national park of world significance. The Commonwealth has provided funds to enable a resources survey to be undertaken in the region.

Last year the Hydro-Electric Commission recommended to the Tasmanian Government a hydro-electric development which would result in the flooding of the Gordon and Franklin rivers. Following an inquiry by a Tasmanian Government inter-departmental committee the Tasmanian Government adopted a scheme which would leave the Franklin River un flooded but would result in further damming of the Gordon River. Given that the region is so important it is essential that before any further hydro-electric development takes place a full and detailed examination of the alternatives should be undertaken. It is the Committee’s view that neither the development proposed by the Hydro-Electric Commission nor the Tasmanian Government’s proposal has been subject to this full examination.

The Committee in its report on legislative and administrative arrangements relating to environmental protection noted that there will be areas of national importance which warrant Commonwealth involvement. It is the Committee’s view that proposals likely to have an impact on southwest Tasmania are undoubtedly environmental matters of national concern which warrant Commonwealth involvement.

Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Government seek advice as to whether the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act applies to hydro-electric proposals in south-western Tasmania. If it does, the Act should be invoked. The Committee fully supports the continuing Commonwealth financial involvement in the south-west Tasmanian resources survey and the listing of the region in the register of the National Estate and believes that requests by the Tasmanian Government for assistance in establishing national parks in the southwest region should be treated sympathetically by the Commonwealth Government.

I stress that the Committee is not in a position to support or oppose the hydro-electric developments in south-west Tasmania. It is true that individual Committee members may have established their personal views. However, the Committee has not carried out an in-depth inquiry or study. I commend this report to the House.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– by leave- I support the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. It is unfortunate that we, as a Committee, have not had time to undertake a full inquiry. The Chairman mentioned earlier that the Committee visited the south-west region of Tasmania, not unfortunately from the headwaters of the Franklin River because that would have taken more rugged characters than presently serve on the Committee. As honourable members will see on looking around the House, some of the members making up the Committee are not noted for their physical characteristics. We spent three days in that area. It was a scene something like out of Deliverance as we paddled nine miles down the Franklin. I wish that the members of this House could have seen the Chairman in full flight. It was something that had to be seen to be believed. That was a very rich experience for me and I am sure I speak for other members of the Committee in that we were fortunate–

Mr Cotter:

– Tell them what you said.

Mr COHEN:

– I do not intend to tell the House or the nation all the events of that weekend. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie can sleep in peace tonight. That trip was a rich experience for me and for other members of the Committee because we had read about and seen photographs and television programs of the south-west area of Tasmania. But it is one thing to read about it and another to experience it physically. It is without doubt one of the most exquisitely beautiful areas that I have ever seen. I am not very poetic. All I can say is that I wish I were so that I could try to convey to people what a magnificent part of the world it is. I invite everybody in the House to come to Senate Committee Rooms one and 2 at 6.45 this evening, where two members of the Committee - the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) and I - have arranged for a film entitled South-West Tasmania, the Last Wild River to be shown. I hate to get commercials in but I am sure that honourable members will understand.

Mr Cotter:

– How much are the tickets?

Mr COHEN:

– In the honourable member’s case, $10; everybody else, free. As I said, it was a very brief visit. We met with officers of the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission and with officials of the Strahan community. We were not able to take evidence or hear submissions; so the best we could do in the short time available was to make the recommendation that there needs to be a full inquiry into the south-west. The Tasmanian Government has made a courageous decision in that it is the first time it has come out in support of the wilderness instead of in support of energy proposals such as the continuation of further hydroelectric schemes. Nevertheless, there is concern expressed by many that what is proposed may still do considerable damage to what is clearly one of Australia’s great assets. I hold the view that it is not the Federal Parliament’s responsibility to become involved in every environmental issue but there are some national assets that are so important to the nation and the world that if they are placed at risk we have a responsibility as Australians first, before our State responsibilities, to take an interest and to be actively involved in trying to ensure that there is no damage done. The south-west is one area which needs protection. The Great Barrier Reef is clearly another; the red centre, Kakadu and Fraser Island are national assets, not just State assets. It is imperative that we, as a Parliament, look as closely as possible at what is happening in those areas and that we take every measure possible to see that the area in south-western Tasmania is preserved for future generations.

One has to understand that in that area there is virtually no interference from mankind. There are no towns, roads or villages. The only way that one can get into the place is by raft or boat or by helicopter and then paddle down the rivers. I understand it takes about 10 days. It is important that man has parts of the earth still left in their natural state without the intervention of introduced species. A part of the world should be retained in its original state. If we can possibly do that in the south-west, we must do so.

I want to pay particular tribute to the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and to those who head it; Dr Bob Brown and Mr Peter Thompson. I think that this country is very fortunate in having citizens of the calibre of those two men. There are many others like them who are prepared to devote their lives and their time–

Mr Goodluck:

– What about the hydro?

Mr COHEN:

– What about the hydro?

Mr Goodluck:

– Just what about the hydro?

Mr COHEN:

– I am talking about Dr Brown and Mr Thompson. Can I not pay tribute to two great Australians without talking about something else? When the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) speaks about defence I do not ask him: ‘What about the environment?’ I am talking about the service that two very young and very great Australians have made to our society. We are lucky that there are such people who are prepared to give their time and effort to save something that they feel is very valuable to them. I commend the report to the House.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– by leave- I would not normally seek leave to make a statement at this stage but I have been given to believe by the Whips that we will not have another opportunity to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation during the current session of Parliament. I think it is terribly important that we have some opportunity to make a reference to the report in the House. It is for that reason that I make my comments, as briefly as possible. I disagree with the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who has said that the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation covers only the environmental aspects of the south-west of Tasmania, That comment ignores completely the economic impact of electricity generation in Tasmania. It may be fair enough for the Committee to comment on the environmental impact but it gives only an imbalanced and one-sided look at the whole issue of the environmental situation and the impact that not proceeding with hydroelectric developments would have on Tasmania’s economy.

I would like briefly to point out some comments that were made by the Evers committee of inquiry which looked at both the economy of and the environmental impact on the south-west of Tasmania. The report stated:

It is stressed that the position is so delicately poised that growth in demand could lead to power shortages resulting in explicit power rationing and or the inability to supply the legitimate electricity needs of industry, commerce and households. In these circumstances the directorate is not convinced of the ability of the development proposed by the commission - the development of the lower Gordon River to adequately cover the power situation.

The report goes on to state:

For these reasons it is clear that desirable industrial development may need to be curtailed during the present decade unless sufficient generating capacity can be made available during its latter half.

The point I make is that the report which has been brought down at this stage by the Committee covers only the environmental aspects of the south-west of Tasmania. It ignores completely the economic impact on Tasmania if either of the proposals which have been brought down by the Tasmanian Government or, for that matter, the conclusions which have been drawn by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation are accepted. I believe that if we in this Federal Parliament are to look constructively at the impact of the development of the south-west of Tasmania there must be the opportunity to consider also the economic impact on the State of Tasmania - not just on environmental aspects in the south-west of Tasmania.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– by leave- The report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the south-west of Tasmania suggests that: . . only by a Federal inquiry will national considerations and all the alternatives be fully examined.

Further, the Committee suggests that the Commonwealth Government seek advice as to whether the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 applies to the proposed Gordon River Power Development stage 2 and, if there is a proposal as defined under the Act, that it be invoked. This strong recommendation of a committee of this Parliament follows a visit to the south-west of Tasmania in February and discussions with representatives of the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission and of conservation organisations in Tasmania including the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. On the basis of the evidence received from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and of its own members’ inspection of the area, the Committee accepted the fact that the area was of unquestioned environmental value and of national significance. Since our visit to the area but before this report was completed, the south-west was listed as part of the National Estate by the Australian Heritage Commission. The Committee has recently been through an exhaustive examination of Australian environmental legislation and administration. Our report on the subject was tabled in October 1979. After considering the question of the relative responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States on environmental matters, the committee, in its unanimous report, recommended that: . . Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection be restricted to . . . areas under the direct control of the Commonwealth (e.g. Commonwealth Territories), Commonwealth works and activities, activities which the States have referred to the Commonwealth and matters considered by the Commonwealth to be of national significance.

The Committee’s report was being compiled at a time when the Commonwealth had announced that it was in the process of revising environmental legislation. The Committee under these circumstances made it clear that it was its unanimous view that: the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 should not be amended in a manner which would preclude an independent assessment of projects by the Commonwealth.

The Australian Heritage Commission has made quite clear its interest in the south-west as an environment of national significance by listing the region as part of the National Estate. This report recommends that the Commonwealth should seek a legal opinion whether Federal legislation applies to what some members of the Committee argued was merely a State matter.

Has the Commonwealth power then to order that the Act be invoked in a situation in which State works or proposed works are involved? The extent of Commonwealth power with respect to environmental protection is canvassed in our previous report in which alternative bases of Commonwealth power are considered, including powers listed in the Constitution, the implied power of the Commonwealth and, finally, fiscal powers. This section of that report concluded that the Commonwealth’s incidental powers are extremely far-reaching but that its exercise of those powers should be limited to the cases that I have mentioned, particularly to matters of national significance.

It is perhaps of some interest to recall that Treasury was most reluctant to provide evidence to the Committee of its views concerning Commonwealth powers in environmental legislation. This puzzled me at the time. However, there was subsequently made available to the Press a number of documents which established beyond doubt that the Commonwealth Treasury had been seeking to have the legislation amended from the moment of its inception, despite the platforms of successive parties in power. Following this advice successive Treasurers have sought to have Treasury’s operations excluded from the ambit of the Act. This no doubt explains why Treasury was reluctant to give evidence to the Committee of this Parliament.

For example, on 16 February 1976 the then Treasurer, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) wrote to the Minister responsible for the environment in the following terms:

I feel I must ask that you approve the absolute exemption from the requirements of the Act and the procedures of all economic and fiscal measures.

I allow members of the House to make their own judgments whether Treasury was using the Minister or the Minister was using the Treasury by simply referring to a sentence in the Liberal Party platform of that time which stated:

Within our constitutional limits, reject proposals that can do substantial injury to the environment, unless the national interest dictates otherwise.

The relevance of this campaign, which has been conducted by Treasury, to the report currently before the House is to be found in identifying that which clearly links the Commonwealth with the south-west; that is, Commonwealth fiscal responsibilities. Whereas Treasury had sought to exclude Loan Council decisions from the ambit of Commonwealth legislation prior to 1978, in that year the Commonwealth introduced an entirely new borrowing program which identified, in each of the States, loans for specific developmental projects. Included in this program, which was announced on 6 November 1978, there was a specific amount of $75m allocated to Tasmania, which was linked to specific hydro-electric schemes including the Pieman River Power Development Scheme and the Lower Gordon Scheme which was to start in a substantial way in 1981-82.

The Treasury documents to which I refer indicate that as early as June 1978 the Department of Science and the Environment had been discussing with the Attorney-General’s Department the implications of this change to specific project-based loan approvals for coverage of the Act. Advice on this matter had been formally requested in a letter dated 14 September 1978 from A. J. Blunden of the former Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. It was, therefore, somewhat confusing to me that I should receive an answer to my question of 15 April on the relevance of the Act to the south-west of Tasmania in that it failed to provide any indication of the thinking of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on this matter.

Given that the Attorney-General’s Department must have been considering the matter in fairly specific terms since 1 978, why was the Minister unable to give a clear statement of the Department’s view of Commonwealth powers with respect to projects, in this case the proposed projects in the south-west of Tasmania? My interpretation would have to be that the Minister’s judgment is influenced to some extent by the view, for example, of Treasurer Howard who wrote on 23 November 1978, suggesting that ‘in the case of projects in the States for which the Commonwealth has no direct responsibility, the primary responsibility for environmental protection should rest with the States’. However, Mr Howard also pointed out that ‘the existing Act and procedures places a legal responsibility which is far too open ended’; that is, the legislation, as it is currently drafted, is extremely difficult to avoid. Quite clearly, in my view, the Commonwealth is involved in the south-west in a quite direct way through the Heritage Commission Act and through its approval of loans for hydro-electric projects in the south-west of Tasmania. There is no question, in my view, that the area is of national significance and that the underlying energy issue also requires some consideration from the national point of view, which to some extent it is receiving.

It is the considered view of the Committee that while in no way reflecting on Mr Lowe and the Tasmanian Government, which, after all, will be under considerable pressure to reverse its decision to save the Franklin River - a decision which I applaud - the Commonwealth should seek a public inquiry under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act as provided for also under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. The scale of expenditure involved, whether for further hydro-electric schemes or for the preservation of the area, will require, almost of its nature, national government support. It should be possible to relate national resources to the achievement of objectives sought by both the national Government and the Tasmanian Government. It is regrettable that the Fraser Government should have initiated no inquiries under this legislation since it was elected in 1975.

Finally, one of the issues which underline the situation is the considerable power of bureaucracy both in Tasmania and here in Canberra. In my view, it is quite clear that the Commonwealth Treasury has consistently sought to override Federal environmental legislation put in place by this Parliament. A committee of this Parliament which has some standing in the community because of its thoughtfulness and the care taken with previous reports has expressed a strong view on an important matter. It is to be hoped that the Government gives the report very serious consideration and reports to the Parliament at the earliest moment on the legal issues involved. In my view there is strong evidence that the Attorney-General has had ample time and opportunity to prepare a view. That view ought now to be made public. Whatever the legalities of the situation, it is the responsibility of the national Government not to seek to avoid stating its views on this important question of the future of southwest Tasmania. To fail to do so is simply to strengthen those forces which would use the divisions which exist within Tasmania and perhaps nationally to achieve short term ends quite incompatible with the interests of this significant wilderness area and its wild rivers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Since calling the honourable member for Wilmot I have ascertained who are the Committee members. I intend to give them precedence in this debate. I hope that they will allow enough time for other obviously interested people to comment.

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. A time limit has not been laid down for this debate, but I was very brief as I thought it was the wish of the Government to keep the debate brief. I could have spoken for 20 minutes but I kept my remarks brief. If we are to have a wideranging debate that is to go on all afternoon we will, have to reconsider our position. Opposition members understood that a few speakers would speak for only five minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is really not the business of the Chair. I have simply stated my intentions.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– by leaveFirstly, I treat with utter contempt the fact that this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has been made available to the Press by a member of the Committee prior to its being tabled and debated in this Parliament. It is a clear breach of parliamentary privilege to take that action. I dissociate myself entirely from the fact that the report was made available to the Press prior to its being brought to this chamber for discussion.

The Committee has been very charitable in its report towards the decision of the Tasmanian Government to dam the Lower Gordon River. At the moment the Committee has made only one recommendation of substance. It calls on the Commonwealth Government to seek legal advice to determine whether the constitutional power exists to call for an environmental impact statement under the relative Commonwealth legislation. There is a school of thought which seeks to sheet home to the Commonwealth Government the responsibility for determining this matter within the State of Tasmania. Clearly, under the constitutional arrangements of government in this country the responsibility for land use and planning falls specifically onto the shoulders of the State governments. There are only one or two exceptions where the Commonwealth has a direct involvement. One is in respect of Commonwealth owned land. Another is where the granting of export licences is involved. The Commmonwealth has taken action in both situations in the life of this Parliament and the previous Parliament.

I regard the decision by the Tasmanian Government as an act of environmental vandalism. I would put it in terms no less substantial than that. We have here the prospect of a priceless national asset being destroyed or at least violated for what I regard as only short term economic gain. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) summed up this situation very adequately in a recent speech when he said:

  1. . we have not inherited the earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.

That is a very appropriate way of stating the situation as it applies here. It may be said that the decision taken by the Tasmanian Government is the lesser of two evils. Certainly it does not violate the Franklin River system. The fact is that one cannot carry out a project of the magnitude contemplated by this decision without interfering with the integrity of a most significant part of the south-west region of Tasmania. I would mention also a very apparent anomaly. We have here a situation in which the area under consideration is listed under the National Estate and, under Commonwealth legislation, that places the most onerous restrictions on any action that can be taken by the Commonwealth Government or any Minister or Department of that Government. The same measure does not apply to a State government, a State Minister or a State department. I would have thought that this was a very good example of the need for State legislation to be passed in compliance with Commonwealth legislation insofar as it affects areas which have been registered under the National Estate.

I said earlier, in as many words, that this decision falls fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Tasmanian Government. I would like to quote quickly three paragraphs from a statement made by the Prime Minister on 9 June 1980 which bears very special relevance to the Committee’s report. At that time the Prime Minister said:

As part of our election policy in 1975 we promised to assist the Tasmanian Government to establish a national park of world significance in South West Tasmania which would include a substantial wilderness area.

In accordance with this commitment, over the past three years we have provided $350,000 to the Tasmanian Government to bring together all relevant background information on South West Tasmania.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

This study, which has been undertaken in association with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and is now nearing completion, will assist the Tasmanian Government in deciding the future of the area and in reconciling the different potential uses of this beautiful remote region of temperate Australia.

Most importantly, he concluded with these words:

I have recently advised the Tasmanian Government of the Commonwealth’s willingness to provide further practical assistance should the Tasmanian Government decide to proceed with the establishment of a national park.

In those words I believe the Prime Minister has spelt out very clearly the willingness of the Commonwealth Government to work in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government to see that the areas discussed in this report should not be violated. I would like also to draw attention to what I think is a very significant resolution by the Tasmanian Government. I understand that it came from a Cabinet minute of the Tasmanian Government in March 1979. That Government resolved:

  1. . to submit a case to the Commonwealth Government for a substantial and continuing appropriation of funds for South-West Tasmania in keeping with its value to the nation as a whole . . .

Although the Committee did not give consideration to this aspect of the issue, I have it on the best advice that the Tasmanian Government has not acted on its own Cabinet decision of March 1979. It has not submitted a case to the Commonwealth for special or continuing assistance in respect of south-west Tasmania. This is all flying in the face of an unequivocal statement by the Prime Minister, from which I quoted a few moments ago, which in effect offers the full assistance and support of the Commonwealth Government to see that this area of Tasmania is not violated. The Committee was particularly charitable that it did not go into the matter to the extent of pointing out the disparity that exists between the attitude of the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government towards the salvation of this most significant area.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

– by leave- I have submitted a dissenting report with the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and would like to explain my motives for doing so. Firstly, I would like to express my appreciation to the Tasmanian Wilderness Society for the invitation extended to me to visit south-west Tasmania. I express my appreciation to that Society for the hospitality it offered our group when we visited Tasmania. I was most impressed with the sincerity of the people involved in that organisation. I am thankful that I was given the unique opportunity of visiting the area and experiencing some of the beauty and the wonders of the Lower Franklin River and the Lower Gordon River.

The main reasons why I dissent from this present report are that firstly, I am not convinced that there is a direct Commonwealth involvement in the hydro-electric proposals and secondly, the Tasmanian Government has reached its decision only after an in-depth inquiry by that Government through a Co-ordination Committee on Future Power Development to which conservation organisations including the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and others were given the opportunity to present their views. I also think that for the Committee to have brought down a recommendation to seek legal advice on whether it is possible to invoke the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act is totally premature. The members of the Committee spent one evening, one night and one short morning on the Lower Gordon River and one small part on the Lower Franklin River. We penetrated approximately a mile into the Franklin River. So we were not in a position to investigate the sheer beauty over the total length of the Franklin River. I do not doubt the beauty of the river and I do not doubt the sincerity of the people involved. I have viewed a couple of films about the river. I was most impressed by talks by Dr Brown and Mr Thompson from the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and I appreciate their views. But I believe that if the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation wishes to pursue its present thought as to whether the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act should be invoked it should carry out an in-depth inquiry, take official evidence and satisfy itself that that is the best course.

I am not trying to denigrate the Franklin or the Gordon rivers. I am not personally in a position to say whether they should or should not be dammed. I do not believe that any member of the Committee is in a position to say whether those rivers should or should not be dammed. I believe that a lot more evidence needs to be gathered before such a sweeping recommendation can be brought down. To base such a sweeping recommendation on a brief visit of one afternoon, one night and one evening about one mile into the Lower Franklin River, I believe, to be totally inconsistent with the previous reports brought down by this Standing Committee which has carried out in-depth inquiries into a broad range of subjects.

There is no question at all that if there were a normal subject devoid of emotion we would have taken formal evidence. But this Committee has not taken any formal evidence whatsoever on the subject. It has had some very brief informal discussions with one or two groups involved but I do not believe that that is the sort of evidence which is required by a Committee of our standing on which to base such a sweeping recommendation. Since we have been discussing this matter in our Committee I have fought for our taking much more formal evidence on which we could base a rational decision.

Finally, I would like to say that I deplore the fact that this report was leaked to the Press some days ago and that at least one member of the Committee was well informed on it. He appeared on the television program Nationwide and was in a position to comment on the report before it had even been presented to this Parliament. I believe that to be a deplorable and despicable action. I believe it breaches all normal practice in regard to parliamentary committees. 1 believe it is destroying the confidence of this Parliament and is in line with other leaks we have seen over recent days from this Parliament and from offices around the Parliament. It will destroy the confidence not only of the Parliament but of the committees that work within the Parliament.

Mr Cohen:

– You nearly destroyed this Committee by your actions over the last few days so don’t you attack anyone in this House on this issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member for Robertson will resume his seat.

Mr COTTER:

– If the cap fits wear it. that is what I say.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr COTTER:

– If you are so tender about leaking documents around this House you wear the cap and wear the responsibilities that go with it.

Mr Cohen:

– You nearly wrecked the Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr COTTER:

– If you are such a vandal and so irresponsible as to carry out such a despicable act–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to restrain himself and the honourable member for Robertson not to interject in the proceedings.

Mr COTTER:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I made my remarks in a very restrained fashion and in fact I would have been tempted to raise my voice had I thought I was not being heard. The fact is that I believe it is a totally despicable action by members of the Committee who are willing to leak documents to the Press and to comment on them in the Press long before they have been formally tabled in this Parliament.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Having regard to the high standard set by the Speaker in Question Time today is it in order for any member of this Parliament to refer to another member as being involved in a despicable action in leaking documents to the Press? Are not those remarks such that they ought to be withdrawn?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No member of this place was identified in the remarks of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie.

Mr COTTER:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, I made my remarks in a very moderate fashion. I named no person. But if some person wants to step forward and identify himself in that fashion, then I believe it is on his own head. I go back to where I started regarding this report because I think it is the most important part of what I am trying to say, that is, that the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has not carried out a sufficient level of investigation, lt has taken no formal evidence. It is not in a position to bring down the sweeping recommendation it has brought down and 1 oppose that recommendation. I believe that the Committee should carry out further investigations and take ample evidence in a formal manner as is normal. It would then be in a better position to bring down a recommendation. I do not denigrate the sheer beauty of that area. As I said, I am not in a position to condemn or condone the damming or non-damming of those rivers. I present my dissenting report for consideration.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– by leave-I regret the intemperate language used by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter). I hope we can deal with this matter as a national responsibility without necessarily bringing partisan politics into it. The important thing is to look at the wording of the recommendations by the Committee. The recommendations are not very arbitrary or sweeping, and almost endorse the words, in part, of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie who is now leaving the chamber. The recommendations read:

The Committee has not had the time nor has it the resources to examine in detail the complex considerations such as wilderness and conservation values, employment, alternative proposals, future energy requirements and industrial development. Accordingly, the Committee makes no recommendations supporting or opposing further hydro-electric developments in South West Tasmania.

In other words, the Committee says that the subject needs very much more investigation. That is the nature of the recommendation. What the Committee is also saying, I suppose, is: Where there is a choice between doing something rapidly that has an arbitrary and an irrevocable consequence, that is to say, damming and flooding a river system or not, then hold back until you are sure you have investigated it; hold back until you are sure you know more about it. This is a recommendation for an injunction; a recommendation to hold back. When something which has an irrevocable consequence is to be done, do not do it.

I will just make one more quasi-political observation. There was a criticism by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) of the Labor Government in Tasmania. The honourable member was arguing that the Tasmanian Labor Government was going to commit an act of environmental vandalism. It is reasonable to point out the political context in Tasmania where the State Opposition, the Liberal Party, has strongly advocated the flooding of the Franklin and the Gordon rivers. It has criticised the compromise put up by the Tasmanian Government. My own point of view, supported by many in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, is that we would wish to have the Olga River saved if possible. It is very important that an inquiry be held as set out in the public inquiry provisions of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. If that inquiry endorsed what the Tasmanian Government is doing then it strengthens that Government’s position. If, on the other hand, it is criticised, it may well be that there is an obligation–

Mr Cohen:

– Or alternatives.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Or alternatives put up- and it may well be that the Commonwealth Government of the day will have an obligation to provide alternative funding so that Tasmania is assisted to carry out the things it wants to do. But we cannot look at this matter on a basis of States’ rights. It has to be looked at as a national problem. I believe that the Tasmanian south-west is an area of national significance. That is why it is on the

National Heritage list. We must take a broad Australian national view about the whole area.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– by leave- My remarks will be brief.

Mr Innes:

– Thank God for that.

Mr HODGMAN:

– It is a very important matter for Tasmanians. I regret very much two factors in respect of this debate. Firstly, I regret that it has taken place when honourable members who are not members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation do not have a copy of the report in their hands. I am told it is not yet available.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member is better than I am. I do not know whether he obtained his copy from the attendant’s office. However, some other honourable members would like to know where they too can get copies.

Mr Cohen:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. The honourable member has reflected on the Committee. It is not the procedure of committees to distribute copies of their reports to honourable members, other than members of the committee concerned, prior to reports being presented in the House.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) said he was not a member of the Committee. He has a copy of the report and I, a Tasmanian, have not. I make a protest about that. I also make a protest about the fact that this report has been leaked to the Press. The honourable member for Robertson has just handed me a copy of the report and I thank him. I wish that next time the honourable member would make a copy available to Tasmanian members because we have been called upon to debate a report which we have not seen.

This report has been leaked to the Tasmanian Press. Every Tasmanian member has had phone calls from journalists in Hobart and other parts of the State asking him to comment on a report which basically affects a very important part of our State. I believe that whoever leaked that document did so not with motives to assist Tasmania but to put members in a situation of embarrassment, I want to make it quite clear that I have nothing but contempt for the person or persons who leaked that report to the Tasmanian media.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Get on with it.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Look, it is all very well

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar) Order! The honourable member for Denison will ignore interjections. I ask honourable members to desist from interjecting. The honourable member for Denison will address himself to the matter on which he sought leave to speak.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Thank you, sir. The very first legal question as to whether or not the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act applies to the south-west is of utmost importance. As a lawyer, I believe that it has to be clarified. In particular, I want clarification as to whether or not there is any truth in suggestions which are abroad that amending legislation may be brought into this Parliament to exclude the operation of that Act if in fact it does apply.

As a matter of urgency, I seek confirmation of the opinion which I have given, which I believe is correct, that section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act does apply to Ministers, departments and statutory authorities in relation to the south-west. I also want to refer to the commitment for continuing Commonwealth funding. I make the point which has already been made by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu), that to date there has been no request from the Tasmanian Government to the Federal Government for funding in respect of the southwest. I will no doubt be accused of double standards when I say that it is my belief that the decision in respect of the south-west should primarily be made by the people of Tasmania. But I add the rider that the cost of preserving, maintaining and protecting the south-west, which is already on the register of the Australian Heritage Commission and which is a world heritage area, should be borne by the taxpayers of Australia because it is-

Mr Cohen:

– You want the best of both worlds, don’t you?

Mr HODGMAN:

– I do indeed.

Mr Cohen:

– You want the taxpayer to pay all the money and Tasmania to make all the decisions.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The reason I say that is that I am a little closer to the problem than the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr Cohen:

-But you are quite happy to get the rest of Australia to foot the bill.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Robertson, I thought, was supporting whatI am saying, but he is not. The pretty clear implication from that is that a Labor government would not provide funds to the Tasmanian Government if it sought them to preserve the south-west. That is the implication of what the honourable member is saying.

Mr Cohen:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark. He has put words into my mouth that neither I nor any other member on this side of the House has ever used.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! There is no point of order.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I urge the Opposition to make up its mind as to what its position is on the question of Commonwealth funds to preserve the south-west. It is no secret that I am not happy about the Olga scheme proposal. After seeing this report and after seeing the report of the Tasmanian Legislative Council select committee, I want the opportunity to debate the matter in this Parliament. It seems that we are not going to have that opportunity and that, I think, is regrettable. Last, but not least, I believe it is well worth recounting–

Mr Cohen:

– It is double talk - two bob each way Hodgman.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HODGMAN:

– I say, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member is not entitled to make that comment. He flies in and out of Tasmania like a butterfly. I live in the place; I know the area; I went through the Lake Pedder issue and I was involved in the environment of this State before the honourable member was even a member of this Parliament. I just want to say to the honourable member that his remarks prove to me beyond any doubt that he is more interested in playing politics than in the long term safety of the south-west. He does not appear even to realise that the Legislative Council of Tasmania is a House of the Tasmanian Parliament, that it has a select committee that has not yet reported, that it will have to approve the appropriation and that it has clearly in my view the constitutional power to defeat the Bill to appropriate funds for the Olga scheme. When the honourable member starts thinking about those problems and goes home to his homework, he might be a little better informed about Tasmania. He should do this instead of trying to use the south-west once again as a political exercise. We have exposed the honourable member today as a fraud because he has caught himself in a situation in which a Labor government will not provide funds to preserve Tasmania’s south-west.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– by leave- My remarks will be brief. Although I have seen the report in the House today, I have not had an opportunity to look at it closely. But in the balance of fairness I believe - I think that my colleagues would agree - that we are starting to get involved in a political dog fight. The debate on this matter in Tasmania was most divisive. We did not intervene and we did not get involved because we thought it was a State matter. We left it to the State Government and, of course, to the Opposition to fight over the issues. Of course, other people are involved. But we, as Federal parliamentarians representing Tasmania, stayed out of it to a certain degree. I believe that now we are starting to get involved. Certain parliamentarians from other States are bringing us into this debate as a result of this report. Personally, I do not mind because I have heard a lot of things in this House today that perturb me greatly. I will finish my remarks by issuing a warning that if the Tasmanian people want me to get involved 1 will get involved. I will not get involved as did a politician on the program Nationwide the other night - the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe). I have the guts to accuse him. The honourable member for Batman was on television the night the report was apparently leaked.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Behind his back.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– Bring him in.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You do not have the courage to say that to his face.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– The honourable member knows I have the courage to say it to his face.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Franklin will address himself to the matter before the Chair.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– I am not saying he leaked the report. The honourable member for Robertson took the blame for that. He showed a little bit of courage.

Mr Cohen:

– Are you accusing me of leaking that report?

Mr GOODLUCK:

– You did not hear me correctly. You misunderstood what I said.

