House of Representatives
7 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2877

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost many citizens more,particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byDr Everingham, Mr McMahon, MrBerinson and Mr Birrell.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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 they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme;

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a General Practitioner, Specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bonne tt, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Jarman, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cooke, MrDrury, Mr McLeay and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Television

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

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

That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work- integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McMahon, Mr Ashley-Brown, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Hewson, Mr Luchetti, Mr MacKelllar, Mr Martin, Mr Reynolds, Mr Wentworth and Mr Whan.

Petitions received.

Education

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:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian

Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.

  1. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.
  2. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  3. Some independent schools of high educational standards will be forced to close with the consequences that children attending those schools will have to attend government schools already over-taxed and under-staffed.
  4. Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.
  5. Parents should be encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise this choice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chipp, Mr Fox, Mr Hamer, Mr Jarman and Mr Whittorn.

Petitions received.

Education

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

This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every, Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants, which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage.
  3. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools.
  4. Parents should be encouraged to contribute to education. The proposed legislation penalises those who do contribute, and endorses the apathy of those who do not contribute.

Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education, and so instruct the proposed National Schools Commission.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth that your petitioners oppose the proposed reduction of Commonwealth per capita grants to independent schools on the following grounds:

  1. Your petitioners support the principle that all children are entitled to a basic per capita share of government moneys spent on education but at a time of rising costs this should mean increased rather than reduced government aid to children attending independent schools.
  2. Parents havea prior right to choose the kind of education which shall be given to their children. This freedom of choice is guaranteed to parents under the Declaration of Human Rights.
  3. Curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community by confining independent schools to the very wealthy.
  4. Some independent schools of high educational standards will undoubtedly be forced to close if the present proposals are carried out with the result that the children involved will be forced into the already overtaxed State school system, with a resulting lowering in standards.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.

Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.

The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.

Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.

Some independent schools of high educational standard will be forced to close, with, the consequence that children attending those schools will have to attend government schools already over-taxed and under-staffed.

Parents should be encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise this choice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation.

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

Whaling

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

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

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synhetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce. (0 That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

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

Petition received.

page 2879

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Notice of Motion

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I give notice that on General Business Thursday No. Ill shall move:

That in the opinion of this House Australia’s national anthem should not be changed without a total vote of the Australian people on suggested alternative anthems, including ‘God Save the Queen’.

page 2879

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF POLITICAL MATTER

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Services and Property a question about the Government’s intention to remove certain anomalies from the Broadcasting and Television Act. Does the Minister also regard it as a childish anomaly that the radio and television broadcasting of political matter must cease 2 days before an election while the Press may carry the fight up to the eve of the election? Will the Minister seek to amend the Act to extend to radio and television the freedom enjoyed by the Press in this matter?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware of that anomaly. When in Canada recently I ascertained that the conditions that apply to radio and television there in regard to broadcasting political matter before an election apply to the Press also. The matter that the honourable member has mentioned will receive consideration because I think it is worthy of attention in view of the attitude towards radio and television broadcasting as opposed to Press reports.

page 2879

QUESTION

CHURCH ESTATES AT GLEBE

Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Urban and Regional Development a question. I refer to the Minister’s recent announcement that the Australian Government will enter into negotiations with the Church of England to purchase 47 acres of land and housing at Glebe in Sydney. What is the position of the existing tenants in the Church estates at Glebe? What plans has the Minister in mind if the negotiations with the Church are successful?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Cabinet has made a decision. The Government will enter into negotiations for the acquisition of the lands known as the Church Lands Act Glebe. There are 47 acres in all and 700 dwellings are involved. The suggestion to purchase the land arose out of Archbishop Loane appearing before the inquiry into poverty which was set up by the Minister for Social Services in the previous Government. At that inquiry Archbishop Loane said that the church would be prepared to enter into negotiations for the sale of the 47 acres with either the Australian Government or the New South Wales Government. Arising from this statement the Prime Minister approached me, and we asked a body of consultants to make an inquiry into the matter. An in depth inquiry was made. As a result, a joint submission by the Minister for Housing and myself was made to Cabinet which has approved the negotiations to commence with the Church of England. The pensioners who are already living in the area will be protected.

Important principles are involved. We are trying to keep a mixed group of people living in Glebe. It is a unique area. The townscape should be retained. It is 100 years old. It could be destroyed if developers got into that area. Therefore a policy of rehabilitation of this area will be adopted by the Australian Government. We want to try to keep the general mix of population in the area and to retain the townscape. By doing this we can prevent a change of living pattern as occurred in Paddington. The people of lower incomes who once lived in Paddington have been moved out because of the rising cost of housing in that area. Terrace houses are bringing anything from $40,000 to $60,000 in Paddington. That is driving the lower income people out to the outer suburban areas and is creating great social problems. Therefore, I think that the negotiations by the Australian Government to acquire -is a progressive step. I am pleased that the church authorities are co-operating with the Australian Government in the negotiations.

page 2880

QUESTION

VISIT OF FOREIGN MINISTER OF INDONESIA

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the visit to Australia of the very distinguished Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Mr Adam Malik, for 4 or 5 days at present. I note that he is to address the National Press Club but that no arrangements appear to have been made for him to address members of this Parliament. Does this represent the view of the Australian Government or the Indonesian Government that this Parliament is relatively insignificant?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Like all members, I am gratified that Mr Malik, the distinguished and highly experienced Foreign Minister of Indonesia, is visiting Australia. I and several of my colleagues . are having discussions with him. I would not want it to be thought that the fact that there is no parliamentary function, as distinct from ministerial functions for him indicates any lack of interest in his visit or appreciation of it. The fact is that there has been a record number of Foreign Ministers visiting Australia this year. It would not be possible to have parliamentary functions for all of them, and therefore it would be invidious to have them for some only. Next week, for instance, 2 other Foreign Ministers will be coming to Australia. This week there has already been another Foreign Minister visiting Australia. It was not physically possible to have parliamentary functions for all those Foreign Ministers - two this week and two next week.

page 2880

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Birrell having addressed a question to the Minister for Immigration)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is not in order. It is in regard to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition which has nothing to do with the portfolio of the Minister for Immigration.

page 2880

QUESTION

NEW NATIONAL ANTHEM

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I preface it by reminding him that he refused to answer a question I asked of him yesterday on the grounds that another honourable member on this side of the House had a similar question on the notice paper. I have noticed that the question on notice has been removed from the notice paper since then. So I again ask: Has the Prime Minister or the Government decided whether the present national anthem will be included in a referendum that he proposes to hold shortly? If not, why not? Is it also true that while he was on a recent trip to China many songs were played in lieu of the present Australian national anthem, ‘God Save the Queen’? Is he also aware that there are still many millions of true Australians who do not accept the suggested songs, ‘Waltzing Matilda’, ‘Advance Australia Fair’ and ‘Song of Australia’ as alternatives.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have observed that the honourable member has prevailed upon his colleague to withdraw the question on the notice paper of this House.

Mr King:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not correct.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WHITLAM:

– However, a question on the same matter is still on the notice paper of the Senate. I would think it courteous that the first member of the Parliament to raise the question should get an answer.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that any Minister, including the Prime Minister, has refused to answer a question on the basis that there was a question on notice on the notice paper of the Senate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wannon knows that there is no point of order involved.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– The Prime Minister’s refusal to answer the question-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I want to impress upon those honourable members who take facetious points of order in order to get their point of view broadcast at the time that I will take action against them if they continue to do so in the future. I can assure honourable members of that. That was purely and simply a facetious remark.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise to another point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order I raised was not taken facetiously and I say that quite deliberately.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wannon has been a member of this chamber for long enough to know that a point of order can be taken only in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer a question in whichever way he wants to do so. He need not answer it at all if he so desires.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will give an answer to it, Sir, but I will not duplicate the matters upon which a considered reply has ‘been sought from me. I want to make it clear that 1 have never regarded the honourable member for Wannon as being facetious; in fact, 1 regard him as one of the most ponderous members in the Parliament. Sir, I visited 2 countries during the recess - Japan and China. In Japan when anthems were played God Save the Queen’ was played. In China Advance Australia Fair’ was played. In Peking - along the boulevards as we arrived, at the airport when we arrived and departed and at the banquets in the Great Hall of the People - there was a greater range of Australian songs played than I have ever heard played in Australia, and they were played just as well as I have ever heard them played in Australia. Among them was Advance Australia Fair’, on the occasions when anthems were played, also ‘Waltzing Matilda’, which in fact seemed to be received more rapturously. ‘Song of Australia’ was not played. During the election campaign last November I undertook that if my Party were elected to government a quest would be held for a distinctly Australian national anthem. A statement was made by me to the same effect for Australia Day, 26 January. There had been no subsequent demur until some synthetic indignation was stirred up in the last week or so. In the meantime arrangements have been made for the Statistician next February to hold a larger poll than has ever been held on any subject - 60,000 people will participate - on whether ‘Advance Australia Fair’, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ or ‘Song of Australia’ should be that anthem. When the Queen is visiting Australia ‘God Save the Queen’ will be played. All this has been made plain for the last 12 months.

page 2881

QUESTION

INFLATION: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware of demands by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, more recently, the Premier of Victoria for the Government to cut expenditure as an anti-inflationary measure? Is he also aware of demands by the Victorian Premier at a recent Premiers meeting for an additional $70m to finance his State Budget and of demands by front bench members of the Opposition in this chamber that defence spending should be increased by $300m? Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is possible to increase Government expenditure by some $500m to $ 1,000m in the areas demanded by the Opposition whilst cutting government expenditure at the Commonwealth level without creating massive unemployment, which appears to be what honourable members opposite want?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition make, in general terms, claims for a reduction in Australian Government expenditure but they never specify what particular item of expenditure they would eliminate or reduce. The Premier of Victoria may well have urged that there should be a reduction in Australian Government expenditure. On many occasions I have pointed out that the States could save a great deal of expenditure if they would have the same basic review made of inherited expenditures as the Coombs task force made for the Australian Government. Furthermore, I have never known a State Premier of any political persuasion to be satisfied with the amount of money which the Australian Government makes available for him to spend on his purposes. The very people who, from time to time, as Premiers urge that there be a reduction in Australian Government expenditure - the Premier of Victoria may be among them - always urge that there should be an expansion in State government expenditure at the cost of the Australian Government.

Many people complain about Australian Government expenditure. When we suggest that economies of operation could be achieved by having an Australian Government operation instead of State government operations or subsidised private organisations operations, the Liberals object. A great number of the comparisons which are made between Australian public services and the public services of other countries are quite misplaced. In the United States of America, the postal services and railway services appear under the heading of private enterprise; in Australia they appear under the heading of government enterprise. The same sort of people doing the same sort of jobs come under different headings. The Australian Government is proposing to effect economies in health insurance. There are more than 100 private bureaucracies in this field but when we propose to have an efficient Australia-wide public service operating in this area there are complaints. I would respect Liberal leaders in this Parliament more when they object to government expenditure if they would specify what expenditure they would eliminate or reduce. I would respect State Liberal leaders who object to Australian Government expenditure more if they would review their own inherited expenditure as the Australian Government has done and if they would be equally forbearing in the claims they are always making on the Australian Government to subsidise increased expenditure by them.

page 2882

QUESTION

WHEAT: RAIL FREIGHTS

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Is it intended that the Bureau of Transport Economics will carry out, or is it carrying out now, an independent inquiry into rail freights on wheat from point of receival to seaboard, which freight is at present paid in full by the grower and in most instances costs the grower the equivalent of one full crop out of five produced? If so, when does the Minister expect to receive the report?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is true that the Bureau of Transport Economics is carrying out a survey into freight rates on wheat as a result of a request that I received early this year from the Minister for Immigration. The Bureau has a very large program of investigation into various aspects of transport economics. This matter is included in that program but I do not know the stage that has been reached.

I will make inquiries of Dr Taplin and give the honourable member a reply as to when Dr Taplin expects to complete the inquiry.

page 2882

QUESTION

MR PATRICK WHITE: SUGGESTED RECOGNITION BY PARLIAMENT

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– The Prime Minister will have shared the general pleasure at an Australian being honoured with a Nobel Prize for Literature. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to this event being given appropriate recognition by the Parliament and to inviting Mr Patrick White to take a place on the floor of the Parliment to receive an address to that effect?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would be very happy to act on this suggestion. Like all honourable members, I feel pride in the fact that Mr Patrick White’s long and distinguished literary career has now achieved such great international recognition.

page 2882

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the answer he has just given that he would respect the States and the leaders of the Liberal

Party more if they told him the way in which Government expenditure could be cut, will he commence by calling a conference of all the Premiers with himself to work out the ways in which the Australian Government and the State governments may reduce public expenditure and reduce the pressure of the public sector on the private sector? At the same time as this conference is held, will he also have a conference with the State Premiers about a comprehensive attack on inflation in Australia which has reached a proportion which is just not acceptable to the future development of this country?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The right honourable gentleman should realise that bad as inflation is in Australia, it is no worse than it is in any comparable country in the world. All the big industrial countries which are big international traders are suffering from inflation - all of them. I would be very happy to discuss with Premiers matters from which I think any useful result would come, but I had a recent experience in discussing with the Premiers a matter which I discussed very widely last year, which was in the Government Party’s platform and which was in the Government Party’s policy speech, namely, the participation of local government representatives in the Loan Council. It was clear that there was not a majority among the Premiers for the co-operative action which could have brought that about. Unanimity would have been required but there was not even a majority in favour of the proposition. This is a recent specific example where something could have been achieved by co-operation between the Australian Government and the State Governments and it was not forthcoming. It was clearly a matter upon which the Australian Government had specifically sought a mandate and had got one. The right honourable gentleman will well remember the difficulty that he had as Attorney-General and later, I believe, when he was Treasurer, in getting the co-operation of the States in enabling Australia to have modern trade practices laws and uniform corporations laws. This was not forthcoming despite the efforts of successive Liberal Attorneys-General throughout the 1960s including the right honourable gentleman. I think that as Treasurer he also tried to get the co-operation of the States in those matters.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have ruled that answers to questions ought to be relevant to the question. The question is about inflation; it is not about trade practices. I would like to draw your attention to your ruling and ask you to rule that , the Prime Minister’s answer ought to have at least some small relevance to the question that was asked.

Mr Nixon:

– I also rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the Prime Minister but I ask him to continue his address into the microphone instead of over to the far corner of the left wing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have thought often when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speak that I would much prefer to see their profiles rather than a mass of dandruff.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Mr Speaker, I do not know how seriously I should take the last intervention but the fact is that there is no place in this Parliament from which one member’s face can be seen by every other member. If this is really a worry to honourable members they ought to adopt the practice which applies in some European parliaments of having a rostrum from which the member speaking can be seen and heard by everybody sitting in the chamber, whether it has a collegiate or a hemispherical seating arrangement. I believe that the churches have the same difficulty. Where is the preacher to stand? Is he to have a central position or is he to speak right up at the altar end of the nave?

Mr Snedden:

– ‘Deal with inflation.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the intervention is tolerated there will be a reply to it. My own habit is that when an honourable member asks me a question I face his way or face the Speaker’s way. People behind me now can say that they cannot see or maybe cannot hear me. But the Leader of the Opposition asked a question so I am speaking towards him or towards you, Mr Speaker. Now to return to the question, I have given instances of where the co-operation of the States has been sought on significant economic matters and it has not been forthcoming under my Government or preceding governments. If the right honourable gentleman is referring to prices and incomes, these are matters upon which the States have been able to pass laws over the whole history of Federation and they have not done so. I believe that it would be just as futile to call a meeting now. I have mentioned some things before which are clearly within the power of the States. The inflation of land prices is worse than the inflation in any other respect in Australia, whether it is incomes, interest rates or the price of goods. The inflation of land prices is by far the worst inflation in Australia. Employees cannot be blamed for that because no labour is involved. Yet the States could fix land prices and stabilise them. Only one State has done so. As I have said before, a block of land cannot be passed over a State border. Section 92 of the Constitution does not come into the question. There could not be a clearer example of where the States could have taken action and have not done so. New South Wales and Victoria are the worst States in this regard. The Governments that those States have had in recent years have had a majority in each House. The fact is that it would be just as futile to expect 7 governments - by the Commonwealth coming in to make up the 7 governments with the 6 State governments - better to regulate prices and incomes than 7 governments would be able to take all the other economic measures which everybody accepts that the Commonwealth should take. We do not deal with tariffs on the basis of 7 governments; we do not deal with the currency on the basis of 7 governments; we do not deal with banking on the basis of 7 governments; nor should we deal with prices and incomes on the basis of 7 governments. The national government should have the responsibility in Australia as it has in every comparable country.

page 2884

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Secondary Industry. In view of the importance of the shipbuilding industry at Whyalla in the Grey electorate, can the Minister give any indication as to when the interdepartmental committee examining the shipbuilding industry is likely to bring down a report on this industry?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– I appreciate the honourable member’s interest in the need for a healthy and prosperous Australian shipbuilding industry. The interdepartmental committee to which he refers was set up following a joint announcement made, I think, in about March of this year by the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Overseas Trade. The committee has been doing its work and, I understand, has now completed its report. The report has not yet been considered in any detail; but it just happens that tonight I shall be having certain discussions with senior departmental officers on the subject, and I hope that in the not too distant future an announcement will be made on it.

page 2884

QUESTION

CONTROL OF PRICES AND WAGES

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia upholding the legal authority of the Prices Commissioner in that State to control doctors’ fees? Does this not confirm the view of some eminent legal authorities that government power to control prices also carries with it power to control wages?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Yes. No. I am aware of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. I must confess that I have not read the judgment other than in newspapers accounts of it. However, it is clear from the newspaper accounts that the Supreme Court of South Australia was giving a decision on a South Australian Act of Parliament. The decision does not in any way support the proposition that the Australian Government, with the powers presently vested in the Parliament, could do- the same.

page 2884

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCE MARKETS

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. The honourable member for Darling is asking for an explanation of Government policy, which is quite in order.

Dr F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Since the Government took office in December 1972 it has applied the principle of diplomatic recognition to every government exercising effective sovereignty. It has been my main purpose as Minister for Overseas Trade to persuade governments outside Australia to enter into long term contractual arrangements for the purchase of wheat, wool and other primary products from this country. The application of this policy has resulted in vast sales of primary produce to countries to which previous governments in Australia would not even talk. These arrangements have led to long term contractual undertakings which will give Australian primary producers, especially wheat growers, the kind of security that they have never had before in Australian history.