Mr Cohen:

– I will not only have you here but also have you outside at any time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member for Robertson–

Mr GOODLUCK:

– You could not have anything. You are like a big baboon. You go down to Tasmania for one day and think you can run the place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Franklin–

Mr GOODLUCK:

– But you are in for a rude shock. If you want a fight over this issue, you will get it.

Mr Cohen:

– Are you accusing me of leaking that report? You are a bloody little twerp.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. The honourable member for Robertson must not persist in interjecting in that fashion and defying the Chair in the process. When the Chair calls for order, it expects order.

Mr Cohen:

– I raise a point of order. I apologise for my behaviour. I ask for a withdrawal. The honourable member for Franklin accused me of leaking a report of the House of Representatives–

Mr GOODLUCK:

– I did not.

Mr Cohen:

– I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– I did not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is the Chair’s recollection that the honourable member for Franklin did not make such an allegation.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– No.

Mr Cohen:

– He said that I took the blame. I did not take the blame.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Franklin has the call and I ask him to address himself to the report.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– The report was presented today. I issued the note of warning that if the people of Tasmania want Federal Tasmanian parliamentarians to get involved we will get involved. We have a point of view and we will express that point of view, but not from a distance like a few others are doing at the moment.

page 789

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Reports

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works;

Aircraft maintenance complex and access pavements, RAAF base. Darwin, Northern Territory; and new hangar complex, HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 789

DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

The dangers for Australia in the Fraser Government’s exaggerated claims concerning development prospects and the Government’s omissions in developing proper policies for the balanced and integrated development of Australia ensuring the maximum benefits for the Australian community.

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

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– The Opposition has proposed this matter of public importance for discussion because the Government is attempting to mislead the Australian public about the potential for resource development and about the benefits which will flow from such development. The Government’s economic strategy places almost complete faith in the so-called resources boom as a means of solving all our economic ills. The Government should come clean and should tell the public the truth about the likely extent, the real extent, of resource development and its real impact upon the economy. At the same time, it ought to explain to the public where it will find employment in the cities of Australia where most Australians live, in urbanised areas which have a high level of home ownership. That is where people want to find a job. Instead of that, the Government believes that the only jobs that it ought to make available are the jobs in the back ends of Queensland or Western Australia. Even when people go to such places, the Government pursues them for their $6 a week housing tax. The Government is not content simply to let people work in remote localities.

This Government has no solution to unemployment other than to hop in the back of the coal truck. Without any management of the policy by the Government of Australia, the priorities for decisions are being taken by foreign investors and by other customer countries. What we find is that the scenario which has been painted by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is not agreed with by significant elements of the Government and the bureaucracy. We find that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is one of the people who has criticised this ‘let it all hang out’ policy of development at any price. The Department of the Treasury as well has made statements concerning the inhibitions that it has with respect to an unbridled growth. The Australian Industries Development Association- that lobby organisation for Australian industry- was very forthright in its views as was the Government’s own interdepartmental committee on economic strategy. Significant elements of the bureaucracy and the Government itself have created doubts as have this year’s Budget documents about the manner in which this whole matter is being attended to in terms of Government policy. No matter where one turns there are warnings. The Government has chosen to ignore the warnings. Now it wants to claim all the development in Australia as its own work. It has adopted a facile, puerile approach and has said that the Opposition has opposed development. It has claimed: ‘We are in favour of development and the whole development proposal is ours’. It is as though the Government can put some kind of noose around development.

The Prime Minister talks about the national development program. Most of the things which are happening are projects which were started largely by the States and by certain State Premiers. The carpetbaggers, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) - the Deputy Prime Minister sits opposite leering - would like to suggest that all the developments in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria are their work and that these projects belong to them. They do not have the imagination to start anything. All they have done is to approve borrowings. They have allowed the States to carry the economic responsibility for their own borrowings. The Commonwealth does not carry that economic responsibility.

This Government has no policy. It talks about the bonanza of coal sales to Japan - about 36 million tonnes of coking coal. The world steel industry is still in a state of flux. There is not much growth in it. The unit tonnes of coking coal per tonne of steel are declining continually. The great hope is built on steaming coal. We are exporting about five million tonnes of steaming coal. The only places to which we can export steaming coal are new steam coal power stations. We have heard no talk from the Government about Australia moving in and converting all those oil-fired stations in Japan and providing pulverised coal so that they can use some of the fluid characteristics of powdered coal. We have heard nothing like that. We have heard nothing which shows imagination or genius. The Government’s attitude is to sit back and wait until some Japanese or European customer crosses its door and drops a contract in its lap. The Government says: ‘Don’t worry about anything. It will be okay. Don’t worry how much capacity there will be. Don’t worry whether we will flood the market and depress prices. Don’t worry about prices in general’. Australia today is selling the best coking coal in the world at $8 per tonne or $10 per tonne less than it is worth. On 35 million tonnes of coal, that represents a loss of $350m to national income. The Government has no pricing policy on coal. It has a development policy, the priorities of which are managed largely by our customers.

The Labor Party wants an integrated and balanced development that measures not only the wealth which is the creation of the mineral industry with its comparatively low employment but also the higher level of employment resulting from manufacturing industry development, processing industries and raw materials processing in Australia. We are not seeing that from the Fraser Government. We are not seeing any balance in the development. All the Government is looking at is the question of basic development. It has a strategy based upon the purchasing priorities of customer countries and that is all. What do we get in domestic political terms? We do not get an intelligent attempt by the Government to have a bi-partisan policy with the Opposition. That has been offered to the Government on many occasions. The Australian Labor Party has done as much as the Government to see that the North West Shelf project succeeds. That has been the case in a number of other projects. But the Government keeps talking in terms of exaggerated claims. The amount of $29 billion is referred to in the fraudulent publication which is put out each year by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is called ‘Major Manufacturing and Mining Investment Projects’. Highly exaggerated claims are made in that document. For instance, during the 1977 election campaign there was a promise of $15 billion worth of projects, on the basis of the same report. Forty per cent of these are still in the pipeline. Three years later we are waiting for the promised boom.

Three years ago the Deputy Prime Minister could not stop talking about uranium. We heard about it day in and day out. This was going to save Australia’s economic skin. We do not hear him talking about uranium today. You do not talk about it today, Doug, do you? We do not get a mention of uranium today. Now we hear about Rundle. Uranium is out; Rundle is in. The Deputy Prime Minister talked about the contracts signed with Energy Resources of Australia for Ranger at $35 per lb. lt was $35 per lb four years ago. In real terms, the price is probably about $20 per lb and the Deputy Prime Minister knows that. The Government is flogging Australia’s resources for nothing to people who want to stockpile and want to take advantage of the Government’s arrant stupidity. The Minister is the greatest mug salesman Australia has ever had. Somebody could sell him the town hall clock, and he would sell anything for nothing. He is not protecting those things which are of real value to Australia. Of course the Japanese will collect and stockpile it. They wanted to buy it at $5 per lb, and the Minister has attacked the Labor Minister, Mr Connor, for not selling it at $5 per lb. Wherever we look we find these criticisms of the Government’s policy. The Australian Industries Development Association, in a very frank expose of policy, had this to say in its June bulletin:

  1. . there are serious limitations in official surveys and statistics which considerably overstate the degree and pace of the impending boom.

I emphasise the words ‘considerable overstate’. It went on:

The use of these surveys and statistics is leading to an overoptimistic and simplistic picture of the general level of investment in the 1980s.

Of course, the AIDA is right. It further stated:

Present in the official surveys are significant elements of double counting in which competitive and mutually exclusive projects are assumed to proceed, as well as inclusion of projects in the final feasibility stage . . .

That is completely true. The director of that organisation, Geoff Allen, was immediately nobbled by all the Tories in the Government because he had let the cat out of the bag. Let us look at the survey by the Department of Industry and Commerce to which he was referring. For instance, in relation to iron ore developments in Western Australia, in the final evaluation and awaiting contract stage in the Pilbara there is Goldsworthy’s area C, Deepdale and Marandoo. The Deputy Prime Minister knows, I know, and anyone associated with the Japanese steel industry knows, that not all of those projects will go onmaybe one, perhaps two in the long term, but not three. Yet the three projects are included here as if they were all going to move next year.

Dealing with coking coal in Queensland, there is Hail Creek, Nebo and German Creek, three massive coking coal projects. Those projects will not be moving in the way in which this report suggests. I remember, when the Whitlam Government was in power, that foreign investment approvals were given for the Nebo project to proceed, and it could not get contracts. The same thing applied to the Hail Creek consortium. Western Mining Corporation Ltd and Conzinc Reotinto of Australia Ltd were in it and then out of it because it was in the economic doldrums, and it still is. German Creek is in the same situation. Yet all those projects are listed as though they are ready to start - there will be a big demand for coking coal, and away they will go. Of course, this is a complete and utter fabrication. Let us consider uranium, say, in the Northern Territory, and what the Government has the hide to include in that respect. It has included the Ranger mine, and that is fair enough, but it also has Jabiluka and Pancontinental. The dogs are barking that Pancontinental will never get approval from the Government, let alone the Aboriginal community there. The product cannot be sold, and honourable members opposite know that. Koongarra is in the same position. Koongarra was blackguarded by the Ranger report, and it will not be developed. Yet Koongarra, Jabiluka and Ranger are included for the Northern Territory. It is absolute bunkum; worse than that, it is dishonest. It is misleading the Australian public. It is part of this phoney development syndrome that the Government wants to attach to itself, and it will not stand up to any scrutiny.

In the interdepartmental committee report from which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) quoted last night in his speech on the Budget we find very clear reservations. This is the highest government bureaucratic body looking at the development area, and its report states:

Great caution is necessary in interpreting any aggregation of individual projects, particularly as regards timing. The coverage of the estimates also differs from ABS estimates of past investment, particularly in resource-based manufacturing. For these reasons, neither precise comparisons with past trends nor confident pictures of the future are practicable.

That is the statement of the IDC, not of some Labor Party committee. It is not some of our propaganda. It is an interdepartmental committee of the Government, and it is the interdepartmental committee concerned with development. The report continues: the figures (the survey)-

That is this farce, this blue document - assume away possible mutual exclusivity among projects, they also assume that firm decisions to proceed will be taken on all those projects and that all projects will be completed according to present plans.

We all know that that will not happen. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), in a burst of uncharacteristic candour, said in a statement:

My Department has pointed out in the preamble to the survey that not every project included in the $29 billion will go ahead. They have stated that, as economic conditions change and as feasibility studies progress, some projects may be altered or deferred.

That only happened, of course, after the Minister had the burst from the AIDA: He would not have said it otherwise. The statement continued:

Mr Lynch also conceded . . . that some projects may prove to be mutually exclusive-

So much for the Government’s claims. Frankly, the Government’s claims cannot be believed. Worse still, it has no strategy for dealing with the whole question of the development. Over the last five years the Prime Minister has hung his hat on the cause of monetarism in relation to the size of the public sector. ‘Rein in Labor’s extravagance’, as he said. ‘Draw back the public sector and let the private sector take up the slack’. But what is the Government doing now? It has a huge public infrastructure borrowing program, in terms of what it allows the States to borrow, of $4.7 billion, and this will be raised in competition with the private sector. So the private sector the Government is so interested in protecting will face the chill winds of competition with a boost in interest rates, as all these local power utilities and the other State railways and maritime services boards and wharf authorities borrow funds against the private industries operating in this country.

The Government has no concept of how to manage the money supply. When the Treasurer talks about an over-heating of the economy, and when the Treasury talks about the ignorance of the Government’s attempts to handle this development without any attention to manpower planning, the provision of skilled labour, the size of the aggregate amounts of funds that will need to be raised in the context of containing inflation and managing the money supply, we find a complete lack of understanding and a complete movement away from the Government’s policy. The Government has now abandoned the economic policy it has been talking about for years on the basis of a development scenario that will save Australia. It will not save jobs. The whole mining industry of Australia employs 1 .4 per cent of the work force. Even if that figure were doubled we would not get any significant improvement in unemployment, which is now running at a level of 5 per cent to 6 per cent. It is a phoney policy of the Government, and the Opposition will continue to expose it.

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

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

– I am very pleased to participate in this matter of public importance to expose the falsehoods of the Opposition. In fact, it is one of the most disappointing performances I have heard from the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). He has in the most dismal way tried to downgrade the development that is taking place in Australia and to damage in the eyes of the rest of the world what is happening in Australia. He has demonstrated sour grapes of the worst type. It was the greatest lot of poppycock that I have heard coming from the honourable member. He is really trying to depress and retard development, as a result of the embarrassment the Opposition is facing after its dismal performance a few years ago.

Today we see a surge of new development taking place in this country which is almost unparalleled in its history, and the world is looking at what is happening in this country. Enormous opportunities are opening up, and all of us ought to be proud that it is happening. This is in marked contrast with the record of the Labor Party when it was in government from 1972 to 1975. During that period not one major resource development took place. It tried to foist a socialist doctrine on Australian industry and the Australian public, and as a result it killed any enthusiasm or desire for people to want to get out and risk their capital in new ventures. Certainly no overseas people would come to this country. It is an appalling legacy for the Labor Party to have to live with, and yet today it is trying to damage the good work that has been done by this country in getting development going again. It appears almost as if the Australian Labor Party does not want this development to take place. They are doing their level best to scare it away. I know that they are proven experts in scaring away development, but this Government will not let them do so. Who in the Opposition can one believe? Here we have the honourable member for Blaxland going on about what is the Australian Labor Party’s policy. That party does not want to see development occur because it says that that would provide only minimal opportunities to people. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said when writing in the Business Bulletin, published by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, in August of this year. He stated:

Mineral development can create the wealth needed to generate the industrial renaissance Australia so urgently requires and, with it, the jobs our people so pressingly want.

Goodness me, that is in direct conflict with what the honourable member for Blaxland has been saying today. It is ironic that he is coming out and saying these things because on 26 August this year the Australian Financial Review carried a report about the New South Wales Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation in these terms:

The value of major development projects planned for NSW during the 1980s has risen to a cool $18 billion, according to a detailed study released by the NSW Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation.

The report goes on to say:

The sheer size of the figure illustrates the dramatic way in which NSW has emerged as a major participant in resourcebased development surge springing from Australia’s favourable energy balances position.

The NSW Minister for Industrial Development and Decentralisation, Mr Don Day, said the size and scope of the project clearly reflected the confidence of investors in the State’s future.

The honourable member questioned the figure of $29 billion for investment in Australia but the New South Wales Labor Government is claiming that there will be $18 billion worth of investment in New South Wales alone. He went on to describe as phoney a report of the Department of Industry and Commerce based on a survey which says that projects worth $29 billion are either planned or in the final stages of planning. Labor is just sniping away, trying to suppress the enthusiasm and confidence that are now developing in industry in this country. Is the honourable member for Blaxland trying to make a story out of the Australian Industries Development Association report?

Mr Keating:

– It is not a bad story.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Let us look at the report. It says that it is doubtful whether the figure is $29 billion. It is doubtful only because it is a conservative figure. Let us read the Press statement by the Director of the AIDA, Mr Geoff Allen.

Mr Keating:

– That is after you nobbled him.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Nobbled him! The statement is dated 7 July and reads:

We believe we are facing an unprecedented boom in resource energy related industries and this will have significant spin-offs for Australia in general.

What more can one ask for? Mr Allen continues:

In fact, without bottlenecks this could be a conservative figure.

What the Labor Party says is nonsense. The AIDA then asked an independent person to make another survey, the results of which have only recently come out. What does that survey show? It shows that projects being considered at the moment and likely to be considered in the future could add up to $80 billion. That is from the AIDA itself, so the honourable member should not draw these red herrings across the track and say that there is doubt. There is enormous potential and it is absurd for a matter of public importance such as this to be raised in order to throw doubts on or raise questions about the situation.

The Labor Party is feeling absolutely guilty about its performance. What happened when the Labor Party was in government? As I told honourable members earlier, there was not one resource project. Uranium development was pending at the time and it was all stopped. Nothing was happening as far as uranium was concerned. There was no further development in coking coal because nobody would risk money; it was stopped. What happened to the development of the huge gas resources of the North West Shelf? It was stopped, too. Overseas interests were told to go away, that we would develop those resources ourselves with our own Petroleum and Minerals Authority carrying out the development. As a result, nothing happened; all development stopped. What did we see in the field of oil exploration? There was almost a cessation of oil exploration during the three years of Labor. Labor made a wasteland of the development of resources in this country.

That is the record of the Labor Party. Today, its members are feeling guilty, so they are trying to tarnish the tremendous performance of this Government. Their record is a magnificent one of failure, nothing more. Now they are trying to berate the Government because it is starting to get things going. We are gaining the confidence of those involved. Why are these things happening? They are happening because this Government has introduced some sensible rules for foreign investment in this country. We have rules which enable Australian interests to have SO per cent ownership in enterprises, and if we cannot get Australians interested at least we will let the projects go ahead because we know that with the development of these projects there will be more job opportunities for Australians, not only in the mining areas but also in all the support industries, the transport industry, the manufacturing industry, and the fields of commerce that come with that development. This is bringing about the resurgence of confidence in this country in development opportunities.

All the Labor Party is trying to do is to demolish the excellent work that this Government has done. Also, the Government has brought in a sensible taxation regime whereby people have a chance to get a decent depreciation rate on their investments. Most important of all, this Government has proved to investors, both in Australia and overseas, that they can rely on it for sound economic management and sound economic policies. As a result of that they are prepared to start investing and developing in this country. Our sensible policies have removed the roadblocks that the Labor Government introduced during its period in office. The North West Shelf project is getting under way and the uranium industry is being developed. As I mentioned the other day, one of the largest resource contracts entered into in this country has been signed as a result of the Government’s policies and the confidence it has generated among overseas investors.

Mr Keating:

– They are laughing at you.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The honourable member says that they are laughing at us. Two weeks earlier the Opposition said that we could not sign any uranium contracts. The members of the Opposition really do not know what they are saying. A host of new steaming and coking coal projects are being developed in this country. The contracts for uranium and steaming coal are not just ordinary contracts. We are entering into long term contracts based on sensible pricing arrangements. If we were to go back to the policies of the Labor Government and the Government interferred in and determined the prices, where would we be? Our policies have to relate to international market prices. If the Australian Labor Party were to come back to government today, what would we get? We would get the cessation of all this development. It is nonsense to say that mining development gives jobs only to people in the outback. If one looks at the history of mining in this country one will see that it has led to major industrial developments. The mining development at Broken Hill, which involved silver, lead and zinc, led to the formation of the great steel empire that we have in this country today of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The development of bauxite in Northern Australia has led to the construction of great alumina plants, such as those at Gladstone and in Western Australia. From those alumina plants we are getting smelters to manufacture aluminium. We are getting all this increased industrial development. As a consequence we have the supply industries.

The Opposition talks in terms of all the profits being repatriated overseas. Most of the profits go back into further expansion and development. Figures from the Australian Mining Industry Council show that only 6.8c of every $1 of revenue earned is actually given out in dividends. About SO per cent of the revenue goes into the supply of goods and services to companies, and to government services such as transport. So these developments are of enormous benefit in helping the overall economy of this country. The people who are now coming to Australia are not being vilified continually, as they were under the Labor Government. There did not seem to be any good in foreign investment during its period in office. If we were to turn back the clock and experience that sort of situation, this country would be in great trouble.

Let us have a look at the Labor Party’s policies and ask ourselves whether we really will get a continuation of this great development that is taking place now, this new surge of development that the New South Wales Government is so pleased about and which it is prepared to get up and brag about. Is the Opposition criticising the New South Wales Government? Of course it is. The Opposition does not have a policy. It does not know where it stands. It is completely contrary on the whole issue. The Australian Labor Party, if it were to come to office, has said that there will be a resources tax. That will dampen down investment. There is no quicker way to discourage people from wanting to invest in this country.

We saw what this sort of tax did to the coal mining industry. The Labor Party introduced a $6 a tonne export levy. If this Government had not minimised that tax a lot of coal mines in New South Wales- particularly underground coal mines- would have gone out of operation. Thousands of people would have been unemployed because of this savage doctrinaire tax that was put on by the Labor Party. We reduced the tax so that we could keep these operations viable and so that people would continue to be employed. We know that if a Labor Government comes to office it will tell companies what the overseas price should be and that it should get more than the international market price. How can anybody claim or demand more than the market price? This is what it would do.

This Government has an export control policy that is working very well today. We monitor all sales. We get involved in guiding and influencing. We have guideline policies for coal, bauxite and alumina. They have worked satisfactorily in Australia’s interest. They are continuing to maintain a healthy and strong relationship between the Government and industry. If the Labor Party gets into office it will be back to the old doctrinaire philosophies of its telling companies what they can do, of interference and with a complete loss of confidence by the industries concerned. Of course we know that a Labor Government would destroy the uranium industry. Will anybody from the Opposition question that? It would destroy it immediately. It would introduce the hydrocarbon corporation, a great bureaucratic monster which would use the taxpayers’ funds for risky ventures. Above all we will see a repetition of the vilification of overseas interests participating in the development of this country, We know that if moneys of the amounts that have been mentioned are to be required in this country for development then overseas capital will be required.

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

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We have just heard another one of the sorts of speeches we have come to expect from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). The poor man is so confused that he does not even know what the debate is all about. I am sure that he has not read the matter of public importance that was handed to the Speaker, which in part, states:

  1. . exaggerated claims concerning development prospects and the Government’s omissions in developing proper policies for the balanced and integrated development of Australia . . .

I am sure that he does not realise that that is what the debate is all about. So the Opposition has copped the usual mix of fear of socialism, of kicking the commie can and telling us about all the evils of a Labor government. Well, this does not impress Australians, I can tell the House. I am sure that Australians are not impressed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s idea that this alleged $29 billion development in the resource and energy industries is the panacea for all Australia’s economic and social evils. That is just not so. These claims are exaggerated to the point of being fraudulent and only for some short term electoral advantage. These gung ho statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister are really made only to bolster up the spirits of a very dispirited back bench. They do not impress Australians out in voting land. Australians out in voting land are emotionally and nationally disturbed by the continued pillage and rape of Australia’s resources by international finance institutions and mining companies with precious little return coming to the average Australian.

What the Australian people are coming to understand more clearly is that Australia’s legacy from these alleged resources booms are bigger and better holes in the ground and precious little employment prospects. The presently unemployed Australians know that the number of jobs that might come about if all of the Government’s claims are at all legitimate are very small and at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. The future Australians, though still at school, also know that there is very little for them in the way of future employment prospects even in the figures that are quoted by the Government, as fraudulent as we know they are. Mining booms provide very few jobs. We all know that. It has been proved in the past. We on this side of the House are trying to put to the Government that it should be developing an overall plan for Australia’s future that ties in with whatever mining prospects we have.

I think my confrere, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), has pointed up by quoting from a document produced by the Australian Industries Development Association exactly what people who might normally be considered supporters of the Government, think about the figures that the Government is using. It has pointed up that they are fraudulent and exaggerated beyond any sense. There is a reference from the interdepartmental committee on finance which the honourable member for Blaxland also quoted and which bolsters our belief that these figures are very exaggerated. So the Opposition is not the only body which espouses doubts about the veracity of the Government’s often repeated and simply gung ho fraudulent claims about the alleged development boom.

More importantly, what about the future of Australia with this sort of ad hoc government controlling our destiny. There is simply no master plan for Australian industry inherent in this Government’s claims about development booms into the 1980s. The Fraser Government has won two elections on promises to reduce both inflation and the size of government. However, now we can see the contradictions appearing between the Prime Minister’s development strategy and the Government’s best known axiom, the ‘beatinflationfirst’ strategy. The two are patently incompatible. Yet they are the twin planks of the Government’s election strategy for 1980. The Fraser Government has put the economy through a hard squeeze for five miserable years with the Prime Minister’s ‘beat-inflation-first’ obsession, neglecting, I might say, the tangential social evil of rising unemployment as an automatic reaction to this policy. Sadly and predictably, there has been no appreciable gain in controlling inflation because, Mr Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I that we now have double figure inflation and getting on, predictably, to about 12 per cent by December.

Now we see this Government embarking on a policy of renewed economic growth and investment with consequent dangers of new inflationary and wage increase pressures. So if the Government has achieved anything by reducing inflation marginally over the last five years it is about to throw that out the window in a last desperate measure to try to get itself another term of government. It might be interesting to look at the sheer political irony of the Government’s present move to a new development policy. The Prime Minister has spent five years championing the cause of private enterprise and cuts in the public sector. Yet he now embraces as his new electoral philosophy the biggest expansion in the public sector in Australia’s history.

The Government has just approved a $4,700m infrastructure loans program for the States to provide increased power generation, railway electrification, et cetera, to service the alleged development boom. This Fraser Government which eschews public sector involvement suddenly realises that public financing of all these infrastructure facilities is essential to the advancement of any private development boom. In the short term the development strategy will create severe pressures on monetary policy. It could also lead to the problems in transport, capital funding, exchange rate pressures and the extent to which world commodity prices can so rapidly change. Although overall the boom will not generate a large scale demand for labour, the demand will be concentrated in certain key skill areas. The States’ infrastructure programs will be competing with the private sector projects for the same key skills thus pushing up many wage claims. As key skills are a sensitive point in any wage discussion this process will of course promote wage acceleration across the full spectrum of Australian industry.

Unless this Government can produce balanced and integrated programs for the future development of Australia then we have no real future. A development boom must be part of a comprehensive plan involving the manufacturing and other secondary industries to accompany any development boom. We lack the flexibility in our capital markets to ensure the maximum level of Australian equity participation in these projects. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to talk about how overseas investors are rushing to finance Australian industry. This, in fact, is a fallacy. We all know that when overseas companies come here they do not bring that much capital finance. They raise their finance through the Australian equity holders. They are selling debentures from which Australians are getting only an investment return. We are getting no share of the profits. We are lending them the money to exploit us. We also lack the necessary manpower skills to ensure that the work generated by the projects, if they get off the ground, is done by Australians because this Government has no real manpower policy plan either. On the odd occasion, we are recruiting skilled manpower from Britain because we lack skilled tradesmen, particularly in the metal industries. What has this Government done to promote this sort of development along with its alleged resources boom?

Unless properly planned, massive foreign capital inflow and export earnings from revenue projects will have a major impact on our exchange rate and balance of trade and hence on our traditional import competing and export oriented industries will find the going very difficult. A resources boom should be linked with an expansion of Australian manufacturing industry to provide equipment and machinery as well as the manufacture of trucks and other types of equipment that would be needed to ensure that any prosperity accruing from whatever boom there might be would be spread across the total national industry base.

In addition to private individuals, we also feel that there is a role for the Government to play in providing risk capital for new ventures. A Hayden government will activate the national investment fund to provide finance for some of these projects, primarily in the energy related areas. I return to the quotation given by the honourable member for Blaxland from the Australian Industries Development Association and quote further because, apart from stressing the exaggerated nature of the Government’s claim about what investment there may or may not be in energy related developments in the 1980s, the Association states:

The aspirations of Government and resource-based companies taken as a whole are not comparable with the supply constraints of cash, skilled manpower, transport and other infrastructure. Additionally, development of the magnitude envisaged would result in political pressure associated with the exchange rate and the cost of money. Other serious implications for Government policy arising from these supply limitations include pressure on wages, manpower resources, the cost of finance and the supply of raw materials.

I come back to the subject of the Opposition’s matter of public importance. We are quite concerned that this Government keeps promulgating false figures about what boom there might be shortly in order to bolster its sagging electoral prospects. We are very concerned also that if this boom did take place, albeit at a much reduced level than the Government is quoting, it has no comprehensive overall plan that will involve the Australian public and industry generally in whatever prosperity that might accrue. That is the subject of the debate today, regardless of the confusion and ignorance of the Deputy Prime Minister of what it is all about. No matter what blustering he does here; it will not work.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– We have been accustomed in recent months to hearing from the king of knockers in this Parliament, that is, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Today’s matter of public importance was introduced by the crown prince of knockers, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who is suffering from exactly the same phobia that his leader has displayed over and over again both at Question Time and in debate in this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition believes that the one thing he needs to do for his political survival is to knock, knock, knock everything the Government is doing and everything that Australia stands for.

Mr Braithwaite:

– The king of knockers!

Mr BAILLIEU:

– The king of knockers; indeed, we have heard the crown prince of knockers in this debate today. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) lent his weight to knocking as well because, until I heard him today, I thought that he had more sense and more to contribute. What is he asking for? We hear this continual harangue about the need for a national plan, an integrated plan. Interestingly enough, the Australian Labor Party never tell us what it is. We are told that it is a comprehensive, integrated plan for Australia’s development. That is a marvellous expression, but does anybody know what it means? I hear this pleading from the Opposition spokesmen about the need for an indicative planning council. Recently I attended an address by Mr Jim Roulston, a well known person within the Labor movement. He was discussing the need for a 35-hour week. He said that unequivocally the justification for a 35-hour week was that it would create more jobs. That is exactly the same plaintive plea that we hear from members of the Opposition in this Parliament. In view of this determination that jobs would be created by the implementation of a 35-hour week, I asked him how many jobs would be created if a 35-hour week were introduced, by what percentage would job vacancies go up and by what percentage would unemployment numbers go down. Try as I might, I was not able to elicit from that gentleman any answer, except to be told that without national planning and without indicative planning it would not be possible to give a precise figure or even a rough figure. He referred to what happened in Denmark where indicative planning had been introduced and where it had been possible to make some suppositions as a result of the introduction of a 35-hour week.

It has never been put to the test. Nobody knows what a comprehensive integrated national plan really is. Nobody has been able to produce one which has made any sense or which has been followed. The whole thing is a play on words. Why has the Opposition sought to bring into the Parliament today a motion which seeks to criticise the Government in respect of the development proposals before this country? The answer is perfectly simple. The Opposition is on the defensive because it has been caught short on matters of policy.

In recent weeks we have had policy statements from the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition spokesmen on a whole range of issues; firstly, on the economy; secondly, on employment; and thirdly, on development. As events have unfolded since those announcements have been made, the one thing that has been perfectly evident is that the Opposition’s statments have been made on incorrect information. They have been made against a background of sheer and utter fantasy and consequently the whole stack of cards has come crumbling down in the Opposition’s face.

Last night we heard the Leader of the Opposition give his reply to the 1980 Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The Leader of the Opposition based his whole speech on the Budget on a proposition that he read in a document prepared by an inter-departmental committee. He had taken in isolation certain information on which he thought he would hang his economic hat. Today we find that the extracts he used were little more than a passing phase in a longer explanation and they were a completely incorrect, improper and economically unsound basis on which to mount his alternative Budget. The Opposition has found that it is in a policy vacuum. It is clutching at straws - at anything with which it can try to criticise the Government. Of all the areas, it chose the national development of this country.

The Opposition is so upset because the Government has been able to identify massive development proposals which will take place and which will be of tremendous benefit to the country as a whole and to Australians individually. That is in absolute contradistinction to what took place when the Labor Government was in office. In that period not one major development proposal got off the ground in this country. That takes into account mining and manufacturing. The only extent to which any development took place under the Labor Government was when Australian companies went off-shore and established manufacturing operations in other countries. It may have been great business for Malaysia, Taiwan and Singapore but there was not one Australian job involved in the ventures. That is the contribution that a Labor Government made because of its inadequate policies, because of its hysteria in bashing business and investment in this country. All it managed to do was to send Australian manufacturers off-shore to set up business establishments. The Opposition has been caught out again trying to do the same thing. Today the honourable member for Blaxland said: ‘What good is mining to this country? Only 1 i per cent of Australians are employed in the mining industry’.

Mr Braithwaite:

– He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– He is talking about 90,000 jobs in this country. I would like him to go to Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales or Tasmania and tell the people in those States that there is nothing in mining as far as this country’s employment opportunities are concerned. We have 90,000 jobs there. Another 10,000 job opportunities in the mining industry within the next three years are staring us in the face. What does the Opposition do? It dreams up new ways of trying to make it more difficult for mining developments to get off the ground. What did it do when it came into office? It immediately changed the depreciation allowances for miners so that any mine development expenditure could not be depreciated, thus throwing completely out of the window the rule book on which mining developments take place. Such changes meant the end of mining development underground because of the massive investment required. The Opposition knocked the question of future development in mining. It has said that it will bring in a resource tax - a super tax for miners.

It is all very well to talk about the need to produce local investment funds. This Government stands for local investment. It stands for Australian industry owned by Australians, not for the sell out to overseas interests which has taken place under Labor governments in the past. We believe the investment funds are in this country waiting to be liberated. But the Opposition says: ‘If anybody has the prospect of being profitable in the mining area we will slap on them a super tax, a resource tax, to cream if ofT. What happens to the investment funds then? Where will the investment funds come from to take up the development potential of this country? They will not come from profits, because a Labor government would rip them off and use them to try to bridge the deficit which, according to its alternative Budget presented last night, it would run up. We are pleased to have a debate about the development potential of this country. The Government has produced an authentic list of the development proposals before us. They are worth close to $30m. For the doubting Thomases in the Opposition, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which depict the development that is either committed or in the final feasibility stages.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I thank the House. The situation is set out in those tables for all to see. The honourable member for Blaxland was critical of the Government for saying in 1977 that $6,000mworth of development would go ahead in the next three years. The Opposition said that it would never happen. It said that at the time the Prime Minister was stating something which was untrue. I will not go so far as to depict the situation in the way that Opposition spokesmen choose to do. The fact is that at this time in 1 980 that figure has been exceeded. The fact is that the knockers in the Federal Opposition in this Parliament, try as they might, cannot detract from the fact that Australia is in a position to go ahead with massive development projects. The only way they can be circumscribed is if the bunnies of the Opposition get into government and bring in all their super taxes, resource taxes and all the other measures they can think of to knock business and employment opportunities on the head. That is why they will never get on this side of the House again.

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

page 799

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HOWE:
Batman

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HOWE:

– I wish to make a short statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr HOWE:

– Earlier this afternoon in the course of a debate on a report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), in the heat of the moment, made a statement- I think on the basis of the fact that I appeared on the Nationwide program in Tasmania last week on the subject of the south-west of Tasmania - to the effect that I had given the report to the Press. I want to make it clear that I have not given the report to the Press. An examination of the transcript of Nationwide will show that I made no reference whatsoever to the substance of that Committee’s report.

page 799

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill embodies the Government’s main Budget proposals for improvements in the field of social service pensions and benefits. It reflects the special priority given by the Government to improving support for children of pensioners and beneficiaries, for sole parents, for the unemployed and for the sick and disabled. The major improvements proposed in the Bill are to extend and increase Commonwealth assistance for sole parents; provide for the payment of pensions and benefits to patients in mental hospitals; increase the rates of additional pension and benefit payable in respect of children; increase the rate of mothers’/ guardians’ allowances; increase the rate of unemployment benefit for those aged 18 and over without dependants; substantially relax the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits; exempt the pay and allowances received by Army and other reservists from the income tests for unemployment and sickness benefits and pensions; increase the rate of handicapped children’s allowances; and increase the rate of double orphans’ pensions. I will return to these matters in more detail in a few moments.

Other features of the Government’s 1980 Budget proposals provide for higher subsidies for organisations providing delivered meals to aged and invalid people, higher food and accommodation subsidies for welfare bodies assisting homeless people, eligibility for Commonwealth pensioner fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries in appropriate cases, new Commonwealth facilities for the rehabilitation of disabled people, allocation of funds for the first year of the new program for accommodation and other facilities for aged and handicapped people, and the provision of substantial funds to assist the national response to the International Year of Disabled Persons. All of these measures are further evidence, if that were needed, of the high priority that this Government has given over the last five years to the development of compassionate yet responsible social security programs.

Despite the necessity for economic restraint, major improvements have been made to the social security system. Important reforms have been introduced and priority has been given to directing assistance to those most in need. Under this Government, total spending on social security and welfare has risen from $5 billion in 1975-76 to an estimated $9.9 billion in 1980-81. Assistance to the aged, the disabled, families, widows and lone parents and other groups in need has been greatly increased.

I might take this opportunity to highlight some of the major achievements of this Government in these areas. This Government has introduced provisions for the automatic twice-yearly indexation of the rates of most pensions and benefits in line with movements in the consumer price index. Significant improvements have been made in family allowances which provide cash assistance direcly to mothers. Increased support and rationalisation of payments to sole parents is yet another area where vast improvements have been made. Greatly increased funding has been provided for welfare services for the handicapped. Expenditure on these services, such as sheltered workshops, activity and training centres and accommodation, has risen from $32m in 1975-76 to an estimated $50.9m in 1980-81 .

The Government has also created the Office of Child Care for the development of new programs to assist children and their families. Quite apart from funding provided for pre-schools, funding for a wide range of other services, including day care and emergency, outside school hours and vacation care programs, has increased from $1 7m in 1975-76 to an estimated $36m in 1980-81. The

Government has increased the allocation for subsidies for welfare officer salaries, housekeeper services, home repairs, gardening, laundry, and other home care services under the States Grants (Home Care) Act by some $7m or 1 1 1 per cent compared with the expenditure in 1975-76. On the functional side, decentralisation of administration, responsive to the needs of clients and responsible in its handling of community resources, has been further extended. The 1980-81 Budget shows the high priority which this Government places on continually improving and reforming the income security and welfare system with a view to assisting those most in need.

I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for a major rationalisation of assistance to sole parents by removing the six months waiting period for supporting parents’ benefits. The decision by several State governments to withdraw support from sole parents during this waiting period has created considerable uncertainty amongst recipients. The Government’s action will remove that uncertainty. This latest initiative follows the Government’s progressive extension of Commonwealth assistance for sole parents. In 1977 the Government extended assistance to sole fathers on the same basis as assistance to supporting mothers by introducing supporting parents’ benefits. In 1979 the Government extended pensioner health benefits to supporting parent beneficiaries on the same basis as for Class A widow pensioners. As a result, rates of direct Commonwealth assistance, including fringe benefits, for sole parents were made uniform.

As a result of the change provided in the Bill, those sole parents who currently must wait six months to become eligible for the Class A widows’ pension or supporting parents’ benefit will be able to receive, from November 1 980, Commonwealth supporting parents’ benefits immediately. The provisions relating to Class A, B and C widows’ pensions remain unchanged. The rates, conditions and Commonwealth fringe benefits that apply to Class A widow pensioners will apply to recipients of the extended supporting parents’ benefits. In addition, sole parents, along with other pensioners and beneficiaries, will benefit from increases in the additional amounts payable for children, as well as from future increases arising automatically by virtue of the rate indexation provisions of the Social Services Act. By these measures the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for providing income support for sole parents. The Bill therefore provides for the repeal of the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968 under which the Commonwealth has hitherto reimbursed the

States for up to one-half of the expenditure they incurred in providing such assistance to sole parents.

It is most appropriate that another change provided in the Bill should occur as we approach the commencement of 1981- the International Year of Disabled Persons. I refer to the provisions of the Bill which will remove the discrimination that currently exists in the Social Services Act in relation to certain patients in mental hospitals, that is, those who are not patients in what are termed excluded wards’. Patients in excluded wards are not regarded as in mental hospitals and already receive pensions and sickness benefits. From November 1980, patients in non-excluded wards will qualify for the payment of pensions, including supporting parents’ benefits and sickness benefits, subject to eligibility in other respects. As from November, the wives of such patients, who are now paid widows’ pensions, will become eligible for the payment of wives’ pensions. As a consequence, the Bill will also remove, subject to a saving provision, the existing provisions of the law which enable a widow’s pension to be paid to a woman whose husband is a mental hospital patient. As a consequence of these amendments to the Social Services Act, patients in mental hospitals will receive pensions and benefits on the same basis as patients in any other hospitals.

I turn now to the area of assistance for children and especially those in needy families. The Bill provides, with effect from November 1980, for substantial increases in the amounts of additional payments for children of pensioners and beneficiaries. Additional pension or benefit for each child will be increased from November by $2.50 to $10 a week. This is payable for children under 1 6 years of age and full time student children aged 16 to 24 years who are dependent on the pensioner or beneficiary. Mothers ‘-guardians’ allowances paid to ‘single’ pensioners with children will be increased by $2 to $8 a week where there is at least one child under 6 or an invalid child, and to $6 a week in other cases. As a result of these increases in payments, Class A widow pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries in particular, and other pensioners and beneficiaries with children, will receive substantial increases in assistance from November. For example, taking into account the increase in the basic rate of pension arising from automatic indexation, a widow with three children, one of whom is under 6 years of age, will have her fortnighly pension cheque increased from $179.10 to $204.20- an increase of $25. 1 0 a fortnight. She will, of course, continue also to receive her monthly family allowance payment of $62.90.

The Bill also provides for an increase of $8 a month to $73 a month in the rate of the handicapped child’s allowance that is payable in respect of a severely handicapped child. This increase will apply from the first pay-day in November. In November 1977, the Government extended eligibility for the handicapped child’s allowance to substantially handicapped children where a family suffers financial hardship. Such families will also qualify for an increased rate up to the maximum of $73 a month. Honourable member will recall that this Government increased the rate of this allowance from $10 a week to $1 5 a week - or $65 a month - in 1976. This latest increase will mean that the rate of the handicapped child’s allowance has increased since 1975 by some 68 per cent.

The special needs of handicapped students were also recognised by the Government in 1978 when it extended the eligibility for the handicapped child’s allowance to cover students over 16 and under 25 years of age who do not receive an invalid pension. As a result of these measures, total spending on this allowance has increased from $8. 5m in 1975-76 to an estimated $20.3m in 1980-81. Further provisions will increase the rate of double orphan’s pension from $47.70 a month to $55.70 a month. These increases will also take effect from the first pay-day in November.

I come now to the area of unemployment and sickness benefits. The basic rate of unemployment benefit for those over 18 with dependants, and those under 18 who are married, is subject to automatic increases twice yearly as a result of the indexation provisions introduced into the Social Services Act by this Government. The basic rate of sickness benefit for all those over 1 8, and those under 18 who are married, is similarly indexed. However, the maximum rate of unemployment benefit for persons aged 1 8 years and over without dependants is not indexed. The Government has decided to increase this rate from $5 1 .45 to $53.45 a week. The Bill makes provision for this increase, which will apply from the first payment period ending in November.

The Bill also makes a significant change to the income tests for unemployment and sickness benefits. As a result, unemployment beneficiaries, for example, will be able to supplement substantially their benefits through casual work. Under current arrangements, the maximum rate of benefit is reduced on a dollar for dollar basis for any income received above the ‘free area’ of $3 a week for a single person aged under 21 with a parent living in Australia or $6 a week for all other people. From the first pay-day in

November, the ‘free area’ of $6 a week will be extended to all beneficiaries aged 1 8 to 20 years. Additionally, the income test which will be applied above the free areas will be substantially liberalised for all beneficiaries. For all single people aged 16 and 17 with a parent living in Australia, the maximum rate of benefit payable will be reduced by only 50c for each $1 of income received in the range of $3 to $40 a week. The current reduction on a dollar for dollar basis will apply only to income above $40 a week. For all other beneficiaries, the maximum rate will be reduced by only 50c for each $1 of incomeincluding the income of the spouse - received in the range of $6 to $50 a week. The current reduction on a dollar for dollar basis will apply only to income above $50 a week.

Let me illustrate the effect of this change. An unemployment beneficiary aged over 21 who earned $40 a week from casual employment would currently lose $34 in benefit. Under the new arrangements he will lose only $17 and will therefore have a total income of $76.45 a week, or $23 in excess of the maximum rate of benefit.

Finally, the Bill also provides for the exemption from the benefits income tests of the pay and allowances received by Army, Navy and Air Force reservists. Such payments will also be excluded from the income tests on pensions payable under the Social Services Act. Because these measures are associated with the Government’s wish to strengthen the reserve forces, the Bill provides for these changes to take effect from the date of royal assent. The cost of the measures contained in the Bill is estimated at some $1 10m in 1980-81 and $1 60m in a full year. This Bill reflects the high priority which this Government gives to assisting those most in need. It adds to the Government’s already impressive record in the areas of preserving income security and providing an effective welfare system. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 801

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bill presented by Mr Groom (on behalf of Mr Fife) , and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Defence Service Homes Act to increase the maximum loan under the Defence Service Homes Scheme from $15,000 to $25,000. The higher lending limit will apply to all types of assistance at present available under - the Act. The present lending limit of $15,000 has been in force since 1974. The raising of the maximum loan to $25,000 will offset increases since that time in the cost of acquiring a home and substantially reduce the amount of funds required from an eligible person’s own resources or from supplementary borrowings.

The Government has reviewed the interest charge on loans under the Act and has decided that the present generous rates of 3.75 per cent per annum on loan amounts up to $12,000, and 7.25 per cent per annum on the next $3,000, will be retained. Where the loan exceeds $15,000 the Bill provides for interest to be charged at 10 per cent per annum on that part of the loan above $15,000. Provision also is made in the Bill for an interest charge of 10 per cent per annum on any additional loan assistance.

In connection with the interest which will be payable on defence service homes loans I would draw the attention of honourable members to two significant features. Firstly, the rate of 10 per cent on loan amounts in excess of $1 5,000 is below that normally charged by banks on housing loans. Secondly, because of the retention of the existing rates on amounts up to $15,000, the effective overall interest charge on a defence service homes loan of $25,000 will still be slightly less than 7 per cent per annum.

The Bill includes a number of other technical amendments as a consequence of the replacement of the present two-tier interest rate structure with a three-tier system and the introduction of a new top tier rate of 10 per cent. As honourable members are aware, in addition to the increase in the maximum loan provided for in this Bill, the Government has already acted separately to reduce from 14 to 10 months the waiting period for a loan to purchase a new or previously occupied home. These decisions are reflected in the 1980-81 Budget which provides for a total defence service homes lending program in the current year which is almost 50 per cent higher than in 1979-80. The Government has given a clear indication, therefore, of the importance it places on the Defence Service Homes Scheme as a means of meeting the housing needs of former and serving members of the forces. The proposed increase in the maximum loan of $10,000, or 66i per cent, is the largest single increase since the commencement of the Scheme more than 60 years ago. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 802

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill presented by Mr Groom (on behalf of Mr Fife), and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for amendment of the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act to give effect to the Government’s Budget decisions. The repatriation disability pension is to be disregarded by half in determining eligibility for fringe benefits. A new temporary incapacity allowance is to be introduced and it is to be similarly treated in determining eligibility for service pension and fringe benefits. Free medical treatment is to be provided for all disabilities, irrespective of cause, to Australian mariners who were captured and detained by the enemy, and to those veterans and Australian mariners who suffer from an amputation or loss of vision in one eye resulting from a service-related disability or a war injury respectively. In addition, the amounts payable for amputations or loss of vision, to orphans, and as attendant’s allowance, are to be increased. Provision is also to be made for pension to be adjusted in the event of any over-assessment of the new temporary incapacity allowance or the existing loss of earnings allowance that arises from a subsequent decision on pension assessment that applies retrospectively.

The Bill also includes certain provisions which are consequential upon amendments to the Social Services Act. These are to exclude the pay, allowances or any gratuity paid to a member of the Defence Forces Reserve or Emergency Reserve Forces as income for the purpose of the income test in respect of the service pension, and to restore that portion of service pension that is currently suspended in respect of inmates of mental hospitals.

A major decision taken by the Government, to be put into effect by this Bill, is in relation to the extent of the disability pension to be taken into account in determining eligibility for fringe benefits. As a new allowance, called the temporary incapacity allowance is also affected by this decision, I think I should briefly first explain to the House the nature of this allowance which is in itself a new initiative on the Government’s part.

The temporary incapacity allowance is to be introduced as from 1 November 1980, by regulation, to compensate veterans who undergo hospitalisation for a service-related disability and are totally incapacitated by that hospitalisation and consequential outpatient treatment or convalescence for a continuous period of more than 28 days. The amount of the allowance will be the equivalent of the special - total and permanent incapacity - rate for the period involved, less any disability pension the veteran may already receive. It will be backdated to the date on which the veteran was admitted to hospital and will be income test free. In line with current provisions in the Repatriation Act in relation to pensions, the Bill provides that only half of the temporary incapacity allowance be taken into consideration when determining the rate at which a service pension is payable to a veteran.

The Bill also provides for the current income limits in the Repatriation Act to be amended so that only half of any disability pension including the temporary incapacity allowance, be taken into consideration in the assessment of income for the purpose of determining a service pensioner’s eligibility for free repatriation medical treatment and pensioner health benefits and associated fringe benefits. At present the disability pension is halved in assessing the rate of service pension whilst the full amount is taken into account for determining entitlement to fringe benefits. To illustrate the effect of the new provision, a single pensioner on the full 100 per cent general rate pension of S44.10 a week, who previously would not have been eligible for fringe benefits, may now qualify provided any other income he receives does not exceed $17.95 a week.

I know this initiative by the Government will be welcomed by a very large sector of the exservice community. We have been concerned that many repatriation pensioners have lost their entitlement to fringe benefits which are worth, on the average, many hundreds of dollars a year, because of a few cents increase in their disability pensions. The Government fully realises that such cases will continue to occur - they would continue to occur no matter how much income it was decided to disregard- but I would emphasise that we are concerned to see that those in the greatest financial need should not unnecessarily lose their eligibility for fringe benefits, which is exactly what this new initiative is intended to achieve. Provisions covering the disregarding of half of a disability pension, including the temporary incapacity allowance, are to come into operation on 1 January 1981.

Part of the Government’s long term policy objective in relation to veterans is to extend eligibility for free repatriation medical treatment to all veterans. This is necessarily a long term objective because of the substantial cost and need for increased staff resources. There are two distinct provisions in the repatriation regulations enabling treatment for veterans. Under the first, treatment may be provided for any incapacity which has been accepted as service related. Treatment may include any form of therapy available at departmental facilities or from any other source approved by the Repatriation Commission. Under the second, the same treatment is extended to certain categories of veterans, subject to certain qualifications, for all conditions whether or not they are accepted as related to the veteran’s service.

I am pleased to announce another significant step forward in the Government’s policies and objectives. As from 13 November 1980 all Australian mariners who were captured and detained by the enemy and all veterans and Australian mariners who suffer from an amputation or loss of vision in one eye resulting from a Service related disability or war injury respectively, who do not now qualify on other grounds, will be eligible for free medical treatment, subject to certain qualifications, for all conditions irrespective of cause. I should mention that this move will align Australian mariners with other Australian veterans in respect of the benefits available to persons who were prisoners of war.

I am pleased to inform honourable members that, in addition, provision has been made for increases in many other repatriation benefits. The addition to the pension for a veteran in receipt of the general rate pension, who has had a limb, or limbs amputated, or has lost an eye or the vision in an eye as a result of service related causes, is to be increased. The new rate for a veteran suffering from loss of vision in one eye will be $5.80 weekly whilst the new rate for a veteran with one leg amputated above and one leg amputated below the knee will be $25.80 weekly.

The levels of orphan’s pension are also to be increased. The rate applicable for a child in the care of his mother, adoptive or step-parent, will rise by $1 .30 to $13.80 a week. If both parents are deceased, or the child is not being maintained by a parent, adoptive parent or step-parent, the rate will rise by $2.60 to $27.60 a week. The rate of attendant’s allowance is to be increased from $ 1 7.50 to $19.32 a week in the case of a veteran who is blind or is suffering a cerebro-spinal injury. In the case of a veteran who has been blinded and is afflicted with total loss of speech or total deafness, the allowance is to be increased from $35 to $38.65 a week. Increases in additions to pension for amputations or loss of vision, orphan’s pension and attendant’s allowance are to come into effect on 13 November 1980.

The Bill provides for the pension to be adjusted in the event of over-assessment of the new temporary incapacity allowance or the existing loss of earnings allowance. For example, the temporary incapacity allowance is to be paid at a rate equal to the difference between the assessed rate of disability pension and the special T & PI rate. If a subsequent decision is made which increases the assessed rate of pension during the period in which the allowance was paid, it will be necessary to make an adjustment in respect of the amount of the allowance paid. As a consequence of amendment of the Social Services Act, the Repatriation Act is to be amended to exclude the pay, allowances or any gratuity paid to a member of the Defence Forces Reserve or Emergency Reserve Forces as income for the purpose of those pensions that are subject to an income test, and to align the payment of pensions and sickness benefits to the inmates of mental hospitals with those payable to patients in other institutions.

In conclusion, I would emphasise that the Government is concerned to see that those who served their country in time of war are appropriately compensated for any losses they have suffered or sacrifices they have made. This is not to say that we can accede immediately to every request for additional or increased pensions or allowances. Although available funds are limited, it is worth noting that in this year expenditure under the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio will be in the region of S 1 ,600m. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 804

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (5.45 · Curtin · LP

– I move:

This Bill is the first of 12 Bills that I will be introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth’s obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. In view of the time available for the introduction of these Bills and the fact that most of the Bills are to lie on the table and will not be debated this year, I propose to seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. This matter and the procedures I wish to follow have been mentioned not only to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who represents the Opposition in this matter but also to Mr Speaker who, I think, would like me to emphasise that it is not to be taken as a precedent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech, which has been circulated.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

Before I discuss the Bill, I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the administrative and legislative context in which these Bills will operate.

Formal Agreement on Companies and Securities

On 6 March 1 979, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, outlined the main features of the Formal Agreement which was executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978. This Agreement provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. There is also provision for the scheme to be extended to the Northern Territory and to the external Territories of the Commonwealth.

This Agreement sets out, among other things, the four basic elements of the scheme: First, the establishment of a ministerial council comprising Ministers of the Commonwealth and each of the six States; second, the establishment of a fulltime National Companies and Securities Commission - hereafter referred to as the National Commission- to have responsibility in the entire area, subject to directions from the ministerial council; third, the continuation of existing State administrations; and, fourth, the adoption of a proposal for legislative uniformity which recognises that the States are not required to surrender or refer any constitutional power.

I think that it is now appropriate to remind the House briefly of these elements. The first of the four basic elements of the scheme is the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, which is established by the Formal Agreement itself. The Council is composed of a ministerial representative from each party to the Formal Agreement. The functions of the Ministerial Council are to consider and to keep under review the legislation provided for by the Formal Agreement and to exercise general oversight and control over the implementation and operation of the scheme. In exercising its review functions over legislation, the Ministerial Council approves all the legislation that is required to give effect to the co-operative scheme. The initial legislation requires unanimous approval and amending legislation, with certain exceptions, requires approval by a simple majority.

It might be useful to mention at this point that nobody on the Ministerial Council, not even the Commonwealth respresentative, gets all his own way. There was a great deal of argument, debate and compromise in order to get this scheme in its present form. Frankly, I think that this process has made the whole thing better. I think that the work that has gone into the drafting of this legislation has been enormous and arduous and has achieved a better result. The second basic element in the co-operative scheme is that the substantive scheme legislation will be administered by the National Commission, a body established by the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, which came into operation on 1 February 1980.

The National Commission will be subject to directions from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, which is established by the Formal Agreement. The National Commission will, as far as is practicable, delegate its administrative responsibilities to the relevant corporate affairs office in each State and Territory jurisdiction. The continuation of these existing State and Territory Corporate Affairs offices is the third basic element in the co-operative scheme. Under the Formal Agreement, the National Commission is required to work through these State and Territory offices to the maximum extent practicable, see clause 37 of the Formal Agreement, and with due regard to the maximum development of a decentralised administrative capacity, see clause 35 of the Formal Agreement. In recognition of these requirements, all documents that are required to be lodged with the National Commission under a particular law will be lodged with the relevant local State or Territory Corporate Affairs Office. For example, sub-section 14(1) of the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 provides that a document that is required under the scheme legislation to be lodged with the National Commission shall be lodged at the office of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission. Any such document that is lodged, or submitted for lodgement, at that Australian Capital Territory office shall be deemed to be lodged, or submitted for lodgement, as the case may be, with the National Commission. Each State will make similar provision in its application of laws legislation in relation to lodgement with the Corporate Affairs Office for that State.

The final basic element of the co-operative scheme, the legislative framework, involves the use of what has become known as the legislative device. The substantive legislation to be administered by the National Commission will be set out in Commonwealth Acts and regulations under those Acts. This Commonwealth legislation will be the law in force in the Australian Capital Territory. Each other jurisdiction covered by the cooperative scheme will then pass legislation applying the relevant Commonwealth law as the law of that jurisdiction. This legislation will operate to the exclusion of that jurisdiction’s present companies and securities legislation as from the commencement of the relevant scheme legislation in that jurisdiction. Subsequently, any amendments to the Commonwealth law that are approved by the Ministerial Council will, subject to the making of any necessary ‘translator’ regulations have automatic effect without the necessity for further and separate substantive legislation in each other jurisdiction.

The aim is that, as far as possible, any person or company should be able to deal on all general companies and securities matters as if that person or company were only subject to one system of law and administration throughout Australia. The co-operative scheme thus provides a framework for uniform general laws on companies and securities matters that will apply throughout Australia. It was, however, never intended to fetter the sovereign right of any Parliament to pass particular laws which are not inconsistent with the general legislation agreed to under the scheme.

The substantive codes

In addition to the legislation establishing the National Commission and supporting its operation in jurisdictions other than the Australian Capital Territory, the substantive legislation for the scheme will at this stage be contained in four codes:

  1. a share acquisition code which will regulate the acquisition of company shares;
  2. a securities industry code which will regulate the securities industry;
  3. a companies code which will cover the remaining areas dealt with in the current companies and marketable securities legislation; and
  4. an interpretation code which deals with the interpretation of the Commonwealth legislation under this scheme.

Public Consultation

The Formal Agreement foreshadowed a major exercise in legislative uniformity and law reform where this was necessary. In embarking on this exercise, this Government and the other governments which are parties to the Formal Agreement have sought to ensure that there is at all times adequate opportunity for the proposed legislation to be considered by interested persons. Comments were sought and received on the proposed share acquisition code, the proposed securities industry code and the proposed companies code.

In addition, committees of interested Government and Opposition members have been regularly briefed on the scheme and the Commonwealth legislation under it. I thank those honourable members who have indicated to me their gratitude for the briefings that have been given to them on the instructions of the Government. It was necessary that these briefings take place in this case because of the nature of the cooperative scheme. Following exposure of the various Commonwealth Bills public submissions were examined by the Ministerial Council which then approved the Bills in their final form for presentation to this Parliament in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Formal Agreement. Accordingly, it was necessary for any criticisms and review within the ranks of the Opposition and the members of the Government parties to take place in this rather unusual way. As has been announced by the Ministerial Council following discussions with the States, we will also be seeking further comments on the companies code before the passage is sought for the Bills relating to that code.

The present position

We have now reached the stage where there is substantial and visible progress towards the completion of the co-operative companies and securities scheme. As is to be expected where seven governments are involved there will from time to time be differences which require resolution at a political level. To date all differences have been resolved and I am hopeful that we will continue to be able to resolve any future differences that may arise. We have reached agreement on the location of the various bodies to be established under the scheme. Following discussions during the first half of 1979, Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for company law met in Adelaide on 10 August 1979 to discuss the location of the National Commission. All capital cities were considered for the location of the various bodies associated with the scheme. Although no vote was taken on these questions the Ministers decided that in order to get the scheme off the ground they would recommend to their respective governments that the National Commission be located in Melbourne and the secretariat to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities be located in Sydney. The Ministers also decided to recommend to their governments that the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee be located in Sydney. They further agreed that should the Accounting Standards Review Board at present being considered by the Ministerial Council, be established, Sydney would be the appropriate site. The Ministers reaffirmed their strong support for the scheme and undertook to do everything possible to expedite its implementation. The seven governments accepted these Ministerial Council recommendations.

Following the resolution of this issue, we were able to reach agreement on the terms of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act and the appointment of the members of the National Commission. Three full time members - Mr Leigh Masel, Chairman, Mr John Coleman, Deputy Chairman, and Mr Tony Greenwood - and two part-time members, Mr John Nosworthy and Mr John Uhrig, were appointed to the National Commission on 11 March of this year and commenced duty on or shortly after that date. The original Commonwealth Acts relating to the share acquisition code, the securities industry code and the interpretation code have passed through this Parliament and have received royal assent. In addition we have agreed on the general procedure for handling the Bills relating to the companies code.

The Future

There are, of course, many matters which remain to be attended to. First, there is the need to make certain amendments to the Commonwealth Acts which have already been passed to take account of the further work that has been done on the scheme legislation. The first four Bills I am presenting today cover these amendments. Secondly, there is a need to finalise the content of the regulations that will be required under these Commonwealth Acts. Thirdly, there is a need to settle the form and content of the companies code, a matter about which I will have more to say when moving the second reading of the Companies Bill. Fourthly, each State will have to pass a series of Bills. There will be a National Companies and Securities Commission (State Provisions) Bill to support the National Commission in that State. There will also be an (Application of Laws) Bill for each of the four codes in each State. The State Bill other than the

Companies (Application of Laws) Bill have been cleared by the Ministerial Council for introduction into individual State parliaments and it is anticipated that these Bills will be introduced and passed in most States later this year. Fifthly, the National Commission will have to proceed with its administrative arrangements for the administration of the scheme.