In the case of China, long term arrangements over a 3-year period have been negotiated, involving about $600m in sales of wheat and about $250m in sales of sugar. In the case of the German Democratic Republic, approximately 500,000 tons of wheat can be sold each year for 6 years, probably without any trouble, and a similar quantity of other grains also can be sold. In addition large quantities of iron ore, bauxite, alumina and other minerals will be sold. I hope that the Australian Wheat Board and Australian suppliers will respond fully to the opportunities that these arrangements have provided for them so that the growers and producers in Australia can gain full benefit from this policy. The Government has adopted this policy because it is of advantage to Australian farmers and producers to know 3 or S years ahead what can be sold. Very often when we are dealing with poorer countries, some people of which may be suffering from famine, it is of advantage to the buyers to know what they can expect from Australia where we have the security of knowing what the demand is. In this situation we can fix our acreage, restock our properties and prepare ourselves for the mining of our minerals so that we can supply the outside world with what it is capable of taking. As I said, I hope that the Australian Wheat Board in particular, as well as other primary produce boards and the suppliers in Australia, will respond to the opportunities that this Government has given to Australian industry, especially primary industry. They are opportunities which Australian industry has never had before in the history of this country.

page 2885

QUESTION

SUGAR: SALES TO CHINA

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Minister for Overseas Trade a follow-up question to that asked by the honourable member for Darling. Is it a fact that the Queensland Sugar Board negotiated the first sale of sugar to China, then negotiated the second sale - not of bagged sugar but in bulk - and has recently been in the process of negotiating a long term contract with the Chinese? Is the Minister aware of a strong feeling within the sugar industry that the intervention of the Minister for Northern Development in this matter while the Board was engaged in negotiations has damaged and undermined the Board’s negotiating position on quantities and prices? Does he not agree that the negotiation of commodity sales should be left to people who have had long and successful experience in this field, instead of a Minister muddying the waters by trying to get some political mileage out of a situation that was already well advanced by the Queensland Sugar Board?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am glad that the Leader of the Country Party in effect gave me notice of this question. I remember him once saying here that he would not sell his political soul for trade. He is now selling his political soul for politics. It is totally untrue that the Queensland Sugar Board was in any way embarrassed or put in difficulties because of anything that the Minister for Northern Development did in China. Quite the contrary is the case. In fact, the Minister for Northern Development, more than anyone else, created the circumstances which allowed this large sugar sale to come about. I want to point out quite clearly - obviously the Country Party does not know this - that sales of wheat and sugar to China which continued through the 1960s were made in a totally different situation after 1969. Up to 1969 the diplomatic status of Taiwan was not significant for the People’s Republic of China. But in 1969 that matter became significant. After 1969 the position was stated by the Premier of China, by the Foreign Minister and by the Trade Minister to me more than once that after 1969 contracts would not be entered into for wheat or sugar with Australia except on a residual basis unless the attitude of the Australian Government to Taiwan was not that of identifying Taiwan as a separate country. So the recognition and the status of Taiwan became crucial after 1969 and contracts would not have been entered into unless that position were satisfactory. 1 remind the House that that applies as much to the Opposition, and should it become the Government again it will have to put itself right in respect of Taiwan if it wants to continue doing business with China. This was the position that was crucial after 1969. It was not so before. I think that members of the Opposition are deliberately distorting the situation by refusing to recognise that.

The Minister for Northern Development, Dr Patterson, on his first visit to China with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister himself, were able to discover this and were able to see what was necessary for satisfactory relations with China. The ridiculous fiction that Taiwan was China could not stand up to historical development. This stage has now passed and the possibilities for the unlimited, or almost unlimited, arrangements with China that have come about in respect of wheat and sugar have been made possible only by that diplomatic event.

page 2886

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: LOCKOUTS OF UNIONISTS

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– What action will the Minister for Housing and Minister for Works take in relation to construction firms working on Australian Government contracts which take part in lockouts of unionists directed by the Master Builders’ Association of NSW?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have already asked the Attorney-General to examine the question of whether there is a breach of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act involved in the lockouts that have occurred in respect of governmental contracts. Also, I have undertaken an examination of existing contracts to see whether penalties can be imposed on those contractors who have engaged in an illegal lockout. In addition, I am contemplating the inclusion in future contracts of provisions which- will give a low priority to tenderers whose record of lockouts is bad and indicates an incapability to complete governmental works on schedule. The present position is that some $24m worth of Government contracts are being held up in the Sydney area and some $27m worth are threatened. It seems to me that the Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales stands in defiance of the recommendations of His Honour Mr Justice Aird. I hope that the Association will co-operate so that these works will no longer be delayed.

page 2886

QUESTION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES: MEMBERSHIP

Mr SNEDDEN:

– On 30 January 1973 at a Press conference the Prime Minister agreed to make public the membership of interdepartmental committees. In answer to a question on notice - question No. 964 - while not naming the composition, the Prime Minister did list a number of interdepartmental committees on which his Department had representation. This was confirmed subsequently in an answer to question No. 10S7. In line with those answers I have since asked all Ministers similar questions on notice. The replies so far received have refused information similar to information which the Prime Minister gave in his answers to me. Ministers have denied me access to the names of interdepartmental committees on which they are represented. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential for me to have this information so that I may ask further questions about the composition and function of these interdepartmental committees? Will he therefore instruct his Ministers to answer these questions on notice in the spirit of the avowed open government policy?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It has been my view that, except in certain cases which I have given in written answers to the right honourable gentleman, the membership of interdepartmental committees is of public interest. It is only by knowing what departments are represented on committees which are considering certain subjects that the public and members of Parliament, above all, can ascertain what aspects a government considers relevant to the consideration of those matters which have been entrusted to the committees. That is my view. The right honourable gentleman knows my attitude because I have expressed it in answers to questions which he has put on notice for me. I have declined to name persons on interdepartmental committees because, clearly, the membership of a particular interdepartmental committee may vary due to transfers, promotions, leave and so on. I expect that Ministers will answer in the spirit of the answers which I have given to questions. I am not aware mat they have not done so. I expect them to do so. I will see that they do so.

page 2886

QUESTION

NATIONALISATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Secondary Industry whether he is aware of a report attributed to the former member for Parramatta, Mr Justice Bowen, wherein he said, among other things, that nationalisation of the legal profession was favoured by some Federal Ministers. Also in the report he added that contrary to popular belief there were not enough lawyers in the Federal Parliament, certainly not enough good ones.

Does the Minister agree with these remarks attributed to Mr Justice Bowen?

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– As to the first part of the honourable member’s question about the remarks of the honourable and learned judge who was previously the honourable member for Parramatta and Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House, I did see the newspaper report where he is reported to have said that certain members of the present Government, as I think he put it, favoured nationalisation of the legal profession. All I say in reply to that is that I know of no such members. I think it is a pity that leaders of the judiciary come down from the bench occasionally and make statements like this which are essentially political because they invite political answers to the statements which they make. Not to answer the statement means running away from the suggestions contained in it. I do not know precisely what Mr Justice Bowen had in mind but if it were the proposals of the Government to supplement some of its legal aid proposals by creating legal offices where salaried lawyers might be employed in certain selected areas of the capital cities of Australia, that is certainly not nationalisation. My understanding of the word ‘nationalisation’ is that it is a government owned and controlled industry or activity. No one would suggest that the legal profession should ever fall into that category.

The learned judge was correct when he said that the independence of the legal profession is a great safeguard of the liberties of the people. I think it was Erskine who first said that when the independence of the Bar was gone the liberties of Englishmen would be imperilled. If it is suggested that a Government which is spending more on legal aid than ever before, and which is beginning to set up community legal aid offices which might employ lawyers who choose to be employed on a salary basis, is seeking to do that I certainly reject the suggestion. This Government is trying to use the law in a liberalising and freedom-producing way in all sorts of areas. I can give only a few examples here now. There are the proposals of the AttorneyGeneral, which were described in the Press recently, to introduce a human rights type Bill which would guarantee or state the fundamental importance of human rights as they have been declared in the United Nations. We will make major breakthroughs in that area in Australia when that legislation comes into effect.

The Government is providing money to finance legal aid so that the ordinary citizens can gain access to the courts through the normal independent legal profession and so assert and protect their rights. This is unique and without precedent in this country and it is only a Labor Government which would have done it. There are also proposals for administrative law reform under which citizens who are aggrieved by administrative decisions can, by having access to legal aid and salaried legal services, assert and protect their rights. These are all major achievements of this Labor Government. Those are the principal remarks which I would make in reply to the question.

page 2887

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LLOYD:

– Unquestionably. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) when replying to the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr King) said that the honourable member for Wimmera had prevailed upon a colleague to withdraw a question on the very limited choice that is to be offered in relation to a new national anthem. I withdrew my question without any representation from the honourable member for Wimmera because I considered that the unsatisfactory arrangements made for the possible alteration of our national anthem must be exposed, discussed and questioned in the Parliament. I believe that all the people of Australia should be given on opportunity to vote, not just 60,000 people.

Mr Whitlam:

– This has gone beyond a personal explanation.

Mr LLOYD:

– And I also withdrew it for the following reasons-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the honourable member has made his case. There is no need to debate the personal explanation.

page 2887

DEFENCE LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mr BARNARD:
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Defence Legal Services Committee of Review dated November 1971. Because only a limited number of copies of the report are available, a copy has been placed in the Parliamentary Library for use by honourable members.

page 2888

VISIT TO JAPAN AND CHINA

Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– by leave - The ministerial delegation to Japan, for the second Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee, was the largest and most senior ever to represent Australia abroad. My visit to Peking was the first by any Australian Prime Minister. Both visits were marked by great warmth on both sides; both visits were characterised by frankness and firmness from both sides; both visits notably advanced the interests of Australia and our friendship and understanding with these two great neighbours, Japan, and China.

On the visit to Japan, from 26 October to 31 October, I was accompanied by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), the Treasurer (Mr Crean) the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wreidt) and the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). On the visit to China - from 31 October to 4 November, I was accompanied by the Treasurer and the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson). In both countries my colleagues and I were supported by senior officials. I firmly believe that the visit will prove to be of considerable importance and value to the whole of Australia. With Japan, we have both broadened and more clearly defined the AustralianJapanese relationship and formed a firm basis for its continuing and future development in the years ahead. In China I consider that our visit symbolised the successful ending of a generation of lost contact between Australia and the most populous nation on earth.

Japan is our major trading partner in the world and China is the only one of the world’s 5 major powers with which, until last December, Australia has not had any meaningful or regular official contact. In Japan, the talks with the Prime Minister Tanaka and Foreign Minister Ohira, and the wide-ranging and very frank and substantial discussions at the Ministerial Committee Meeting, have broadened the Australian-Japanese understanding which is vital to both countries. I believe that any misunderstanding that existed in Japan about the nature of the Government’s policies on minerals and energy and on overseas investment have now been cleared away. Likewise, any uncertainties the Japanese may have felt about the reliability of Australia as a long-term supplier of the raw materials which are essential to Japan has also been dispelled.

In Japan, too, I believe that valuable understandings have been reached about the long-term access for Australian primary products to the important and growing Japanese market. The exceptionally close and important relations between Japan and Australia are to be expressed in a broad bilateral treaty. Mr Tanaka readily accepted my suggestion, and himself announced that the Treaty be called the Treaty of Nara - bearing the title of Japan’s ancient capital, which I also visited. It will be identified as the NipponAustralia Relations Agreement NARA. Australia and Japanese officials will be very soon begin detailed discussion on the Agreement. I believe the Treaty of Nara will be seen as one of the historic treaties which Australia will have entered into.

Honourable members will note that we have also agreed to enter into 2 further agreements with Japan - a cultural agreement and an agreement on the protection of migratory and other birds - as well as to conduct wideranging official discussions on a number of issues including access for agricultural products, tariffs, and minerals and energy matters, including uranium. We have also agreed to renew the Agreement on Commerce with Japan, which was last revised in 1963. There was a useful exchange of views on developments in Papua New Guinea in which that country’s Minister for Defence and Foreign Relations, Mr Albert Maori Kiki, participated.

I believe my visit to China was most valuable in restoring balance to our foreign policy and in diversifying our foreign relations. I had no less than 11 hours of formal talks with Premier Chou En-lai and over an hour with Chairman Mao Tse-tung. As honourable members will appreciate, in the extensive time accorded to me by Premier Chou the discussions extended over a very wide range of international issues of interest to both countries. I believe that we now have a much greater understanding of Chinese attitudes on these issues. I believe, too, that on the Chinese side, there is now a much clearer and first-hand understanding of our policies. While there were areas of agreement, there were also issues on which our policies differed and, in such cases, I did not hesitate to put our position fully and frankly to our Chinese hosts. For example, I reaffirmed at the highest level the Australian Government’s determined opposition to nuclear testing in the atmosphere. Our differences on these and other matters were discussed on a basis of mutual respect.

I believe that the warmth of the reception I and my party received in Peking demonstrates that China like Japan recognises, to a greater extent than some Australians may believe, the growing importance of Australia as a middle power, especially in the Asian and Pacific region. As honourable members will know, important and valuable arrangements were made for the sale to China of up to 300,000 tons of sugar a year for a three to five year period commencing in 1975. Arrangements were also made for the active promotion of closer consultations between Australian and Chinese officials and for a program of visits in both directions. The Australian and Chinese Foreign Ministers are to exchange visits at times to be determined in 1974. It was also agreed that we should develop a planned program of cultural, scientific, and technological exchanges between Australia and China, and that representative missions in these fields would be exchanged in 1974.

Honourable members will be pleased to know that an understanding in principle was reached between the 2 sides on travel from China to Australia by relatives of Australian citizens of Chinese descent and Chinese citizens residing in Australia. Honourable members will remember that this matter was raised by the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Nicholls) on the eve of our departure. The arrangement should facilitate family reunions. I believe that my visit will give new direction and increased momentum to our existing relationship with Japan and will lead to the development of a more meaningful relationship and a continuing dialogue with China which, for so long - for much too long - has been a closed book to our country.

I would like to pay tribute in the Parliament to the tireless efforts of the Australian embassies in Tokyo and Peking during our visit. The ambassadors and their staffs performed, under considerable pressure, in a manner of which Australia should be proud. I would also like to record here my appreciation of the objective and constructive advice tendered to my Ministers and me by the senior officials who accompanied us from Australia. I table the Communique issued in Tokyo after my visit to Japan as Prime Minister, the Join! Communique adopted by the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee, my statement to that Committee setting out the Government’s policy on foreign investment in Australia, and the Joint Press Communique issued in Peking on 4 November. I present the following paper:

Visit to Japan and China - Ministerial Statement, 7 November 1973

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– The Prime Minister and former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Whitlam) has made a brief statement and tabled documents relating to his recent journey to Japan and China. It would be churlish not to concede that there was much in what he did and said during his journey and in the documents that is encouraging. The Prime Minister appears to have dealt with at least some of the doubts and uncertainties in the minds of the Japanese which have arisen since the Labor Government came to power, these doubts and uncertainties of course being caused by the Labor Government itself. However, the Prime Minister has continued the useful practice established by the Liberal-Country Party Government of conducting annual ministerial meetings with the Japanese. He mentions specifically the useful exchange of views on developments in Papua New Guinea in which that country’s Minister for Defence and Foreign Relations, Mr Maori Kiki, participated. I make the point firstly that we initiated these ministerial talks and that last year we included the Chief Minister and 2 of his Ministers and we welcomed it. There was great difficulty in even getting Mr Maori Kiki to attend these discussions. As I understand it, it was not until the Chief Minister actually pleaded with the Prime Minister that Mr Maori Kiki was allowed to go and so Papua New Guinea still remains a blot on the Government’s diplomatic initiatives.

However, the Prime Minister has developed our relationship with China. The Liberal Party has made it clear on many occasions that it accepts the reality of Australia’s relationship with China. When in Government last year we made some efforts to normalise relations with China and the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, conceded this in talks with the Chinese Premier as early as

July 1971. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has visited China, symbolising the Liberal Party’s desire to strengthen relations with China, despite the uncertainties and some of the difficulties we have faced in the past. However, it is the duty of the Opposition to draw attention to the shortcomings or inadequacies of the Government as the Opposition sees them. It is against the background that I have outlined and as the Liberal Party spokesman on foreign affairs that I criticise a number of aspects of the Prime Minister’s statements and actions whilst overseas.

In Tokyo, the Prime Minister faced the problem of clearing up confusion which as I said his own Government’s policies have created amongst the Japanese. In particular he had to qualify the attitudes to foreign investment in Australia. He took the opportunity to make an attempt to do so but not surprisingly, uncertainty remains in certain areas, as has been indicated by the Japanese Foreign Minister. Significantly the Prime Minister did concede the importance of overseas investment in Australia and the extent to which this contributed to Australia’s growth under the Liberal-Country Party Government. In Tokyo on 29 October he said that, in part due to the contribution of overseas investment, within a generation Australia has developed from a largely agricultural and pastoral economy into a modern, increasingly industrialised and diversified economy. Many questions remain but it seems that the cloud which lay over our relationships with Japan since 2 December last has to some extent been dissipated. We can only hope that this process will be taken a good deal further. The Prime Minister has also stated that to maintain a desirable level of exploration activity the Government will be prepared to accept a lower level of Australian ownership in exploration. But will he take other measures to stimulate exploration which has now almost ceased because of this Government’s policies? There is not much purpose in encouraging people to explore if they are uncertain about their rights to be involved in subsequent developments.

The Prime Minister developed Australia’s dialogue with China. The Liberal Party has not dissented from his efforts and does not decry his achievement in this respect. But again the Opposition must raise questions when we see shortcomings or uncertainties which the Prime Minister has failed to clarify. We must ask what the Prime Minister meant when he said that Australia’s new aspirations are symbolised more in our relationship with China than with any other country. Ties with China are important but there must be limits on the extent to which Australia’s ‘aspirations’ depend upon them or are symbolised by them. It is important also that the Australian people should know the extent of the Prime Minister’s commitment as an emissary explaining China’s policies. He said that if necessary he will explain to the countries in our region particularly the Association of South East Asian Nations, China’s attitudes. Presumably the Chinese concurred in this. But on what basis did he presume to explain to the Chinese Government the views and the attitudes of the ASEAN countries? This sort of unwarranted presumption on the part of the Prime Minister is rejected by the Liberal Party. Perhaps it is just a matter of style but it is important in international relations that style and aspirations be matched. The Liberal Party in government had closer relations with the countries of ASEAN than this Labor Government can claim, but we would never have presumed to explain to any other government the feelings, the attitudes or the policies of those countries unless specifically asked to do so. That is not our role. It is absurd to assume that it ought to be.

Again we must ask why the communique issued after the Prime Minister’s talks in Japan referred to a wide range of specific international issues while that issued after his visit to Peking did not refer to any. We know now that he raised the issue of Chinese nuclear tests but did he receive any committment from the Chinese that they would try to make their tests cleaner, to test underground or to curtail their testing program? If not, did he indicate to the Chinese what further action he intends to take? Will he tell the House? The Middle East was not mentioned in the Peking communique and it has not been mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House. Did the Prime Minister forcefully put Australia’s opposition to China’s pro-Arab stance and state that it is unacceptable to his Government. All that we have been told is that the 2 sides expressed different views. The Liberal Party would not shy away from such issues. We would seek action by the Chinese on their nuclear testing and if they refused it we would say that they refused to do so. We would in government, as we are in Opposition, be publicly critical of their unhelpful pro-Arab attitude, an attitude which can only contribute to encouraging further hostilities. The Opposition must ask what the Prime Minister hoped to achieve from his meeting in Peking with Prince Sihanouk. Again, no mention has been made of this in his statement today. We know, for example, that during talks in Peking in 1971 the Chinese Premier referred to Prince Sihanouk and the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, replied: ‘It is tragic for his people that his Government was subverted in this clandestine, in this evil way’. He has since confirmed his Government’s recognition of and support for the Lon Nol Government. The Opposition hopes that he is making full use of the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that his actions and his policy are conveyed to the Government of the Khmer Republic. The Prime Minister must realise that such action on his part cannot contribute to the stability and security of the Khmer Republic. It can only encourage those seeking forcibly to overthrow the present Government. To this extent his actions contribute to the continuing turmoil in South East Asia.