It is hoped that, in the longer term, it may be possible to provide for the establishment of automatic data processing facilities which will assist the National Commission and the State and Territory Corporate Affairs offices in maintaining a unified system of administration. Accordingly, Ministers have directed their advisers to examine a feasibility study prepared by the Commonwealth-State Working Group. This Working Group reported on ADP systems which could be used to assist with the administration of the co-operative scheme. It is the hope of Ministers that we will be able to bring the new share acquisition code, the new securities industry code and the interpretation code into operation early in 1981. Following further community consultation in relation to the companies code we would hope to have legislation prepared in accordance with a timetable that would enable us to bring the companies code into operation later in 1 98 1 .

National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill

I would now like to discuss very briefly the first of the Bills that I am presenting today, the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill. A detailed explanation of the amendments contained in this Bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill.

The definition of ‘Agreement’ will be amended so that references to the Formal Agreement made between the Commonwealth and the States of 22 December 1978 will cover that Agreement as amended or affected by subsequent agreements. The provisions in the NCSC Act relating to the application of moneys of the National Commission will be amended so that moneys that vest in the National Commission under another law can be dealt with in accordance with that law. The provisions in the NCSC Act dealing with audit by the Auditor-General will be amended to ensure that the State governments participating in the co-operative scheme retain exclusive control over the auditing of the books or records kept by their authorities or officers where they are acting as delegates of the National Commission. The provisions in the NCSC Act relating to divisions of the National Commission will be amended to allow a division to be constituted of members other than the Chairman of the National Commission. The NCSC Act is also being amended to provide for the establishment of a secretariat for the Ministerial Council. Staff and facilities for the secretariat will be provided by the National Commission. The Bill will come into effect on the day on which it receives royal assent. The National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr Hurford:

– Before moving that the debate be adjourned, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say that 1 am glad we are making history by incorporating these second reading speeches. I think that it is a complete waste of time for Ministers to read second reading speeches in the way that they have done hitherto. I hope that it will be part of a reform generally and that this precedent will give rise to further thought about this matter. I will be pleased to give leave to the Minister for a further 10 second reading speeches to be incorporated in connection with this legislative package. There is no restriction on anybody receiving copies of the second reading speeches and being able to read them at length. I am happy that we have broken new ground today.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 807

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION OF SHARES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Amendment Bill is to amend the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 which sets out the substantive law for the proposed new Australian code which will regulate the acquisition of company shares. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the Amendment Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with this Bill. The first two clauses of the Bill deal with the short title and the Bill’s commencement of operation. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with substantive amendments and drafting changes to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act.

Among other things, the principal Act will not now apply to a compromise or arrangement under sub-section 181 or 183 of the existing companies legislation. Where an expert’s report accompanies a Part B statement, the target company will now lodge with the National Companies and Securities Commission a notice signed by the expert stating that the expert consents to his report accompanying the Part B statement. If such a report contains a profit forecast or a statement on the target company’s asset valuations, it may not accompany the Part B statement unless the National Commission consents. A new provision on the variation of formal takeover offers will be inserted in the principal Act. Variations are to be made only with the consent of the National Commission unless the variation is in accordance with the provisions of the relevant section or the regulations. Finally, Part A and Part C statements will be required to set out the bidder’s intentions regarding continuing the target company business, any major changes to be made to that business, and also the future employment of its staff. This last mentioned amendment deals with a question that was raised by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) during the debate on the principal Act.

I am aware of the view that has been expressed by the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges about paragraph 8 (9) (a) of the principal Act and the question of ‘crossings’. This matter was considered by the Ministerial Council at its meeting on 8 August but its view was not agreed to. In fact, having regard to the important issue of conflict of interest, the Ministers considered that an additional provision should be inserted in subsection 1 7 ( 1 ) to make it clear that the same prohibition applied during an on-market offer. Later today, I will be speaking on the second amendment Bill to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980, which is necessary to take account of consequential amendments to that Act because of the Companies Bill which I will be presenting to the House. The Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Amendment Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 808

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of the Securities Industry Amendment Bill is to amend the Securities Industry Act 1980 which regulates the securities industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The other jurisdictions that are covered by the Formal Agreement on companies and securities will pass legislation applying the securities industry code in those other jurisdictions. A detailed explanation of amendments in the Amendment Bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill.

Among other things, the principal Act will be amended by the Bill to ensure that the National Commission can only exercise its powers of inspection for the purposes of the co-operative scheme. The Commission will now be able to require information from a person only if that person is able to provide such information. Where a person takes possession of books under the provisions of the Act, any lien on those books will now be protected. There will now be a defence to a prosecution of offences relating to false or misleading information if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the information was true and not misleading. Proven copies of extracts of books will now be allowable as evidence.

There are a number of amendments to the investigation provisions in the principal Act. The National Commission will now have additional powers to obtain information from certain persons in specified circumstances and subject to specified safeguards. Where the record of an examination under the investigation provisions is reduced to writing the inspector may require the person being examined to sign the record. Copies of the written record will be able to be provided by the National Commission to certain persons and they may be provided subject to conditions imposed by the National Commission. There are also a number of drafting changes made in the amending Bill. This amending Bill will come into operation on the same day on which the principal

Act comes into operation. The Securities Industry Amendment Bill 1980 has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 809

COMPANIES AND SECURITIES (INTERPRETATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is to amend the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which provides for the interpretation of the Commonwealth legislation under the cooperative companies and securities law. This amendment Bill will assist in the uniform interpretation of all of the legislation that is to be administered by the National Commission. A detailed explanation of the amendment Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill. Among other things this Bill will amend the definition of ‘Formal Agreement’ to take account of amendments to that Agreement before the principal Commonwealth Act comes into operation.

The definition of statutory declaration will be omitted as these declarations will not now be required under any of the provisions of any of the substantive codes. Instead, written statements will be required. The Bill will ensure that the present law relating to the persons in each jurisdiction who are entitled to present indictments remains unaltered. The Bill also indicates which offences should be treated as indictable offences and which offences should be treated as summary offences under the co-operative scheme. Provision is also made in the Bill for recognition to be given for evidentiary purposes to corresponding laws in a State or another Territory.

The Bill will come into operation on the day on which the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 comes into operation. The Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 809

COMPANIES BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Companies Bill sets out the substantive provisions of the proposed new companies code and applies those provisions in the Australian Capital Territory - see clause 3 of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the legislation will be capable of application in other parts of Australia by separate application legislation in the other Australian jurisdictions. The application legislation will have to be approved by the Ministerial Council and passed through the relevant State parliaments.

Public exposure

Drafts of the Companies Bill and the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill were exposed for public comment from 14 April to 4 July 1980. Commonwealth and State Ministers considered the submissions from the public at a special meeting on 24 July 1980 and at a formal meeting of the Ministerial Council on 8 August 1980. The current Bill is a result of a careful assessment of all the comments received on the exposure draft. Ministers felt that the changes being recommended by their advisers as a result of the process of community consultation were so substantial that it was appropriate to allow the amended Bills to be exposed for public comment.

Content of Bill

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the new companies code is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with this Bill. An outline of the main features of the new code is at paragraphs 17 to 19 of this memorandum. An outline of the main differences between the draft that was exposed in April and the Companies Bill that is now being presented to this Parliament is at Attachment C to the explanatory memorandum. In accordance with the Formal Agreement the Companies Bill is based on the Companies Acts of the four States which are parties to the Interstate Corporate Affairs Agreement, with various modifications. Paragraph 20 to 23 of the explanatory memorandum lists the more significant of these modifications.

One of the most important of these modifications is the group of provisions that are required to ensure that an Australia company in a jurisdiction covered by the co-operative scheme can lodge all its documents with the Corporate Affairs Office in its jurisdiction of incorporation - home jurisdiction- without the need to lodge documents anywhere else. Similarly, overseas corporations will only have to register in one participating jurisdiction. Whereas the provisions of the acquisition of shares and securities industry codes will have the greatest impact on listed and other public companies, all Australian companies which carry on business in more than one jurisdiction will experience the benefits of the proposed new companies code. The new code will enable companies to lodge documents in only one jurisdiction while still being able to carry on business in other participating jurisdictions where their name is available. These companies will no longer be required to register as foreign companies in a number of jurisdictions. Corresponding benefits will flow to those persons wishing to examine records of the National Commission in order to ascertain, for example, the extent to which security has been given over a company’s assets in various jurisdictions. In the case of companies under investigation, or companies in liquidation, administration will be simplified as the need will have been obviated to appoint separate inspectors or liquidators respectively in those States in which a particular company has been carrying on business.

Any Australian body which is not a company in its jurisdiction of formation and any Australian company formed in a non-participating jurisdiction will still be required to register as a ‘foreign company’ in each participating Australian jurisdiction in which that body wishes to carry on business or to establish a place of business. I would also mention that clause 576 of the Companies Bill provides for the making of regulations. The Companies (Application of Laws) Bill in each State will apply these regulations in each jurisdiction other than the Australian Capital Territory drafting instructions for the companies regulations have been prepared and regulations are now being drafted.

Further Amendments to Companies Bill

Commonwealth and State Ministers have directed their advisers to continue work on this Bill during the exposure period. I would like to mention, for the benefit of honourable members, four matters on which work will be continuing and on which public comments would be welcomed. The first of these matters is the operation of trading trusts. Clauses 167D to 167F of the April exposure draft contained provisions in relation to the nature and extent of disclosure that should be required of the assets and liabilities of a business trust in the accounts of a trustee company. A considerable number of submissions were received on these provisions, many of them critical and many raising new issues that had not been dealt with in the exposure draft. After reviewing the submissions, Ministers unanimously agreed that further work was required to be done on this matter before any legislation could be prepared. Accordingly, Ministers have asked their advisers to undertake further work on trading trusts with a view to further consideration of the matter by the Ministerial Council.

The second matter that Ministers still have under consideration is the maximum size that should be allowed under clause 33 of the Bill for professional partnerships. The third matter that Commonwealth and State Ministers have directed their advisers to continue work on is registration of charges. Ministers wish to ensure that any remaining anomalies or problems in this complex area of the law are clearly identified for further review by the Ministerial Council.

Fourthly, I will be asking Commonwealth officers to take up with State officers the need to ensure that Australian branches of overseas incorporated companies disclose publicly as much information as Australian incorporated companies. It is the belief of this Government that uniform, complete disclosure by both domestic and foreign companies alike is a prerequisite to an efficient capital market. Considerations of equity as between locally and overseas controlled enterprises call for an evenhanded approach to be adopted to the disclosure obligations in the companies legislation. These proposed provisions would give effect to the Government’s undertaking contained in the policy statement on foreign investment made by the then Treasurer in 1 976.

Further Public Comment

Mr Speaker, earlier in this speech I mentioned the importance of ensuring that there is adequate consultation with the community on the content of the companies and securities laws covered by the Formal Agreement. The Companies Bill, the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the other Bills, that I will be presenting shortly, are being introduced at this time to allow further study of the provisions of the proposed new code by both honourable members and the public. Any submissions that are received will be carefully examined. It would assist this examination if submissions could reach me or the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs by 21 December 1980. I commend the Companies Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 811

COMPANIES (FEES) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Busi ness and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Companies (Fees) Bill is related to the Companies Bill. The Companies (Fees) Bill will deal with fees payable under the companies code. An explanatory memorandum on the Bill has been circulated for the benefit of honourable members. This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Companies (Fees) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 811

COMPANIES (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill is to enact, for the Australian Capital Territory, transitional provisions that will be consequent upon the enactment of the Companies Bill. This Bill will come into operation on the same day as the commencement of the Companies Bill itself. Each State will be including in its Companies (Application of Laws) Bill appropriate transitional provisions which will be modelled on those contained in its Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill but with such modifications as are necessary to take account of the particular circumstances of that State. As with the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill itself, the transitional provisions in the State (Application of Laws) Bills will require the unanimous approval of the Ministerial Council. Mr Speaker, I commend the Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 811

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION OF SHARES) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Amendment Bill (No. 2) will amend the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act consequential on the provisions that are set out in the Companies Bill. Details of the amendments are set out in an explanatory memorandum. This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Amendment Bill (No. 2) to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 811

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Securities Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) amends in certain respects the Securities Industry Act 1980 consequential on the provisions that are proposed for the Companies Bill. Details of the amendments are set out in an explanatory memorandum. The Securities Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Securities Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 812

COMPANIES AND SECURITIES (INTERPRETATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) amends in certain respects the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 consequential on the provisions that are proposed for the Companies Bill. Details of the amendments are set out in an explanatory memorandum. The Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. 1 commend the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 812

COMPANIES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Companies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill deals with miscellaneous amendments to certain other Commonwealth Acts consequent upon the repeal of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance and the enactment of the Companies Bill.

Details of the amendments are contained in an explanatory memorandum that has been circulated for the benefit of honourable members. This Bill and the Crown Debts (Priority) Bill do not form part of the co-operative scheme legislation and therefore do not require the approval of the Ministerial Council. Each State will also require a Miscellaneous Amendments Bill which, again, will not be part of the scheme legislation. There will also be a separate Companies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance containing consequential amendments to Australian Capital Territory ordinances. Mr Speaker, I commend the Companies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 812

CROWN DEBTS (PRIORITY) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Crown Debts (Priority) Bill reflects the Commonwealth Government’s view that the Crown in right of the Commonwealth should be placed in the same position in an insolvency situation in relation to ordinary debts as any other creditor. This decision was announced to the

House by my predecessor on 13 September 1979, following a report that was tabled in the Senate by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, on the right of the Crown to be repaid debts owing to it in priority to other creditors in matters of bankruptcy, corporate liquidations or other cases of impecunious persons or corporations.

In its report the Senate Committee recommended the complete abrogation of all Crown priorities in insolvency administrations. The Government examined the report and was in agreement with the main thrust of the Committee’s argument. The Government supports uniformity of insolvency administration, which was of particular concern to the Senate Committee. It also acknowledged the desirability of placing the Crown on an even footing with the private sector so far as possible. Accordingly, my predecessor announced that the Government had decided to abolish all remaining Crown priorities in the Commonwealth sphere except in relation to tax instalment deductions and withholding tax on dividends and interest remitted overseas and to seek the abolition of all remaining Crown priorities in the State sphere. Special considerations apply in relation to those two categories of debt and separate them from other Crown debts. Consequential changes will be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and other associated tax legislation in a separate Bill.

The Crown Debts (Priority) Bill will abrogate the prerogative priority of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and will ensure that, in a corporate insolvency, the Commonwealth is under an obligation to repay preferential payments in circumstances where other creditors would be obliged to do so. Details of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the benefit of honourable members. I commend the Crown Debts (Priority) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 813

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy scheme for a further calendar year until 31 December 1981, at the current rate of subsidy of $20 per tonne of nitrogen content. The proposed extension of the operation of this Scheme was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget speech to the Parliament on 19 August 1980. The subsidy was first introduced in 1966, with the aim of reducing costs to the existing users of the fertiliser, and to encourage the use of the fertiliser in new applications. Nitrogenous fertilisers have continued to be used extensively by sugar and grain producers in Australia.

In 1975, the Industries Assistance Commission recommended that the subsidy on this fertiliser be phased out over three years. The Government accepted this recommendation in principle, but decided to extend the phase-out period following consideration of the views of user industries and the need for budgetary restraint. With these considerations in mind, the level of subsidy has been progressively reduced from $78.74 per tonne to the current rate of $20 per tonne. In view of the reliance placed on nitrogenous fertilisers by an increasing number of producers, particuarly those producing wheat and sugar for export, the Government has decided that continuation of the subsidy for this further period will provide come relief from the escalating pressure of input costs which farmers are experiencing. Next year the Government will examine the question of the continuation of the subsidy beyond 31 December 1981. The cost to the Government of this subsidy for the further period is estimated to be $5. 5m. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 813

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– I move:

By this Bill the Government proposes to amend the National Health Act to implement certain measures foreshadowed in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). These measures are to extend pensioner health fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries; to further ease the burden on persons who live in isolated areas and must travel long distances to obtain specialist medical treatment; and to increase the domiciliary nursing care benefit. The opportunity is also being taken to make some minor changes to the provisions relating to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

Honourable members will recall that in the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Government had decided to extend the eligibility criteria for pensioner health benefit cards in appropriate cases to persons receiving sickness benefits. This will mean that sickness beneficiaries and their dependants, other than those excluded by the pensioner health benefits income test, will be entitled to receive certain Commonwealth health benefits free of charge, namely; the provision, with the agreement of doctors, of schedule medical services; pharmaceutical benefits; and hearing aids and batteries from the National Acoustic Laboratories.

Honourable members will be aware that the Treasurer also announced in his Budget Speech that the eligibility criteria for pensioner health benefits cards would be extended with respect to certain people receiving supporting parent’s benefits and Veterans’ Affairs pensions. I would point out to the House that it is expected that about 100,000 additional Australians will become eligible for assistance with their medical, pharmaceutical and hearing aid costs as a result of the extension of eligibility criteria for PHB cards in this way. In addition, I would point out to the House that it is expected that there will be about 2.25 million people throughout Australia benefiting from the PHB card scheme by the end of this year. This compares with 2.02 million people as at the end of December 1979 and 1.47 million as at the end of 1975.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I would also point out that the cost to the Commonwealth of providing pharmaceutical benefits to eligible pensioners and their dependants without charge this financial year is expected to be $195m. I would further point out that the cost of the medical benefits for eligible pensioners and their dependants in 1980-81 is expected to total $3 14m. Clause 3 of this Bill amends the definition of ‘pensioner’ in the National Health Act to include sickness beneficiaries who, along with other social service beneficiaries, will be entitled to these pensioner health benefits. This entitlement extends to pensioners’ dependents and will have effect from 1 November 1980. This initiative again demonstrates the Government’s concern for the chronically ill and socially disadvantaged in our community and will have effect from 1 November 1980.

This concern is further evidenced by the Government’s Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme. This scheme has done much to assist people living in country areas who are forced to travel long distances to obtain specialist medical treatment not available locally. Since the introduction of this scheme by this Government on 1 October 1 978 the number of people assisted has progressively increased to a level where during 1979-80 over 19,000 patients were approved for assistance. Presently each approved patient, escort and attendant is required to pay the first $20 towards the cost of return travel. This has been found to cause hardship, particularly as the total cost is generally borne by the one family. To alleviate this hardship, clause 4 of the Bill will amend the Act to provide that a total contribution of only $20 is payable towards the cost of travel for each visit to the specialist. This single contribution of $20 will apply regardless of whether the patient is accompanied by an escort or an attendant. The Bill provides further relief for these people by also increasing the accommodation allowance from $15 a night to $20 a night. This increase will more adequately recompense families in accordance with the going accommodation rates. It is effected by clause 5 of the Bill.

Honourable members will be aware that persons eligible for benefits under this scheme are required to lodge their application form within six months of being referred to a specialist for treatment. As is always the case when people must comply with a time limit, there are some who miss out through no real fault of their own. To help overcome this, clause 6 of the Bill will amend the Act to extend the time to 1 2 months and allow the Director-General of Health to direct that late applications be accepted where there are extenuating circumstances. Clause 14 will introduce a provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the Director-General does not think there are extenuating circumstances and consequently fails to direct that a late application be accepted. The changes will commence on 1 October.

As honourable members will be aware, the National Health Act provides for the payment of a domiciliary nursing care benefit to persons who care, in their own homes, for relatives, or in some cases persons other than relatives. The Government has decided to increase this benefit from $2 a day to $3 a day with effect from the first benefit period in September. It did so not only to take account of increased costs but also to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of the scheme. This increase continues the pattern of improvements the Government has made to the scheme during its term of office. Eligibility has been eased considerably in recent times, and the benefit is now available to all people arranging care in their own homes for eligible relatives and other people aged 16 years and over. Prior to November 1979 the benefit was available only in respect of people aged 65 years and over. In addition the need for frequent nursing visits has been relaxed in respect of those cases where the caring person develops experience and competence in attending to the patient’s requirements.

The principal purpose of the benefit is to provide a desirable alternative to institutional care by assisting families to keep people within the family environment and the comfort of their own homes, thus improving the quality of life for many sick and disabled people. I am sure all members of this House will agree that many aged people who are sick or infirm experience greater comfort by remaining with their relatives and friends. It enables them to remain a part of the family and the community, and their enjoyment in life and its enrichment are important factors at this time of their lives. The caring persons to whom this benefit is paid make considerable personal and financial sacrifices in the work they do and this Government wishes to acknowledge this in practical terms. The intended 50 per cent increase in the rate of this benefit, following as it does the expansion of the benefit as already mentioned, demonstrates the Government’s concern for persons caring at home for their aged, chronically ill or invalid relatives. This scheme is a part of the Government’s extensive range of programs for the chronically ill and the frail and sick aged throughout Australia. The benefit increase is to be effected by clause 8.

Concomitant with the intended increase in the benefit, it is proposed to simplify the administrative arrangements for paying the benefit. Briefly, it is proposed that in all but special circumstances, the benefit will be paid on a strict fortnightly basis. This is to be paid under the new section 58GA which is inserted in the principal Act by clause 9. The only departure from this general rule will be in especially deserving cases and to prevent abuse. For example, it would seem desirable in some cases where a patient may become ineligible for a benefit due to, say, a three-week period in hospital, to be able to reinstate the benefit immediately on return to the caring person’s home. The full fortnightly installment of $42 will be paid for any short stay in hospital wholly within a benefit pay period. The provision for payment of a daily benefit could also be used to prevent abuses of the fortnightly instalment arrangements- for example, if a patient timed hospital admissions so that a maximum benefit of $42 was consistently received for incomplete fortnights of care. It is expected that this provision will discourage such abuse while, more importantly, allowing flexibility in recognising real needs in deserving cases. These new arrangements will not disadvantage recipients of the benefit.

I would point out to honourable members that the decision to implement a fortnightly system of payment was adopted in the interests of economy and efficiency. A further factor is that termination of eligibility for the benefit is generally due to the death of the person being cared for. The Department is presently faced in such circumstances with the necessity to request a person, recently bereaved, to repay an overpayment of benefit which was made before advice of the death was received. The amount of overpayment, on the average, is in respect of two to three days benefit - that is, $6 to $9. Under the proposal, benefits would be payable for the full fortnight in which eligibility for benefit ceased by reason of the death of the person being cared for. The amendments relating to the domiciliary nursing care benefit are to come into operation on 4 September 1980.

Turning finally to the machinery amendments in this bill, these amendments follow a recent review of the legislation governing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and overcome some inadequacies in the legislation. Full details are included in the explanatory document that will be distributed to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 815

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– I move:

This Bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to two matters: The extension of pensioner health fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries; and the payment of medical benefits for children with cleft lip and cleft palate conditions. With regard to the first of these matters I have already introduced the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980, which extends entitlement to free pharmaceutical benefits to persons in receipt of a sickness benefit under the Social Services Act 1947. The extension of pensioner fringe benefits also affects the Health Insurance Act 1973. By virtue of section 10 of the Health Insurance Act, eligible pensioners, as defined in the Act, are entitled to Commonwealth medical benefits at the rate of 85 per cent of the schedule fee, or the amount of the schedule fee less $5, whichever is the higher.

Clause 3 of the Bill before the House amends the definition of ‘eligible pensioner’ in the Act to include recipients of the sickness benefit. As honourable members will realise, the effect of the amendment will be to entitle beneficiaries who satisfy the pensioner health benefits income test to Commonwealth medical benefits at the level applicable to eligible pensioners generally- that is 85 per cent of schedule fees, subject to the gap between the benefit and schedule fee for or service not exceeding $5. A further effect will be to enable sickness beneficiaries, in common with all eligible pensioners, to assign to the practitioner rendering the service the Commonwealth medical benefits involved.

As I stated when introducing the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980, the extension of these benefits is further evidence of the Government ‘s continuing concern for the aged, the chronically ill and the socially disadvantaged in the community. With regard to the second matter dealt with in the Bill, I recently announced details of a number of initiatives in the health field to be launched during the International Year for Disabled Persons. One of these initiatives concerned the extension of the medical benefits schedule to include items associated with orthodontic treatment of children for cleft lip and cleft palate conditions.

It is regretted that in Australia each year about 600 children are bom with cleft lip and cleft palate conditions which require multi-disciplinary treatment from birth by doctors, orthodontists and related practitioners. The treatment is expensive and places a heavy burden on the families of such children. Although some treatments carried out by doctors and certain approved dentists, working in hospital operating theatres, are already covered by medical benefits, orthodontic and related treatments carried out in private practice are not, and parents have to meet the full cost themselves. To overcome this situation, the Government has decided to extend the medical benefits schedule so that persons under the age of 22 years of age with cleft lip and palate conditions will receive financial help for orthodontic and associated treatment.

The Bill also makes provision for the accreditation by the Minister for Health of dental practitioners for that purpose. Regulations are to be made under the Health Insurance Act to amend the medical benefits schedule to include services, for orthodontic and associated treatment related to cleft lip and cleft palate conditions for children when rendered by persons who are accredited dental practitioners. For medical benefits to be payable a patient must be a child who is certified, by a practitioner approved by the Minister, to be a sufferer of cleft lip or cleft palate condition and who is referred, in a manner to be prescribed by regulation, to an accredited dental practitioner.

The existing disciplinary provisions of the Health Insurance Act relating to, for example, over-servicing are to apply to accredited dental practitioners in the same way as they apply to other practitioners. These amendments are to come into operation on the date of royal assent. However, medical benefits will not be payable immediately for such treatment because of the necessity to make regulations amending the medical benefits schedule. It is hoped that this will be achieved by early next year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned.

page 816

TAXATION DEBTS (ABOLITION OF CROWN PRIORITY) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

This Bill complements other legislative measures so as to give effect to the Government decision announced in this House on 1 3 September 1 979, by the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, concerning the priority of the Crown over other creditors in insolvency situations. As indicated then, it is proposed to abolish generally the rights that the Commonwealth has to receive payment in priority over other creditors. This decision by the Government followed consideration of a report tabled by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the right of the Crown to be repaid debts ahead of other creditors. The Senate Committee had recommended that all Crown priorities in insolvency administrations should be abrogated entirely.

As announced by the Minister last year, the Government agrees generally with the Committee that it is desirable that the Crown be placed, so far as possible, on an equal basis with creditors in the private sector. However, as indicated previously, the Government takes the view that the special considerations that apply in relation to pay as you earn tax instalment deductions and withholding tax deductions from dividends and interest distinguish those debts from other Crown debts. A separate Bill, to be introduced by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland), will abrogate the prerogative, or common law, priority of the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth. The Bill I now introduce addresses itself to complementary changes that are required in the taxation laws of the Commonwealth to give full effect to the Government’s decision. Those consequential changes will affect existing statutory provisions relating to income tax, sales tax, Australian Capital Territory pay-roll tax, wool tax, the stevedoring industry charge and the tobacco charge.

I note that the Government’s decision in this matter has been in practical effect since 1 November 1979. From that date, under authority vested in the Minister for Finance by section 70C of the Audit Act, the priority of the Commonwealth in respect of tax debts - other than for tax instalment deductions and withholding tax - has in cases of company insolvency been postponed so as to rank the Commonwealth with unsecured ordinary creditors. Consistent with that position, the amendments to be made in the various taxation laws by this Bill are being expressed to have come into effect on 1 November 1979. A longstanding provision of the income tax law requires the liquidator of a company that is being wound up to pay income tax in priority to all other unsecured debts of the company. This Bill will repeal that provision.

In respect of taxes and charges other tan income tax, the commonwealth’s priority is derived from the prerogative right of the Crown which, as I have indicated, is to be abrogated by another Bill. In relation to income tax and the other taxes and charges that I have mentioned, the Bill will make complementary changes in provisions that place certain responsibilities on liquidators or receivers for debenture holders. They must notify the Commissioner of Taxation of their appointment and must set aside assets of the company to meet the full amount of any tax or charge assessed under the various taxation Acts. The existing requirements to set aside moneys will be replaced by a lesser requirement which recognises the position that the Commonwealth is now to be treated as an ordinary creditor.

In particular, the Bill will make clear that a liquidator or receiver will be able to part with the assets of a company at any time for the purposes of satisfying debts which are secured or which, under Commonwealth, State or Territory law, are to be accorded preference over ordinary debts of a company. For example, amounts that attract preference as being owed to employees of an insolvent company for unpaid wages or accrued leave and similar entitlements will come into this category. Whilst these ‘setting aside’ provisions do not in themselves confer on the Commonwealth any right to payment, the Government accepts that the responsibilities that they impose should not be inconsistent with the ordinary creditor status that tax debts are now to be given. Accordingly, the Bill will ensure that the requirements on liquidators or receivers to set aside assets for payment of tax are limited to the setting aside of a pro rata share of such assets as remain to pay ordinary creditors, that is, after secured and preferred debts and administration costs have been met.

Opportunity is also taken in this Bill to make a number of amendments of a purely formal drafting nature to certain of the taxation Acts being amended by the Bill. These amendments will not disturb the practical operation of those Acts. Technical details of the changes proposed by the Bill are more fully explained in the explanatory memorandum that is now being circulated. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 817

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I present a report of the Committee entitled ‘Aboriginal Legal Aid’ incorporating a dissenting report, together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr Hurford:

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that this matter was supposed to come into this House earlier today. The Opposition was given no notice whatsoever that it was not to be brought on at that time. I am Manager of Opposition Business. I ought to be the first to know it. The next thing I was told was that it would be brought on at about 1 1 o’clock tonight prior to the last item appearing on the Notice Paper. Suddenly, with no warning, the matter is brought into this House. The few honourable members who feel very keenly about this matter are not in the chamber at present. They also had no warning about it being brought on. At this stage, I exercise my right to protest at the way this House is being run because I think that out of common courtesy the Government would let us know what is coming on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member has made his point. Is leave granted for the honourable member for Dundas to make a statement?

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, can the honourable member for Dundas defer making his statement until we have located my colleagues or could you ask him to give us an assurance that my colleagues can say something on the matter later?

Mr Scholes:

– The assurances are not worth anything.

Mr Bryant:

– Right. It seems that we have held the ground satisfactorily, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Leave granted.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I apologise if there was any neglect on my part. I do not believe there was because I endeavoured to inform my colleagues at the earliest opportunity once I knew that there would be an opportunity to present this report tonight. Certainly, I would like them to be here because the report contains significant agreement amongst my colleagues and me and it is one which I believe will commend itself to the Parliament.

The principal finding of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in its report on Aboriginal legal aid is that the legal needs and demands of the Aboriginal people have been appallingly neglected by the wider Australian community and its institutions. As a result, Aboriginals are severely disadvantaged in their dealings with the legal system. It has only been during the last decade with the establishment of the Aboriginal legal services throughout Australia that Aboriginals have had access to legal aid to protect and enforce their rights and to promote their interests in the legal system and in the Australian community generally. The report that I have just tabled in this House provides, I believe, a careful and detailed analysis of Aboriginal’s involvement with the law and the effectiveness of the Aboriginal legal services in promoting Aboriginal’s access to legal advice and assistance.

The Committee is concerned that Aboriginals are significantly over-represented in the criminal justice system compared with non-Aboriginals and are disadvantaged at all stages of criminal law process. It has found that:

Aboriginal arrest rates are proportionately higher than those for non-Aboriginals; many more Aboriginals than non-Aboriginals are proceeded against by arrest rather than by summons; and ‘

Aboriginal people are less likely to be released on bail than others.

It has also found: conviction rates for Aboriginal people are higher than for non-Aboriginals. Aboriginal defendants are less likely to be acquitted or have charges dismissed than non-Aboriginal defendants; imprisonment, rather than alternative penalties, is a more common outcome for convicted Aboriginals than others; and

Aboriginal offenders are consistently underrepresented in work release programs. They are significantly younger, more disadvantaged in their economic, social and educational backgrounds and more likely to have been previously committed to juvenile institutions.

By contrast, Aboriginals are consistently underrepresented in civil proceedings, an area of the law to which they rarely have access and in which their needs and demands for legal aid remain largely unmet. In the report, the Committee has attempted to deal with the many complex reasons underlying the Aboriginals’ disadvantaged position within the legal system. It has attributed their disadvantage to: the depressed physical and socio-economic environments in which the vast majority of Aboriginal people live, and a history of conflict, dispossession of land, prejudice and discrimination within the community and the legal system.

It has also attributed their problems within the legal system to the failure of conventional organisations to meet the legal needs and demands of Aboriginal people; the inability of law enforcement agencies, the legal profession and members of the judiciary to communicate effectively with Aboriginal people; and Aboriginals’ geographical isolation which has denied them access to community services in general and to legal services in particular.

Before the establishment of the Aboriginal legal services, most Aboriginal defendants appearing in court on criminal charges were unrepresented. They were usually inarticulate, not conversant with court procedures, and unaware of how to present their cases. They were certainly incapable of conducting their own defence, which in an adversary court system meant their cases were generally decided solely on the basis of material presented by the prosecution. Without legal representation many Aboriginals were, and in some cases still are, technically unfit to plead because they understand neither their legal rights and obligations, the charges brought against them, the court proceedings, nor the penalties imposed upon them. The Committee believes that, in the short time since their inception, the Aboriginal legal services have improved the position of Aboriginal people before the law. Most Aboriginals appearing in courts today, certainly for serious indictable offences, receive legal advice and representation.

The Aboriginal legal services have also been effective in increasing Aboriginals’ awareness of their legal rights and obligations; improving the treatment of young Aboriginals within the legal system by promoting in juvenile courts and government agencies a growing awareness of the need for more effective liaison with Aboriginal people and of the special requirements of Aboriginal children; and in raising morale within the Aboriginal community and playing an important part in redefining the consciousness of Aboriginal people. They also have contributed significantly to the reform of the legal process by promoting within both the judicial and administrative systems, a greater responsiveness and sensitivity towards the problems of Aboriginals and the need to protect their rights and interests. In particular, the services have drawn attention to the importance of recognising traditional Aboriginal beliefs and practices and to those matters in which Aboriginal customary law and the Australian legal system are not congruent.

The Committee believes the effectiveness of the Aboriginal legal services in meeting the legal needs and demands of Aboriginal people within the current limits of available funds is attributable to their unique structure, organisation and approach to the delivery of legal aid which has made them assessible and acceptable to the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal legal services are amongst the first community based legal services in Australia and illustrate the possibilities of bringing legal advice and assistance to individuals and groups whose legal needs have not been met by conventional legal services. Moreover, they fulfil their function of providing a specialised service to the Aboriginal community without threatening the values of culture of that community. On a comparative cost per case basis, they are significantly more cost-effective than other legal aid agencies.

In recent years there has been discussion concerning the possible abolition of the Aboriginal legal services, or at least their amalgamation with other legal aid orgainsations. The weight of evidence in favour of retaining the Aboriginal legal services as identifiably Aboriginal organisations has been convincing to the Committee which has recommended the continued support of the Aboriginal legal services by the Commonwealth Government and increasing funding of the Aboriginal legal aid program. The Committee is concerned, however, that the legal needs and demands of Aboriginal people in rural areas are still not being adequately met in either the criminal or civil jurisdictions. It believes there is a need for the Aboriginal legal services to further decentralise their operations to cater for these needs. It has therefore recommended that they direct more resources towards the provision of legal aid in rural areas.

The Committee has also concluded that the development of separate regional legal services is the most effective way of improving the access of Aboriginal people to legal aid because smaller localised services provide for greater community participation and control, and because each legal service is directly accountable to the local community it serves. While the initial cost pf establishing separate services may exceed the cost of expanding the coverage of established services by setting up branch offices, the Committee believes that, in the long term, smaller regional services will provide the most effective Aboriginal legal service, particularly to Aboriginal people in rural areas, which, as I mentioned, is the real area of need.

A major area of concern to the Committee has been the lack of training available to Aboriginal people staffing the Aboriginal legal services. In this respect, the Committee has made specific recommendations relating to the training of Aboriginal solicitors, Aboriginal field officers and Aboriginal management staff. The Committee has also reported on and made recommendations in relation to Aboriginal-police relations; the special legal needs of Aboriginal women; Aboriginal customary law; Aboriginal community legal education; and the role and effectiveness of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in administering the Government’s Aboriginal legal aid program.

During the inquiry the Committee reviewed the Interim Charter, a document introduced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) late last year, which prescribes how the Aboriginal legal services are to apply funds made available to them by the Commonwealth Government. The Committee believes that existing government controls applied to organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal services and the legal services’ own constitutions, which are approved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, provide sufficient checks and guarantees to ensure the services’ accountability to the Government for funds they receive. It is important, however, that any amendments to the services’ constitutions be approved by the Minister, and that auditors examining the services’ accounts ensure that the moneys are spent in accordance with the objectives set out in the organisations’ constitutions. In short, the Committee does not see the need for a document such as the Interim Charter.

In drawing this conclusion, the Committee has been mindful of the Government’s policy of selfmanagement in Aboriginal affairs. The Committee considers it important that the funding body does not act in such a way as to unreasonably inhibit an Aboriginal organisation’s capacity for self-management and community control by imposing unnecessarily restrictive conditions on funding. It is also important that the role of the Aboriginal legal services’ boards of directors and committees of management are not rendered ineffectual and that the autonomy of the legal services is preserved as far as possible.

The interim charter required that the Aboriginal legal services charge clients a standard service fee, initially set at $5. This approach was rejected by the Committee. Instead, a majority of members have recommended that the Aboriginal legal services apply a properly means-tested charge for legal services provided to clients on the basis of a flexible and informal means test to be developed by the Aboriginal legal services and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This approach has been endorsed by the National Aboriginal Conference which has supported the introduction of a means test for those whose income permits the payment of fees without causing undue hardship.

While the Committee is aware of the inherent difficulties in enforcing such a scheme it considers that the introduction of a means-tested fee will help to ensure that the maximum number of Aboriginals benefit from the facilities provided by the Aboriginal legal services. The Committee has recommended that income derived from the collection of fees and charges should not be deducted from the subsequent funds provided through government grants to the Aboriginal legal services. This approach not only provides an incentive for the Aboriginal legal services to collect fees for service but also offers them a potential alternative source of revenue from the Aboriginal community and can therefore be seen as promoting Aboriginal independence and self-reliance.

The Committee also believes that there are Aboriginal people whose occupation and income places them in an economic position where they can contribute to the cost of legal services. Bearing in mind the financial constraints within which all the Aboriginal legal services operate, the Committee feels that Aboriginal people with obvious means should be required to pay for services rendered by the Aboriginal legal services on a commercially competitive basis and that the Aboriginal legal services should accept their responsibility to those clients whose disadvantage and need for legal assistance are greatest.

Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of recording the Committee’s appreciation of the contributions made by all those who participated in the Committee’s inquiry and in particular the assistance and co-operation provided by the 12 Aboriginal legal services. I thank my colleagues on the Committee for their contributions to this report. It has been a long and arduous task and there has been welcome co-operation amongst us all. I would like to thank, and to note the services of, Clive Boorman who originally started as Clerk of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when I took over as Chairman. He retired recently and was not able to continue with this reference with the Committee. I place on record my thanks for his support and encouragement and for the work he has done for the Committee over a period. I commend particularly the work of our acting Clerk, Chris Shrosbree, a young man who has stepped very well into the breach and helped in a remarkable degree. He has proved himself to be a most competent parliamentary officer whose work, I think, ought to be noted by all those who are involved in observing these matters. Molly Cranswick, who has been with our Committee and whose service has been recognised in the past not only in this place but also by other awards that she has received, has been very much a stalwart in producing this report for tabling by the Committee. Her work is very much appreciated by us all.

It is hoped that the Committee’s report on Aboriginal legal aid will contribute significantly to promoting understanding of the special legal needs and demands of Aboriginal people, that it will demonstrate the failure of conventional legal agencies to meet those needs and demands, and that it will draw attention to the Aboriginal people’s achievements in increasing Aboriginals’ access to legal aid. I thank the House.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– by leave - I, of course, agree with many of the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, because essentially this document comes to the Parliament as a report in which 95 per cent of the recommendations were agreed to by all members of the Committee. Although the area of difference involves an important principle which I will talk about later, it tends to be, when one looks at the recommendations as a whole, a minor area of difference. I share the views of the honourable member for Dundas. I join with him in his thanks to Clive Boorman, the former Secretary of the Committee, and acknowledge the very excellent work done by Chris Shrosbree in following the high standards set by him.

In speaking to this report one is bound to say that, although the Committee is significantly united in its approach, we should remember that it was united in its approach to this Parliament in its report on alcoholism and the problems that that created for Aboriginal people in our community and that many of the recommendations of that report have yet to be implemented. The Committee was equally unanimous when almost two years ago it produced a report - I believe an excellent report - on Aboriginal health, set out the nature and the dimension of the problems and made a very substantial set of recommendations. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has given an undertaking to the House that any committee report will be the subject of a statement by the relevant Minister to the Parliament within six months of its tabling. To date not only have the recommendations in that report not been acted upon significantly, there has been no statement. I am bound to say in respect of this report that I hope it does not finish up in the same position as the two previous reports, both of which made recommendations which were important not only to the future welfare of Aboriginal people in Australia but also, I believe, in terms of their implications for this Parliament.

I refer to the difference of approach between those who have signed the minority report, and those who have signed the majority report. I begin by making this point. It seems to me that, when the Parliament or a Minister refers a matter to a parliamentary committee for investigation, a Minister who just simply moves in with a whole series of predetermined positions makes life very complicated for that committee. What occurred in this instance was that on 3 January 1979 the Committee was asked to inquire, in the broadest possible terms, into the whole operation of Aboriginal legal aid. In July 1979, without any reference to the Committee or to anyone else, a charter was suddenly produced which virtually set out a whole range of recommendations as to the way in which Aboriginal legal aid services would operate. Most legal aid services ignored the recommendations in the charter because the most significant and important of them was that Aboriginals ought to pay a minimum fee of $5 in order to obtain advice from their own Aboriginal legal services. That might have been something that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) dreamed up in the middle of the night or it might have been something recommended by some of his advisers, but the reason it was not adopted by the Aboriginal legal services, as they said in their evidence to the Committee - they were overwhelmingly all of the same view - was that it was impracticable and unworkable.

When one is dealing with the legal problems of the Aboriginal people in this community, one is dealing largely with a group of people all of whom live below the poverty line in Australia. This seems to me to be an incredible situation. I know that $5 does not sound like a great deal of money but if $5 is coming out of one’s unemployment cheque or social welfare payment it is a very large amount of money. The whole history of Aboriginal legal services was that they had been created on the basis that Aboriginal people, confronted often with criminal processes or civil processes, had to be encouraged to seek legal opinion and assistance and had to have access to that without charge in order to encourage them not merely to understand the way in which the laws of a dominant white community operated but also to use the legal advisers who were provided to assist them in that situation. In the middle of all this the Minister said: ‘That is the charter’. The Aboriginal legal services overwhelmingly ignored it. That was the evidence of the Committee. Some of us who produced a minority report on this aspect - a report which I commend to the House- did so because Aboriginal legal services are adequately staffed by competent persons who are legally trained professionally. Essentially, the overwhelming nature of their practice is dealing with a group at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. We take the view that it is absurd that they must approach their work on the basis that an Aboriginal who is in receipt of substantial income may require legal services from them. They have to undergo some long and complicated exercise because a minimum means test has to be applied in every case.

Let me outline the minority view of my colleagues and I in this respect. There are legally competent people operating Aboriginal legal services. The Committee has recommended not only that they should operate in areas of the law which are non-profitable, such as criminal law, but also that they should be able to act in conveyancing and the full range of legal matters. We say that if someone comes to them requiring their services, and that if that person has the capacity to pay, it ought to be left to their judgment to impose a fee.

That is already occurring. If one looks at the latest balance sheets of the legal aid services in Melbourne one will see that on that basis it has collected over $12,000 in legal fees. To require busy practitioners who are grossly overworked and, for the most part, grossly underpaid,to go through the process of saying to everybody who comes through the door, 95 per cent of whom are living under the poverty line, that they have to go through an exercise in terms of determining what sort of means test ought to apply is an exercise in legal and social nonsense. It is something which, as the minority report properly points out, is not. in the best interests of future Aboriginal legal services.

There is one other matter that I feel bound to raise because I think it goes to the whole future and functioning of this Committee. When one looks at the terms under which the Committee was established, one finds that they state:

  1. That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into, take evidence and report on:

    1. the present circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them, and
    2. Such other matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as are referred to it by -
    1. resolution of the House, or
    2. the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

There is a difference of view within the Committee on that. The Chairman - a man of legal training - takes the view that that means that the Committee cannot consider a matter which is not expressly referred to it either by the Minister or by a resolution of the House. I also have legal training and I take an opposite view. I take the view that the way in which that clause is framed means that the Committee has an inherent power to report on the present circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them and that if the Committee decides that it wants to look at an issue which affects Aboriginal people it has the right to do so.

Mr Bryant:

– It has a duty to do so.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am fortified in that view by the views of my colleague the honourable member for Wills, a distinguished former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I know that that view is shared by another colleague on this side of the House who is also a former Minister. Up until this stage the difference between the honourable member for Dundas and me was, I think, largely academic in as much as the Committee had a number of references which it had to deal with and therefore, whilst we could argue about it, it was not a matter of immediate concern.

I was interested to hear the honourable member for Dundas say that his view in respect of a means test charge was supported by the views of the National Aboriginal Conference. The Committee wrote to the Conference and asked it what it believed the Committee should inquire into. After all, we talk about the self-determinant rights of Aboriginal people and we talk about them on the basis of making decisions which are relevant to them. So members of that Committee thought it was highly relevant to ask the NAC what it believed we should be inquiring into. Over 12 months ago the Conference wrote a letter to the Committee in which it indicated very clearly what it wanted us to inquire into and what its priorities were. Those priorities involved an investigation into, firstly, the constitutional plight of Aboriginals in West Australia and, secondly, the problems in Queensland.

Anybody who has followed some of the recent events in West Australia would know of the depth of the problem being confronted by Aboriginals in that State. It is no longer just a matter between the Government of West Australia and the Aboriginal people. It is no longer a matter which will be the concern of just the Aboriginal people and this Parliament. The Aboriginal people now feel so deeply about it that it will be referred to the United Nations. This Parliament’s Committee might not reach conclusions which are favourable to the Minister or to the Government, but it was requested by the Aboriginal people to conduct investigations which go to the heart of these matters. By virtue of the view taken by the Chairman of the Committee, this Government has virtually tied this Committee hand and foot on the basis that it will not look at any of the issuis which are the real problems confronting Aboriginal people. According to the Chairman it will in fact act only when the Minister says it should so act; when the Government, by virtue of its numbers in this House, says that it should so act. That is a view that I reject.

I would like to incorporate in Hansard a letter that I have written to the Chairman of the Committee in personal terms pointing out that I believe that this issue, now that it has arisen, ought to be resolved as a matter of interpretation by the Solicitor-General. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on 26 August 1980.

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

– Is leave granted?

Mr Ruddock:

– No. I was not asked whether the honourable member could table that letter.. It is a confidential letter between me and the honourable member concerned and is yet to be raised–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There will be no debate on that. Leave is not granted.

Mr HOLDING:

– I did not want to upset the Chairman. I will read the letter. It says:

Dear Phillip–

I regarded that as the relationship between myself and the Chairman -

As you are aware, I have always disagreed with your view that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs can only act on a reference from the Parliament or the Minister.

Given the work program of the Committee, up till now, I have previously believed that there was no need for this to become a matter of contention between us. >

However, since you have made your view, as Chairman, the basis of your reply to Mr Dickie Skinner of the Yungngora Community at Noonkanbah, I now believe the matter should be resolved once and for all by seeking the opinion of the Solicitor-General on this matter.

I point out that the Aboriginals at Noonkanbah contacted the Chairman of the Committee and sought its intervention. The Chairman, because of his view, gave a reply which I am perfectly happy to have incorporated in Hansard and which he suggested to that community that the Committee was not able so to act. The letter continues:

I would be obliged if you would now take the necessary action to do so.

I believe that, as Deputy Chairman, I could approach the Solicitor-General myself, but having regard to the need to minimise the potential for division on the Committee, I believe you should initiate this process.

That is still my view. If this House is to have an Aboriginal affairs committee which is worth anything and which is to discharge its obligations to this House, I believe that it has to have the power to act on its own initiative. I believe that that was its purpose when it was created. If the Committee is to become simply a servile instrument of the executive or the majority of numbers in this House, one might as well close it down because it will not be able to discharge its obligations to the Aboriginal people of Australia in any real, significant or meaningful way.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– by leave - The position of the Aboriginal people in Australian society confronts us all with a unique dilemma not capable of easy resolution. In the first instance, it must be remembered that there really is not one Aboriginal people. There are literally hundreds of different peoples, tribes and clans, each with unique identities, separate languages and cultures and different problems and requirements. To speak as if there were only one such group or as if there were one universally valid and appropriate response would be fundamentally wrong. Not only must we recognise the large number of different groups of people involved, but also we must be aware of the different levels of development which are reached in their contacts with European civilization. Thus, in looking at legal aid for Aborigines, one must face the fact that it is impossible to find any one solution for there is no one problem. The task is to design policies to give an adequate and appropriate recognition to Aboriginal culture while at the same time balancing the rights of individual Australians and the Australian nation as a whole. In equipping the Aborigine with the tools and resources that make it possible for him to fit into a European community, we deprive him of the ability to remain a member of the Aboriginal community.

This subject and indeed the whole work of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs would not have been necessary except for the large number of Aborigines- large in proportion to their total representation in the Australian population - who appear in courts and make up the gaol populations. I believe our approach should be directed towards prevention of crime and reducing these numbers. In the meanwhile we should follow the recommendations of the Com.mitte’s report. As a starting point, we need to know a great deal more about Aborigines and law and crime. The Committee was very disappointed at the collection of statistics in relation to this subject and at the refusal of departments to take responsibility for the collection and accumulation of the figures necessary to allow the making of many responsible decisions. However, it was obvious that most of the legal work involving Aborigines was crime, particularly crime based on alcohol. Earlier, this Committee produced reports on alcohol and the Aborigine. It recommended that much more must be done by the responsible departments to implement the recommendations of those reports. Our starting point must be to prevent crime and if we could follow through all the accepted recommendations on alcohol we would greatly reduce crime.

There are many other areas in which preventive work could be done with immediate effects. There is also concern that having separate legal aid for Aborigines will result in more divisiveness. It is up to the Aboriginal legal services to ensure that this does not happen. They must make a conscious effort to ensure that it does not happen. Aboriginal legal services must also ensure that they do not cause any division by their political activities. The Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service with its walls plastered with anti-Government posters and signs should be aware that this does not help its cause. There is also great concern that the Aboriginal legal services do not become an alternative Department of Social Security. There are needs in this area and the Department of Social Security has responsibilities to meet those needs. It became obvious during the Committee’s hearings that there was little review of the performance of the Aboriginal legal aid services. It is taxpayers’ money that funds these services and the services must be responsible for ensuring that that money is spent well.

To ensure this requires regular and effective reviews. I object to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) suggesting that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) interrupted the progress of this report. Things must go on irrespective of the Committee which might not be reporting for a long time. I think the honourable member objects with the usual Opposition approach of objecting for the sake of opposing. As for the honourable member for Melbourne Ports taking the time of this House to discuss further tasks of this Committee, I feel he is entirely out of order in bringing up the matter before taking it to the Committee. It was a sad day when he did so.

It has been seen that the main thrust of the Opposition concerns the service fee issue. The Labor Party bears a terrible burden for the legacy it left from its brief stint in power. It left the belief that the Government will look after everybody irrespective and that benefits will be paid universally and will not be means based. But the Liberal Party believes in equality of opportunity and has no hesitation in ensuring equal access to legal aid. The Labor Party will do the cause of Aborigines a great harm if it opposes this report and all Aborigines will see this Opposition as it really is - a party with no real feeling for the real needs of Aborigines. I commend the report to the House.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– by leave- Until recently I did not really think that anyone would question the need for Aboriginal legal aid but calls for its abolition by the Western Australian State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs during the Noonkanbah confrontation show that the essential role played by the service remains unrecognised by less enlightened or racist members of our community and some people in State governments. Let me put on record why the Aboriginal legal aid service is so necessary for the advancement of Aborigines. Before doing so, I pledge here and now in this House that under a Labor Government the Aboriginal legal aid service will continue and that increased funding will be provided so that it can carry out its services to the degree it should.

Aborigines comprise less than 2 per cent of the Australian population but at least one-third of the prison population. In Queensland, Aborigines represent 2 per cent of the general population but 35 per cent of the prison population. In Western Australia, they represent 2.4 per cent of the general population but 41 per cent of the prison population. In New South Wales the figures are 0.8 per cent of the general population and 6 to 9 per cent of the prison population. In South Australia the figures are one per cent of the general population and 16.3 per cent of the prison population. So honourable members can see that an Aborigine is far more likely to be charged with a crime, to be arrested rather than summoned, even for a very minor offence, to be convicted rather than released and to be committed to gaol rather than to be fined. An Aborigine is far less likely to ask for bail, to receive it or to be able to pay for it. More than $600m is spent each year on the Australian legal system but only $5. 3m is spent on defending Aborigines through the Aboriginal legal aid service. One-third of the discrimination cases brought before the Commissioner for Community Relations were against Aborigines, and this despite their being such a small percentage of our population and the fact that there are more than one hundred ethnic groups in Australia.

The law is perceived by Aborigines as part of the white community culture which has not only alienated them but also has dispossessed and oppressed them. The law is what sends them to gaol rather than being the means by which they can defend themselves against unproven charges. The complexity of legal jargon and the legal system discourages familiarity with it. Those coming from a different culture and with a different language are at a huge disadvantage. One result is that Aborigines often sign statements or plead guilty to crimes they may be innocent of rather than face long delays in gaol or because they are not aware of their rights. Similarly, Aborigines will, out of courtesy, or because a person represents authority, answer the way in which he or she thinks the questioner wants. The attitude of the more repressive, brutal and racist police is echoed in the statement of the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, who said that since access to legal aid became available to Australian Aborigines police morale had slumped. He said that Aborigines had almost always pleaded guilty but that now at least 50 per cent of pleas were ‘not guilty’, thus creating more work for the police. He advocated better police training so that police would not be intimidated by defence lawyers. So much for the legal rights of the oppressed minority! Small wonder that Aborigines are dispossessed, disadvantaged, disoriented and dispirited.

All this points to the need for legal aid for Aboriginal people in Australia. I might say at this point that I very sincerely regret the cuts that were made to the funding of the Aboriginal legal aid service in last Tuesday’s Budget. Funds and grants in aid to the operation of the service were cut by 4.3 per cent in real terms to $5.3m. Legal aid is an integral part of the Aboriginal fight not only for equality and for a decent standard of living but also for fundamental human rights, which is what this report concedes. I do not believe the report goes far enough in some areas but I commend it for the sensitivity with which it deals with some of the problems. I instance the recommendations for better police training and a sympathetic understanding of Aborigines and also the need to implement Federal mechanisms to oversee racist States. These are both points the Western Australian Government would do well to heed.

I congratulate the Committee for the criticism it makes of the various Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, Social Security, Employment and Youth Affairs and the Attorney-General. It consistently damns the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for what I sum up as bureaucratic mismanagement and a complete disregard for Aboriginal wishes or a total misrepresentation of what those wishes are.

I might draw the attention of the House to .the graph on page 202 of the report which refers to staff ceilings within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Honourable members will note that in 1975 the Department employed 750 whites and approximately 750 Aboriginals. But in 1979 the employment levels had dropped to 650 whites and 275 Aboriginals. So we can see that when it came to the administration of staff ceilings under this Government, whites were more equal than others. This situation is set out very succinctly on page 202 of the report. I would like to give an assurance to the House and to all those Aboriginal people who may be listening or who may read the report of this debate that we intend to Aboriginalise virtually all areas of Aboriginal administration; we intend also to Aboriginalise the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with regard to employment.

Mr Bourchier:

– What about Wollongong?

Mr WEST:

– Well, the honourable member can see that the number of Aboriginal people employed by the Department has dropped from 750 Aboriginals in 1975 to 275 today. However, the number of whites employed by the Department has dropped by only 100 in that period. Surely that is discrimination in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs - the very Department in which discrimination against Aboriginals should not exist.

Mr Bourchier:

– Speak up.

Mr WEST:

– This is set out on page 202 of the report, and I ask the Government Whip to read it. The Department comes under strong attack right from the first chapter because of its failure to gather statistical information and the report makes strong recommendations to the Minister concerning this area. I am disappointed at the lack of initiative taken concerning programs for mechanisms which could be implemented to help overcome female Aboriginal problems and juvenile problems. The report touches on these aspects, recognises the problems, suggests remedies but then falls short of hard recommendations. The report details these specific problems Aboriginal women suffer - such as not being able to approach male legal aid officers because of social taboos. But there are no concrete recommendations in respect of employing more women in the office or as field officers. It makes suggestions to overcome some of these problems and I trust the Government will take note of them. We certainly will. In the case of juveniles, the report is similarly extensive about some of the problems and critical of current procedures but makes only one recommendation to alter the status quo. For instance, the report puts a strong case for a support service for juveniles, as operates in Victoria, to ensure that all Aboriginal juvenile offenders have the opportunity to receive legal advice, access to bail and court representation.

In conclusion, the one major criticism that I have of the report, which was also touched on by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) is the Committee’s recommendation to investigate a fee for clients. This goes against the whole tone of the report and it is completely out of context with it. If Aborigines are to achieve self-determination, as espoused in the report, the legal services are the only bodies capable of making that decision. They should be able to impose a levy if they feel it necessary or just. The fact that they waived the levy introduced by the interim charter last year indicates how inappropriate they consider such fees to be. Overwhelmingly, clients are not in position to pay. Much of the report was preoccupied with proving this point. Even if the imposition of a fee was justified, which it is not, the administrative costs involved in collection would overrule it and would make it not worth while. It is a ludicrous proposal at this stage and the potential damage in attempting to implement such a proposal would outweight any advantage.

Finally, I would like to say there is no question about the necessity to continue Aboriginal legal aid. The problem is how much it can be improved and expanded. The Committee strongly recommends expanding financial allocations to the services and I urge the Government to endorse this. An incoming Labor Government certainly would.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– by leave- I would like to make a couple of remarks. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, quoted from that part of the Committee’s report which states:

It is Committee’s view that development of separate regional legal services is the most effective way to improve the access of Aboriginals to legal aid because they provide for greater community participation and control and because each legal service is directly accountable to the local community it serves.

Whilst that is true, the honourable member omitted to go on and say that the Committee also concluded that there may be circumstances in which such an arrangement was not viable, in which circumstances the Committee would agree that branch offices of legal services ought to be established in order to provide an effective legal service which was also accountable to the community. I think that point has to be made, particularly in relation to Western Australia, because there are very pressing and compelling reasons why, in some circumstances this arrangement may not be viable. In fact, I would say that it probably would not be viable to establish separate services to serve areas of the remote north-west of Western Australia. Indeed, it may be preferable simply to establish branch offices of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia. I think that point ought to be made because the Chairman of the Committee tended to gloss over that in his remarks.

I want to respond to some recent statements which have come from the Western Australian Government in relation to the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia.

We understand that the Premier of Western Australia has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) asking him to close down the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia. That is a deplorable action on the part of the Premier. It simply indicates that that Premier will have no truck with any organisation which seeks to oppose him no matter how good its grounds are. I think it is important to recognise that the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia was set up in 1973 and that its establishment was very greatly the work of a number of very distinguished people including the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who has gone downhill since. However, Mr Chaney, as he then was, did play a very important role in establishing a legal service in Western Australia. Another person who took a very prominent role in the establishment of a legal service was Sir Ronald Wilson who is now, of course, a member of the High Court of Australia. At that time Sir Ronald was the Solicitor-General of Western Australia. However, in a private capacity he played a very important role in establishing the legal service in Western Australia.

That legal service in Western Australia was faced with very real problems. Although Aboriginals make up only about 2 per cent of the population of Western Australia, in 1977- this was pointed out by my colleague, the honourable member for Cunningham, earlier this evening - they made up one-third of the male prison population and two-thirds of the female of the prison population. That is a very serious problem. Although Aboriginals make up 2 per cent of the population of Western Australia, in 1977 they made up one-third of the male prison population and two-thirds of the female prison population. The work of the Australia Legal Service in Western Australia has proceeded and been extremely effective.

If one looks at the statistics which are provided in this report one finds that between 1973 - that is the year when the Aboriginal legal service in Western Australia was established - and 1976 the number of charges in relation to Aborigines which came before magistrates and which resulted in sentences of imprisonment declined by 22 per cent whereas for the rest of the population the figure declined by only 0.06 per cent. In the first four years of its operation, the Aboriginal legal service had a very great effect in reducing the number of charges which were proceeded with and decided in relation to magistrates’ courts in Western Australia. In relation to the total charges resulting in imprisonment, the number of charges against Aborigines increased by 6.8 per cent but in relation to the rest of the community the increase in the number of charges was double that amount over 13 per cent. In its first four years of operation the Aboriginal legal service was extremely effective.