One has tried to be constructive in relation to the Prime Minister’s statement. There are, however, as I said, remaining doubts and uncertainties and the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, in one of his first answers to questions in the other place yesterday has not assisted the clearing of doubts and in some respects he has been downright misleading. He alleged in answer to a question on China that the previous Government looked at a country’s ideology and then decided whether it would be friends’. Such a statement is rejected. It ignores our recognition of countries such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia and the initiatives with a country such as Poland.

In conclusion, one of the most serious aspects of the visit has been the public revelation of the divisions of opinion amongst the Prime Minister’s advisers between those on his personal staff and those in the Department of Foreign Affairs - and also the divisions of opinion among the various Ministers who accompanied him, and their departments. On the question of a treaty with Japan, on policy relating to the development of minerals and energy resources, on. the question of the presence in Peking or Prince Sihanouk and the

Government’s continuing recognition of the Lon Nol Government in the Khmer Republic of Cambodia these divisions emerged. The Prime Minister has a difficult task in reconciling these divisions.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hansen) adjourned.

page 2891

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRODUCED IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to take adequate steps to respond to the prospective future shortage of domestically produced petroleum products in Australia.

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 ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Mr Speaker, Australia faces a problem of unprecedented nature and proportions. The world is running out of petrol - not quickly, or to a predictable time table, but it is happening. In August this year the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Investment and Control was told by one of the world’s biggest oil companies that in 1980 world oil requirements would be 80 per cent above 1970 requirements. In the decade to 1990, consumption would grow by a further 40 per cent. Yet in the same period, supplies from the United States, Canada, Europe and the small producers will increase relatively slightly. As a consequence, the world - and in particular the Western world - will become increasingly dependent on Middle East supplies, as well as supplies from communist countries. And this includes Australia. Only this week, Mr Speaker, I have learned how the oil weapon strategy being employed by the Middle East oil states threatens the ability of many Western nations to run their affairs on a normal basis.

In Australia at present, we are producing about 70 per cent of our own requirements, but it is estimated that our demand for petroleum will grow from half a million barrels a day in 1970 to 2 million barrels a day by the year 2000 - a 300 per cent increase. By the end of this decade, production from our existing known oil reserves in Australia will be starting to run down. If we want to keep our 70 per cent rate of self-sufficiency, we will need to find another 10 billion barrels over the next 20 years, or 5 times our existing discoveries to date. If we aim at 100 per cent self-sufficiency, we will need to find another 4 billion barrels again. We have 4 choices: Firstly, make drastic efforts to encourage the exploration for and the development of new reserves; secondly, steadily increase our dependence on progressively dearer and scarcer overseas supplies; thirdly, drastically restrict our consumption and, by inference, our pattern of economic growth; and fourthly, develop alternative energy sources. Perhaps the most unacceptable alternative would be to allow our dependence on overseas supplies to increase, with a consequent loss of independence in foreign policy and a growing economic reliance on a politically unstable source of supply. Facing this situation, and in view of its closeness, logic should compel considerable intensification of our exploration efforts. It should also compel a comprehensive effort to investigate fully our future energy requirements and the energy sources that will be necessary to meet them adequately.

There is cause for real concern in the approach of this Government to the coming crisis. We could easily find ourselves in a pitiful state as a result of the Government’s mismanagement and lack of foresight. Since he came to office, the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), has been the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde of the energy industry. On the one hand, with statesmanlike foresight he stands in this Parliament and describes the significance of the impending energy problem. I agree with his assessment. But, on the other hand, he is subjecting our energy industries to an unrelenting, confusing, disruptive and destructive attack. To find the oil we need over the next 2 decades there will have to be an average exploration expenditure per year in Australia of around $200m. This is about twice the current level of spending. But, since this Government came to office, energy policies have been introduced which can do nothing but discourage exploration and which therefore are to the detriment of the real interests of this nation. The real interests of this nation lie not in policies of instinctive, unthinking nationalism, or in policies that con fuse foreign ownership with foreign control; the real energy interests of this nation lie in the Government’s encouraging and supervising a systematic exploration program to meet the challenge raised by the coming world energy shortage.

Yet, since December 1972 the Government has done the following things which are reacting adversely on our national interest: It has abolished income tax concessions to capital subscribers to oil and mineral companies. This concession was a most valuable incentive for investment in the energy industries. The petroleum search subsidy is to be abandoned next June. There is now a requirement that one-third of overseas capital inflow be deposited with the Reserve Bank, interest-free. This is at a time when available Australian capital is restricted by a tight money market and high interest rates. The net result of these measures has been a serious loss of confidence in the energy industries. Australia’s industry leaders are apprehensive over Government policy. They look in vain for a consistent thread through the tangled fabric of contradictory ministerial statements and oblique indications of intention. The Minister for Minerals and Energy has an intuitive idea of what he wants, but the gaps of detail are frighteningly wide.

Mr Vale, the Managing Director of Australian Minerals Economics Pty Ltd, said on 24 October that finance for exploration in Australia will in the near term be restrictive, and this position will keep activity at a low level. At present there are 12 drilling rigs active in Australia - and 19 inactive. The number of active rigs is down 30 per cent on the same time last year; and the full impact of the Government’s policies is yet to be felt. We can now expect a decline in exploration activity at a time when it should be intensified. I am informed that many key personnel in minerals and energy companies are leaving Australia. Many of these key operators are in the 30 years to 40 years age bracket. They represent years of accumulated knowledge and skill. As I say, they are starting to leave Australia. A whole range of companies are reducing the scope of their operations and some are even contemplating withdrawing from Australia.

Mr Speaker, the solution of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to the prospective energy problems rests, apparently, on natural gas. The Minister proposes to pipe gas from wells on the North-West Shelf, which are in up to 600 feet of water offshore, to the mainland at an estimated cost of $2 10m to $2 12m. It should be clearly realised that such proposals are on the threshhold of technology. Because of this, cost estimates could be extremely inaccurate. The cost could be $3 00m, $400m or even $500m. No one can say for sure. This natural gas will be processed - using a stabilisation plant presumably near Dampier or Broome - into LPG or liquid gas, with a dry methane gas residue. From what I can gather - and it is difficult to gather facts about the Minister’s intentions - this LPG will in turn be processed by a refinery into motor spirit. This process is a complex one, and the costs are quite indefinite. The dry methane gas is then to be transported by pipeline to link up with the Palm Valley gas field in Western Australia. From there it will link up with Perth, Kalgoorlie and the Gidgealpa field for distribution to the eastern seaboard.

This seems on face value a noble project. But on a closer examination, Mr Speaker, it is probably the most loosely-based, inadequatelycosted, least-explained and leastthoughtthrough commitment of taxpayers’ money in the history of this nation. The Minister for Minerals and Energy proposes to transfer massive quantities of natural gas from the North-West Shelf through a pipeline of unknown dimensions, capacity and cost to supply the already, adequately-supplied market at an unknown price and unknown cost to the taxpayer.

As far as I can establish, there has been no comprehensive feasibility or cost-benefit analysis of this entire project. Leading industry experts cannot tell me what the costs are likely to be, yet the Minister tosses figures around with assurance. The Minister also apparently plans to use this gas to produce petro-chemicals. We do not know how much petro-chemical will be produced, the extent of the market for it, or how much it will cost. We do not know how the motor spirit is to be transported to the eastern seaboard.

Expert opinion is that the only real answer to our future shortage of petroleum products is by the discovery of major crude oil fields. The Minister says that his project will meet our crisis. It will not. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association has estimated that over the 1980 to 1990 decade, 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would need to be produced to provide sufficient gas liquids to meet our motor spirit shortfall. Yet the total estimated capacity of the NorthWest. Shelf is 23 trillion cubic feet. Even if the natural gas was available, it could not be produced quickly enough to meet the necessary timetable. There are technical limits to the rate of extraction. To attempt to use our natural gas reserves so quickly would be, to use the Minister’s own words, a ‘rape of the North-West Shelf. At best, the Minister’s proposal must be looked at as a tentative one that may partially meet some of our future requirements. It cannot be seen as a substitute for a stepped-up exploration effort. Unless the Government creates a climate in which exploration can flourish, we are in trouble. Even then we may be in trouble if the oil is simply not there. We need to know if it is not there as much as we need to know if it is there.

While the Minister talks, and while he dreams, a long-nurtured exploration industry withers. He fails to appreciate that confidence in the future is a vital and necessary condition for exploration activities. Since the beginning of this year, the market share value of the oil exploration group of companies on the Sydney Stock Exchange has fallen from $547m to $259m. The index of fuel and power industry shares has fallen from 238 in January to 176 on 1 November. To put it another way, investors in oil exploration companies on the Sydney Stock Exchange have lost about $300m in the value of shares in the 10 months of this year. It is quite obvious to me that there is very much a crisis of confidence in the industry. This crisis is caused not only by confusion over present policy, but by uncertainty over future policy. The consequences for the future if something is not done are well illustrated in western Europe’s current experiences. Western Europe is over the Middle East oil barrel. Its foreign policy is compromised, and its economy is vulnerable to economic ringbarking. Dutch motorists have been prohibited from driving on Sundays. British airlines have planned to cut back air services by 10 per cent. Over the next two or three decades it is highly probable that the price of international petroleum will rise drastically. Since January 1971 the price of Arab light crude has doubled; it will doubtless rise still further.

What I ask the Minister to do is set up a committee of representatives of Federal and State governments, - as well as industry, to undertake a comprehensive public examination of the nature and extent of Australia’s future energy requirements and sources. Such a committee should report on the most appropriate methods of meeting the situation, including alternative energy sources which may need to be encouraged. Depending on the outcome of the committee’s deliberations, it might then be necessary for the Government to set guidelines for minimum petroleum stocks in Australia to meet any future emergency situation. Again, without prejudging the committee’s findings, consideration might need to be given by State and Federal governments to appropriate means of curbing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of petroleum in Australia. Mr Speaker, I make this contructive suggestion in the hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration. lt just is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that he knows all about our energy situation. The energy industries do not know and the Australian people certainly do not know. What is clear to all of us is that we are facing a real crisis of unknown proportions. The time to start equipping ourselves to cope with that crisis is now. To date this Government, and this Minister, have not shown that they have the capacity to do so.

Sitting suspended from 12.54 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– From an Opposition which has never had a fuel and energy policy, which when in government never had a Minister with that specific responsibility in a portfolio, we now have suggestions as to how Australia is to evolve a fuel and energy policy. In its form as outlined by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) it is not acceptable to the Government, particularly when that gentleman has himself been stamping up and down the countryside suggesting that the Egyptian wheat deal should be abrogated - one of the worst possible ways I could conceive to win friends and influence people. If there is any way certain to put a cat amongst the pigeons in relation to oil supplies, that is precisely the best way to do so. Yet that same gentleman on behalf of his minority party comes forward with this suggestion.

There is no need to create panic. There is no need to press the panic button. As a matter of fact the Opposition wanted to jump on to what it sees as being a political bandwagon. We are not prepared to allow the Opposition to do so. It never had a policy when in govern ment other than to create panic. Just before I left on my recent visit to Japan a very long winded telegram came from the Premier of Queensland suggesting an urgent and immediate conference of the Premiers. The reply - it was a public one; it was also sent to the Queensland Premier - was simply that at that stage we were in daily contact with the authorised spokesman for the various major oil companies in Australia, Mr Kruizenga, who assured us that there was no need for concern. To that I would add as a supplement that the general position which was outlined then still holds good except that whereas there was then no indication that any interruption in oil supplies was likely to occur, the latest advice from that same gentleman is that some reduction in Middle East oil availabilities is expected but at this point the extent of the reduction is not known. If and when the expected reductions are quantified the industry and the Government will be in a position to consider what course of action may be required. We will not create panic and we will not allow the Opposition to do so, but people of Australia will be fully informed if - and I stress ‘if - such a situation arises. But as has already been said, Australia produces 70 per cent of its crude oil needs, and for the rest we have an Ambassador at large to the Arab countries, Mr Haig, who is our main means of contact with them - something which would be beyond the comprehension or the planning of the Opposition.

I have just returned from Japan and I have been helping that country and its leaders with their energy problems. I find that in Australia we are in a very fortunate position. Australia is one of the few countries that can face the future with reasonable equanimity. I speak in terms of the aggregate availability of hydrocarbons, because crude oil, natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, black coal and brown coal are chemical cousins and they can be converted from one form into another. That is precisely the thinking of the major industrial countries of the world today and it is precisely the thinking of the major oil companies, which themselves are endeavouring to acquire in Australia blocks of black coal specifically for the purpose of the hydrogenation of that commodity for the production of oil and the other hydrocarbon derivatives. That is the position. As a matter of fact the Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry, Mr Nakasone, has agreed to my suggestion that there should be an immediate and comprehensive joint examination of the feasibility in Australia of establishing such a project with appropriate technology contributed by the experts of the 2 countries and at the same time experts examining the potentiality of solar energy. That is how far we have taken the matter.

We have an Opposition which comes forward, tongue in cheek, with suggestions, an Opposition which has bitterly opposed, sidetracked and emasculated the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, an Opposition which opposed the Pipeline Authority Bill and which, when we bring forward a Bill now being drafted - the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill - will undoubtedly oppose it and oppose it viciously. This is the Opposition which in government presided over one of the worst giveaways in the world in the Bass Strait, which has allowed a situation to develop where overseas shareholders controlled 85 per cent of the assets of the North West Shelf. Now the Opposition comes along to us suggesting that we should listen to it. It would be dangerous; it would almost be criminal lunacy to do it. The Opposition suggests what ought to be done. Last April in this House I made a statement on the question of the world energy crisis. Of course, it was ridiculed by the knowalls of the Opposition. As a matter of fact some associate of theirs in the Treasury issued ;a White Paper. Is his face red now. What is the situation today? Throughout the world the major industrial nations are realising that crude oil is scarcer, it is dearer, it is more difficult to find, and the far seeing nations realise that by the year 1980 crude oil will be up round the $10 a barrel mark. It will be then quite possible within existing technology, not to mention the improvements that will occur, to turn to black coal as the alternative.

The Opposition suggests that we might do something about providing for Australia’s energy needs. Let me briefly inform the House what we have in fact done. We have introduced the Pipeline Authority Act and for the first time we have made sure that Australia will have first right to the use of its own natural gas. If there is a surplus there are others, particularly Japan, which will undoubtedly need it. We introduced the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which was opposed by the people who now talk in terms of energy planning. We introduced other legislation that the Opposition has bitterly opposed. We have insisted that the liquids be stripped from natural gas. They will yield 40 barrels per million cubic feet - a very substantial reserve to augment our supplies, which are of 8 years duration only. We intend to explore. On 27th of this month I hope to be meeting the world authority, Mr Lewis Weeks - the man who advised Esso-BHP exactly what to do and where to look in the young sediments off-shore in Bass Strait. We are seeking his advice in respect of the North West Shelf and beyond, because my information is that the real crude oil deposits will be in still deeper water than the water of a depth of up to 600 feet which constitutes the continental shelf. Some of the major oil companies are seeking permission to drill in that area. We are not neglecting the matter. We are insisting in respect of the Redcliffs refinery that there be the maximum yield of hydrocarbons and that there be the maximum yield of motor spirit. A good profit will be still remaining with ethane as the building block for a petro-chemical industry.

As I have already informed this House, we will need to reduce our dependence upon imported crude oil against the event of our not being able to find what we need. Might I stress at this stage that my advice, from good authority, is that the oil is off-shore and not on-shore. A lot of the figures quoted by the Leader of the Australian Country Party were in respect of drilling rigs capable of drilling on-shore. There may be some oil on-shore, but we are looking at where we believe there is the most chance of finding it. We propose to replace with natural gas the furnace fuel which at the present time has to be imported from the Persian Gulf to the extent of onethird of the refinery throughput. Who amongst the Opposition objects to that? The Opposition had never thought of it.

There has been a tremendous amount of criticism from the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and a certain Mr Wittwer, who is the President of that body. At the present time, thanks to the former Government, the APEA is exporting no less than 8i million barrels a year of liquid petroleum gas, which in itself is a direct fuel for internal combustion engines. The APEA is exporting it at ridiculous prices. In one case it is exporting it at about $16 a ton. The Japanese have just been advised that they will have to pay the American major oil companies $60 a ton for such gas. Again, that was the responsibility of the previous Government, which could not have cared less. It had no foresight and no knowledge. So far as it was concerned Australia was for sale at bargain basement prices. We have, as I said earlier, an ambassador-at-large. He is keeping us fully informed and will continue to do so. We will be in constant contact with him. Japan is also interested at this stage. It is in a desperate position. As Japan is our major trading partner we want to do all we can to help it. But we have to consider our own needs first. Japan is even considering the use of ordinary coal gas and a synthetic natural gas. Above all - it is universal throughout the world today - the world will go back. It was the President of Royal Dutch Petroleum, Mr Wagner, who said that for the next couple of generations the world will depend on black coal and uranium. That is the world of the future.

As for the figures quoted by the Leader of the Australian Country Party, 2 years, on his estimate, of what needs to be spent on exploration would provide the necessary hydrogenation plant. Do honourable members want to know where the coal is? It is in the Hunter Valley. It is to be found particularly in the Greta seam. Most of the collieries there have been abandoned. It is some of the best gas making coal in Australia and it is coal that is ideally suited for hydrogenation purposes. Its use will be a tremendous boost to that area. Beyond, up to Singleton and Muswellbrook, is much the same type of coal. Other types of bituminous coals can be similarly adapted. As a matter of fact one of the major petroleum companies informed me less than 3 weeks ago that it already has the capacity to produce motor spirit and crude at $10.50 a barrel. So in the year 1980 or a little earlier we will be coming to that remarkable point.

Another move the Government has made to cope with Australia’s needs is the setting up of a joint committee to study all brown coal resources and their use. We are also carrying out a feasibility study in respect to the final route of the trans-continental pipeline in the Western Australia area. In my own Department, of course, forecasts are constantly being made of the long range energy needs. (Extension of time granted.) I said last April and I repeat that we will have an energy budget, that the various authorities that we set up will be charged with the responsibility of quantifying and forecasting Australia’s needs on a yearly basis and that in addition to that they will have the responsibility of forward planning. Among those authorities will foe, naturally, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, the Joint Coal Board and its counterpart in Victoria, the National Pipeline Authority and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. They will be the authorities which will be charged with the responsibility.

I turn to the suggestion that the States might be able to help. If and when the necessity arises, we will be very happy to inform them as to what is needed and obtain their recommendations. But, in the meantime, the Australian Government is well able to control the situation. I stress again in conclusion that we will at all costs ensure that no one will be pressing the panic button. Australia is in a very tidy position. There is a need for further intensified research and we will certainly do it with respect to hydrogenation. There is a need for search - and proper search. It distresses me greatly that during the currency of the present petroleum search and subsidy legislation, which will continue until 30 June next year, I will have the responsibility of authorising the payment of very substantial cheques to major oil companies operating in Australia which could well afford to search on their own. That would allow some of the smaller companies about which the Opposition is shedding crocodile tears to be able to come in and get some of the money that is going to those who do not need it. I repeat that we do not accept the Opposition’s suggestion and we will oppose it by every means within our power.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– The Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) this afternoon made a thoughtful and very well researched speech voicing the fears and the concern of many people in this country that all is not well with the Government’s oil search policy. All we have had from the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) instead of a reasoned reply, has been a collection of innuendoes, unsupported insinuations and the usual statement: ‘What did you do?’ He said many extremely controversial things. I would like to have time to reply to those things but, as honourable members know, those who speak in this debate are limited to a speaking time of 10 minutes. I could not reply in that time to most of the extremely controversial matters the Minister has raised. I must say that I was surprised to hear him say that the Government is approaching Mr Lewis Weeks for information. I want to know why the Government has not obtained this information from the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which is one of the finest organisations in the country.