I should like to mention one other statistic which is important. It is a point which the Chairman of the Committee made in his remarks. He said that the cost effectiveness of Aboriginal legal services was superior to the cost effectiveness of other legal services. If one looks at a comparison in cost effectiveness terms between the various Aboriginal legal services around the country, one finds that the legal service in Western Australia, despite its enormous geographical problems- it has to serve the whole of Western Australia - turns in the best effectiveness ratio in terms of the numbers of dollars spent on each case. In 1978-79, each case cost on average S38 whereas in most of the other services the cost for each case was closer to SI 00 and, in many cases, beyond SI 00. That is no criticism of the other services. They all have particular problems. Some of them are smaller. Some of them exist in more remote areas. However, what it does mean is that on any basis the Aboriginal legal service in Western Australia has been particularly effective. It has been effective in reducing the number of Aboriginal people who are proceeded against in the courts and the number of people who end up in prison. The cost effectiveness of the service in Western Australia compares favourably with other Aboriginal legal services.

What the Western Australian Government is really complaining about is that the Aboriginal legal service in Western Australia has been effective. What it is objecting to is that the legal service takes upon itself a role of intervening on behalf of the Aboriginal community as a whole as well as defending particular people who are charged by the police. The Aboriginal legal service accepts its duty in taking affirmative action to assert the rights of Aboriginal communities throughout Western Australia rather than simply responding to the actions of the police in relation to criminal law and other matters. One of the things which aggravated the Western Australian Government more than anything else was that the Western Australian Aboriginal legal service took action under the Western Australian Heritage Act to defend the rights of the Noonkanbah people in relation to the preservation of their sacred sites. The fact that the Premier of Western Australia has attacked and called for the closure of the Aboriginal legal service in Western Australia is testimony to the success of the service. I think we ought to take specific note of one of the recommendations of this report which appears at chapter 5. It states. . . that the Government continue to support separate Aboriginal legal services through the provision of financial assistance in order to promote the access of Aboriginal people to legal assistance.

I suggest that that should be the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Premier of Western Australia.

Mr Bryant:

– I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Leave not granted.

Mr West:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr Bryant:

– Perhaps I could put on the record–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) - Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. A point of order has been raised.

Mr West:

– Perhaps I could make this point to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Is it a point of order?

Mr West:

– Yes. I am speaking as a person who has not very long been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The reason is that I was given Opposition responsibility for the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio only last March. Consequently, I did not have much to do with the compilation of this report. I would be failing in my duty as Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs if I did not place on the record the Opposition’s dissatisfaction with the way that this report is being rushed through the Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that this afternoon much time was wasted because of the Government’s desire to grandstand and to allow Tasmanian members to speak to this Parliament on the report of another Committee. Tonight, on this important matter, my colleagues who have been running around Australia for months on this inquiry are being gagged in this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr West:

– I think the Parliament ought to take note of what I am saying. It is outrageous.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Ruddock:

– I should like to speak briefly to the same matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That was not a point of order. The House cannot debate–

Mr Ruddock:

– I take a point of order on the point of order that was incorrectly taken. There were honourable members on this side of the House - the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) was one - who wanted to speak but who deferred.

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the House to order and ask all honourable members to control their emotions for the wellbeing of the conduct of the House.

Mr Holding:

– It is all right for honourable members opposite. We dragged our backsides all around-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Honourable members will control their emotions. I ask the House to come to order. (Quorum formed.)

page 828

DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, LEARMONTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

The Government has decided to increase the capabilities of Learmonth Royal Australian Air Force base to support operations by maritime and transport aircraft. It is proposed to undertake the following works: An extension to the general purpose aircraft apron; construction of flight line facilities; refurbishing of an existing aviation gasoline storage facility.

The increased size of the general purpose apron will allow maritime and transport aircraft activity to take place remote from armed fighter and strike aircraft. It will also provide parking for aircraft associated with increased maritime surveillance operations. The apron extensions will be constructed in cement concrete to the same standard as the existing apron pavement. Five permanent buildings will be constructed to provide flight line facilities and they will be designed to withstand cyclonic winds. These facilities will enable 24-hour servicing of all types of RAAF aircraft deployed at Learmonth. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $3.8m at August 1980 prices. I table plans of the proposed work.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This is just another example of the death bed repentance that is going on. After five years in office, this Government is going to do something about the situation in Western Australia.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)

AYES: 68

NOES: 32

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 828

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

  1. That the sessional orders relating to Estimates Committees be amended by omitting orders (2) , (3) , ( 1 3) and ( 1 7) and substituting the following: “(2) There shall be 4 Estimates Committees to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C and D, which shall not vote on, but shall examine and report upon proposed expenditures for the Parliament, Advance to the Minister for Finance and each Department of State; such report may contain a resolution or expression of opinion of the committee but shall not vary the amount of a proposed expenditure. “(3) Each Estimates Committee, to consider each proposed expenditure, shall consist of the Minister responsible in the House of Representatives for the proposed expenditure under consideration, together with 10 Members, excluding the Chairman.” “(13) During consideration in the House of the reports from Estimates Committees, the maximum period for which a Member may speak shall be -

Each question before the Chair -

Ministers- Periods not specified Any other Member - 1 0 minutes.” “(17) Upon the completion of consideration of the reports of Estimates Committees, the question shall be proposed forthwith - ‘That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to’.”, and

  1. That the proposed expenditures for the departments and services contained in Schedule 2 to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1980-81 be referred, as indicated, to Estimates Committees A, B, C and D for examination and report by close of business, 9 September 1980:

Estimates Committee A

Parliament

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Administrative Services

Attorney-General’s

Foreign Affairs

Defence

Postal and Telecommunications

Estimates Committee B

Capital Territory

Home Affairs

Social Security

Health

Veterans’ Affairs

Aboriginal Affairs

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Estimates Committee C

Industrial Relations

Employment and Youth Affairs

Education

Science and the Environment

Transport

Primary Industry

Housing and Construction

Estimates Committee D

Treasury

Finance

Advance to Minister for Finance

Industry and Commerce

Business and Consumer Affairs

Productivity

Trade and Resources

Special Trade Representative

National Development and Energy

For the information of honourable members, I table a schedule setting out the proposed sitting pattern of the Estimates committees.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– On behalf of the Opposition I will be moving an amendment to this motion for the amendment of the Sessional Orders. Firstly let me say that the Opposition believes that the experiment of Estimates committees is worth pursuing. Not everyone on this side would agree that that is so, but the majority believes that it is. We would like more time in the chamber when the Estimates committees report, but in our view the Estimates committees at this stage give an extra dimension to the scrutiny of the Budget. It is advisable that we prepare better for the committee meetings so that questions asked of Ministers can be more searching than was the case in the last financial year.

The second point I make on behalf of the Opposition is that we believe that these amendments, insofar as they create four committees in place of two, will bring about an improvement on the present situation. Last year it was absurd that so few members on each side of the Parliament took part in these two committee meetings and had to be experts on so many subjects. True it is that there was a substitution of members during the life of the committees, but that was no substitute for more committees. Although the Opposition would like to see the constituting of even more Estimates committees than the four being constituted by this amendment, four committees is better than the previous number of two. Members of the Opposition agree with so much that was written in the letter of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon). I am not sure whether Opposition members were supposed to receive this letter, which was addressed to all Government members, but it was interesting to note that those honourable members believe that the scrutiny of the Budget should be vastly improved on what it has been in the past. As they said, we are the guardians of the taxpayers’ wealth. We agree that the present Government has been no exception when it comes to the charge of profligacy. Committees give us the opportunity to put certain Ministers under pressure and, to quote the honourable members, ‘to pursue such matters as the profligacy in relation to, for instance, the Defence Force Academy’.

I now come to my third point on behalf of the Opposition. It is absolutely absurd to think that we can achieve the extra scrutiny of this Budget which was stated to be an objective of the honourable member for Moore and the honourable member for McMillan and which is certainly the objective of members of the Opposition if these committees are to report on 9 September. That comes to the heart of the Opposition’s amendment. I move:

The committee system this year is in no way planned to give proper scrutiny to this Budget. We will be having less scrutiny of this Budget in this financial year than we have had for many years - in fact, probably since Federation. Part of the result of rushing the Budget through and getting the committees to report on 9 September is that the second reading debate on the Budget will be a shorter second reading debate than we have seen since, I believe, Federation. For instance, last year there were 31 hours of proper debate in this Parliament on the motion for the second reading of the Budget. This year, to date we have had only 2i hours and from the present program we will be lucky to get another two hours tomorrow evening and a further two hours on Tuesday afternoon- a total of 61 hours, if we are lucky, to debate the motion for the second reading of the Budget.

Let us look at what has happened in debates on the Budget in previous years. In 1979 the Budget Speech was made by the Treasurer on 21 August. The Estimates committees reported to this Parliament, after adequate time for second reading debate and after adequate time for these committees to meet and question Ministers, on 23 October. In 1978 the Budget Speech was made on 15 August and the Committee stage was not completed until 26 October. In 1977 the respective dates were 16 August and 27 October, and in 1976 they were 1 7 August and 20 October. That gives some idea of how this Budget is being rushed through the Parliament with inadequate scrutiny this year. The Parliament is being run in an absurd fashion for this to happen. The only possible ‘excuse’ for this rush is, of course, an early election.

Why is this an excuse? How can we possibly give this reason as a rationale? The Australian Labor Party sees no reason for an early election. The people of this country have far too many elections as it is. In the absurd way of this Federation we have State elections and Federal elections more often than most other countries. As we know, the terms of the Parliament in the United Kingdom are five years, but here they are only three years. I believe that the majority of people in Australia want their Parliament to go its full term, which would be until November or December in this case. If there is an excuse for an early election, if that is the reason why this Budget is being rushed through the Parliament with inadequate scrutiny, let a member of the

Government - preferably the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) - stand in this Parliament and announce the date of the election.

There was an election on 25 October 1969. Prime Minister Gorton announced that election to Parliament on 20 August 1969. It is now 27 August 1980 and still we have had no announcement. On that occasion Prime Minister Gorton announced that election the day after the then Leader of the Opposition gave his response to the Budget. Today is the day after the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) gave to Parliament his response to the Budget; today is the day on which we should have had an election announcement. I understand that the reason why we have not had an election announcement is that the Prime Minister is going overseas. In other words, the absurd procedure that is being undertaken in this Parliament - this inadequate scrutiny of the Budget; this rushing through the Parliament of the Budget and the rushing of the Estimates committees in this way - is being undertaken to suit the convenience of the Prime Minister, so that when he goes on his grandstanding trip overseas he will be seen to have more power than indeed he has.

Returning to the analogy of 1969, again I want to give the relevant dates of that occasion. The Budget Speech of the then Treasurer was made on 1 2 August and the announcement of the election was on 20 August. Debate on the Budget was not completed in this Parliament until 12 September. There were 1 3 full sitting days between the introduction of the Budget in this Parliament and the Appropriation Bills being passed by it. On this occasion, it was not until 19 August that the Budget Speech was made in this Parliament and the Appropriation Bills were introduced. We have not had adequate opportunity to respond to the Budget Speech in the way of a second reading debate. But, in this motion before the House we are being asked to agree to the Estimates committees reporting back to this Parliament on 9 September. That means there will be only seven sitting days between the Budget Speech and the Budget debate being completed. This is completely shabby treatment. It is treating the Parliament in an absurd fashion and, what is more, it is totally unprecedented since Federation.

Of course, the Budget which is being scrutinised tonight is the highest tax Budget ever. I suggest that it requires close scrutiny more than ever before. This Budget gives rise to expenditure of $34 billion. I believe that that is another reason why it should be more closely scrutinised than any other Budget. Yet, as I stated earlier, we will have only 6i hours of second reading debate, compared with 31 hours last year. What sort of preparation can any member of this chamber give to the committee proceedings, given the rushed way that they are being brought on? The committees will meet tomorrow night and then the next day, Friday. Already members of this Parliament are busy with other matters and are unable to give their attention to the proper scrutiny of the documents coming before them. Indeed, in many cases they do not yet have adequate documentation.

Mr Porter:

– Speak for yourself.

Mr HURFORD:

– I have an office which is readily prepared to accept all the necessary material that Ministers send to me, and I have not yet received the material in relation to the ministries of which I am shadow Minister. I believe that the honourable member is misleading the House with that sort of interjection, suggesting that he has given attention to preparing for the meetings of these committees. In fact he only has to visit his Party’s Whip to learn what trouble he is having getting Government members to attend those Committee meetings leave alone suggesting that they have done the necessary preparation for them. The sort of outline I have given of the timetable in this Parliament has been duplicated in the Senate. I repeat that there can be only one possible excuse for what is going on and that is that there will be an early election. If that is an excuse let the Government’s representative stand up in this chamber and say that there will be an early election and give the people of Australia a reason for that early election. I believe that the reason will be a spurious one. So I have much pleasure in moving the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I second the amendment. I make the point to the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and others that when we embark upon a program such as this which is a change in our procedures and, I hope a change for the better, I hope we do it properly. As the manager of Opposition Business (Mr Hurford) has pointed out, we will deal with these matters in a perfunctory way and in a way which will not allow proper examination of the whole situation. I want to raise objection to the way the motion has been moved not only because of the fact that this is being done by the method just discussed but because it has been introduced at the last moment, one might say, relative to the needs of this House and to honourable members duties outside this House. We are expected to meet on the Friday or the Monday because there has been a change in the program. One cannot run anything that way. Government members claim to be representatives of business and private enterprise and good order in government. The least they should do is to ensure that they do that when they run this institution.

I believe the time is long past when we could have carried out a proper examination of the Estimates. I hope that in the future, when honourable members no longer have the benefit of my direct guidance, they might be able to take the examination of the Estimates a step further and look at them before they come set and hardened in the arteries of the Parliament. They could be delivered as a completed exercise. We ought to be involved in the Estimates at their creation. Around this city and over Australia, people at very low levels in the Public Service take part in the creation of the Estimates. There is no reason why honourable members should not be able to do the same. So in supporting the Manager of Opposition Business 1 want to make sure that, in future, as honourable members take these steps they make sure that these matters work properly. Nothing can do more damage to the concept of the Estimates committees than to run them in a perfunctory, haphazard and hurried way so that honourable members next year will say: ‘What is the use, we did not get anything out of them’. I appeal to the Leader of the House to bring a bit of order into the way he manages these affairs.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I think that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has established quite clearly the contempt

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the date proposed to be omitted (Mr Hurford’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 70

NOES: 32

Majority……. 38

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business on each day of sitting until the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1980-81 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1980-81 have passed all stages in the House.

AYES

NOES

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– On behalf of the Opposition I oppose this motion. There was no need-

Honourable members interjecting ;

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! Would the honourable member for Adelaide please resume his seat. I realise that there have been a couple of divisions but I ask honourable members to stop talking and to make up their minds whether they are leaving the chamber.

Mr HURFORD:

– There was no reason for such a motion to be moved. When the Australian

Labor Party was in office it allowed back benchers the opportunity to speak not only in the debates on Grievance Days but also on General Business matters on Thursdays. I believe that this is further evidence that the present Government is preparing to railroad this Budget through the Parliament without sufficient time for proper scrutiny. A number of vital issues have remained on the Notice Paper, in some cases for 2i years, for discussion in the General Business debate on Thursdays. I repeat that this is one of the few opportunities for those honourable members who are not in the Executive Government to bring matters before this Parliament. For instance, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) has given notice of a matter of General Business on the inadequacy of existing insurance conpensation. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has given notice of a matter for General Business that has been on this Notice Paper for 21 years. 1 hope that the honourable member for Lilley has enough support - indeed, the courage of his convictions - to come over to this side of the House and oppose this motion. I believe he cannot be too sincere in wanting this motion brought to this Parliament if he is not prepared to cross the chamber and to vote with us on this matter.

I repeat: This is just another example of the absurd fashion in which this Parliament is being run at present. I believe that Adjournment debates and Grievance and General Business debates on alternate Thursdays, are important as they provide the time when ordinary, private members may bring matters before this Parliament. That opportunity should not be cut off in this way. The only excuse has been: ‘You can bring that matter up in the Budget debate’. But we are not having a Budget debate this year. So far we have had only 2i hours debate on the Budget and a further four hours have been allocated for the Budget debate. So, that is no excuse. We oppose this motion.

Question put.

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 68

NOES: 31

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M.: ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Mr SINCLAIR (New England- Leader of the House) - I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend Standing Order 48A, Adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, 11 o’clock rule, for this sitting.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That Standing Order 48a. Adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, II o’clock rule, be suspended for this sitting.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I oppose the motion. This is just another example of the incompetence of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in running the Parliament. It is another example of using the House

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 67

NOES: 31

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 67

NOES: 31

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority.

page 835

LOAN BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– The Loan Bill 1980 is a machinery Bill which normally comes before the Parliament at this time of the year or perhaps I should say about a month later than this time of the year because last year it came before the Parliament on 27 September. This year it is before the Parliament a month earlier. Its purpose is to assist in financing the total Budget deficit for this financial year which is some $ 1,566m - a reduction of $468m on last year’s deficit. As this is a quite normal arrangement the Opposition does not oppose this legislation.

However, I do want to take advantage of the opportunity to say a little about the deficit and the complete misrepresentation of its significance by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The Government has sought to make great play of the fact that the deficit has been reduced this year and that the domestic deficit has been turned into a small surplus. Extraordinary claims have been made regarding the significance of these developments. The Prime Minister has made such wild claims as: We have paid off Labor’s debts’, ‘As a nation we cannot spend more than we earn’ and ‘We are out of the red’. The Treasurer has made similar claims. Such absurd and extravagant claims demean their purveyors. They are completely misleading and indeed are largely irrelevant to the matter of domestic deficit abolition.

It has also be claimed that a reduced deficit will reduce inflation, this being long established as part of Liberal-National Country Party mythology. I would like to make a few points in regard to these claims by the Government. The first point I would like to make is that the reduction in the deficit in no way indicates that the Government is paying its own way. It in no way indicates that it is not spending more than it earns or that it is out of debt to lenders. Indeed, the opposite is the case. The fact is that the value of total securities on issue by the Commonwealth Government and by the State governments has increased enormously since the Fraser Government has been in office. These are the undeniable facts. I refer honourable members to page 29 of Budget Paper No. 6 and to table 9 headed ‘Securities on Issue, Australia and Overseas, and Total Per Head of Population at 30 June 1956 to 1980’. It is an extraordinarily interesting table in the light of the claims that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. What they have said is that they have paid off debts and got us out of the red. But let us look at the reality. The table is comprised of a number of columns but let us look at the Commonwealth borrowings within Australia which comes under the heading ‘Securities Domiciled in Australia’. We find in that column that in 1972 there were $2.7 billion worth of borrowings and that in 1 975 that figure had risen to $4.9 billion. By 1980 borrowing had risen to $13.2 billion. So, under Labor there was an increase in borrowings of some $2.2 billion and under the Fraser Government an increase of over $8 billion. That is one indicator of the fact that rather than getting out of debt this Government- to use its own terminology- has got us deeper into debt.

If we look at borrowing overseas as set out in this table we find that there has been an even more startling development. In 1972 we had just over $1 billion in overseas borrowings. In 1975 the figure was just under $1 billion and in June 1980 it is $5.3 billion- a tremendous increase. If we look at total securities on issue we find that total Commonwealth securities went from $3.8 billion in 1972 to $5.9 billion or almost $6 billion in 1975- an increase of $2.2 billion. From that $6 billion in 1975 the figure rose to $18.5 billion in 1980 - an increase of over 200 per cent or some $12 billion in that five-year period. They are total borrowings by the Commonwealth Government. If we look at the State borrowings we find that in the period of the Fraser Government there has been an increase from $11.8 billion to $14.3 billion. So, in total, State borrowings increased from $17.8 billion in 1975 to $32.8 billion in 1980.

These figures, and I have given quite a few of them, all indicate one thing and that is that there has been an enormous increase in the indebtedness of this country since the Fraser Government came to power and any talk by the Prime Minister along the lines that he has got Australia out of the red or paid off any previous government’s debts or any of that sort of nonsense is in total contradiction of the facts as published in the Government’s own Budget Papers. So I hope we hear no more of this absurd nonsense from the Government in the way it has been portrayed in Question Time several times by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They know that they are telling untruths about this matter and I believe it is about time they stopped doing so. As I said, they demean themselves by such absurd statements which are in total contradiction of the facts. If we look at the situation on a per capita basis - I will not go into all the figures but they are also set out in that table - we find that the picture is also quite startling. So, in summary, the claims of the Government in this direction are absurd. It is a total misrepresentation of what has happened during the Fraser Government’s period of office. To use the Government’s own terminology it has ‘put Australia into hoek’ far more than any previous government in the history of this country.

The second point I wish to make is that the deficit is a completely contrived figure. It can be altered at random by governments simply pushing various items out of the Budget sector of Commonwealth outlays into the non-Budget sector. This is what has happened over recent years and especially since the Fraser Government took office. Various statutory authorities are now required to borrow on their own account so they are not funded through the Budget. Telecom Australia is by far the most important of these authorities but other bodies such as Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Australian National Line and the Australian National Railways and a few others are involved. As a consequence of these bodies being funded outside the Budget, the Budget deficit is artificially reduced. If these authorities were funded through the Budget obviously the Budget deficit would be much higher. Thus, in 1975-76 the non-Budget sector deficit was only $75m. The very next year - the first year of the Fraser Government; that is, 1 976-77- that non-Budget sector deficit for the Commonwealth went from $75m to $424m. These are the figures that do not get into the public eye but they are neverthless relevant to the total operations of the Government and to their economic impact. This figure of some $424m for the non-Budget sector deficit has remained at much that level since 1976-77.

Furthermore, the Federal deficit can be manipulated by varying the methods by which the States can finance their capital works programs. Traditionally, the Commonwealth raises funds by issuing securities for its own purposes and for those of the States. The allocation of these funds is decided at meetings of the Loan Council. However, since the Fraser Government has been in office funds for the States from Loan Council borrowings have been cut back not only in real terms but also, until this year, in actual money terms. There is a slight money increase this year compared with 1976. In 1976 the States received $ 1,291m from the Federal Government for general purpose capital works of which one-third was grant and two-thirds was Loan Council borrowings. All of this amount showed up in the Budget.

Five years later, however - in this year’s Budgetthe actual money amount allocated to the States for general purpose capital works is only slightly above what it was in 1975-76; that is, $ 1,307m which in real terms represents a 35 per cent decline on the 1975-76 funding.

This is an important point. What I am saying is that the funds which the States get for general capital works development have normally been paid to them through the Budget, showing up as Loan Council borrowings. But under the Fraser Government that amount has been cut back consistently in money terms until this year. This year there is a slight increase in money terms but in real terms, once one takes account of price increases, it has been reduced by a very large 35 per cent or by over one-third. All of that, of course, has an impact on the Budget deficit because it means that there is a reduced impact on the deficit through that substantial real reduction in funds to the States. Thus the States have found that there is much less real money being allocated to them and, as I say, that affects the deficit.

However, in the last two years the Government has allowed the States to undertake borrowings for infrastructure relating to resource development programs. Such borrowings are supposed generally to be made in Australia but can be made overseas if the loan cannot be raised on satisfactory terms on the Australian capital market. These borrowings raise several questions but at present I am concerned only with the relevance they have to Budget deficit manipulations. This development has assumed a real relevance to the point at issue in this debate about the manipulation of the deficit as the extent of these borrowings has mushroomed since they were first developed in May 1978. In 1978-79 these infrastructure borrowings by the States totalled $149m. In 1979-80, they went up to $429m. This year they are projected to be $694m. So it is a very substantial rate of increase indeed.

The fact that these amounts do not show up in the Budget, whereas the Loan Council allocations which are being cut back do show up in the Budget, means that the Government has been able to manipulate the deficit by cutting back on funds to the States for their general purpose capital works and then allowing them to increase their infrastructure borrowings - that is, borrowings for capital works which are related to resource development such as electricity generation, ports, harbours and so on. By such means the Government can make a tremendous difference to the Budget deficit, particularly if this process continues at the current rate. This process of increasing infrastructure development and borrowings and cutting back on Loan Council funds, particularly in respect of what we may describe as the social infrastructure, has real implications for the development of this nation. But those implications will be pursued at another time.

Thus, because of the Government’s ability to shift the expenditure of various authorities out of the Budget sector and to reduce State funds within the Budget while increasing them outside the Budget, it is clear that the Budget deficit at any time is an almost meaningless figure in terms of its economic impact. So rather than simply looking at the Budget deficit, it makes much more sense to look at the total public sector deficit - that is, the total Commonwealth deficit which picks up the manipulations of the statutory authority borrowings and the deficit for State and local government which picks up the infrastructure borrowing development. When all that is done, it will be seen that there has been very little reduction in the total public sector deficit at all this financial year from the level of the previous year. On page 283 of Budget Paper No. 1 there is a table showing the public sector borrowing requirement which approximates the total public sector deficit. It shows that the total deficit or public sector borrowing requirements in 1980-81 - that is the current financial year - will be $4.4 billion. We have heard talk about turning deficts into surpluses but this represents a fall from $4.5 billion in the previous year. So in relative terms the reduction from $4.5 billion in 1979-80 to $4.4 billion in this current year is very small. This is hardly getting the country out of the red as has been claimed by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer time and time again.

It should also be noted that the Treasury makes it clear in the Budget Papers that the total public sector deficit has important implications for monetary policy and much more so than the Budget deficit. Indeed, the following statement is made on page 282 of Budget Paper No. 1 :

  1. . for monetary policy purposes, it has become more important to consider the total public sector deficit and not just the Commonwealth Budget deficit.

Thus the total public sector deficit is of real importance. Indeed, it gives a much truer picture of what is happening than the easy to manipulate Budget deficit which is manipulated, of course, for political rather than economic purposes.

Finally in this regard, I note that a table at page 282 of Budget Paper No. 1 shows the total public sector deficit as a percentage of gross national product for the years 1970-71 to 1979-80. It is important to note that accordingly to the table the public sector deficit represented the highest proportion of GDP in 1977-78 when it was 6.1 per cent under the Fraser Government. Never under the Whitlam Government was it so high as it was that year under the Fraser Government. We can see from all this that little reliance can be placed on Government claims about the significance of a Budget deficit reduction.

Nevertheless, it is worth while taking up briefly the Government’s claim that a Budget deficit reduction is anti-inflationary. Two points can be made in this regard. First, it is difficult to find any discernible relationship between deficits and inflation when one analyses the experience of various countries including our own. Last year in this debate on the Loan Bill I incorporated in Hansard a table showing the deficits and inflation rates for various Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for the years 1974 to 1978. That table showed Australia in fact had a Budget surplus in 1974 which was the year of its highest level of inflation. There was no deficit at all. Nevertheless, we had a high level of inflation. That table also showed that the inflation rate fell as the deficit increased in later years. A similar situation occurred in Austria. The deficit in that country was much larger than ours and its inflation rate was much lower. So it is totally opposite to what one would expect, given the type of relations which are continually said to exist by this Government - that is, the lower the deficit the lower the inflation rate. Canada, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands all show the same sort of picture. That is the opposite picture from that which we are continually told is the case by the Government. These countries had substantial deficits but low inflation rates compared with those of Australia. On the other hand, Sweden had a lower deficit but a higher inflation rate than Australia.

Mr Baillieu:

– How do you explain all that?

Mr WILLIS:

– What I am saying is that it is quite clear from this table that the kind of assertions which are made by the Government that there is some close relationship between inflation and deficits are simply not shown by the facts. It shows that there are other elements apart from the deficit which are important in deciding the inflation rate. No one is saying that the deficit is totally irrelevant but inflation too and obviously other factors also are of very substantial importance.

It is of great interest that one of these other factors which is of great importance can be the very means by which the Government goes about reducing the deficit. That is, governments can adopt measures to reduce deficits, as this Government has done, which are in themselves inflationary and governments do this in the name of antiinflationary. It is an absurd situation but it is what has happened under this Government continuously and most startingly in the last year - that is in 1979-80. The Reserve Bank of Australia in its annual report which was released last week demonstrated this to some degree. On page 26 of its report it stated:

Increases in the price of oil-

It is talking about 1979-80 - added directly some l.S percentage points to the year-on-year increase in the consumer price index; this was substantially more than in the previous year. The changes in health insurance added about 0.S percentage points.

The Reserve Bank is pointing to two items - the increase in petrol taxes and reduced health insurance subsidies - which are the results of policy adopted by this Government for the purpose of reducing the deficit in large measure and which are clearly inflationary. On the face of the figures given by the Reserve Bank, these factors added considerably to the inflation rate in Australia last year. If we added them up the figure would be 2 per cent. But, of course, I acknowledge the fact that part of the 1.5 per cent increase due to oil costs is attributable to imported oil and there is not much that the Government can do about that. Seven-tenths of our oil comes from our own resources.

It is the pricing and taxing of that Australian produced oil which has added substantially to inflation. Some 70 per cent of our oil comes from our own resources. We can say that seven-tenths of that 1 .5 per cent increase in our inflation rate due to high oil prices was attributable to this Government’s actions - that is about 1.05 per cent which is seven-tenths of 1 .5 per cent.

One must also add, as the Government itself has argued vehemently in the national wage case, that the indirect effects of increased petrol prices must also be taken into account. This Government has said in the national wage case that the indirect effects are some two-thirds of the direct effects. The indirect effects are the increased transport costs and freight costs feeding into the price of almost everything that we buy in this country. Once one adds the indirect effects of two-thirds, one can see that the Government’s petrol pricing and taxing policy last year added 1 i per cent to the inflation rate in this country.

When one adds to that the figure of 0.5 per cent which is due to the abolition of the health insurance subsidy and the subsidy for medical services which cost less than $20 - this has increased the cost of health insurance and put up the consumer price index by 0.5 per cent- one can see that this Government, but its own actions, added 2i per cent to the consumer price index last year. About one-fifth of the total inflation rate last year can be directly attributed to actions of this Government. The enormous irony is that those actions were taken largely in the name of deficit reduction which, the Government said was important to reducing inflation. Here is a Government which quite clearly and openly is fighting inflation by increasing prices. It is an absurd policy but one which is being pursued continuously by this Government. Obviously it is a totally counter-productive effort.

If it had not undertaken those actions the inflation rate last year would have been less than 9 per cent instead of being close to 1 1 per cent. Obviously that is a different ball game altogether, lt is quite likely that we would have had far less pressure on interest rates. We would have had less inflationary expectations and less in the way of wage increase pressures. These actions have not only increased the inflation rate but also had all sorts of other spin-off effects as well. In particular, it has made the containment of inflation in the future more difficult.

These are some of the factors which I believe are important to the discussion in relation to deficits. The Government’s claims about its deficit reduction in this Budget are enormously misplaced. It has boasted that the reduction in the deficit will bring about great economic gains in this country in respect of anti-inflationary activity. It claims that it has achieved something great for the country by paying off debts. All of these things are totally untrue. I believe that it is about time that they are properly exposed in this Parliament.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I rise to support this Bill which as the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) indicated, is a machinery Bill. This debate gives me the opportunity to compare figures for certain years. For instance, I should like to compare 1979-80 figures with the estimates for 1980-81. 1 should also like to refer to figures for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 to show the effects of loan commitments and to show the effects of other aspects of economic policy adopted during those years.

For instance, it is pleasing to report that the reliance on loans for this year will be one half of what was estimated last year. The Loan Act 1979 made a commitment of $1 .8 billion. The Loan Bill 1980 seeks one-half of that amount. It seeks a maximum amount of $900m. That is the result of a very carefully prepared Budget. The deficit is falling. It is interesting to note that for the first time in about five or six years Australia will achieve a domestic surplus. I think this speaks volumes for the good control that has been exercised by the Government over the last 12 months and for its expectations for the next 12 months. We are aware that an election will be held this year. The Government has exercised considerable restraint and has not adopted the hand-out philosophy which obviously has influenced the Australian Labor Party’s policies for this coming election.

I should like to refer to a number of matters. The honourable member for Gellibrand said that the relationship of the deficit to inflation and such matters are not always material. I want to espouse a simple philosophy. It is not selective in relation to various aspects of the Budget, but a simple philosophy. Much has been said about the domestic household since the Budget was presented on Tuesday of last week. Normally people trying to balance household budgets endeavour to live within the means of their income. If they go beyond their income and seek a loan, they do so with the expectation that it will be serviced by future income. I think it is important to realise that Australia’s commitment is $900m. As has been indicated, that will be added to a specific commitment which must be faced in the future. Much of the Budget commitment is of a recurrent nature. So little of it will build into a future asset. That is the normal expectation to enable future generations to repay loans.

The amount of $900m is a very small amount when compared to the $4 billion which the Labor Party anticipated borrowing in 1974 to meet temporary expenditures at that time. I think honourable members should take note of what happened in those years and compare it with what happened last year when this Government had a minimal commitment of SI. 8 billion. In spite of the effect of the health insurance cost and the oil prices, our consumer price index was 10.7 per cent, about 3 per cent lower than the rate in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In 1974-75 with the effect of the Medibank reduction on the CPI, the inflation rate rose to 1 6 per cent to 17 per cent. The inflation rate increased even though there was a deflator effect from the free health insurance scheme as it was then declared.

Let us look at interest rates. Because of the Labor Government’s commitment to keep the money printing presses going, interest rates in the space of two years rose from 7 per cent to 10 per cent.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the level now?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It is 10.5 per cent at the moment. It has risen by 0.5 per cent in five years as compared with a 50 per cent increase in the space of a couple of years under a Labor government. Under the Labor Government the inflation rate was 17 per cent compared to the current inflation rate of 10.7 per cent.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What a lot of nonsense.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It would be a lot of nonsense to put the Labor Party back into government. Those problems would be repeated. They are the real matters we have to consider.

I draw a simple analogy in relation to the importance of loan borrowings in one year or several years. Let us examine the local government situation at the moment. More than 50 per cent of the rate collections of some local governments are committed to interest and redemption of loans payments. Obviously they have themselves in a position beyond which they cannot go. Consequently, I suppose one might be able to look at local government throughout Australia and say that unless rates are increased substantially or substantial grants from the State governments or the Federal Government are received there will be little relief in the future. I would not like to see our economy handled in such a way that the Government pledges the payment of debts which must be met by future generations of Australians.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You have already done that.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I know that the Labor Government was prepared to do that. Let me repeat that $4 billion was sought by the Whitlam Government in 1974-75. It wanted to borrow Arab money for temporary purposes. That is exactly what it was for. The Labor Party stands condemned by the actions and the utterances of the Opposition Whip here tonight. Let that be reported.

As I said, this is a machinery Bill. The honourable member for Gellibrand who opened for the Opposition in this debate spoke about the variations in the infrastructure loans and the involvement of the State and commissions. These loans are for developmental purposes. The reason why the loans were not raised in the 1972-75 period was that Australia had collapsed. There was no development. There was no mining and no oil exploration. Obviously there was no need for such loans. The loans that are being proposed in this Bill will produce a guaranteed future income. It is very important to draw a comparison between the policies of the Labor Party when in government and the policies of the conservatives in government. Development is now being undertaken and infrastructure loans will be part of the system that allows a State or an authority to borrow into the future for a guaranteed income from a resource development. I hope that the State of Queensland and the Federal Government come to a quick conclusion about the financing of the Burdekin Dam, which is one of the developments that can assist north Queensland, not only in the immediate future but also in the distant future. It has great developmental potential and it will increase productivity. That is what this Loan Bill is all about - productivity. I believe that the reduction by one-half of what was required last year must reflect in some way not only on inflation and interest rates, which I have mentioned, but also on productivity.

I hope that at this time next year, when we debate a similar Bill, the conservatives in government can produce yet another balanced Budget. I go back to the simple philosophy of the household. If it cannot balance its budget within the income earned in the year then, unless it has an expectation of profit or income, I do not think it can borrow. It has been demonstrated tonight that Australia has a future, that it can borrow into the future, and that it can expect that income. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 840

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– This Bill has two purposes, firstly, to increase the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s maximum gearing ratio - that is, the relationship between borrowings and its capital base - from 5:1 to 8: 1 ; and secondly, to apply the provisions relating to disclosure of pecuniary interest, which the Government is introducing to all statutory authorities, to the AIDC. Increasing the gearing ratio from 5:1 to 8:1 will allow the Corporation to increase its borrowings from five times the sum of its paid up capital and reserves to eight times the sum of its capital and reserves. At 30 June 1979 the Corporation’s paid up capital and reserves totalled $75m and its borrowings were $3 1 2.6m, a ratio of 4.2 to one. The effect of the provisions of this Bill would be to increase the borrowings the Corporation is permitted to make to $600m, with the reserves and paid up capital at the same level as at the beginning of the last financial year.

Introduction into the Act of the provisions relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interest are, to bring them into line with standard provisions which are being incorporated in all statutory authority legislation, is a desirable and uncontroversial amendment about which I am not going to speak further. However, the change in the gearing ratio is a less appropriate amendment in that it does not go far enough, in our view. The basis for the proposal is the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the AIDC. The Committee held its inqquiry in the second half of 1978 and the first half of 1979, and its report was published in December 1979. The Committee made a thorough study of the background and performance of the AIDC, examining its effectiveness in fostering Australian ownership and control and aiding industrial development and the profitability of its operations. After this examination and taking evidence from a number of competent witnesses, the Committee concluded:

The AIDC has an established role in the Australian capital market, generally for lending sizeable amounts in the medium to long-term area, and in the financing operations of the Corporation it is recognised that some flexibility is desirable for meeting unforeseen future changes . . . lt is useful for the AIDC to continue to complement the activities of other lending institutions in the organising of financial packages in which it may participate as a lender or equity holder, or both. There is a role for the AIDC as financial adviser in the restructuring of industries and in the development of new techniques for financing industrial development, areas in which the Committee is satisfied that AIDC has developed and demonstrated particular expertise.

These conclusions are important because they should finally lay to rest doubts about the value of the existence of the AIDC. When the Corporation was established by the coalition Government in 1970, there was much criticism of it as some form of unnecessary and disruptive government intervention in what had previously been the sphere of private financial activity. The endorsement of the AIDC by its principal competitor, the Australian Resources Development Bank, which is owned by the private trading banks, was an influential factor in the Committee’s conclusion.

However, the Committee also drew a number of conclusions and made several important recommendations about changes in the conditions under which the AIDC operates. Amongst the more important were that the Commonwealth should guarantee the liabilities of the Corporation; that the capital base of the Corporation should be redefined to include uncalled capital, for at the time of the Expenditure Committee’s report the Corporation had $37.5m of uncalled capital; to redefine the functions of the Corporation to extend the areas in which it may operate to explicitly include service industries; and to remove the restrictions on the use of paid up capital of the Corporation so that the Board may use its funds for equity participation as well as for making loans. The Committee also recommended that the Corporation pay annual dividends to the Commonwealth, that there be provision for the appointment of a full time chief executive of the Corporation and of a part time non-executive chairman, rather than the existing executive chairman, and also that the Act be changed so that the head office of the Corporation does not have to be in Canberra.

In relation to the Bill we are now considering, the Committee recommended that the AIDC Act set no specific gearing ratio, but that the maximum gearing ratio of the Corporation be determined from time to time by the Board, as it sees fit, having exchanged views annually on appropriate ratios with the Reserve Bank. The Committee also recommended that the ration might initially be increased to 10 to one. So the provisions of this Bill fall well short of the Expenditure Committee’s recommendations. We are raising it only to 8:1 and certainly not fulfilling the Committee’s recommendation, which is that there be flexibility and no statutory limits set. The Government’s amendment to this Bill will substantially increase the flexibility of the Corporation, but the Minister gave no reason for not accepting the recommendation of the Committee in full, other than that he was referring the issue to the Campbell inquiry into the capital market. In our view, this deferral is unnecessary. The Expenditure Committee’s inquiry was thorough, its recommendations were modest, reasonable and unanimous. The deferral suggests that the Government considers a parliamentary inquiry is not an adequate study of the AIDC and that an expert non-parliamentary inquiry is likely to come up with better recommendations. In our view, this demeans the Expenditure Committee and greatly reduces the value of its work. The modest proposals of the Committee have been worked out in the context of an understanding of the nature of the workings of the capital market, of government, and of the national interest.

This is the second major report by the Expenditure Committee which the Fraser Government has either ignored or rejected, the other being on the process of budgeting. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) established the Expenditure Committeee with a great fanfare, saying that it was a major advance in parliamentary procedure. To now fail to accept most of the recommendations of the two major inquiries of the Committee suggests that the Government is unwilling to take the Committee’s work seriously, but the reality is that sloughing off the proposals with soft words and deferrals is quickly eroding any significance which the Expenditure Committee might have had. It is worth remembering that the Committee has a majority of Government members and a chairman from the Government parties. Its proposals, therefore, are likely to be modest, and in fact have been so. Yet in both cases, they have made good sense and should have been accepted and implemented immediately. As I have said, both reports have been unanimous.

On the specific issue of the AIDC gearing ratio, the Expenditure Committee’s suggestion that the ration should not be set in legislation but should be settled in discussion with the Reserve Bank is, in the Opposition’s view, a thoroughly responsible proposal. The Committee stated: . . circumstances change, and the appropriateness of a particular ratio at any given time depends upon factors such as acceptability in the market place and the quality of the Corporation’s assets; it is a matter of commercial judgment. However, the Committee believes that it would be beneficial for the Reserve Bank to be required to express a view on this matter each year, after review of the AIDC’s annual accounts with the Corporation’s officers. This view would be helpful to the AIDC Board in exercising its commercial judgment in regard to the scale of the relevant factors in the Corporation’s operations which influence the ratio.

Referral of the other recommendations of the Expenditure Committee to the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, the Campbell Inquiry, is another example of the Fraser Government’s indecisiveness, though the issues involved in this report do not seem particularly complex or politically difficult. One of the characteristics of good government should surely be the capacity to take decisions when the occasion requires. The methodology of the Expenditure Committee ensured that its proposals were well considered. They are based on comprehensive evidence, prepared after careful discussion within the Committee and amongst its advisers and further discussion with officers of the AIDC, the Treasury and the Department of Finance. To defer them simply wastes time and delays improvements in the operational capacity of a significant public authority. Referral of issues to a committee is the classic way of avoiding decisions; in this case it amounts to neglect.

Perhaps one reason for the Government’s apparent negligence was to face the issue involved in the proposal that the Corporation be allowed to use its capital as Operational loans and equity participation. At present, there is, as the Expenditure Committee’s report notes, a ‘peculiar requirement under the Act for paid up capital to be invested and not used in financing operations. The Committee is unaware of such a restriction being applicable to any other financial intermediary anywhere’. This restriction has caused considerable difficulty for the AIDC. For example, in its borrowing activities the Corporation says that the restriction has been regarded as a peculiarity which has had to be explained away. It is normally unwise for a financing organisation such as the AIDC or a bank or merchant bank to contribute equity to a development project from borrowings because the borrowed funds require servicing through interest payments, while the equity investment may not pay dividends for some years. For this reason, it is usually capital which is used to purchase equity, rather than borrowings. So the Expenditure Committee’s recommendation that the Corporation Act be changed to allow it to use its capital for equity participation is important as this would enable it to make a direct contribution to increasing the Australian equity holdings in development projects. The AIDC’s involvement in this area is desperately needed for, during the last decade, the extent of foreign ownership of Australian industry has increased very substantially.

In 1976-77, 59 per cent of total value added in the mining industry was by foreign-controlled firms. The Fraser Government’s open door policy on foreign investment has meant that the degree of foreign ownership and control has increased considerably during the last five years. Although this Government originally established foreign investment guidelines which, in the case of resource development, normally required 50 per cent Australian ownership before a project would be allowed to proceed, it has in practice allowed many projects to proceed with much less than 50 per cent Australian ownership. Whilst foreign investment can bring substantial benefits to Australia by increasing capital resources, providing new technology, increasing taxing capacity and increasing income, the benefits of development projects will be considerably greater if they are owned in Australia because more of the income generated will remain here. The income payable overseas on existing foreign investment is already a considerable drain on our balance of payments. During 1978-79, total income payable on foreign investment in enterprises in Australia was nearly $2,000m, three times the level of 1970 and equal to almost 2 per cent of our national income. Total income payable to overseas investors is now of the order of $130 a year for every man, woman and child in Australia. It is therefore essential that the sell-out of Australia’s resources by the Fraser Government be stopped.

One of the important new policies of the next Labor government will be to facilitate mobilisation of domestic capital, to achieve a higher proportion of Australian ownership and control of our industries and resources. There is a number of important ways that this can be achieved- for example, by vigorous support for participation of Australian companies in joint ventures with foreign investors and encouragement for them to undertake major projects in their own right. Expansion of the role of the AIDC is another approach. Under the Labor Government, the role of the AIDC, which was initially set up by the former coalition Government to foster increased local ownership and control of our industries, will be substantially enhanced so that it may perform the role originally intended for it. For example, Labor would accept the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee that the gearing ratio be no longer set in legislation and that it be increased as far as this is commercially prudent and in consultation with the Reserve Bank. Labor would also accept the recommendation that the uncalled-up capital be included in the AIDC’s capital base, further allowing it to increase its borrowings. Certainly the restrictions on equity investment by the AIDC should be removed, as should the compulsion to divest itself of equity holdings.

The passivity of the Fraser Government’s response to the Expenditure Committee’s report on the Australian Industries Development Corporation involves neglect of its responsibilities. It is consistent with the Fraser Government’s neglect of the Australian national interest, shown by its obsequiousness to foreign money and weak acquiescence to the proposals made by transnational corporations. Australia’s national interest requires rigorous appraisal of all foreign investment proposals and an imaginative and comprehensive program for increasing Australian ownership and control of Australian resources. The AIDC has established its capacity to participate in that program effectively. In the very near future the Labor Party will outline a foreign investment policy which will include a number of initiatives which involve the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Finally, in the Opposition’s view this Bill is a symbol of this Government’s refusal to allow the AIDC to be able to perform the role for which it was originally intended.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 843

DELIVERED MEALS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– The Delivered Meals Subsidy Amendment Bill 1980 seeks to amend the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. The Opposition basically supports the legislation because it increases the subsidies to a valuable community service - the Meals on Wheels type of organisation. However, we feel very strongly about the inadequacy of the increase, which, in order to keep pace with inflation, should have been lifted by at least another 6c to51c and 46c for delivered meals. Meals on Wheels offers an excellent service for which its workers must be congratualated. We can only hope that its workers will not be too discouraged by the Government’s failure to maintain the real value of its subsidies. The Opposition proposes the following amendment, which I now move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House deplores the Government’s failure to provide for increases in the Delivered Meals Subsidy in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index’.

The last increase in subsidies for Meals on Wheels was in July 1974 when the present payment of 25c- 30c for a meal which included a vitamin C supplement- was introduced. Since then the consumer price index has increased by 84 per cent. There would now need to be an increase of 21.1 per cent and 25.3 per cent respectively for the two amounts. The actual increase introduced by the Government is 1 5c in both cases. We would argue therefore that because the total amount required to bring it up to the full amount of the quarterly consumer price index is so small that the Government ought to be prepared to do this. As of 30 June 1980, 671 separate services were being funded providing about 8,350,000 meals during the financial year 1979-80. The total subsidy provided last year was just under $2.5m.

For a relatively marginal amount the Government could have proved its sincerity by assisting the aged and the disabled to maintain their own homes. For an additional expenditure of about half a million dollars the Government could have maintained a subsidy in line with cost of living increases. Basically that is what the Opposition is arguing for. I think the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) will develop the argument further. In relation to Meals on Wheels and other services in the homes which were introduced the argument is twofold in favour of those services. On the one hand there is the humanitarian argument of enabling people to stay in their own surroundings and on the other hand an argument relating to long term savings of money to the community. It is obviously much cheaper to keep people, mainly elderly, in their own homes rather than to put them into institutions whether they be the relatively cheaper ones such as nursing homes or the very expensive ones such as hospitals. It is in the interests of the elderly people concerned and in the interests of the taxpayers of this country to keep people out of those institutions because we know that, especially in the case of hospitals, the costs rise to nearly $200 a day in many of the hospitals where these people would have to be accommodated.

I notice that the former Minister for Health, the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), has now joined me at the table. In this House he represents the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). I know we have had discussions on this matter before. The important issue is to keep people in the community in their own surroundings. I think it would be amiss of me in discussing this piece of legislation - I do not want to detain the House any longer - not to pay tribute to all of the volunteers who are involved in delivering meals on wheels. They do an excellent job. They are prepared to spend one or two days a month, and in many cases, a week doing this sort of work. Not only do they deliver meals to the persons concerned but also they deliver some contact with the outside world. I remember in my days as a medical practitioner that the very contact that these people and especially the elderly had in their own homes with outsiders whether it be the doctor, the people delivering meals on wheels, the person delivering the bread or whoever it may be, it was a big occasion for many of these people. They wanted to talk and to have some contact with the outside community. I think that the volunteers concerned do an excellent job. I reiterate that we welcome the increase in amounts provided. I am sorry that the Government has not seen its way clear to update the amount to the full amount necessary to bring it back to its original value.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– We have just heard a quite sincere comment by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in relation to Meals on Wheels, but it is interesting that throughout the process of passing the enabling legislation for the Budget the Opposition will probably move amendments indicating that whatever the Government has done is not adequate from a point of view of generosity, keeping up with the cost of living or something else. If one can assume that the Opposition is genuine, all of these matters will add to what the Opposition’s alternative Budget would be. Yet, in expounding that alternative Budget, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) last night, to my knowledge, made no claim that the Meals on Wheels subsidy should be increased by 6c because it was not adequate to keep up with the cost of living.

Are we to be faced with this proposition throughout the Budget debate? If so, I think the Opposition should take stock of its figures. They could all make an interesting addition to what it claims its alternative Budget propositions would add up to. I believe the Opposition is not being very genuine. It is just playing politics on these sorts of issues. If the Opposition is genuine and really believes that the Meals on Wheels subsidy is not adequate and should be increased an extra amount should have been included in its costing for its alternative Budget as should all the other items for which no doubt it will move during these Budget debates on social services and other enabling legislation. If the Opposition is not genuine we might as well get on with the debates and pass the legislation without having to go through this charade.

I certainly welcome the increase in the Meals on Wheels subsidy. It is something for which the Government Members Health and Welfare Committee have been pushing for some time. It is pleasing to see that there has been a substantial and significant increase in the subsidy from 25c to 40c, or 30c to 45c if the vitamin supplement is added. An indication of what this means is that the estimated expenditure this financial year will be increased 50 per cent on what it was in the previous year. I think that indicates the scale of the increase in real terms. The honourable member for Prospect mentioned the 671 separate services delivering 8.35 million meals. I would like to add my congratulations to those many volunteers around Australia who every day are doing their bit to help people stay in their own homes and, as the honourable member for Prospect said, to keep some contact with the outside world and humanity generally. It would be disastrous for Australia if that willingness of volunteers to do something to help other people was ever lost to this country. There was one period during the mid 1970s when I feel we came close to the loss of that important Australian spirit.

This Meals on Wheels subsidy is only one of a whole range of government policies to encourage and assist people to stay in their own homes and to be cared for in their own homes in a familiar environment. I want to remind everybody that it was this Government that introduced this whole range of home care services. The Opposition can talk all it likes about what we do and have done as not being adequate. But it was this Government, as the second reading speech points out, which in the late 1960s developed a broad range of home care services. We can see that in the list that was presented in the second reading speech. We can see it in the substantial increase in the expenditure under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. This expenditure has been increased by 1 1 1 per cent since the last Labor Budget of 1975-76. I for one get rather tired of being told by Opposition members that somehow or other they are the only people with some sort of special right to speak in relation to assistance for those who need assistance and ways of assisting them to stay in their own homes. The track record is quite the opposite. This Government made the initiatives. This Government is bringing about these increases at present. One can look also at the domiciliary nursing care subsidy that is being significantly increased as another example of the way this Government is assisting people to stay in their own homes and be cared for in their own homes. On behalf of the Health and Welfare Committee I have very much pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– While I find the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) a decent man, surely he is ignorant of the facts. This Government, which he is trumpeting so loudly, is the Government which reduced the subsidy for Meals on Wheels in a previous Budget from 50c a meal to 30c a meal. As I recall it, the salary of a supervisor in the centres fell from two-thirds to a half of what was previously the salary. All that this Bill, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Amendment Bill, is doing is restoring some of that previous equity.

There is a feeling about this Bill which is definitely Dickensian. In its philosophy, the Bill harks back to the days of the poor houses, the poor laws of ye olde England when the wretched poor were beholden to charity for their miserable existence and to parsimonious, paternalistic and conservative governments. Bleak House has nothing on this Bill. Dickens was a tyro compared with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when it came to conjuring up pictures of heart breaking wretchedness side by side with the luxuries of the privileged. In this Bill the Fraser Government intends to raise the already paltry subsidy for Meals on Wheels from 30c a meal, where a vitamin C supplement is provided, and 25c for every other meal, to 45c and 40c respectively. This magnanimous gesture is estimated to add $ 1.29m to the national expenditure in the next financial year. Well, well! Instead of budgeting for a $40m surplus, the Government, in its generosity, has said, ‘Hang the expense-

Mr Lloyd:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has claimed that this Government reduced the Meals on Wheels subsidy from 50c to 30c. That is incorrect. This Government has never reduced the Meals on Wheels subsidy. The honourable member must get his facts straight before he stands up to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Murray must not engage in specious points of order. I call the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a very specious point of order because I am absolutely correct, as the honourable member will find out if he checks his facts. Instead of budgeting for a $40m surplus, the Government, in its generosity has said: ‘Hang the expense. Give the cat another canary. We will dole out a few cents a day to the needy and settle for a $39m surplus instead’. What needs to be looked at is the fact that the extra $lm which the passing of this Bill will provide is exactly the amount that the Prime Minister spent last year on entertaining overseas dignitaries. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will agree there is irony there. For example, we can pay out a lordly $46,000 to give the King and Queen of Tonga a luncheon and think nothing of it, but to the sick, the elderly and the people dependent, through no fault of their own, on delivered meals, this Government can find only a miserable 40c. What do honourable members think of $46,000 compared to 40c? That is what I meant by Dickensian.

Recently at the Liberal Party Conference in Perth the Prime Minister, somewhat immodestly, commented that the Federal Government’s welfare achievements represented ‘a massive commitment to needy members of the community’. He went on to boast ‘of a record of concern for the disadvantaged’. Both ‘needy’ and ‘disadvantaged’ are unfortunate words in today’s rich society. Paltry handouts of this nature, such as 40c towards the cost of a hot meal, are not the way to redistribute some of the vast wealth of Australia. We ought to hang our heads in shame referring to cents rather than dollars when we are talking about this subject. Talking of needy and disadvantaged people reminds me of a rather cynical quote from an American author Jules Fiefer, whom you probably know of, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us face it; one has to be cynical in the face of this Government’s welfare record. The quotation reads something like this:

I used to think I was poor

Then they told me I wasn’t poor … I was ‘needy’

Then they said ‘needy’ had a bad image.

I was ‘underprivileged’. - then they said ‘underprivileged’ was overused . . .

I was ‘disadvantaged’.

Well, I’m still poor . . . - but I’ve got a great vocabulary!!

I think that there is a touch of cynical humour in those lines but there is no humour in the situation facing those admirable people who organise the Meals on Wheels distribution around Australia. They are battling with rising food prices, the inexorable increase in petrol prices and the growing numbers of people in need of their aid.

I remind the House that most of these volunteers use their own cars and their own time to distribute the food. What does this Government do to assist these fine people to keep this service going? It says in effect - this was mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) - that it will give the community a little to get along with; though not too much lest it spoil the voluntary aspect of the program. I quote the Minister exactly. He said:

The subsidy is not intended to cover the full cost of the operation, in recognition of the importance of the continuing contribution from the community itself, and from those who receive meals.

How convenient for this tight-fisted Government that there are such wonderful souls in our community who undertake the responsibility which the Government should be undertaking to feed adequately the poor and the needy. That is a fine sentiment indeed! Granted that we do not want to take away the initiative- the element of altruism - from the voluntary workers, but how much more effective would those voluntary workers be if they were given a decent subsidy to provide people with a proper meal? What of weekends? What about the period between lunchtime Friday and lunchtime Monday? What happens then to those people who are living in a lonely room with nobody to talk to? They live in the hope of Monday coming when the voluntary angel from Meals on Wheels will knock on the door, not only with a hot meal but also providing a form of human contact.

I mentioned before in the House of Representatives what the alternative for those people is, in cold economic terms. At that time I noticed that the Minister for Transport, who is at the table and who had a responsibility in this area at the time, said to me later that night that I had made a good point, that if those people were not kept at home by the provision of one hot meal a day, towards which the Government contributed about onequarter of the cost, even with the increased subsidy, the alternative for the Government would be to send those people to a nursing home or hospital. So for two bucks a week the Government keeps those people at home. If they were not at home being provided with a hot meal they would be in a nursing home or hospital. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) pointed out, that would be at a cost of between $200 and $500 a week. What a miserable disparity it is between $2 a week and the $200 a week which it might cost.

Because I am an alderman of a city council in Sydney, I realise exactly what it does cost to keep the Meals on Wheels service going. It costs the ratepayers in Parramatta $82,000 a year, as against the $18,000 subsidy from the Government, to keep that service going. I think it is significant and worthy of mention that when I consulted the file of the Parliamentary Library for the dossier of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on social welfare, in the course of my research I was struck by the contrast in volume between the Prime Minister’s file on social welfare for this year, which is a very slim volume indeed - it is about a quarter of an inch thick - and his file on foreign affairs which is about four inches thick. Surely there is some incongruity in that. Of course, that is reflected in the Prime Minister’s attitude and commitments towards welfare, as expressed in this piece of legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might realise - if you do not, I now let you know - that this is the International Year of the Disabled.

Mr Lloyd:

– It is next year. Get your facts straight.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We are getting very close to it. It is next year; this financial year.

Mr Giles:

– That was as correct as the rest of your speech and that is pretty rotten.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not really think that that is a pertinent comment. There are so many needy people in this community who require this sort of service that I think that was a rather cynical comment to come from the rather prosperous honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles). It is fitting that we spare more than a passing thought for people who are bedridden, dependent upon those visits from Meals on Wheels volunteers. As I mentioned earlier, those visits provide more than just a hot meal; they provide also human contact which otherwise those people would not get. The service has a psychological advantage which is almost incalcuable in its value. As well, we ought to consider in pure economic terms the advantages which I spoke of earlier, namely, that of keeping those people at home instead of in hospitals.

We are speaking of mere peanuts in terms of Commonwealth Government spending - a couple of million dollars. But we are discussing the most vulnerable group of people in our society, namely, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, who depend - I repeat the word ‘depend’- on the goodwill of some citizens of this country. This Government has shown by its niggardly contribution to the work already being done by voluntary organisations that it is not a compassionate government. As if that were news to anybody! The Government will pay the price. Australians are sentimental when it comes to caring for the less than fortunate people in our community. I am sure that will be reflected in the next poll. Forty cents is not an increase; it is an insult.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 846

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. I) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– The Opposition opposes the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980. Once again we find the Government seeking to amend the Atomic Energy Act. This is the second time this year. It was amended twice in 1979, three times in 1978 and numerous times before that. We opposed amendments to it then. We have said right the way through that the Atomic Energy Act should not be the vehicle for uranium mining in the Northern Territory which is a view which was concurred with by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry - the Fox inquiry. We have opposed subsequent amendments and we oppose these amendments. As with previous amendments, the Government has again failed to address itself to the fundamental inadequancies of the Act - inadequacies that have been pointed out by the Opposition on many occasions.

The original legislation was introduced in 1953 for purposes quite different from those for which it is now being used. It was drafted at the beginning of the Cold War and was designed to enable the Government, through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, to control the exploitation of uranium for defence purposes. It is now used to cover such diverse areas as the commercial exploitation of uranium, all the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission including nuclear research and development, defence and security issues, safeguards and most other aspects of uranium mining and nuclear energy - in short, the promotion, regulation and control of uranium mining. The Opposition believes that this legislation should be repealed and replaced with legislation to deal specifically with these matters.

This amendment is to grant a right to mine in the name of the Commonwealth to the company Energy “Resources of Australia - a right to mine which was previously enjoyed by the Commonwealth Government. Because the Australian Labor Party is opposed to the mining of uranium at Ranger in the Northern Territory uranium province, it is, therefore, opposed to the granting of a right to mine to this company. A review of the Act and related legislation, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in his second reading speech, is required, but not the type of review planned or in the period mentioned. The Minister has failed to give details as to who will conduct the inquiry and how it will be conducted. It is believed that it will be handled by an interdepartmental committee - a Government committee. A review of a matter as important as this should not be conducted behind closed doors and shrouded in secrecy. It is unlikely that the matter will be subject to public scrutiny, or to scrutiny by anyone for that matter.

The Minister also pointed out that it is expected to complete this review in four months. This is ridiculous. A task of this magnitude completed in four months will achieve nothing.

When we look at the terms of reference we see that not only the Atomic Energy Act but also at least five other related Acts are to be considered. It is to cover matters such as nuclear nonproliferation safeguards, the commercial development of uranium, regulation of the industry, liability and compensation for nuclear damage, environmental protection, United States antitrust laws, nuclear research and many other matters. Yet the Government believes that such a vital review can be completed in four months. Clearly after the review we will be left in the same position we are now in with the Government adopting the same approach to nuclear matters, contrary to the recommendations of the Ranger inquiry, and ignoring the problems of the industry.