Mr Connor:

– We have done that also.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I am interested to hear that. I should have thought that the Bureau of Mineral Resources would have had all the abilities and qualities that are necessary in this area. As I have said, there is no time to reply to a great number of the matters the Minister raised. The fact is, all of us are concerned about where oil search in Australia is going. My fears have not been alleviated in the least by listening to the Minister. All we seemed to get from him was talk about every sort of hoard, committee and inquiry the Government has established. The one thing that is needed for the discovery of oil is the encouraging of people to drill. There was no thought given by or word of any sort from the Minister about what the Government is going to do to encourage more people to drill for and discover oil. We are not talking about what is going to happen in the next week, 2 weeks or month; we are talking about what is going to happen with respect to the search for oil and the discovery of oil in Australia in the next 2 to 5 years. The recent crisis in the Middle East has highlighted the need for us to be independent of oversees oil supplies especially as the cost is steadily increasing. The Government appears to be doing everything possible to retard the search for oil. What is needed to encourage the search? Firstly, encouragement of private enterprise and not interference - not getting in its way; secondly, knowledge by the industry that there are stability, certainty of conditions and, above all, the possibility of reward for those who take risk and who are successful; thirdly, availability of risk capital to go into this industry.

What has the present Government done? Everywhere there is uncertainty. Mr Whitlam claims that the Japanese now know our energy policy and accept it. We are grateful to, the Japanese for getting something from the Government which we in Australia have not been able to get. Frankly I wonder whether they do know the policy and whether they do accept it. The local industry certainly does not know it. In a grand Churchillian phrase, the meaning of which could be interpreted in a number of ways, the Prime Minister said that in future we would be masters in our own house. Exactly what that means I have not the faintest idea because we have always been masters in our own house. We have always had power to refuse exports and on occasions when we have found it necessary we have refused exports. But does the new policy mean that in future no person who is resident outside Australia can invest in the search for energy resources in Australia? How can this be controlled? How can the Government control the purchase of shares in Australia to see that they are purchased, only by Australians? Why should the Government want to have such control? What would it achieve? Will overseas companies which already have interests in energy projects in Australia have to sell? This is an extraordinary situation which is presided over by a Minister who is now known as ‘Keep it in the ground Connor’.

The Government appears to be attempting to prevent exploration. The Government says that companies are not doing sufficient exploration but it refuses to allow anyone else to do it for those companies. This situation is almost reminiscent of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in ‘Alice in Wonderland’. One can almost hear the Mad Hatter saying: ‘You are not doing enough exploration but we will do everything we possibly can to see you do not do any more’. So farm-ins wait but, more importantly, the industry has long since ceased to look for partners to help in the search for oil in Australia because they know it is useless to submit any request for a farm-in to the Minister. Three major companies have ceased the search for oil in Australia. Australian oil search companies are looking for oil in Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia where they understand and accept the rules, but not in Australia. Australia has become suspect. It is referred to as a banana republic. The North West Shelf consortium has decided not to bring in a fourth rig which it intended to bring in. Overseas companies can get exploration permits but no production licences so why should they bother to look for anything, knowing that if they find anything it will be taken from them?

Everywhere chaos and confusion abound. One of the quite fallacious ideas held by the Government is that the way to increase the country’s reserves is to conserve and not use them. History shows the very opposite. The most practical method of developing mineral resources is to continue exploring for them. The experience of the Province of Alberta in Canada in the development of its petroleum industry is of great practical benefit to Australia. Natural gas was first discovered in Alberta in the early 1920s. In 1947 significant discoveries of oil were made at the Luduc and Redwater field and by 1952 the then known reserves of oil in Alberta were about 1,500 million barrels of crude oil and 5 trillion cubit feet of natural gas - about the same amount of crude oil as we have in Australia today. But the Government of Alberta followed a policy of encouraging the industry and this resulted in substantial additional discoveries, substantial exports and a major increase in reserves. In the last 20 years earnings from the sale of exports from Alberta resulted in the growth of the industry through drilling and in 1972 Alberta’s oil reserves were approximately 9 billion barrels or about 9 times what they were 20 years ago.

The Australian Government, at a time when we need oil, has prevented capital investment by freezing 33i per cent of the capital coming in from overseas in the Reserve Bank without interest, lt has abolished special tax concessions which encouraged local capital investment in oil search. It has abolished the oil search subsidies. It has frozen farm-ins and farm-outs. Is it any wonder that oil search in Australia is languishing? What is needed is a return to the tried and proven policies of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. Actions of a future Liberal-Country Party government will be based on the following beliefs: Firstly, we believe in the encouragement of private enterprise as the driving force of development. It must, however, be regulated by government so that the nation receives a fair share of the rewards of the development and sale of our resources. Care must be taken to assess the nation’s requirements and the extent of our resources so as to ensure that adequate supplies are retained in Australia for foreseeable future requirements. Secondly, we believe in close cooperation between the State and Federal governments in plans for mining exploration and development, recognising that in the field of mineral production the States have considerable expertise. Thirdly, close relations and cooperation between governments and industry must be re-established.

Fourthly, when overseas sales occur we must seek to ensure that we obtain as high a price for them as possible and that the maximum possible amount of processing occurs in Australia. Fifthly, a Liberal-Country Party government would not use taxpayers’ money on exploration which involves high risks, high costs and large funds. Sixthly, priority should be given - this is what a Liberal-Country Party government would do - to joint ventures in which there is at least a 50 per cent Australian equity participation. Nevertheless we are not opposed to foreign capital, particularly where Australians are unwilling or unable to participate. Australians should have a reasonable share in the management of these projects. Suitable and adequate encouragement will be devised to encourage investment in mining by Australian investors. One of the worst things that the present Government is doing is drying up these funds.

The Opposition is concerned to see that adequate sources of power and energy are available to meet the needs of the nation. To this end, in government we would map and assess the extent of these resources. Finally, the Liberal Party favours the establishment of natural gas and oil pipelines in Australia under government supervision.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– The matter of public importance proposed for debate by the Opposition does not deserve any consideration by this House; in fact, it deserves its contempt. Members of the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it too. They talk about a prospective shortage of fuel in Australia, yet 2 weeks ago the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) who proposed this matter for debate today was whinging and whining because the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) intended to acquire Australian natural gas at the well head off the north west shelf of Australia. What the Leader of the Country Party was saying was that the companies should be able to export the natural gas and it was like the Minister’s hide to want to acquire it for Australia and keep it for Australian domestic consumption. On the one hand members opposite say: ‘Sell it and export it’ and on the other hand they say: ‘The Government is not taking enough action to see that our resources are kept in reserve’.

It is strange that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) should support the contentions of the Leader of the Country Party as the honourable member for Farrer was the architect of the give away of half of the oil resources of Bass Strait to a foreign conglomerate with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. The honourable member for Farrer, as the responsible Minister, gave up the graticular system. Both of these honourable members are guilty of neglect in the area of oil resources. The Leader of the Country Party is an interesting proposition. It is interesting that he introduced this matter because the Opposition speaker on this subject is the honourable member for Farrer, a member of the Liberal Party. Of course, the Country Party is the lobbyist for any manufacturing or major foreign group and it will come into this Parliament and express the view of such a group. I say quite unashamedly that if the speech of the Leader of the Country Party was written by him or his staff I would be most surprised. It was probably written by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association or the Australian Mining Industry Council or one of the foreign oil firms. What the ploy is all about is that the Opposition is not interested to see that Australia has domestic reserves; it is interested in pressuring this Government into going back to a form of exploration where those companies can come in on the grouter and get Government subsidies and tax concessions and at the same time maintain the full equity in the area they are exploring.

It was only a week ago, as the Minister for Minerals and Energy mentioned, that the Leader of the Australian Country Party was stamping up and down because the Australian Labor Party was requiring the Australian Wheat Board to give credit to the United Arab Republic for the purchase of wheat. We said that unless we gave credit we would not keep faith with a trading partner in the area of wheat. Not only that, it is the Arab countries that supply crude oil to Australia. So if anyone was putting the supplies of crude oil to Australia in jeopardy it was the Leader of the Australian Country Party and nobody else.

When we talk about his intention to export natural gas we should remember that the last Government, of which he and the honourable member for Farrer were members, allowed the export from Australia of 8i million barrels per annum of liquefied petroleum gas. So the equivalent of about one-eighth of the quantity of crude oil we received from the Middle East was exported from our own resources in the Bass Strait. That is what the Opposi tion thinks about conserving our resources for the future. It is just a lot of humbug and I think every member of the House can see it. The honourable member for Farrer opposed the repeal of sections 77 and 78 of the Income Tax Act, which he knew, and which he admitted to me on a television program, were sops to the small mining industries spawned in the mining boom of 1970. The concessions were not going to genuine producers. In fact they were a major cost against the taxpayers of Australia for no benefit. Members of the Opposition know that to drill one hole offshore costs $lm and the number of companies in Australia that were capable of taking on that sort of exploration could be counted on one hand.

When those sections were repealed the Minister said that the Bureau of Mineral Resources would investigate each exploration company to see that it measured up to standard. If it had a prospect that was worth exploring further direct subsidy would be given on the recommendation of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. So to that extent any company with a reasonable prospect of finding oil would get support from this Government. But what the Opposition wants is a hand-out, not just for the oil companies that have a reasonable prospect of finding oil but for all of the people who are its friends in the mining area who got into little lousy companies in the mining boom of 1970 and intend to milk directors’ fees out of them till about the year 2000. That is what the Opposition is interested in and that is what the Leader of the Australian Country Party is interested in.

Just have a look at the Government’s record in the area of minerals and energy. We introduced the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, something over which the honourable member for Farrer was personally prepared to destroy his own Prime Minister. Not only that, he opposed the mining code sections of the Bill which allow this Parliament to regulate off-shore mining in Australia. Yet he says that we are interrupting the course of exploration. We intend to introduce a national petroleum and minerals authority. We will introduce a Bill to make sure that money from this Parliament goes into exploration for Australian oil through a national organisation for the benefit of Australians. So why should we not put the great expertise of the Bureau of Mineral Resources to work in an authority which can search and mine and produce minerals and energy?

We have also taken steps to conserve the gas on the North West Shelf by making sure that our domestic requirements are met before any natural gas is exported. But the honourable member for Farrer and the Leader of the Country Party see their role as to the Woodside-Burmah consortium to make sure that it gets the right to export to the Japanese and the west coast of the United States natural gas markets. They are not interested in conserving the gas; they are interested only in looking after their friends.

Let us look at other things that the Government has done. We intend to strip liquids from the north west shelf. We intend to make sure that there are adequate petrol supplies from the liquids that come with the condensate from the North West Shelf. We intend to set up a petrochemical plant to that end. We also are looking at the prospect of using solar energy. I think the Minister for Minerals and Energy mentioned in his speech today that in discussions with the Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry, Mr Nakasone, there were discussions around the question of solar energy. So in every respect in terms of energy in Australia - with hydrocarbons in the aggregate, not just oil and natural gas and in other forms - we intend to make sure that Australia’s domestic requirements are supplied before anything else. Let us just look at what the Opposition did in terms of oil search subsidy. In 20 years it paid out $174m. That was a miserable $8.7m a year. That would bore 8 holes a year. On the normal drilling ratio, oil is generally found in about one hole in every sixteen. So $8.7m would finance the equivalent of 8 holes a year. So in fact the rate of exploration financed by the Opposition might not find even one deposit.

The Opposition is squealing about sections 77a, 77b, 77c and 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act as they will apply to natural gas. These provisions were repealed. Between 1958 and 1971 the previous Government expended $11 Om - over 13 years. This amounted to $8.5m a year, which is a trifling amount. When one considers what is to be done in terms of oil exploration in a meaningful way in Australia, the Opposition has given only lip service to it at best. That money did not go to any decent Australian company out looking for oil or minerals; it went to the multi-nationals. We find that the Minister has to agree to provide the likes of the Royal Dutch Shell company with tax concessions under these provisions which were agreed to in the days of the previous Government, which was a disgraceful arrangement for the previous Government to enter into. Of all that money that was spent on exploration not 1 per cent in equity was acquired for the Commonwealth of Australia. A sum of $849m was spent on exploration in 20 years; $413m of that $849m was supplied by the Government and not a miserable 1 per cent of equity was acquired for the people of Australia. The Opposition ought to be ashamed of itself. It has no record and no credibility in the area of oil speculation.

Mr Giles:

– Why do you not stop lying?

Mr KEATING:

– You ought to hang your head in shame.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Angas will withdraw that remark.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Speaker, I would be very relieved if he would tell the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr Giles:

– I withdraw it if I must, but with the greatest reluctance.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can be no reservation. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark.

Mr KEATING:

– In all of its forms, in the aggregate of hydrocarbons, for that $849m which has been expended on exploration the total value of the produce discovered is worth $14 billion. That is assuming that the natural gas is valued on the basis of 20 cents per 1000 cubic feet. But with the oil at current market values, it is worth $14 billion. A return of $14 billion on an outlay of $849m is a massive return for any of the companies operating in this area. Yet the honourable member for Farrer sees his role as coming into this Parliament to make sure that the companies get more. We see our role as making sure that the people of Australia have adequate hydrocarbon reserves in all of their various forms and any return that comes from the sale of those reserves comes back in the corporate sense to the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I always listen with great interest to my friend, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr

Keating), because he brings the charm of youth to a novelty of interpretation of fact which I find altogether enchanting. His insulting remarks about the former Minister I think one can overlook. Nobody who knows the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), who has been associated with him for any length of time and is aware of the distinguished service he has rendered to this country both in war and in peace, would ever take any notice of the grossly vulgar remarks that were made. Not only were they bereft of integrity, they were a manifestation of the shame of the Australian Labor Party. Let me say something about those multi-national companies that have been dealt with. I will admit that at last from the ranks of Tuscany has emerged a man who is like Astur, and that man sits at the table. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) is one of the most direct conquerors that we have ever had. He has my respect and I will say it here and now. I am not prepared to say that I am going to argue with him about detail. I know what he wants. I know how he intends to get it. I know the operations that he will follow. I give him my respect because at least he has the charm that made Marshall Rommel distinguished in his day. I say to the Minister that many men respected Marshall Rommel and there were others who did not.

Multi-national companies have worked in Australia, and I will give a classic illustration of a distinguished company in Sydney, without mentioning its name, that worked for the whole of the financial year 1957-58. It cost that company £A72m to do the things that it was doing. After making the payments to its people, when it was operating on the market its production gave that company a return of £A104m. The difference is £A32m. Of that £A32m Consolidated Revenue received £A30m and the shareholders in the company received £A2m. It is people such as the honourable member for Blaxland who resent the £A2m being paid to the shareholders but they will never talk about the £A30m. They will never say that a company employs thousands of Australians and in its own right or because of its personal responsibility pays tax to the Treasury. The hundreds and hundreds of people who are employed have to pay tax as well as the company having to pay company tax and excise of all descriptions. All of these things have to be met. With all the profits that are made, we should think of how much Consolidated Revenue takes. But there is no recognition of this at all.

When the Minister for Minerals and Energy speaks of equity he speaks of the interest of the Government. Do not believe that Australian equity is the shareholding of Australian men and women, because that is not what the Minister is talking about. He is talking about government ownership, direction and control of industry. With all of the charm and savoir-faire of a bandit the Minister intends to take hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money and dig holes in the ground. It is fascinating to me that the Minister talks about using the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources. I want to know whether he intends to shoot or hang the Commonwealth geologists who deliver him into a dry hole when he has sent two million bucks down the drain and he has not found one drop of gas or oil. If that occurs, who will the Minister deal with? It is so much easier to deal with a company, to accuse the people in private enterprise of being clandestine conspirators against the welfare of the country. But as the Minister he is in command of the taxpayers’ money. To what extent will he blame some public servant and to what degree will he punish him for his failure as a technical man? Under Appropriation Bill (No. 6) which went through Parliament recently the Minister is taking $14m to pay for the pipes which he has resumed for the pipeline. He has done this with all the charm and savoir-faire of Dick Turpin - I think that was the gentleman’s name - or Kelly who had in common with the Minister the charm which came originally from the Emerald Isle.

Mr Giles:

– Edward Kelly?

Mr GRAHAM:

– Edward Kelly. In Appropriation Bill (No. 2) $54m is set aside to purchase the pipes and associated equipment for the pipeline. Another $107m is to be provided under the Pipeline Authority Act. This makes a total of $175m of the taxpayers’ money being provided for this purpose. I cannot understand why the Minister does not realise that if this were private enterprise money he could watch some poor unfortunate entrepreneur build the pipeline and do the job properly. Then he could lie in wait for him and get from him not only the 52c in every $1 profit which the taxman now gets but also he could go as high as 62c, 72c or 82c and do it all in the name of the integrity of the Government and the nation. He could have all of those wonderful characteristics that have made the Mafia - I am sorry, that have made political parties - so distinguished in the past. To refuse the appropriation is a possible course open to the Opposition, but I will admit that this would probably constitute irresponsible conduct. But if we approve the appropriation for this pipeline can we hope that it will be for the Department of Minerals and Energy? At this stage leading Queen’s Counsel in Melbourne have stated that the Pipeline Authority Act 1973 is not valid. I asked the Minister whether he would table in this House legal opinions from sources which are familiar to the Government, namely, from the office of the SolicitorGeneral and from other people. The Minister said he would, but he has not yet done so. He intends to do so and, knowing him as I do 1 am confident that he will. When these (Opinions come forward we will then understand just what it is that the industry is fighting.

There can be no doubt that the Government has failed to take adequate steps to respond to the prospective shortage of domestically produced petroleum products in Australia. In fact, the Government is acting in such a way as to lead people to believe that it does not want the exploration done for the next ten or fifteen years. What it really wants to do is to hold on to what it regards as potentially successful areas over that period of time and then hope that as technology improves it will be able readily and quite quickly to discover commercial fields of oil and gas and that at that time Australia will be able to make, as the Government sees it, vast profits for a socialist government. In my judgment, whilst there is an attraction of a deadly sort to such a sinister plan, one can more readily assume that what Australia should be doing is proceeding with its proper work of looking into exploration, encouraging it to go forward, inviting people to speculate, taking the risks, and doing a proper job in the hope that when Australia does produce oil and gas fields it will be able to play its part in providing these minerals as needed for the welfare of our own country and the rest of the world. There is no need for us to act like Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. When I think of this it gives me a sort of a Middle East connotation and we should say to the Minister: ‘Open sesame’.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I rise to oppose the motion and to treat it with the contempt it deserves. After 23 years of Liberal-

Country Party Government, this Government inherited a shambles. As a result of 23 years of Tory irresponsibility and complete abrogation of its national responsibility, this country was subjected to the greatest density of foreign plunder and the greatest density of sell out to foreign corporations in our history. What a legacy we have been left with! We have no balanced development of our mineral and fuel resources at all - not a shred of it. The natural resources of this country today are a national resource. This Government has tried to enunciate in the very brief period it has been in office a national fuel and energy policy through the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, which the Opposition has frustrated, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill and the attempt to the maximum of our powers to conserve the oil and natural gas deposits on the north west shelf.

We will make sure that the resources of the Cooper Basin are utilised in the nation’s interest. Likewise, we will ensure that this happens at Palm Valley and in Bass Strait. One of the areas of conflict in the Redcliffs complex in South Australia is the conversion of liquid petroleum gas or butane to motor spirit. Does anybody in the Opposition seriously contest the stand of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) on this issue? As I understand the conversion rate, if 340,000 tons is extracted with present technology we can convert that into nearly 264,000 tons of motor spirit. Does anybody seriously suggest that this country should forgo that wise policy for no other reason than to make sure that the multi-national corporations operating the petro-chemical plant at Redcliffs maximise their profits? Do we reduce their holding in the nation’s interest or allow our resources to be exploited to the extent of the profit levels of the multi-national corporations?

Let us now look at solar energy. I have made 3 submissions to the Minister on the need for greater expenditure in the field of solar energy. He is looking at those submissions at the moment. What did the previous Government do about this matter in 23 years? The question that ought to be answered, and I have yet to hear anybody from the Opposition answer it, is: Why is it that this nation can recruit from its own internal resources 89 per cent of its direct investment, yet not control its natural resources? The other 11 per cent comes from overseas. It is in respect of that 1 1 per cent investment in this nation’s resources that I charge the Opposition, after being in Government for 23 years, with almost criminal neglect. Countries throughout the world for the first time have come to realise that no nation can afford to have its natural resources - in particular its minerals, fuels and energy - come within the purview of overseas corporations or companies.

What Australian or what member of the Opposition can argue with the proposition that the ultimate responsibility for this nation’s nonrenewable fuel resources must rest with the national government? Does anybody dispute that? Basically, what is wrong with the proposition that this nation should buy, control and distribute its oil and gas at the wellhead? Does anybody contest that proposition? The Opposition does. Is such a proposition out of step with the attitudes and policies of other governments whose countries are faced with exactly the same dilemma as this country? I was interested to read an article in the Financial Review’ on 10 October last headed: A New Oil Game. Mossadeq’s Legacy to Connor’. The article stated:

The traditional system (of granting international oil companies) concessions is practically finished forever and new patterns are emerging.

We will have to live with a new companygovernment relationship that accedes with the will of the producing countries and meets their basic nationalist aspirations.

Was that said by the Minister for Minerals and Energy? No. It was said by James E. Atkins, who is a personal confidant of President Nixon and Ambassador-designate to Saudi Arabia, and was an extract from a recent speech. Countries throughout the world for the first time have come to take stock of the situation and are rapidly reaching the stage where any negotiations with those countries which control the vast fuel resources of the world’s oil reserves - 60 per cent is in the Middle East - are either bilateral negotiations or negotiations with independent oil companies and not multi-national corporations. Let me clarify and confirm that statement. Japan is moving towards direct deal purchases, thereby reducing dependence on multi-national corporations which traditionally have supplied the bulk of the Japanese requirements. The Commission of European Communities proposed only last April that the European Economic Community, which is hostile to the multi-national corporations, designate private companies rather than multi-national corpora tions to represent it in deals with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

In this critical area there are several factors which I would like to mention and which the Opposition during 23 years in government failed to face up to. For the first time this Government is attempting at least to go about it constructively. The first factor is that energy is ubiquitous, pervasive and basic to all things. Its availability determines how much life can exist and what standard of living we can obtain as a country. Secondly, we are fully conscious of the fact that we will be heavily dependent on fossil fuel, particularly crude oil and natural gas, for the rest of this century. Thirdly, what is needed is a comprehensive policy. This Government will take steps - it will not reach for the panic button - to ensure that we have a balanced evaluation of our resources. We will not fall for the short-sighted policies which were characteristic of the previous Government for 23 years and of quite a number of overseas countries. Anybody who thinks otherwise is still living in the myth of 19th century laissezfaire liberalism. That is exactly the attitude the Opposition has adopted at this point of time.

In the limited time I have at my disposal I want to make passing reference to some of the allegations that have been made by the Opposition. If there is one vital area in this country at the moment it is the petro-refining area, and if one takes the time to look at it one will reach some very astonishing analyses. Of all petro-refining installations in this country, which produce 706,750 barrels per stream day, we as a nation own, not control, 10.62 per cent.

Mr Graham:

– Where do you get your figures-

Mr JACOBI:

– Never mind about that. You have had your say.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will contain himself.

Mr JACOBI:

– I turn now to coal, in respect of which I have production figures for Queensland. I agree with the Minister that coal will be vital to us in the next decade. Yet, thanks to the Country Party Government in Queensland, overseas corporations control 88 per cent in that State. In New South Wales at least we control 36 per cent. If honourable members want a classic example of what I am referring to they should look at the bauxite deposit at Weipa. If ever there was a scandalous sellout by a Country Party government, it occurred in that State. In 1970-71 the company there produced 4.2 million tons and had a total revenue of $23.3m. From this the State of Queensland, on behalf of the people of Queensland, received a royalty of $412,443, or 1.8 per cent of the total revenue.

Mr Cooke:

– What about the extras?

Mr JACOBI:

– I ask the honourable member for Petrie: Where are the extras in Queensland? There are no railway royalty charges.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Hawker will address the Chair

Mr JACOBI:

– It never fails to astonish me, Mr Speaker, that the gentleman in Queensland who allows that situation can rush to a Premiers Conference and plead poverty, saying that he has insufficient money for education and social services, but will not make the same pleadings to his multi-national friends. The bauxite deposit at Weipa is controlled as to 45 per cent by the Kaiser company and as to 45 per cent by the Conzinc Riotinto of Australia; and, in order to overcome a public outrage in Queensland, there is 10 per cent public equity, which is what the Queensland Government did in respect of coal-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired. The discussion is now concluded.

page 2904

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October (vide page 2739), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– This Bill has been brought on for debate in this House at very short notice. It is not the first time that a Bill has been brought on for debate at short notice and it is not the first time that a Bill has been presented to the House in such poor shape. It is poorly drafted and it is a poor expression of the policy intentions of the Government. This Bill was in the Senate in the last sitting week and it was deferred. It was brought into this House, and the same reasons for deferral exist today as existed then. However, the Opposition will not take the attitude that it should refuse to discuss the Bill altogether. We do propose to discuss the

Bill. We will state attitudes of principle and, having stated attitudes of principle, we will then deal in detail with some portions of the Bill. This Bill represents a fundamental departure from previous approaches to restrictive trade practices legislation in Australia. It seeks to replace the existing Restrictive Trade Practices Act with radical new provisions for imposing widespread prohibitions on numerous alternative forms of business practices.

The need for strengthening the existing legislation in this area is recognised on both sides of the House. The Commissioner of Trade Practices began his annual report for the year ended 30 June 1973 with these comments:

For 2 years, more effective trade practices legislation has been a stated objective of both sides of the Parliament. It appears to be common ground now that the Parliament should decide and lay down more .positively and comprehensively than before what the policy qf trade practices legislation is to be.

So it is quite apparent that if there is any claim by the Government that it is the only party interested in trade practices, it is a false claim. As Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Opposition parties I endorse the remarks of the Commissioner of Trade Practices at the outset of his report. In contrast to the remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) and the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) in their second reading speeches, the Commissioner of Trade Practices then goes on to say:

The current legislation, which is clearly coming towards the end of its time, has nevertheless served a valuable role. Among other things, it provided an entry into a field substantially untouched for many years,

If I may interpolate, it was I who introduced that Bill into this House. The Commissioner continues: it brought the problems to public and business attention, and it became a means of moving towards principle and demonstrating the need for further legislation. It was also an important vehicle for the development of constitutional law in this field and beyond it.

The Opposition recognises this and when in government took positive steps to significantly strengthen existing legislation in a number of ways. In 1971 the then Government set up an interdepartmental committee to make a detailed examination of the legislation. Later that year as a result of the deliberations of that Government, resale price maintenance was prohibited. This was a logical progression from the existing legislation which, as the Commissioner noted, has served such a valuable role in indicating the areas in which new laws were needed.

In May 1972, the then Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, set out in a comprehensive ministerial statement the areas in which the Government intended to strengthen the Act. Four specific areas were mentioned. Firstly, it proposed a widening of the scope of the provisions dealing with monopolisation to enable monopoly conditions to be fully investigated when there was reason to believe that those conditions were not operating in the public interest; secondly, it was proposed that mergers and takeovers which were likely to reduce competition be subject to inquiry and restraint when this was desirable in the public interest; thirdly, the establishment of a monopolies commission to supplement the work of the Trade Practices Tribunal was foreshadowed; and fourthly, stronger provisions for the examination of registrable agreements and the practice of refusing to deal were proposed.

The Commissioner was to be relieved of the necessity for consultation and he was to be able to take those matters, agreements or practices to the Tribunal without consultation so that guidelines could be established on the basis of his experience as to what practices or agreements were likely to be held against the public interest. That statement was made in May of last year in order to facilitate the examination of all the proposals by all persons concerned. In October 1972 a Bill was introduced and it was deferred to allow further public discussion after the Bill as a Bill could be examined by all parties concerned. These actions reflect the concern of the Government as it then was - the Liberal-Country Party Government - for developing strong and effective laws to deal with restrictive trade practices which are against the public interest. It is the aim of the Liberal Party to continue to do that and if that is the aim of the Government - the Australian Labor Party - we endorse its objective.

But the way to achieve this objective is not to impose with virtually no debate sweeping prohibitions on a wide range of business practices which may often be against the public interest, but which in some circumstances may not be. This is the approach of the Bill before the House. The Government’s way to achieve this objective has been to draw heavily on United States anti-trust laws. In fact, I believe that several United States anti-trust experts, including counsel from the Federal Trade Commission, took an active part in the drafting of this Bill and I must say, having read very many Bills over the years, that the standard of the drafting of this Bill seems to indicate that it was done by an American draftsman and not by our own Australian draftsmen.

The Minister talks of the so-called urgency of the Bill which the Government cites as a necessity for hasty enactment. The Minister emphasised that the Bill has particular importance to the problems of inflation, with the implication that the presence of restrictive trade practices legislation of the type contained in this Bill would in some way magically reduce inflation in Australia overnight. That is a lot of nonsense. I agree with some of the statements made by the Minister for Secondary Industry in his second reading speer’:. He said: ‘The practices cause prices to be maintained at artificially high levels’. I agree with that. He said: ‘The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels h , .er than would otherwise prevail’. I agree with that. But the presence of restrictive practices can explain only why prices are at a particular level and why relative prices between different industries or companies in the economy are distorted. It cannot explain the acceleration in the rate of inflation, the rate at which prices ere increasing. There is no evidence to suggest that restrictive practices are more widespread in 1973 than they were in 1972 or before ti.e present Act was passed in 1965. In other words, the existence of restrictive trade practices cannot be invoked to explain the rate of increase in prices in 1973, which is treble the rate of 1972 and almost 5 times the rate that prices increased in the 1950s and the 1960s.

As a corollary, it follows that urgent measures to ban restrictive practices, however necessary to achieve greater competition and efficiency, are not the appropriate short term instruments to deal with the present inflationary situation. I therefore deny that there is a great urgency to pass this legislation this week or next week on the ground that it is going to cure inflation because it will do nothing of the kind. What is more important is that a piece of legislation which is going to last for very many years should be the right legislation and should have the proper examination. If the concern of the Government is inflation, I have stated in other places and in this House in other debates what are our positive proposals in relation to inflation, and I do not propose to repeat them in this debate. The reason why we need to strengthen the legislation in this area is to achieve the goals of greater efficiency and increased productivity which more effective competition in industry produces. If this complex legislation is dealt with hastily by this Parliament there is a very great danger that the effects on efficiency, productivity and growth will be perverse and not advantaged. The Bill is going to effect virtually every company operating in Australia and if it creates uncertainty and confusion, as I believe in its present form it will, there is every reason to believe that business efficiency could be reduced.

The Government is asking us to consider the Bill hastily. It was introduced into the Senate on 27 September. On 24 October the Senate deferred it until the first sitting day in 1974. On the same day, 24 October, notice was given in this House and the Bill was introduced for its second reading on 25 October. If the course of action taken by the Government is intended to be a threat to us to permit the Bill to go through without proper examination, we will not respond to the threat in the way that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) or the Minister for Secondary Industry intended us to do. Quite clearly there will need to be many amendments to this Bill to make it acceptable. We need time to formulate these amendments and to move them. If the Government has half a brain in its head it will accept most of the amendments that we will put forward because we will give the Bill detailed examination and there will not be general statements leaving it to the courts, leaving it to the tribunal or leaving it to the commission to determine a policy which should be our responsibility to determine as the legislators of this country.

It appears that Senator Murphy had no consultation whatever with industry or commerce during the gestation period of this Bill. It is quite clear that Senator Murphy intends that there should be no consultation before the Bill is passed. Our approach to trade practices legislation has been to charge the Trade Practices Commissioner with the task of investigating agreements and determining facts based on the policy which this Parliament has determined so that the Commissioner could then refer a matter to the tribunal. The Commissioner says that this approach has been a highly useful one and he has indicated areas in which stronger laws, including the prohibition of certain activities, are needed. The approach adopted in this Bill before the

House contrasts quite markedly with the previous approach. It prohibits a wide range of trade practices but it is simply not clear from a reading of the Bill how wide the range is. The Bill provides for some clearance or authorisation proposals in certain circumstances, but those authorisations do not cover price fixing, differential prices, monopolisation or, of course, resale price maintenance or consumer protection. The introduction of the sweeping prohibitions proposed in the Bill requires at least two conditions. It must be remembered that whatever the Minister said in his second reading speech or whatever the Bill tries to provide there are now to be trade practices of a criminal kind. To say that they are not criminal but to ascribe a penalty of $250,000 and then to say that the onus of proof will not be beyond reasonable doubt but merely on the balance of probabilities is to fiddle with words. Civil damages which may follow may be very heavy.

The first 2 things that are needed are: Firstly, that the wording of the provisions be quite precise and well defined, both in legal terms and in terms of the types of economic activity to which it refers. Secondly, that it be established beyond doubt that the activities being prohibited are in all cases undesirable and not in the public interest. To take the second point first, there are valid arguments for extending the range of practices that are per se illegal. A great advantage of the existing system in the legislation is that it provides a continuing flow of information to enable us to make the review. The Commissioner in his last annual report said that price agreements are very unlikely to be consistent with the public interest. There are, therefore, grounds for supporting outright prohibition of horizontal price agreements. This is an area of the Bill with which we could broadly agree. It comes within clause 45 which deals with contracts, combinations and restraint of trade. But what we wish to consider is whether or not there ought to be authorisation proposals for these price fixing arrangements. It is likely that upon examination we would not think so. But we would not know until there has been time to examine them adequately.

Another area which falls into this category may be the provisions for the protection of consumers. Broadly we agree with the proposals in the Bill for consumer protection. But I must make these points clear: Firstly, all the

States have provision for consumer protection. They are not uniform, but all have them. We need to make sure that by passing this legislation consumer protection is not lessened rather than strengthened. As an example of that let me refer honourable members to pyramid selling. Pyramid selling takes up one clause in this Bill. In Victoria there happens to be before the State Parliament, after an exhaustive examination by the Parliament and by committees of the Parliament of the prohibition of pyramid selling, a Bill consisting of about 5 pages. Can we be sure that by adopting the procedure set out in the Bill before this House people will be better protected or worse protected from pyramid selling? The Bill proposes that State laws should continue in operation. But it does not matter what the Minister says or what is written in the Bill; section 109 of the Constitution says that where there is inconsistency between State and Federal law the Federal law shall prevail. There is no way of legislating out of that constitutional provision. Therefore it will not be the Parliament that decides whether State law prevails or Commonwealth law prevails. It will be the High Court.

Another area in which we can agree with the Government is the prohibition of resale price maintenance. Quite clearly resale price maintenance cannot be supported. It is my view that resale price maintenance and horizontal price fixing arrangements are the 2 restrictive trade practices which contribute most to the distortion of the price pattern or lifting the level of prices. But the point we want to make is that we have not had the opportunity to give the Bill the close examination which it deserves. As an Opposition we have that duty. We have the duty to the public who will be affected for many years into the future to give it that close examination.

The first point that I made was that the wording of the provisions should be quite precise and well defined. It appears to us that the Bill is highly deficient in this respect and that it should be greatly clarified so as not to create intolerable confusion in industry and an unworkable burden on the Commission, the Tribunal and the courts. I believe there are some provisions in the Bill which could be and should be significantly strengthened with more precise wording. It should be for this Parliament to determine the policy and not to offload the policy to the Commission, the

Tribunal or the courts. We would put forward amendments to make it clear that we determine the policy. We are not going to adopt the American system of giving to the courts the right of legislative policy prescription. We do not believe that is proper. This Bill is a complex matter and it will take some time - certainly more than the few weeks we have had - to consider these things adequately.

I now want to examine some portions of the legislation. Clause 45 deals with contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade. If honourable members look at clause 45 (1) they will see that it prohibits contracts in restraint of trade. But sub-clause (2) states:

A Corporation shall not make a contract, or engage in or be a party to a combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade . . .

Why the difference? It refers to a contract in one case and in the second case it refers to a contract, a combination or conspiracy. In the first case it is made unlawful. Does that mean unlawful in terms of enforcement of the contract. These are things that we do not know. Sub-clause (3) of clause 45 prohibits the limiting or discontinuing of production, manufacture or mining. It is a well established mining practice to limit the production of some of the ore out of a mine in order to give the mine a life, to allow the amortisation of the capital over a period and to avoid taxation prescriptions which are being introduced in legislation now before this House whereby companies are having taken away from them investment procedures in relation to taxation.

There is an extraordinary provision in clause 46 of the Bill which deals with monopolisation. The Attorney-General says that having certainty is only illusionary. It is nothing of the kind. It is certainly very important that we should have it. Clause 47 deals with exclusive dealing. Clause 48 refers to resale price maintenance and, as I said, we agree with that prescription. Price discrimination is dealt with in clause 49. It is very important to look at price discrimination and see what the prescription would mean. Just let me take an example. I do not know the facts and this is. an imaginary example. But suppose General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd wants 400,000 tyres a year and it goes to, let us say, Olympic Tyre and Rubber Co. Pty Ltd and says: ‘Will you contract to give us 400,000 tyres a year?’ Olympic say: ‘Well, what would the other companies provide them at?’ General MotorsHolden’s says: ‘Naturally we are not going to tell you that because we want the best price we can get.’ Therefore, there is no authorisation by which the Olympic Tyre Company can be permitted to do this, because the only ground on which it can do it is that it is meeting the price of a competitor. If one looks at sub-clause (4) one is likely to find that GMH cannot even go to Olympic Tyres to ask for such a price. I know that what will be said is that the company can do it provided it does not reduce competition. But how can a company, on the basis of a criminal offence - that is what it amounts to - be certain that it will not be found that it may be a reduction of competition or, in terms of the legislation, may tend to reduce competition? These are the sorts of uncertainties with which industry quite positively could not live. It would not be in the interests of the Australian consumer if business could not be done in that way.

Clause SO deals with mergers and acquisitions. At least 2 problems are raised by clause 50, which is designed to prevent corporate acquisitions and mergers likely to have anticompetitive effects. The first is the lack of any real guidelines in the Bill or of any determination that can be made as to whether a proposed merger or acquisition is anticompetitive. The second is the administrative power to rule on proposed acquisitions and mergers, which is concentrated in the Commission, the Tribunal or the Commissioner of Trade Practices. It is quite contrary to our standard of behaviour as legislators to give that sort of control over individuals to statutory officers, whether they be judicial or quasijudicial. Together, these are likely to result in stagnation in the movement of resources and management within the economy and to insulate and entrench inefficient management, especially in the large firms. Plenty of work has been done in countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the European Common Market countries. A Bill is before the Canadian Parliament. All these things have been ignored by the Government in reaching its decision.

Specific standards could be incorporated in the legislation, and time needs to be taken to examine it. What is a market? What is substantially to control a market’? Is a supermarket in a small suburb able substantially to control a market? Can it drive small people out of business by reducing the price and getting rid of competition? These are things that must be certain if they are to be the basis of criminal prosecution. Another major defect in clause 50 of this Bill is the power it concentrates in the Trade Practices Commission and the Tribunal to regulate mergers. Can honourable members imagine a meeting between the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission, Mr Rattigan, and the Commissioner of Trade Practices, Mr Bannerman, at which they argued about whether there should be a merger? Mr Rattigan would argue that there should be a merger for efficiency and Mr Bannerman would argue that there should not be a merger because it would eliminate competition. Mr Rattigan would respond by saying: That is what I want to do - eliminate competition in order to create efficiency’. There is no clear determination except within the untrammelled discretion of the Attorney-General as to whether the merger can occur. There must be a limit to the facility with which a company can go into a merger operation, because it may be breaking the law, be subject to a penalty of $250,000, be subject to all sorts of damages and be subject later on, at the whim of a court not bound by policy determinations of this Parliament, to the whole merger being disassembled.

There are other aspects of the Commission’s functions which I do not like. The Trade Practices Commission has been given a wide and active role under the provisions of the Bill. It will consider applications for clearances and proposed acquisitions, mergers and exclusive dealing arrangements. It will consider applications for authorisations over a wide range of restrictive practices. It will have a prosecutor’s role for breaches of the provisions of the Bill. It will have a function as a consumer watchdog. It will have a function not only as a prosecutor but also as a body directed by the Attorney-General to fulfil certain purposes.

I understand that Mr R. M. Dietrich, the general counsel to the Federal Trade Com.mision of the United States assisted in the drafting of the Bill. In the light of the fact that the Trade Practices Commission is modelled on the Federal Trade Commission, it is interesting to look briefly at the performance of that parent body of the proposed Australian body. A very well known commentator, Professor Posner of the University of Chicago, looked at reports of the Federal Trade Commission for 1924, 1949, 1960 and 1964 and the Ralph Nader report of 1969 and said:

What is remarkable about these studies, which span a period of 45 years, is the sameness of their conclusions. To be sure, with the resurgence of the consumer movement in the 1960s, a shift in critical emphasis from the agency antitrust to its consumer protection activities becomes discernible. But the diagnosis remains the same. The Commission is rudderless; poorly managed and poorly staffed; obsessed with trivia; politicised; all in all inefficient and incompetent. And - the persistence of these criticisms would seem to indicate - largely impervious’ to criticism.

That statement was published in the University of Chicago Law Review. The Opposition recognises that there should not be unrestrained merger activities, but it refuses to accept the proposition that bigness is bad as bigness. It refuses to accept the proposition that there must not be mergers, because it believes that inefficiency should be wiped out. We should have greater productivity and greater efficiency.

I turn now to monopolisation. There are at least 2 principal problems with clause 46. Firstly, it provides no guidelines for determining in what circumstances a company can be considered a monopolist. In the present Act a monopolist is defined as a person who controls more than one-third of a market. This test was rejected by Senator Murphy because ‘the certainty which it appears to give is illusory*. What is certain now is that there is no certainty whatever in monopolisation, and it is no longer a matter of examining it on an administrative basis; it is on the basis of a criminal prosecution. If the courts are to be given the power to determine who a monopolist is, it is vital that the Bill include some guidelines for the determination of a monopolist. The previous Government, in its Bill, spoke of persons being in a dominant position acting in a monopolist way. We spelt out details and criteria, and it could be properly assessed by the Tribunal we set up.

I come to clause 49, which deals with price discrimination. This is a very interesting clause. It imposes wide prohibitions on price discrimination. As in other clauses, the wording is confused and questionable. As the clause is based on the United States Robinson-Patman Act, I think it would be opportune for me to quote the relevant sections of the Neal report, which was a White House task force report on anti-trust policy and which dealt with the

Robinson-Patman provisions concerning price discrimination. The report stated:

Over the years, the Robinson-Patman Act has come to have unintended anticompetitive effects. The pricediscrimination prohibition has discouraged types of price differentials which might have improved competition by lessening the rigidity of oligopoly pricing or by encouraging new entry:

In highly concentrated markets, prices may be rigid and a seller may hesitate to announce price reductions which would be met immediately by competitors, thus minimising the seller’s increase in sales. But he may be prepared to make concessions to make sales to particular buyers. Where such price reductions are sporadic and not part of a systematic pattern favouring large purchasers, they may be the first step toward more general price reductions. (Extension of time granted.)

I thank the House. The report goes on:

A new or potential entrant to a market may find it necessary to reduce prices below those of his competitors in particular cases in order to overcome the inertia of established trade relationships. But the prospective seller may be reluctant to do so if he must make corresponding reductions to all other purchasers, and he may decide not to enter.

In other words, it would keep the prices up instead of putting the prices down. It goes on:

The Robinson-Patman Act has impaired competition and the development of new methods of distribution in numerous other respects: By discouraging sellers from passing on cost savings to buyers it has impaired experimentation with possibly more efficient methods of distribution integrating wholesale and retail functions; by requiring proportionally equal treatment in certain promotional practices it has discouraged experimentation with price-cutting methods which are equivalent to desirable types of price differentials; by prohibiting sellers from paying brokerage to customers or their agents it has erected an artificial protective barrier around independent brokers and inhibited integration of brokerage functions.

The report concludes with these words:

We conclude that the Robinson-Patman Act requires a major overhaul to make it consistent with the purposes of the anti-trust law.

But that is what is going into this Bill. The Neal report therefore condemns the very provisions on which clause 49 of the Bill is based. How can the Government say that it wants to pass this Bill without further examination in detail?

I have dealt with this Bill today in as adequate a fashion as possible, dealing with the principles and with only some of the details. I believe that the details I have exposed make it abundantly clear why this Bill should not be forced through this House, why this Bill ought to be subject to the closest and detailed examination, why the Opposition ought to be able to formulate a very wide range of amendments which it would be our purpose to put before the chamber. I would hope that our amendments would be accepted by the Government, because I believe that if the Government would take notice of us it would have a good Bill, whereas what it proposes now is a bad Bill. It is a bad Bill basically for these reasons: The proscriptions are based across a wide range of trade practices, whereas clearly the proper way to deal, for instance, with exclusive dealing and differential pricing is not by proscription. The Government has provided authorisations which are not broad enough and not understandable enough and which can only come into operation after the act is committed, which act attracts a penalty of $250,000 or civilian damages. Because it is a criminal procedure and because it is the courts which have to determine the policy, it is perfectly obvious that whatever the legislation states the courts will apply a standard of proof in fairness to the parties engaged which is likely to mean that many practices which ought to suffer penalty will escape penalty.

Mr Enderby:

– You want it every way.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I may want it every way. What I want is good legislation.

Mr Enderby:

– Like yours in 1965. It did one thing. It repealed the one Act we had. That is all your Act did.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am interested in that interjection. I think the Minister said that my Act of 1965 did nothing. The plain fact of the matter is that the gentleman who, I expect, will be appointed as the Commissioner under this Bill has in his most recent report paid a direct tribute to that legislation. I quoted it earlier in my speech.

Mr Enderby:

– Tell us what else it did besides repealing the Act.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Let me mention the other things which it did. It established an atmosphere in which we could go ahead to have restrictive trade practices legislation in this country which will work. We are now at a stage where, if we introduce the right legislation, ‘we will certainly achieve that result. If we introduce the wrong legislation, we certainly will not. Let me repeat very briefly the attitude we have on principle. The Opposition parties would support proscription of horizontal price agreements. We would want to look at whether there should be circumstances for authorisation, whereas under this Bill there is no provision for authorisation. By deliberate act there has been no consultation by the

Government, and for lack of time there has been no consultation by us to establish that point. Secondly, we would support proscription of resale price maintenance, as the Act provides. Thirdly, we support consumer protection provisions but we want to be certain that by doing that it does not weaken the protection to the consumer, because all the States have consumer legislation and all the States have much greater experience than the Australian Government has of consumer protection. All the States have passed legislation on consumer protection and it is of no avail for the Government, recognising as it does that the State legislation is probably better, to say that it will let the State legislation remain, because as my colleagues of the law in this House know, section 109 will determine that question. It will be interpreted by the High Court, and the attempted preservation of it is not to be relied upon.

Fourthly, on issues such as differential pricing and exclusive dealing we feel that it is proper to have authorisations which would permit a practice if it can be shown to be in the interests of the Australian consumers. As I have said, the Neal Report, talking of the Robinson-Patman Act, which is the parent of the provision in this Bill, states that it is hopeless and that it has produced anti-competitive effects against the interests of the consumer. We are asked now to pass that into the legislation of our Parliament, having been identified as being bad. We need time to look at that, and we would be very anxious to examine the Neal report and assist the Government with putting in a proper provision in relation to it. We have approached this Bill today on this basis. We will not respond to the threat that if we do not pass it now and be good little boys the Government will tell the Australian public about us and about how bad we are. We will explain to the Australian public what our attitudes are. We will not be subject to that threat and allow this Bill to go through with all the faults which demonstrably it has not only in policy, not only in the dereliction of giving authority to outside people to determine policy but in the sheer drafting of it, which creates confusion and uncertainty. We will not do that. Therefore what we will do today is explain, as I have, our general approach in principle. I have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are anxious to have restrictive trade practices legislation that works, but we need time to formulate the amendments which will make this Bill a better Bill.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– Australians will learn with no surprise that it is the intention of the Opposition parties once again to delay as long as possible the enactment of effective action against restrictive trade practices in this country. It is now 15 years since the Constitutional Review Committee, which included, as you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, representatives from all parties, recommended unanimously that the Parliament should seek power by referendum to deal with restrictive trade practices including resale price maintenance. The parties now in Opposition, and then in Government, could have been left in no two minds in 1958 and 1959 that action against restrictive trade practices was an idea whose time had come, an idea whose fulfilment might be delayed but could not be averted. For 15 years the Opposition has been fighting its long defeat on this matter. It is determined even at this late stage to postpone for a few more weeks - a few more months if its colleagues in another place have their way - the final destruction of that cosy world, those cosy arrangements, from which the people to whom it looks for support, the people it represents in this place, have derived such great benefits over so many years. There will be no surprise in the Australian community at the knowledge that once again the Opposition is holding up, till the last possible moment and beyond, effective action against the people whose conspiracies have for so long held up the price of goods in this country and have for so long inflicted upon consumers in this country such grave and avoidable disadvantages.

Let me look back over the chronology of events and refer to a few statements over the years. It has always been the practice of honourable members opposite, as it has been the practice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) again today, to give lip service to the cause of action against restrictive trade practices. As long ago as March 1960 the Governor-General, in opening a Parliament in which members of the parties opposite made up the Government, said:

The developoment of tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry has engaged the attention of the Government which will give consideration to legislation to protect and strengthen free enterprise against such a development.

In March 1961, during the opening of a Parliament that was performed by the Administrator of the day, it was said:

The Attorney-General has so far progressed in his investigation of the matter and the Government has developed its thinking to the stage that consultation with the States will now be advantageous.

In November 1961 Sir Robert Menzies, in the policy speech of that year, said:

We desire in co-operation with the State Governments to do something to protect and strengthen free productive and business enterprise against monopoly or restrictive practices.

In December 1962 Mr Gordon Freeth, as Acting Attorney-General and speaking for the Attorney-General of the day, Sir Garfield Barwick, delivered a paper in which he said:

The paper which I have before me represents Sir Garfield’s and the Government’s conclusions arising out of a really monumental amount of work that Sir Garfield did.

In the period of months that remained to him in the office of Attorney-General - and I pay tribute to the work on trade practices he did in that office - Sir Garfield Barwick, at successive meetings of learned societies, particularly learned legal societies, around Australia, gave shape to a philosophy which, as we now know, was not the Government’s but his own. In due course, because of his persistence in this philosophy, Sir Garfield found himself elevated to the High Court of Australia and the present Leader of the Opposition instated in his shoes as Attorney-General with the mission of emasculating the Barwick proposals for the control of trade practices. The long defeat had been commenced, but that defeat was to be drawn out year in year out until now, as I said earlier, 15 years after the Constitution Review Committee brought down its original recommendations, we are still as a nation denied effective protection against the conspirators and the manipulators with whose activities the legislation before us today is designed to cope. And still the Leader of the Opposition pleads for more time.

Is there any man in this country to whom we should look as being more experienced in this field of activity than the Leader of the Opposition? How much more time does he want to examine the field over which he presided as Attorney-General and about which we should presume and expect he has been thinking now for at least 8 years and, one would hope, probably a considerably longer period. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has tried, with all the ingenuity at his disposal today, to downgrade the importance, the urgency, of the proposals that are before us. He tried to throw doubt on the relevance of trade practices to the inflationary situation in which this country finds itself. Even less forgivably he tried to associate with his assertions the Commissioner of Trade Practices, Mr Bannerman, who made it cleaT in a report tabled recently in this Parliament that he for one would have nothing to do with the proposition that restrictive trade practices and inflation were matters which could be divorced. In his report Mr Bananerman said:

In particular, action against restrictive trade practices is now seen, in Australia and overseas, as one of the measures that may help to contain inflation. Effective competition makes it harder to put prices up and makes it more necessary to pursue increased efficiency to keep down the costs that affect prices. To the extent that effective competition is inhibited by restrictive trade practices, inflationary trends are the harder to stop or slow down.

A little later in his report Mr Bannerman drew attention to the fact that while companies were waiting to see what form the new trade practices legislation might take they were going ahead in the cosy fashion to which they are accustomed. Mr Bannerman said: when they see a need to raise prices, they are raising them by agreement with their competitors.

That is a process which does not stand up readily to the light of day. The Prices Justification Tribunal, upon which the Leader of the Opposition has similarly thrown doubt, has given us some insight only this week into the unwillingness of the companies and corporations concerned to see the activities to which the Commissioner for Trade Practices has drawn attention brought out into the light of day. You would have noticed, Sir, on the front page of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of this week an article dealing with the activities of the Prices Justification Tribunal. It made the point that in the previous week no fewer than 4 major Australian companies have withdrawn the proposals for increased prices that they had had before the Prices Justification Tribunal rather than have those proposals undergo the process of public examination. I think that decision speaks volumes for the effectiveness not only of that particular organisation but also of the Commission to which reference is made in this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) had a lot to say about the undesirability of proscribing certain practices. He had tears to shed for the predicament of companies and corporations being placed in the position of having to think twice before persisting in a particular trade practice because of the possibility of finding themselves liable for a $250,000 fine.

The existing trade practices legislation bogged down early in its effective life, precisely because it placed on the Commissioner of Trade Practices the onus to demonstrate that particular practices registered with him were against the public interest. The onus is now being placed in the other direction. Under the legislation we are discussing it will be up to the companies which enter into agreements to demonstrate that those agreements are not against the public interest. If there is any doubt the difficulties under which the Commissioner of Trade Practices was obliged to labour under the earlier legislation they are exemplified in the concrete pipes case. Any honourable member who has served on a local council is well aware of the pernicious and anti-social practices in which the concrete pipes industry has indulged over a period of years in its dealings with local government in Australia, and the way in which local government has persistently and regularly for many years been placed over a barrel by this particular industry indulging in the practice of collusive tendering.

Early in the life of the Commissioner of Trade Practices the activities of the concrete pipe industry came to his attention. I refer honourable members to the report of the Commissioner for the year ended 1972 and to pages 6 and 7 where the sequence of events in this particular industry’s relationship with the Commissioner is set out: How the Commissioner was left, after his initial dealings with the industry, under the impression that the agreement to which he had objected had been abandoned by the industry and that no new agreement had been brought into force; how, at a later date, under subsequent interrogations it emerged that on the very date on which the industry had abandoned its initial restrictive agreement it had entered into another agreement, different in legal form but equivalent in its impact upon the public purse; and how, when challenged over the subsequent agreement, the industry was prepared to fight it through the courts of Australia and ultimately to secure the judgment in the concrete pipes case from which so much has followed.

It is not in the field of inflation alone that Australians will deplore this further evidence of the determination of the Opposition to press the interests of sectional groups over the interests of the community as a whole. They will deplore also the delay which is to occur in the enactment of effective measures for consumer protection at the national level. Here again we heard from the Leader of the Opposition fair words on the desirability of consumer protection and yet another affirmation of determination to see delayed as long as possible the putting into effect of such protection. Nobody who has consulted the reports of the consumer protection authorities in the various States will doubt the long overdue character of legislation on consumer protection at the national level. Nobody will doubt, reading those reports, that the consumer protection bureaus and councils themselves are acutely aware of the limitations of their power, especially when it comes to dealing with the great corporations with which this Parliament has only recently gained the power to deal. The consumer protection bureaus and the consumer protection councils of the States can exert a certain leverage over the shysters and the small scale con men to whose activities they regularly draw attention in their reports. It is not hard for the mechanism of naming a used car lot or a radio and television repair man to be evoked effectively at State level, but there is an abundance of evidence to show that the interests of consumers are abused by organisations of a scope whose power, influence and standing in our community enable them to ignore being named by a consumer bureau in its report to a State parliament.

I notice with some interest the details set out on this matter in the 1971-72 report of the Consumer Affairs Council and the Consumer Affairs Bureau of New South Wales and how, in that report, the organisations concerned make the point that during the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 the complaints over motor vehicles attributable to- the Ford company rose by 387.S per cent in a single year and that in the following year they rose by another 76 per cent. The Ford company is par excellence the sort of corporation which cannot be dealt with by State legislatures. It is a company of national ramifications which requires national legislation to deal with it - legislation of the sort that the Opposition has expressed today its determination to delay.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Flinders

– The speech just delivered by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) reminds me very much of a badly briefed left wing lawyer anxious to wear his anti-business bias on his sleeve. I regret that the honourable gentleman spoke with what I believe to be a biased approach to the whole of the business community. Just as we recognise the need for effective legislation in the field of restrictive trade practices, equally I should have thought the honourable gentleman might have been prepared to pay tribute to many of the achievements of business in Australia and not to have taken this opportunity to denigrate business on the basis of practices inimical to the public interest, which certainly are characteristic of a few but cannot be taken in a more general form, as the honourable gentleman was prepared to argue in this House.

This Bill represents a significant departure from developed practices and precedents with respect to anti-trust problems in Australia. It is not a Bill which seeks to amend or strengthen the existing legislation; it replaces the existing Act and foreshadows an entirely new conceptual - approach to competition policies. The Bill is a complete divergence from the Government’s policy commitment merely to strengthen the laws against restrictive trade practices. It has been drafted to include a series of basic concepts borrowed from the United States Government. Advice has been largely obtained from United States anti-trust experts, including counsel from the Federal Trade Commission. The drafting process extended for a period of some 10 months and was notable for the absence of consultation with State Attorneys-General, the business community or in fact any of the individuals or groups within the community who will be affected by the legislation. There has been no White Paper of Government intent, no commission or inquiry and no attempt to explain the reasons for particular provisions.

The Bill is, in fact, a further example of legislation with extensive and important implications for the whole community, which is to be forced through the Parliament without proper scrutiny and without a vestige of public discussion. That, I point out to the honourable member for Casey, is a fundamental contrast to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in which he stated:

We want the Australian people to know the facts, to know the choices before them. We want them always to help us as a Government to make the decisions and to make the right decisions. Australia has suffered heavily from the demeaning idea that the Government always knows best with the unspoken assumption always in the background that only the Government knows or should know anything.

It is that thinking which is so shabby a contrast to this legislation and to the manner in which the Government has sought to process it through this House and the Australian Senate. The Opposition believes that the logic of private enterprise rests on the fundamental assumption of active competition in free markets. That assumption must be tempered by the commitment of governments to national economic and social objectives. But, within the framework of a modern mixed economy it is encumbent on governments to pursue effective competition policies. On that particular principle we join with the intent behind the legislation.

In his report on inflation the SecretaryGeneral of the OECD emphasised the importance of considering a broad and differentiated set of measures under the combined heading of competition policy. In particular he stressed the importance of restrictive trade practices on both national and international levels and in both the private and public sectors of economics. In view of the Government’s present policies it should be emphasised that the Secretary-General referred to public sector performance in the following terms: . . that inefficiency in achieving social and other objectives in the public sector is just as much a potential source of inflation as inefficiency or excessive profits in the private sector.

There is no doubt that effective competition policies contribute to the real economic growth of the economy by increasing productivity and that they place significant restraints on both price and cost pressures. Recognising the positive economic and social benefits of effective competition policies the former Government legislated in 1965 to regulate restrictive trade practices and monopolies. During 1971 positive steps were taken to strengthen that legislation. Legislation was passed in May 1971 to outlaw the practice of resale price maintenance. In October 1971 interim legislation was introduced to fill the vacuum created by the High Court’s invalidation df sections of the previous Trade Practices Act.

In February 1972 the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, together with comprehensive regulations, came into operation. In May 1972 the Government informed the Parliament of its intention to strengthen the Act as a result of the comprehensive review initiated in 1971. In

October 1972 the former Government introduced the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill and the Monopolies Commission Bill. The major provisions of the 2 Bills, previously subject to general announcement in May of that year, were: An extension of the provisions to deal with monopolisation so as to enable monopoly conditions to be fully investigated; anticompetitive mergers, including takeovers, to be subject to inquiry and restraint; the establishment of a monopolies commission; stronger provisions for inquiry into examinable agreements and the examinable practice of inducing refusal to deal; and a general strengthening of the legisaltion in the principal areas of weakness adverted to by the 1971 review.

The legislative program of the former Government sought to take a full and detailed account of public opinion prior to the fina] passage of that legislation early in the first parliamentary session of 1973. This is in significant contrast to the approach which this Government has adopted in respect of this Bill. The Opposition believes that the essential objective of legislation with respect to restrictive trade practices is to distinguish between those which are consonant with the public interest and those which are against the public interest. The intent of Australian trade practices legislation has been to provide an investigatory mechanism whereby it can be determined what is and what is not in the public interest and then to prohibit such practices as are considered contrary to that public interest. The fact is that not all circumstances, in which there are restrictions on commercial interchange or on the existence of monopoly or semi-monopoly industry configurations, can be adjudged to be a detriment to economic efficiency or social justice. The Report of the Committee of Economic Enquiry in 1965 stated:

Concentration would in general be expected to be greater in Australia than in the United States or other large industrial economies by reason of the relatively small size of the Australian market and the requirement for minimum economic size of plants, particularly those of the capital intensive type. The number of suppliers is inevitably small in certain sectors of industries such as chemicals, paper, iron and steel, and is likely to be true for a long period. A high degree of concentration in a sector of industry cannot, therefore, be regarded as undesirable in itself; in many instances it is essential if economic and efficient manufacture is to be undertaken.

There is no question as to the desirability of more effective competition measures within the Australian economy. On this point there is no difference between the Opposition parties and the Government. However, it is imperative that any such policies should be demonstrably efficient and equitable in seeking to ensure a better economic performance. The Treasury White Paper published this year commented in the following terms:

In particular, both protection policies and restrictive trade practices legislation attempt to impose limits on the ability of price makers to push up prices by virtue of their position of dominance in the market. In giving effect to such policies, account must be taken of the trade-off between the desirable degree of competition and efficient firm size in relation to market prospects. These are matters of considerable complexity, necessarily requiring intensive investigation; hence results will normally be gradual.

That, in essence, is the view of the Government’s major economic policy department which, to the detriment of sound economic management, has been ignored on many matters of vital importance to the Australian economy. As the Treasury points out there is a clear nexus between the optimal configuration of industry and economic growth which must be established by intensive investigation.

The Treasury also adverted to the fact that the results of any legislation of this type will be necessarily gradual. In seeking to delay full parliamentary consideration of this Bill the Opposition has been mindful of its potential role in curbing the present level of inflation. We consider that the delay which we propose cannot be detrimental to the present inflationary difficulties, since the effects of such legislation are necessarily long-term in character. A Government properly concerned to strengthen trade practices in legislative form would have, in any case, sought to pass the Bill presented last year as an interim measure during the drafting of the new Bill.

The Bill declares certain conduct as unlawful and prohibits it being engaged in. There are broad provisions which must involve uncertainty as to the extent of their application, prohibiting contractual arrangements, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade and so on. There are innumerable provisions which, because they are couched in such broad gauge language, may operate to defeat the purpose of this legislation instead of serving those broad objectives which are shared by all parties.

Experience of this legislative approach, in the United States and in respect to the Australian Industries Preservation Act of the first decade of this century, has revealed the difficulty of creating offences couched in broad language where intention and demonstrable injury to the public were essential ingredients. The Bill clearly embodies difficulties of the character experienced in the Australian Industries Preservation Act.

We believe that businesses in this country are entitled to have certainty -in their dealings with trade practices legislation. Uncertainty tends to create confusion and to stifle enterprise and initiative. The Government’s approach will create uncertainty and confusion because the language in which the prohibitions are expressed is general and fails to indicate clearly what particular conduct is or is not unlawful. The limited nature of this debate does not provide an opportunity to detail all the areas of uncertainty. However, a number of matters should be referred to as being self evident.

Clause 46 of the Bill prohibits various forms of conduct which a monopolist may engage in. A monopolist is defined as ‘a corporation that is in a position substantially to control a market for goods or services’. Until now a monopolist has been defined as a person who controlled more than one-third of a market. Although this test is rejected by the Government, the wording adopted in the Bill is ambiguous. The United States cases, which are the only guidance, have, in general, treated a person as having monopoly power if he is in a position to control or exclude competition in the relevant market. At the present time United States authorities, in both the legislative and judicial fields, are more concerned than ever with defining precisely when monopoly and oligopoly conditions exist and what constitutes an abuse of monopoly and oligopoly power. Clause 46 of the Trade Practices Bill, however, lays down no guidelines of any kind whatsoever. A company of any size now operating in Australia cannot ascertain from the Bill whether it will be treated as a monopolist. If it is eventually classified as a monopolist, there are no guidelines for differentiating legitimate competitive behaviour from conduct prescribed by the Bill. In the light of the extensive use of United States anti-trust experts in the drafting of the Bill, the omission of exact, quantitative guidelines is disturbing and will contribute to a considerable degree of uncertainty in Australian industry.

Clause 50 of the Bill contains certain provisions in respect of mergers which are to operate as from 28 September. This means that no acquisitions by a company of shares in or assets of another company can be regarded as lawfully made if, irrespective of intention, the effect of the acquisition is that competition may be substantially’ lessened. This is equally the case if the effect tends to result in the purchasing company being in a position to substantially control a market for goods and services. In many cases it cannot be accurately predicted whether or not the effect of an acquisition will be substantially to lessen competition. In one sense every acquisition may be said to have this effect. A company which undertakes such action may be the subject of proceedings by the Attorney-General, by the Commission or by any other person liable to pay a penalty of $250,000. The term ‘market’ is nowhere defined. Is it Australia-wide or more locally confined? Is it limited to particular goods or does it take into account goods of a comparable type and complex substitution elements? What is the test of market control?

I have referred to two major areas of the Bill to indicate the nature of the uncertainties which are, in fact, general to this legislation. These instances are symptomatic of the inherent problems of the Government’s approach which clearly calls for a greater degree of examination, consultation and public discussion.

The Bill contains a wide range of consumer protection provisions. As a party we strongly endorse the principle that the individual citizen as a consumer requires increased government protection. Conceptually we believe that such protection is ideally afforded by State legislation. However, there is a clear need for the Commonwealth to provide effective national leadership to ensure a uniform approach to consumer protection, to set national standards in particular areas and to legislate where that is most appropriate. The general intent of the consumer provisions of the Bill is welcomed by the Opposition parties as, we believe, it will be welcomed by the community as a whole. However, we consider that further examination should take place and, in particular, that there should be detailed discussions with State Attorneys-General. Without further consultation and the development of a co-operative national program of consumer protection members of the public may, in fact, be disadvantaged. For instance, each State now has a Sale of Goods Act or a Goods Act. Those pieces of legislation contain provisions under which a body of law has built up. Under the proposed federal legislation there are similar but different proposals which apply only to com panies. Problems arise when dealing with companies, partnerships or individuals. If it is believed that there is a common code, many consumers will find to their subsequent disadvantage or loss that this is not the case. What is clearly required is a common code to bind companies, partnerships and individuals. If the Commonwealth is to provide effective leadership in the sense in which I put it to this House further consultation is clearly necessary as has been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden).

It is incorrect to assume that State governments have not acted to increase the standards of consumer protection. The Victorian Government has legislated to control door-to-door selling, false or misleading advertising, ‘inertia’ selling of unordered goods, ‘mock auctions’, pyramid selling, false guarantees on the sale of vehicles and other unethical and anti-social business activities. These proposals are being implemented at the present time in a wide diversity of ways. The Government has shown its irresponsibility by not holding discussions with the State of Victoria or other States at the present time.

We believe that the basis for the deferral of the Bill is beyond reasonable objection. The Opposition parties have not adopted a negative attitude. We acknowledge that the existing Restrictive Trade Practices Act is an inadequate Act in the present economic environment. We support the proposition that horizontal price fixing arrangements ought to be prohibited and that the consumer protection provisions, subject to adequate consultation with the States, should be assessed on their merits. We are prepared to take a flexible approach in our re-examination of the Bill in order to achieve the objective of more effective trade practices legislation. But the Government has denied us that examination. It has ignored the clear and responsible role which it should adopt. It has failed to consult with those groups which will be directly affected by the legislation. We reject the Bill and support the concept of further examination and consultation which ought to be taking place with those many community groups at the present time. As I mentioned in the course of this address, the Government is bringing down an irresponsible piece of legislation.

Mir GRASSBY (Riverina- Minister for Immigration) (4.34) - There must be a sense of dismay in the community at large when it becomes known that the Opposition has decided to stonewall on this measure which is designed to give Australians some protection from monopolies and from exploitation. I dismiss the toothless legislative efforts of the Opposition, when in government, to tackle this problem. They have been of no significance. Its Trade Practices Acts helped not the consumer and hindered not the exploiter. We face a situation in which, behind what could be well described as a giant tariff and protection wall of the order of $3,000m a year, those protected are not called to account for any of their practices when those practices prove to be inimical to the Australian consumer and to the Australian community. So the community pays and the community provides protection, but the community up until now has not had any effective recourse when those who have received the bounty and protection have exploited it in return. I have made the point before that tariffs are in fact taxes. So the Australian people are paying to protect monopolies which we in this Government feel should be called to account when they abuse their protective privileges given by the Australian Government and paid for by the Australian taxpayers.

This measure is 3 decades overdue and there has been far too much stalling. I suspect that the stalling has been done on behalf of those monopolies to which I have referred. There has been a reference by Opposition speakers to the concern of Australian business and its attitudes. As a member of 2 Parliaments, the’ New South Wales Parliament and this national Parliament, over the years I have received representations, requests and appeals for protection from Australian businessmen who have complained about the lack of protection against monopolies which have treated them badly. So Australian business, Australian family enterprise, in the last quarter of a century has suffered from the lack of protection which is implicit in this legislation.

The Opposition has said that it is quite happy to perpetuate this situation while it gives further consideration to this legislation. I seem to remember that the last occasion on which it made this sort of appeal was when Sir Garfield Barwick brought down what seemed at that time to be a most effective measure. The then Government said almost the same thing then as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) have said this afternoon. It then made the same sort of plea to put the legislation off and to take no action. The result was a piece of toothless, useless legislation which has now been recognised by all in the community as a waste of time. So the Australian businessman and the Australian farmer who need the protection of this and complementary legislation are certainly in no mood to have decisions put off any longer. We have seen in Australia in recent years the position where there has been an increasing tempo of takeovers. These takeovers have not been just in the normal course of achieving economies of scale. They have been takeovers designed to create monopoly situations. Across the Australian countryside we have seen outstanding examples of this over the years. Huge processing units which have been taken over and closed down have been re-sited in overcrowded cities, not because they are more efficient there or because the community will benefit from their being there but simply to create a monopoly situation and to extirpate competition. Again we will have to call a halt to that sort of wasteful indulgence by monopolies in our country. This measure is designed to give the Australian consumer and Australian taxpayer a better deal in the future.

There is a particular aspect of consumer exploitation with which I want to deal. It has been conservatively estimated that each year some $200m is spent by overseas firms in Australia to influence Australian tastes, attitudes and opinions. It is important for Australians to know who is spending such large sums and it should be known for what purpose the money is being spent. I recognise that such expenditures today can be made quite legally for promotion, public relations, advertising and contributions to party funds. The sums involved have been carefully researched and calculated. They are so large that the fullest information should be available about their disbursement over the whole range. There is no doubt that there have been some subtle and some not so subtle programs of heavy expenditure to influence Australian public opinion on many matters which are purely matters of political opinion, including measures such as this. My position is that it should always be known when and how such expenditure is made by firms and organisations located outside Australia. I hope that in the context of preventing restrictive trade practices there will be room for the relevant Minister to examine any attempts to disguise or hide such practices by means of the expenditures I have mentioned.

The Australian economy for 3 decades has been internationally known as being hagridden by monopolies. We have more monopolies controlling our economic life than the United States of America has, and that country took action such as this a generation ago. The seriousness of the situation is underlined when it is recognised that foreign interests have been able to use the lack of protection to take over important sections of the economy. This Government inherited a situation in which a quarter of a million Australian workers today are employed by overseas interests; 250 million acres of land is overseas controlled; and in some industries foreign control is nearly 90 per cent. The concern about the sellout of Australian resources is not confined to the Government. Sir Ian McLennan, the Chairman of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, in March last year expressed his concern. So, let us face it - we have a monopoly-ridden economy; we have an overseas dominated economy in many sectors.

Against this background the need for protection of the Australian consumer, housewife and family is urgent. This legislation is designed to put some teeth into the pallid legislation which exists at State level in order to give protection from exploitation. As I have mentioned, this action is 3 decades overdue. Australia is one of the richest countries in the world; yet we cannot boast the kind of public facilities which are taken for granted elsewhere. Where are the heirs to Australia’s wealth? They have usually lived outside Australia and until now have determined how best to exploit the Australian hip pocket without let or hindrance from the Australian Government. They do us the honour of visiting us from time to time. This legislation is part of a program to ensure that we do not lack protection in the future as individuals, as Australian business or as a community. I draw attention to the fact that no part of the community has been more heavily exploited by restrictive or monopoly practices than has the Australian primary producer. He is still the victim of what the previous Government used to quaintly call ‘fixed costs’. This was a term which meant that the cost of all his supportive services was fixed while the cost of his product could be adjusted downward at any time. This legislation will help to free that and other sections of the Australian population from being victims of- practices long outlawed as pernicious in other advanced nations. I hope that generally in the community there will be a recognition of what the legislation is attempting to do, namely, to give Australian interests the protection which has long been sought and long been neglected.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– Of all the areas that concern business at the moment, of most concern is the intervention that this Government has made in its normal role and functioning. Each one of us on this side of the House is concerned at the degree to which there are prevalent in the business community, either through monopolisation or undue restraint of trade, practices which deny free and open competition and add to the cost to the consumers in our country. Consumers, of course, exist at all levels. The primary producer, who is dependent predominantly upon export markets, has his costs very seriously affected by both the tariff structure and the degree to which the costs of producing goods domestically is greater than the cost would be were he able to buy those goods from abroad. He is affected by the degree to which practices are pursued in the wage negotiation field which add to the cost to another type of producer - the machinery manufacturer and the industrialist. His costs are added to by the degree to which those engaged in various sectors of the economy apply practices which restrain the full measure of competition and deny to the primary producer the advantage of that competition and the chance to buy goods at what would be a truly competitive rate. It was for that reason that the old Australian Industries Preservation Act, which stood on the statute books of this country for so long but which because of doubts as to the validity of the powers sought to be exercised under it was never really seen as an effective piece of legislation, was replaced some 8 years ago. The 1965 legislation when introduced caused quite a considerable disturbance in the business community. There were many who felt that it was going to restrain unduly the whole of the operations of what was then a growing industrial base. Since then, the changes that have been made to the Act and the amendments foreshadowed last year by my former ministerial colleague, the then Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, were intended to cover those areas where the existing legislation was felt to be deficient.

When the present Government came into office, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) through the mouthpiece of His Excellency the

Governor-General, said: ‘We will strengthen the laws against restrictive trade practices’. There was no specification of the character of the legislation. We were told that it was because of the necessity for exhaustive examination of the provisions that were intended - examination that was conducted both by the employment of persons who were American citizens and knowledgeable in the American law and by persons who were employed as consultants to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) - and the scrutiny that was given within the Labor committees and the Labor Caucus, that this legislation was not introduced in the last sessional period of this Parliament. So we are now faced with a Bill that is thrust on us with all its complexity covering quite a different concept from anything that has been enacted before and we are asked to give it urgent consideration without any regard to the implications the Bill contains.

Of course, there are significant areas of similarity between this Bill and legislation that has previously existed. I refer for example to the sections dealing with resale price maintenance and overseas cargo shipping. One of these sections is totally the same and the other is the same as legislation that was either previously enacted or was within amendments which were foresadowed last year by Senator Greenwood. However, as to other areas of this legislation, the Australian Country Party finds itself in complete accord with the sttaement made on behalf of the Opposition by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) this afternoon. The Country Party is concerned firstly at the implications of this Bill to the business community, not that we do not believe that it is necessary for legislation to cover the areas that are significantly dealt with in this legislation but because the implications of this legislation are not going to be given an adequate opportunity for surveillance.

The second area of the Country Party’s concern is that we do not believe that this legislation as it is now proposed will serve as an anti-inflationary measure. Indeed, the general thrust of the prices discrimination provisions runs counter to these anti-inflation, keeppricesdown concepts. Indeed, if one has a look at the prices discrimination provisions one sees that they will require the supplying of goods on the same terms and conditions to all outlets, with some exceptions. How will this requirement cater for competition? Surely it will have the contrary effect of reducing competition to the general level of some other inefficient supplier. The position of discount houses in this regard appears in a most anomalous light. So on the score of anti-inflationary legislation there is no justification for hastening this legislation through.

Finally, there are the very severe implications which come from the change in the character of the obligations placed on business itself. In the area of consumer protection - an area which I believe is necessary in legislation of this character - there is, however, to be a criminal liability placed upon those who offend against the restraints that are to be included in the legislation. That criminal responsibility is of course one which it is hard to anticipate transgressing until the actual circumstances of transgression occur, and it is in the implications of that area alone that I see quite profound difficulties in our passing this legislation at this time without those in the business community being able to examine it and see its implications in terms of each of the individual areas of business which may be affected.

In the field of authorisations and clearances, too, I believe there will be profound difficulties in the legislation as it is now drafted. I am told that 12,000 to 13,000 agreements have been registered with the present Commissioner of Trade Practices. Those 12,000 to 13,000 agreements include some 3,000 which were intended to be covered by the legislation foreshadowed by the statement brought down by Senator Greenwood last year. However, this legislation will cover the whole 12,000 to 13,000 agreements and in covering those agreements there will be allowed only a 4- month period for examination and the granting of either clearances or authorisations to them in those few areas where they are applicable. I do not believe that that period of time will be adequate or that in the consideration of the significant changes which are embodied in that area it will be possible for the business community to comprehend the full implications of this legislation adequately without the Bill being left over for a period.

So the basis of our concern is that the Bill represents a fundamental change in an area which I think is of real concern to the business community and we see the Labor Party again determined to disrupt the economy without regard to the necessity to maintain employment and the level of activity which has been generated, not through any positive act by the Government but more than anything else by the significant improvement in primary producer returns. After all, there was a $ 1,000m increase in returns last year and there will be another $ 1,000m increase this year through the conjunction of favourable seasons and favourable export markets which have given a tremendous incentive to this economy. In an area where it is necessary that we maintain the momentum of development and the progress of involvement and concern. I do not believe that we can introduce significant changes of this character without profoundly affecting the stability of those who are in this sector.

I do not believe that legislation which covers all these areas in this way and provides such significant changes can do so without seriously disrupting the normal conduct of business in our community. I believe that it is necessary that we have legislation which covers the significant areas affected by this Bill, namely, monopolisation, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, price discrimination, mergers and the field of consumer protection. But I believe that because of the character of changes involved in this legislation, the failure to provide exemptions in significant areas such as monopolisation, in particular, but in prices discrimination too, and the degree to which there is inadequate time provided for us or for members of the business community to scrutinise the legislation, it denies the very competition and stimulus for competition which ostensibly is the purpose for its introduction.

The Country Party is concerned on behalf of those it represents that there should be a fair measure of competition in the community. It doubts that this Trade Practices Bill will achieve that objective. It believes that it is necessary that all those affected should have adequate time to consider the implications of the legislation on their particular business. The Country Party regrets that the Bill has been introduced in haste and is to be rushed through this place without adequate consideration of the implications of each of the measures that are in the Bill and I believe for that reason that there is a necessity for the Bill not to be rushed through at this time. Indeed, when one thinks that the first positive statement on trade practices was made by Sir Garfield Barwick as recently as 30 November 1962, and when one thinks of the degree to which those who have been administering the present Act commend the character of the legislation and the efficacy which is gradually being applied through it to the business community, I believe one appreciates the failure of the Government to demonstrate the need for these radical changes. In the last 11 years there have been significant changes to ensure the protection of the rights of the individual - the consumer. There have been changes introduced to maintain competition in the community. There have been changes made to the existing legislation and which were foreshadowed by the then Attorney-General in a statement introduced last year. The legislation before the House changes completely the character of that legislation.

There is no fundamental reason in my mind why the legislation should be accepted in its present form without an opportunity for adequate scrutiny. I believe that the existing legislation and the changes proposed by Senator Greenwood were adequate, were covering the necessary fields and were maintaining competition. I believe they would have covered the areas that needed to be further covered, particularly in those 2,000 to 3,000 agreements which would have been affected by the foreshadowed amendments that he had in mind. For that reason I do not believe that this legislation should be hastened through the Parliament. I believe that rather it should be left to allow for more adequate scrutiny by the business community which I think will be quite adversely affected in view of the general portents of this legislation.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– This Bill is of urgent and vital importance to the great majority of the Australian people. The Bill clearly divides this Parliament into 2 groups: Those who support adequate protection for the Australian people and those who represent the interests of the monopolies and other big business. The Liberal-Country Party group is again exposed as the agent of the international business group. By its delaying tactics it has displayed its willingness to protect the business racketeers. Its supporters are on the side of those who arrange and organise the international cartels. They claim to be advocates of free enterprise but by delaying this Bill they are protecting and encouraging the destruction of small Australian enterprises and they are allowing foreign-owned and controlled corporations to exploit the Australian consumer. It is ludricous to make comparisons between the almost insignificant power of the individual consumer and the mighty power of the giant global corporations. We must have public protection in this country. The whole community must guarantee the legitimate rights of the most humble citizen. This Government is concerned to protect the rights of all its citizens. The basic issue in this legislation is individual rights.

Australia has been very slow to introduce legislation which effectively protects the rights of consumers. The United States, which is often said to be the home of capitalist society, has had strong protective legislation for many years - legislation which guarantees the rights of consumers and which outlaws many of the insidious practices which have been allowed to go on in this country virtually unchecked. Our Liberal-Country Party governments have been very loath indeed to interfere with the power of their rich and powerful benefactors. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as far back as 14 and IS December 1971 made recommendations to various governments. The Australian Government of the day put them on the long finger. Those recommendations were as follows:

  1. that they should promptly take steps, within the framework of their existing legislation:

    1. to _ apply their restrictive business practices legislation with great vigilance against the detrimental effects especially
    2. of price-fixing and market-sharing agreements,
    3. of monopolistic and oligopolistic practices affecting prices, and
    4. of restrictive business practices in the field of patents and patent licensing;
    1. to keep under review the price situation in key sectors of their economies which have a monopolistic or oligopolistic structure in order to reduce any excessive prices by administrative or legal means at their disposal;
    2. ’ to examine whether the bodies responsible for the enforcement of the restrictive business practices legislation have adequate means at their disposal to carry out the measures outlined in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above;
    3. to strengthen their consumer policies in relation to consumer protection, education and information, where they assist competition to function more effectively;

  2. that they should examine the advisability of adopting the following longer-term measures, which may require new legislation:

    1. stronger action- by means of prohibition or control - against resale price maintenance, recommended prices when they operate with a similar effect to resale price maintenance, and refusal to sell employed in connection with resale price maintenance or with recommended prices;
    2. effective provisions against the harmful practices of monopolies and oligopolies;
    3. effective provisions against undesirable mergers and concentrations of enterprises which limit competition unduly;
    4. extension of their legislation to cover restrictive business practices in service industries or in those sectors to which it does not apply or does not fully apply, when these exemptions are insufficiently justified having regard to the public interest.

In December 1971 the OECD made those recommendations. For a full year the LiberalCountry Party Government did virtually nothing except in the middle of 1972 when it brought in an apology for legislation which it claimed was designed to inhibit restrictive trade practices. It is important that this Parliament should realise who we are dealing with and who are the giant corporations that are concerned with these monopolistic practices in the main. The big multi-nationals are the chief opponents of this legislation. We are listening in this Parliament to people saying that they are for it but not now; that they would support the legislation if only they had time. To use their new expression, time’s up’. This is the time when effective legislation is to be introduced and they have to stand up and be counted. The Australian people will not be terribly impressed by listening to some kind of a giant multi-national ventriloquist act. These people are in favour of the legislation but they are looking for an excuse to oppose it. The length of time they have had to consider it - nearly 2 years - is sufficient for them and that is the excuse- they need.

I will just give the sales figures for a number of companies. Sales by General Motors Corporation represent $28, 300m per annum; sales by the Ford Motor Company represents $ 16,400m per annum; Royal Dutch Shell Co. sales amount to $1 2,700m; the General Electric Corporation sales represent $9,400m per annum; Mobil Oil sales represent $8,200m per annum; Unilever sales represent $7, 500m; Philips Industries sales represents $5,200m; Siemens sales represent $3, 800m per annum; Imperial Chemical Industries sales represent $3,700m per annum. They are the sort of corporations that our friends opposite are crying for. They are the people whom Opposition members have in mind when they say that we must be clear about what we are doing and that we must not unduly affect them. Why is this the case in view of the competition as it were between these people and the individual Australian manufacturer or the small housewife with a grievance - the individual consumer? It is a ludicrous position when we consider the power and might of these giant corporations. It is ludicrous to expect the individual Australian consumer to be able to compete on equal terms with such mighty power. The Australian manufacturers are also consumers. They are reliant on many of these big corporations for their supplies. Many of these multi-national corporations have the power in their grasp to determine whether or not many Australian manufacturers have the right to exist.

A very important weapon against inflation - as was pointed out by the OECD - is true competition. This legislation is designed to achieve that objective.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are a pack of socialists. You do not even believe in free enterprise. You are a hypocrite.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I withdraw it.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member who interjected claims whenever it suits him, of course, to be in favour of competition. He claims to be in favour of individual enterprise until such time as his multi-national masters crack the whip and then he, like a whimpering little puppy, jumps into line and wags his tail.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are also a liar.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member will withdraw that term and cease interjecting.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I withdraw that too.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The Opposition claims to be in favour of competition and individual enterprise. It extols the virtues of private competitive enterprise. But the words of honourable members opposite are contradicted by their actions in this case. Their actions in this Parliament are economically and politically contrary to the national interest. The Government seeks to guarantee the rights of small business, to protect the consumer, to prevent exploitation and profiteering and to prevent the unregulated and improper growth of foreign owned industry. The Opposition would allow the strangulation of the Australian economy by its rich and powerful foreign friends. Its opposition to this Bill and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill exposes the Opposition for all Australians to see. Honourable members opposite are against the small investor. They are against the development of the AIDC which will allow small investors to take a share of the increased national wealth of this country. In other words, they are against any competition for the rich and powerful international corporations. All Australian residents need this protection. Cheap gimmickry to promote the sale of goods and services which are of an inferior quality cannot be tolerated.

The ‘Australian Financial Review* of 29 October last, in discussing this legislation in its editorial, had this to say:

The important thing is that the Australian economy badly needs effective measures to deal with anticompetitive agreements, and the Murphy Bill effectively gets at the restrictive core of current trade practice: price agreements, none of which can be said to be good for the economy or gain to consumers.

Delaying the implementation of strong and workable trade practice laws has proved disastrous in the past and left us in the position of having a flaccid and moribund mechanism.

That is what the ‘Australian Financial Review’ thought of the previous Government’s legislation which was extolled this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). The editorial continued:

If Mr Snedden wants a comprehensive antiinflationary policy he could do well to support the Trade Practices Bill which is one facet of that comprehensiveness.

At the same time he would give substance to the Liberal Party claim that it supports competilon and strong laws to ensure fair trading.

Of course, we have seen the result this afternoon. That sound advice has fallen on deaf ears.

The legislation foreshadowed last year by the Liberal-Country Party Government was cumbersome and ineffective. The Leader of the Opposition does not believe it proper to give the courts powers to legislate, as he puts it; but he sees nothing wrong with the actions in the past which give to the Commissioner of Taxation enormous legislative powers in dealing with tax assessments. He sees nothing wrong with the long history of giving to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the power to legislate. If it were left to the Parliament to legislate for every restrictive trade practice that could be thought of all round the world, the legislation would be completely ineffective, particularly as the Opposition insists on having notice of a year or two before wanting to debate or decide on anything. The courts have a discretion now under many statutes, and it is proper that they should have. It is the essence of British justice that the courts should have a discretion in such matters.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– These are kangaroo courts.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member may refer to the Commonwealth Industrial Court as a kangaroo court if he wants to. If he wants to do that, he should say it outside. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a statement by the Commissioner of Trade Practices, but only to part of it. That is a favourite practice of his. In his report the Commissioner of Trade Practices also said:

Effective competition makes it harder to put prices up and make it more necessary to pursue increased efficiency to keep down the costs that affect prices. To the extent that effective competition is inhibited by restrictive trade practices, inflationary trends are the harder to stop or slow down. But quite apart from the question of inflation, it seems now to be widely accepted that the restrictions on competition in Australia call for legislation that states a firmer policy in relation to them and provides procedures for tis effective implementation.

So much for the scramble by the Leader of the Opposition to obtain some comfort from the report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. The current legislation is defective. It is too slow and cumbersome. To the multinational corporations, it is a toothless monster.

The Commissioner of Trade Practices has an establishment of only 85 positions, and only 81 people are presently employed. But there are 12,360 operative agreements on the register. The whole procedure that applies at present is wrong. Those who wish to engage in restrictive trade practices should show the community that it is not against the public interest to do so. We are living in a time when the economy is finely balanced. Many sections are inter-dependent. This community cannot afford to allow exploitation or unfair trading. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has correctly drawn attention to the dramatic difference between dealing with giant global corporations and the transactions which occur in what he calls the ‘village market’. It is common ground throughout the industrially developed world that more effective legislation is required to combat the effects of monopolies, and particularly the multi-national corporations.

Opposition members now shed crocodile tears on behalf of consumers - the same consumers they left almost defenceless against the economically evil practices of trade restriction for almost a generation. They pose as defenders of consumer interests. But, when it comes to dealing with the problem, they claim that they need more time. The right to procrastinate while the consumer is left unprotected for all practical purposes is their real claim. This Bill contains a number of provisions which will benefit the Australian economy, assist the development of Australian industry by ensuring fair competition, inhibit the growth of monopolies which are against the public interest, and give more adequate protection to consumers.

Part IV of the Bill - clauses 45 to 51 - deals effectively with restrictive trade practices. Contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade are prohibited. The obligations are in clear and concise terms for everyone to understand. Monopolisation is severely limited, and unfair practices are prohibited. Exclusive dealing is prohibited. Resale price maintenance is outlawed. Price discrimination is banned. Mergers designed to diminish competition also are proscribed. All of these provisions are in clear and precise terms. Clause 51 allows for exceptions which make clear provision for the guidelines required by the Opposition, in that it sets out the factors which shall not be taken into account.

Part V of the Bill deals with consumer protection. Unfair practices are clearly stated. Nobody - even those who wished to do so - could possibly misunderstand their meaning and effect. Part VI provides for enforcement and remedies. The courts may impose a penalty not exceeding $250,000. It is important that legislation of this kind, which is designed to combat monopolies and corporations of the size we are dealing with, should provide penalties which are not akin to a petty cash item. The power for individuals to act is another important consideration. Individuals have power to act by way of injunction or to sue for damages. That is the basic right of every citizen in our community. Whether or not an action is to be taken should not be left to political or quasi-political decision exclusively. Part VII permits the Commission to allow restrictive practices which may be shown to be in the public interest. The onus is fairly and properly placed in respect of this provision. Part IX provides for appeals against the decision of the Commission. A fair and reasonable procedure is laid down for the determination of such appeals.

This is a Bill designed to protect Australia and Australian residents. The arguments put forward by the Opposition are shallow and are designed to create a political smokescreen. Honourable members opposite claim to lack a full understanding of what is intended. They state that they have had insufficient time to grasp fully all of the implications. They should realise that the days of this Parliament acting with the pace of a slow and leisurely country club are over. This is a fast moving legislature where hard work is required. Tired old men who cannot work at the pace required will have to make way for others. The Australian community expects action and it will recei that action which is desired quickly to protect the community interest. I put it to the House that this legislation is designed to protect all sections of the public interest. I commend it to the House and hope it will be carried and become law without undue delay.

Mr MCMAHON:
Lowe

– As recently as 25 October of this year a Bill to repeal the Trade Practices Acts of 1971 and 1972 and to enact a Trade Practices Act 1973 was introduced into this House. It is a long and complex Bill and involves Government interference in a wide area of trade and commerce.

In the time available to the Opposition it has not been practicable - in fact it has not been possible - to discuss the matters involved with representatives of industry, commerce and trade in order to find out the effect and the impact .the proposed clauses of the Bill will have on the economy of this country, lt has been impossible to assess what impact the proposals, if put into effect, will have upon employment prospects, the sound economic growth of the economy, inflationary pressures, the advantages and disadvantages to the consumer, and the effective allocation of resources within our community and the efficiency with which the production and distribution of goods and services are carried out.

It will be obvious to the House that it would border on economic insanity to push a Bill of this kind through the House without adequate debate, without adequate consideration and without knowledge of the consequences.

There should be no doubt about the attitude of the Liberal and Country Parties to restrictive trade practices and monopolies. Trade practices legislation was introduced into this House in 1961 - that was the Garfield Barwick Bill - and again proposals were introduced in 1965, and as I have already mentioned 2 Trade Practices Acts of 1971 and 1972 are to be repealed if this Bill becomes law. In fact the Liberal-Country Party Government also introduced into the House the anti-monopoly legislation, the resale price maintenance legislation and the overseas cargo shipping legislation. Our bona fides and intentions relative to restrictive trade practices and monopolies should therefore be obvious.

There can be no doubt whatsoever of the Liberal Party’s philosophical approach to restrictive trade practices legislation. When such legislation has been necessary or desirable to achieve improved terms and conditions and full and effective employment, sound economic growth, restraint on inflationary pressures and the other objectives I have mentioned we have been prepared to take and have taken legislative action.

This legislation must be looked at in perspective. The present Bill is not a reform measure; it is not part of an evolutionary process. It is a totally different concept with totally new ideas and a totally different approach to the means of preventing or minimising the impact of restrictive trade practices on the social and economic life of the community. It can affect the smallest and the largest, the most prosperous and powerful or the weaker and less financially powerful sections of industry. Few businessmen engaged in trade or commerce will be able effectively to carry on their business without the persistent assistance of members of the legal profession. The Bill seeks to impose United States practices, procedures and law without any clear recognition of the differences between the Australian environment and conditions and those in the United States. It is dogmatic and mechanical in approach in that it fails to distinguish between those measures which are in the public interest and those which are against that interest. It fails to recognise that we are dealing with human beings. To this extent it is in sharp contrast to the Liberal-Country Party legislation which is to be repealed.

It seems wise at this stage to mention the essential differences of approach between the Liberal Party actions whilst in office and the Labor Party’s approach to this Bill. The Liberal Party approach has been based on the desirability of preserving competition in trade and commerce and to do so consistent with the public interest. We also introduced the concept of prohibiting certain types of trade practices which were contrary to the public interest as, for example, in the Act relating to resale price maintenance. But our actions in general were guided by the then desirability of ensuring that a case by case examination of allegedly restrictive trade practices was made in the context of certain precise