The Labor Party has been pointing for years to the problems associated with the nuclear industry and with uranium mining, but the Government has done nothing to solve these problems. It continues with its risque policy. Just look at the customers it has tried to sell our uranium to and those we have signed contracts with. Iran, with all its political problems, has since abandoned its nuclear program. We have now found out that the reactor in the Philippines is in an earthquake belt. South Korea is riddled with social and political turmoil. The uranium to be sold to Finland is to be enriched in the Soviet Union. We are giving the Soviets access to our uranium. The same is to happen to uranium sold to Germany. This is an amazing action by the government that believes that the Soviet action against Afghanistan represents the greatest threat to world peace since World War II. Yet the Soviet Union is to enrich our uranium.

In contrast to the Government’s approach, the Labor Party has taken a responsible approach to these matters and recognises the need to find solutions to the problems plaguing the industry. Our policy is sound and reflects the growing concern within the Australian and the international communities towards the nuclear industry. Since the adoption of our policy little has changed in the international sphere to justify changing it and nothing that has been done by the Government indicates that uranium mining should proceed in its current fashion. Nothing has happened in the area of waste disposal. The recently completed two-year International Fuel Cycle Evaluation study has made it clear that vitrification of high level waste is not in commercial operation and that waste disposal has not been tried. No repositories for the storage or the disposal of solidified high level liquid wastes have yet been developed.

Even the Government’s own Australian Ionisation Radiation Advisory Council, in November last year, stated: the storage or disposal of solidified high level wastes in repositories in deep geological formations on land is unlikely to be undertaken even on a pilot scale, for at least 10 years.

Despite this statement the Government is not concerned. It has sought to wipe its hands of the waste issue by declaring that this is the responsibility of consumer countries. Little progress has been made in the area of nuclear nonproliferation, the most disturbing attendant problem of the nuclear industry. The INFCE report found that technical measures have had only a limited effect on reducing the risk of weapon proliferation. The onus must fall on governments to safeguard against the diversion of nuclear fuels. But the safeguards agreements this Government is pursuing are far from adequate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has demonstrated in his answers to questions his incompetence and inability to handle or even to understand the issues involved in safeguards agreements. More evidence is coming to light confirming the health hazards from both uranium mining and nuclear power. The United States National Academy of Sciences has recently reported that even low levels of radiation are harmful and that with current plans nuclear reactors inthe United States will have caused 2,000 cancer-related deaths by the year 2000. The safety of the industry is in question. Last year’s Three Mile Island accident clearly indicates this.

President Carter’s commission on the accident has warned that fundamental changes have to be made in the way reactors are constructed, operated and regulated but it has also warned that even with these changes there is no guarantee that there will be no serious future nuclear accidents. One catastrophic containment breach in a closely settled area will finish the nuclear industry virtually world wide. The future of nuclear power is contingent upon an unblemished safety record. Despite all of this, the Fraser Government pushes ahead with uranium exports. The Government’s whole policy is directed towards rapid development of the uranium industry - development that is contingent upon rapid growth in the nuclear industry- and it is pushing ahead with a policy of flooding the world with product. The Deputy Prime Minister just a day or two ago was touting the contracts which have been signed with Ranger at prices which, in real terms, are not significantly above what they were in the mid-1970s. Obviously people will stockpile uranium if the price is right or if the price is low enough- and the prices are low enough. Therefore sales are being made on that basis. But there is no strong demand.

When we look at the industry we see that it is still in a malaise and facing a grim economic and political future. Therefore this is impacting on the demand for uranium. A recent report on the industry argued that unless substantial political and economic changes occur in the next five years, four of the world’s major nuclear reactor manufacturers will be forced to withdraw from the market and another two will follow in the late 1980s. The report went on to point out that in the worst scenario, the collapse of these companies would threaten the viability of nuclear power in the 1990s. Estimates of future nuclear capacity are continually being revised downwards. The International Energy Agency has cut its estimates of expected capacity in 1985 from 610 gigawatts in 1975 to 220 gigawatts in 1978.

No nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States in the last two years. In 1979, eight orders were cancelled and nine deferred. France was the only Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country which ordered any plants last year. None of the major nuclear countries - the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany or Italy - ordered any nuclear capacity in 1979. The only way the Australian Government has been able to attract contracts for our uranium has been by accepting substantially reduced prices. The price of our uranium has fallen from over $40 per lb to $30 per lb in 12 months.

The Government should realise that while it is stressing the size of uranium investments it is creating a situation in which in a few years’ time our supply capacity could greatly exceed demand. This would have marked consequences for the industry. No concern is shown for the commercial risks associated with uranium mining let alone any of the other major risks. A government committed to the development of uranium should develop sensible policies and face up to the realities of the international uranium market.

One of the major arguments advanced for the sale of Australian uranium is that this will contribute significantly to solving the energy crisis. But the present contribution by nuclear power is small. At the moment, it represents only 3 per cent of world energy requirements and 1 2 per cent of total power demand. Yet the economic, environmental and political burden of this technology is immense. Nuclear power is dangerous and, while coal and oil also pose problems, nuclear power is unique in that it threatens future populations.

The nuclear debate has been conducted against a background of total energy sufficiency. Emphasis has always been placed upon the supply side of the equation with conservation receiving only lip service. It is now believed that the industrialised world is using 30 to 40 per cent more energy than is necessary to maintain the same levels of output. Living standards could be maintained with the correct emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation without resort to nuclear power. The Labor Party’s uranium policy begs for a continuing assessment of the state of the nuclear industry, particularly with respect to waste disposal and nuclear proliferation.

In the unlikely event that the rate of installation of nuclear capacity rose markedly during the mid-1980s to late 1980s, it would be demonstrated that our moratorium approach had failed to curb nuclear growth. Conversely, if nuclear power continues to languish during this period - as is now the case - then the environmental concern will have triumphed. Only time will tell. On indications in the northern hemisphere most of the industrialised countries are now finding a lot of political and environmental pressure against the installation of additional nuclear capacity.

Nuclear power clearly is on the wane. In the meantime, the same emphasis must be directed towards obviating the need to rely upon the dangerous technology of nuclear power and to deal with the unresolved problems which attend the existing nuclear structure. A major part of this must entail in Australian terms a complete overhaul of and preferably repeal of the Atomic Energy Act. It is vital that we have legislation more appropriate to current needs.

On a number of occasions the Opposition has put forward proposals for the establishment of an agency to carry on nuclear research and another to handle the sale of commercial products, such as radioisotopes. The Opposition put forward a submission at an inquiry looking at the structure of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Opposition will not support further amendments to the Atomic Energy Act while it retains its current form and will not support the mining of uranium in the Northern Territory.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– The purpose of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 is to amend section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, which relates to the mining of prescribed substances on behalf of or in association with the Commonwealth and to amend the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s borrowing powers under section 30 of the Act. In

December 1979 the Government decided to divest itself of its interest in the Ranger uranium project. The offer submitted by Peko-Wallsend through a new company, Energy Resources of Australia, is acceptable and the Government will assign its interest in the project to ERA for a premium of $125m. It was indicated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) that some of the Australian commercial parties are reluctant to finance their involvement in ERA unless there is no doubt that the operations to be carried on after the assignment of the Government’s interest are authorised by the Commission. In the light of recent reports, I have information relating to the ERA public float. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

DETAILS RELATING TO ERA PUBLIC FLOAT

Background

In the light of recent press reports you may be asked questions about the forthcoming float of ERA. Peko and EZ reported to the stock exchanges the latest details of ERA contracts and financing arrangements on Tuesday 1 9 August.

Suggested Response

The following information relates to the proposed ERA public float:

Each of Peko and EZ to be issued, as paid up capital, approximately 1 25 million shares.

Approximately 14% of ERA’s issued capital is to be offered for public subscription 98,400,000 shares to be issued to overseas organistations, ie. approximately 24.2% of ERA’s issued capital

Peko and EZ will together hold approximately 61.6% of the issued capital

Rheinbraun Australia Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rheinische Braunkohlenwerke AG, is to hold approximately 6.3% of issued capital

UG Australia Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Urangesellschaft mbH, is to hold approximately 4% of the issued capital

Interuranium Australia Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Saarberg-Interplan Uran GmbH, is to hold approximately 3.8% of the issued capital.

The Kansai Electric Power Company, incorporated is to hold approximately 5.0% of the issued capital

Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc is to hold approximately 2.5% of the issued capital

Shikoku Electric Power Company, incorporated is to hold approximately 1 . 5% of the issued capital

Itoh and Co Ltd is to hold approximately 1.0% of the issued capital.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– It has been suggested that the Government has responded to pressure from major overseas interests in proceeding with the amendment to section 41. This is certainly not correct. The Australian underwriters of the ERA public share issue sought a legal opinion from a noted Queen’s Counsel as to whether, after the assignment of the Government’s interest, operations at Ranger could any longer be held to be on behalf of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 41 of the Act and the authority issued to the Ranger partners which it is proposed to assign to ERA. The view was held that because the Commonwealth would no longer have any commercial involvement in the project after its withdrawal, operations at Ranger would no longer be on behalf of the Commonwealth. When a legal opinion of this nature is given, there is doubt about the matter. The commercial reality is that in such circumstances the commercial parties involved wish to see the matter put beyond doubt. The Government took the same view and has introduced this amendment for that purpose.

This is a technical amendment. It follows that it is also incorrect to suggest that the Government is amending the Act to lock the Australian Labor Party into the project. It was reported in the Northern Territory News on 1 1 August last that the Federal Opposition said that it would keep its promise to repudiate new uranium mining agreements if it won government, despite attempts by the present Government to prevent it. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), for instance, was reported as saying that the party had it on the best legal advice that no previous government could bond any incoming government in this area. Australian uranium is needed, it is in demand and it is being sold. Reference was made in the House last week to contracts just negotiated by ERA for the sale of approximately 34,000 tonnes of uranium concentrate to European and Japanese buyers for delivery over the period 1982 to 1996. These contracts are valued at over $2 billion on average at 1980 prices. Other sales have also recently been negotiated with Korea and Finland.

The prospect for long term growth in nuclear generated electric power over the next decade and beyond is excellent. As at 1 July 1980, 230 nuclear reactors were operating in 22 countries and 232 were under construction in 28 countries. In the Western world as a whole and in the main market areas of the United States, western Europe and the Far East it is expected that nuclear generating capacity and corresponding uranium consumption will treble over the next 10 years. A substantial demand for Australian uranium to fuel existing and planned nuclear programs remains. If the market were limited only to those reactors in operation or under construction the requirements for uranium would more than double over the next ten years.

According to the industrial forum in Japan, during the first six months of 1980, 63 per cent of installed capacity was being utilised to produce electricity. That is more than double the figure cited by the honourable member for Reid. The figure for 1979 was 50 per cent. It is very interesting to note that we are still having problems in Australia with the mining, milling and marketing of our uranium. This should not be the case because uranium is a commodity which will bring into this country valuable export income. Uranium sales contracts with the United States of America have been formed by Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd. They have signed contracts for the supply of uranium concentrates to the Indiana and Michigan Electric Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Electric Power Corporation of New York. The contracts involve the sale of 2,250 short tons of uranium concentrates over the period 1982 to 1990. The contracts are subject to government approval as required by the Government’s uranium export policy which was announced on 1 June 1978.

Nuclear electricity power generating stations throughout the world are still being built and it is interesting to note that in the United States of America and other countries the number of such stations is on the increase. The official figures show that Canada has 10 commercial power stations in operation; France, 15; the Federal Republic of Germany, 11; Japan, 22; the United Kingdom, 33; the United States of America, 71 and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 26. We are in the nuclear age and we must get on with the job and market our uranium to the advantage of this country in the form of yellowcake which is not dangerous in that form. As I said a few moments ago, we require this export income to help us pay for some of the overseas liquid petroleums which we will be forced to bring into this country in the years ahead. The Bill has our full support.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) in opposing completely this Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980. At the outset I want to register my protest that we are debating this important piece of legislation only a few minutes before midnight. I will be speaking on this matter in the early hours of the morning. We are off the air; the Parliament is not being broadcast and the newspapers and the media have closed down yet we must go on with this whole business in order to protect the interests of a few mining companies and a few international financiers who are feeling uncomfortable about their investments in the Ranger mine.

This is the fifth time that the Fraser Government has amended the Atomic Energy Act in order to facilitate uranium mining. It is another vivid example of the Government’s eagerness to meet every whim of the uranium mining companies while ignoring the vast, unresolved problems associated with uranium mining and nuclear power. The main reason given by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) for this amending legislation is that the commercial parties involved in the Ranger project have queried whether the new arrangements for Ranger fall within the meaning of section 41 of the Act and that the financiers are reluctant to be involved while there is some doubt about this question. The Minister said that with this amending legislation ‘they will not have anything to worry about’. Those are the words of the Minister.

That statement signifies this Government’s whole approach to uranium mining- to ensure that the uranium mining companies and their international financiers do not have anything to worry about. Well, we will see whether they have anything to worry about, because they are worried.

They are worried particularly about that clause in the Labor Party’s policy which states that Labor will repudiate any commitment by a nonLabor government to the mining, processing or export of Australia’s uranium. That is their real worry. That clause was formulated and thought through at the time because of these issues. It was directed at the jugular vein of those investment companies that wanted to make a fast buck out of Australia’s uranium and tried to link us into the international nuclear fuel cycle. It is a shame that they do not give even a minute’s concern for the Aboriginal people, who will have to cope with the devastating social consequences of uranium mining, or for future generations which will be left with the radioactive waste that remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. It is a tragedy that the mining corporations show so little regard for the terrible prospects of nuclear war which the nuclear power industry contributes to.

But these are not the concerns of the Fraser Government. This Government has no morality. This Government has no principles. It supports a few large and powerful corporations in their drive to make a fast uranium buck which overrides all their concerns. I might say that in this an election year, apart from making a fast buck, the Government wants to see its slush funds grow substantially. Contributions to the slush funds of the Liberal and National Country Parties roll in from the mining companies. It is well recorded that Pancontinental Mining Ltd funded the Liberal and National Country Parties in the 1974 election. It was revealed in a minute which was published in the Australian Financial Review. That is the situation we are dealing with. The large mining companies hand out slush funds to this conservative quisling Government.

Mr Yates:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest that the reference that the honourable member is making is totally out of order and has no relevance to this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)There is no point of order.

Mr UREN:

-I thank you for your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will now deal with the Bill. I have no doubt that the smell is in everybody’s nostrils. Everybody in this Parliament knows that the Liberal and National Country Parties receive large contributions to their slush funds for campaign purposes. Only last week in this House we saw the heights of inconsistency to which the Fraser Government will go in order to promote uranium sales. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) stood here and blatantly defended the sales of uranium to Finland and other European countries which will result in the uranium passing to the Soviet Union for enrichment. On the one hand the Government argues that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan represents the greatest threat to world peace since the Second World War. It has increased its military spending to a record level on these grounds. On the other hand it allows a most serious substance, a substance which in turn can be made into nuclear weapons, to go to the Soviet Union. Australian uranium will be sent to the Soviet Union via Finland and other European nations if they can obtain agreements from Euratom. The Government spent months trying to. prevent Australian athletes from going to Moscow but it has no qualms about sending raw materials for nuclear bombs to the Soviet Union.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s flimsy defence was that the Soviet Union is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accepts the guidelines of the nuclear suppliers group. In other words, he says: ‘You can trust them with uranium. There are guarantees that Australian uranium will’ not be used to contribute to the Soviet Union military machine’. Yet the enrichment of uranium in the Soviet Union is interrelated with military purposes. It is not used partly for peaceful purposes and partly for warlike purposes.- The uses are interconnected. We cannot divorce one from the other, After all the Government’s statement about the Soviet Union being the great violator of international law in Afghanistan, how can we accept the hollow assurance that is now given?

The arrangement the Deputy Prime Minister refers to - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines - are full of holes. One could drive a horse and dray through them. Even the advisers who are grinning in the corner of the chamber should have a better understanding of this matter. If they had examined properly what the Ranger inquiry had to say they would know that a horse and dray could be driven through the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has failed time and again to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials and technology for weapon purposes. No amount of pious rhetoric from the Government about safeguards will conceal this fact. It is about time that the pro-uranium forces were honest enough to admit that we cannot separate nuclear power from the nuclear weapons industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you an example. Do you know that at the same time as the Government of which you are a supporter entered into a safeguards agreement with Finland and Queensland Mines Ltd negotiated uranium sales with Finland, Finland and the Soviet Union were developing plans to export a nuclear reactor to Libya. I challenge any honourable member on the Government side to stand up and say that Libya wants the reactor for a nuclear power station. That is utter nonsense. It wants this nuclear power station to give them the know-how and the material, to make nuclear bombs. We know that India used so-called peaceful nuclear power to get the bomb by stealth. We know that South Africa got the bomb by stealth. We know that Israel got the bomb by stealth. We know that Pakistan is pretty well on the way to getting the bomb by stealth.

The most important finding of the first Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, of which this Government does not like to be reminded, is contained on page 1 85 of its report. The third finding on that page states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

That is the situation and this Government should know the seriousness of it. The report gave a devastating analysis of the failings of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Yet in May 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced a safeguards policy which was fundamentally based on the IAEA safeguards and the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The policy depends on safeguards which at that time, and up to the present day, have not been significantly improved. The Fox inquiry said at that time that the safeguards were full of holes. There have not been significant improvements because there are no solutions to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation resulting from the nuclear fuel cycle. Yet the Fraser Government has watered down the safeguards policy it announced in May 1977. On five separate occasions since May 1977 it has weakened its safeguards. On every occasion there has been conflict between nuclear safeguards and its desire to promote uranium sales. Safeguards have always come off second best. The Government has been desperate to try to build up the sales.

The Fraser Government’s policies and actions on uranium mining contribute to the horrible possibility of nuclear war. They are irresponsible and immoral. Labor believes that Australia can make a positive contribution to reducing the risk of nuclear war by denying its uranium to the world’s nuclear fuel and weapons cycle. We will continue to oppose uranium mining while there is no solution to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation.

The question of what to do with nuclear waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of generations, plagues the nuclear industry world wide. There is not one country in which the problem has been solved. There is no firm proposal anywhere in the world to construct facilities for the final disposal of high level nuclear waste.

On 20 May this year 1 asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy a question on notice seeking details of firm proposals for final disposal of waste. All that the Minister could say in his answer was that many countries were conducting or proposing to conduct drilling tests to identify disposal sites. His reply was given to me on 19 August this year. I asked whether the problem of disposal had been solved in any area. He admitted nowhere in his reply that any such solution existed. I seek leave to incorporate the question and answer in Hansard:

Leave granted.

The document read as follows - (Question No. 6136)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Tor National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Can he say which countries at present have firm proposals to construct facilities for the final disposal of high level nuclear waste.
  2. Can he also say, in each case, what is the (a) proposed completion date, (b) proposed form of nuclear waste, (c) nature of the proposed disposal environment and (d) proposed annual capacity.
Mr Anthony:

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Many countries are conducting or proposing to conduct drilling tests in geologic strata to identity suitable sites which can be developed as facilities for disposal of high level waste and/or unreprocessed spent fuel. Until these investigations are completed, no country will be in a position to make firm proposals on timing, location or capacity of such facilities.
Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The Minister did not point out that wherever such drilling programs are proposed strong public concern and resistance quickly develops. In some countries, particularly Britain, the United States of America, the Netherlands and West Germany, the political difficulties of identifying sites for nuclear waste disposal are becoming insurmountable. There are few people who will accept the assurances of the experts. For an understanding of the views of the experts I refer to page 5 of the first Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The report states:

What has surprised us more is a lack of objectivity in not a few of those in favour of it–

That is, those in favour of nuclear energy - including distinguished scientists.

The inquiry found that the experts were not too trustworthy under cross-examination. Today we have to make sure that we do not really trust the experts in this field. We are dealing with the future of mankind. That is why the Opposition has said time and again that until the unresolved problems are resolved we should not continue with uranium mining. The Treasury will not even give us the answers to the economic problems. There are social, biological, genetic, environmental and even technical problems related to the development of nuclear power. Of course we know the situation of Three Mile Island. Therefore, we say that until these problems are solved our uranium should remain in the ground. There are few people who accept the assurances of the experts.

The technology for waste disposal which is favoured by the nuclear industry - it has even been spelt out by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) - and which has been advocated by Ministers of the Fraser Government is the borosilicate glass method. But nowhere in the world is waste from the dominant light water reactor being reprocessed and solidified into borosilicate glass on a commercial scale. The technology is riddled with problems. Its long term safety has been questioned by Professor

Ringwood of the Australian National University. Only six months ago President Carter was forced to abandon the latest United States project to bury glassified waste in salt beds in New Mexico. He has again put off the decision of nuclear waste disposal, this time until 1985.

An interesting aspect is that the United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, has 74 million gallons of toxic nuclear waste which it does not know what to do with. The wealthiest nation in the world cannot solve the problem, but Australia is adding to it. We know, for instance, the real problems associated with the Pacific. We know that Japan, because of its problems, intends to carry out trial tests in the Pacific. We also know that the United States wishes to carry out trial tests in the Pacific. Therefore, I warn this Government about these issues. Not only is the Pacific to be used as a garbage dump by the United States and Japan but also it is being used as a garbage dump by France which is carrying out nuclear tests. The Australian Government remains mute. It seems to be more concerned about making a dollar, if it can, out of the nuclear industry.

Many problems exist. Those problems are being transferred to the islanders. The Government has little understanding of and little concern for the Aboriginal community. Yesterday the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) tabled in the Senate a report relating to the social impact of uranium mining on the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. What the report reveals is a disgrace to Australia. The Government’s handling of Aboriginal affairs when mining companies are involved is a growing blot on Australia’s standing in the world. This is the case at Noonkanbah, at Ranger and also at Nabarlek. I could mention many other places as well.

Earlier this year the Government amended the land rights legislation to override an Aboriginal court action seeking to close the Oenpelli road to trucks belonging to Queensland Mines Ltd. Aboriginal people at Oenpelli felt that they had never been consulted about the use of the road by Queensland Mines. The report which was tabled yesterday, when referring to the Government’s amendment, stated:

This news was received at Oenpelli with extreme anger and disappointment . . .

It further stated:

For all these reasons, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies believes that no new developments should proceed in the Alligator Rivers region until the Aboriginal people of the region have had time to adjust to the enormous innovations to which they have recently been subjected- and of which mining is but one.

It is for these reasons that the Opposition opposes this proposition.

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

Thursday. 28 August 1980

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

– in reply - I wish to take only a couple of minutes. I think it is fair to say that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has made a name for himself in this country as being the leader of the anti-uranium lobby. During the period that he has held this distinguished position, he has made so many wild statements that have been rejected that he is completely discredited now as being a reliable spokesman on uranium. Today, the policies that he continues to pursue are quite an embarrassment to the Australian Labor Party.

Indeed, the Australian Labor Party will be doing its utmost in the course of the next three months to see that the honourable member for Reid does not go to the Northern Territory. If there is one way of ensuring the return of a National Country Party-Liberal candidate in the Northern Territory it is to have the honourable member for Reid go up there and tell the people that Labor will close the uranium industry, put a couple of thousand people out of work and disrupt the whole of the economy of Darwin. Of course, the honourable member for Reid cannot even get the support of the unions in the Northern Territory to back up the Australian Labor Party’s policy. Is the Australian Labor Party really going to cancel the long term contracts that have been entered into with countries which are our major trading partners? I refer to countries such as Japan, the United States, Germany and Korea. Is the Australian Labor Party really going to cancel contracts? Will it put under strain our very good relationships with those countries? Everybody in the Labor Party knows that a lot of nonsense is being talked. The Labor Party would not follow such a course of action.

Mr Holding:

– Don’t you believe it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– An Opposition member says that the Australian Labor Party will do it. What side is the honourable member for Melbourne Ports on? If Bob Hawke becomes the Leader of the Labor Party, does the honourable member for Melbourne Ports think that he will cancel these contracts? Mr Hawke is the leader of the prouranium group. He has a bit of sense on this issue. He realises that opposing uranium mining is just sheer stupidity, and that if he is to have any political future he must have a positive outlook and go along with a world that desperately needs more energy. Uranium will play an increasingly important role in the future of producing electric power. Everybody knows this, and it is happening around the world. Australia has a major role to play in sharing its wealth, its energy resources, with other countries which desperately need them.

This amendment to the Atomic Energy Act enables the formation of an Australian company, Energy Resources of Australia, and takes into account overseas equity holders which will enable that company to enter into long term contracts, contracts of a nature that we have seldom seen in this country. Indeed, it has entered into contracts which are of the largest magnitude ever recorded in Australia. These contracts have given to this mining operation a security that no mining operation in Australia has ever had; 84 per cent of its future production for the next 15 years is secured, and against that security the company is able to borrow the enormous amounts of money that are necessary to pay back the taxpayers’ money that has been put into this operation, to give it a nice premium of $ 1 25m, and to enable the company to develop.

This has been one of the most successful operations that the Government has entered into. It has got out of its public ownership of mineral resources and mineral development. It has enabled these things to get back into the hands of private enterprise, and it has done it in such a way that foreign equity holders have entered into long term contracts. That would not have been possible had the Government not stepped back and made this opening. I think it is a highly successful venture and the Government deserves commendation for its very good work.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 27

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. Those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Hurford:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is a division required? There is only one dissentient voice. The honourable member for Adelaide can record his objection.

Mr Hurford:

– No. A division is required.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– I must alert members on both sides of the House that it is not a requirement that the Chair canvass second opinions. When the question is put the responsibility rests with the House. I will accept the second voice, but that may not necessarily have been the case. A division is required. Ring the bells.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 27

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

House adjourned at 12.32 a.m. (Thursday)

page 856

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1978 and for related purposes.

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for and in relation to schools.

page 856

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 August 1980, pursuant to statute:

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act- Australian Bureau of Statistics - Proposal for collection of information- 1980- No. 2- Survey of the Victorian Pig Industry.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 27 August 1980.

page 857

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Medical Benefits Organisations: Reserves (Question No. 5709)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

Is he able to state what the aggregate reserves of registered medical benefits organisations, excluding Medibank, were as at 30 June 1979.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The aggregate reserves of the registered medical benefits organisations at 30 June 1979, excluding Medibank Private were -$33.7m, i.e. a deficit amount. The figure also excluded two other small organisations which have been inoperative for some time.

This reserves figure represents a significant improvement on the position at 30 June 1978 when aggregate reserves for the same organisations stood at -$97.3m.

It is not appropriate to look at the medical benefit funds situation in isolation. The combined medical fund and hospital fund position must be taken into account when reviewing the reserves position of registered organisations.

The aggregate reserves for hospital funds amounted to $ 195.9m at 30 June 1 979 again, with the three exclusions mentioned earlier. The combined aggregate reserves of registered organisations amounted to $ 162.2m. In general terms this is a satisfactory level of reserves.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Canberra Staff (Question No. 5962)

Mr Cadman:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 April 1980:

  1. How many officers of the Postal and Telecommunications Department are assigned to respond to and prepare evidence for (a) Parliamentary Committees, (b) Commonwealth Ombudsman, and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
  2. What is the total number of staff of the Department based in Canberra.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. No staff are assigned on a full-time basis to respond to and prepare evidence for Parliamentary Committees, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Such duties would be undertaken as required by staff handling the relevant subject matter.
  2. Ninety-two as at 31 July 1980.

Off-shore Industry Mobile Units (Question No. 6082)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1980:

  1. Do (a) devices and (b) procedures exist to warn ships of the existence of (i) offshore mobile units and associated sea bed structures, (ii) restricted zones and (iii) prohibited zones surrounding these units stationed in Australian waters; if so what are the details.
  2. Do (a) devices and (b) procedures exist to avoid potential collisions between offshore industry mobile units and associated structures and ships sailing within (i) restricted and (ii) prohibited zones surrounding these units: if so, what are the details.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. All platforms are provided with obstruction lights flashing warning signals, and with sound signalling devices in poor visibility. The platforms by their nature are good radar targets. The conventional navigational aids in the area are good with major lights being provided at Wilsons Promontory, Point Hicks and Gabo Island and with a 21 nautical mile light on Kingfish B platform.

Details of the location of the platforms and restricted area are shown on nautical charts and details have been repromulgated by overseas hydrographic authorities. Restricted areas are not formulated for mobile units nor are 500 metre safety zones gazetted - but their movements and locations are broadcast in radio navigational warnings originated by my Department.

  1. The normal training of seagoing personnel in conjunction with the navigational aids provided in this area ensure the maximum practicable degree of safety from collision.

Off-shore Industry Mobile Units (Question No. 6083)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1 980:

  1. How many incidents involving ships passing within (a) the eight kilometre restricted zone and (b) the 500 metre prohibited zone around the offshore industry mobile units and associated structures have occurred since (i) the date of proclamation in the case of the restricted zone and (ii) 1965 in the case of the prohibited zone.
  2. What was the (a) date, time and distance of the ships from the off-shore industry mobile unit and (b) (i) name, (ii) type, (iii) owner, (iv) country of registration and (v) deadweight tonnage of the ships involved in each incident.
  3. What (a) were the circumstances surrounding each incident, (b) action was taken by each party involved in the incident, including his Department, and (c) result of any action was taken.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) 155 vessels are recorded as having entered the restricted areas since they were established in 1976.

    1. Six vessels are recorded as having entered the 500 metre safety zones. Two of the vessels were Australian fishing vessels.

  2. and (3) Details are contained in the attached tables.

In explanation of these answers, it is necessary to point out that 500 metre prohibited zones are not declared around mobile units but only around fixed installations. The 8 kilometre restricted zone referred to in the question is a large area surrounding the main group of platforms which is advisory in nature and which has the effect of advising ships to avoid the platforms by at least5 nautical miles (9.25 km). The restricted zone was instituted in 1976. Under conventional international law, shipping has a legal right to pass at will through the restricted zone provided that the 500 metre safety zones are not violated.

Sale of Northern Territory Housing Commission Houses (Question No. 6221)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. Has he been involved in negotiations for the sale of Northern Territory Housing Commission houses to tenants in Darwin; if so, (a) what has been the nature of his involvement and (b) has his attention been drawn to reported claims of the Commission that, since he became involved in the matter, negotiations have come to a halt.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. However, earlier this year the Department of Administrative Services sought my Department’s agreement to sales proceeding on a small number of houses where tenants had commenced action to purchase the houses prior to selfgovernment on 1 July 1978. My Department agreed that where the houses were still owned by the Commonwealth they could be sold by the Commonwealth to tenants who are Commonwealth officers on the same conditions as applied prior to self-government. I understand that there was some delay in resolving the question of legal title to those houses but the matter has now been resolved and the transfers are proceeding. In all of the other cases the sales to tenants are a matter for the Northern Territory Government and neither I nor my Department has been involved.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 August 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800827_reps_31_hor119/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant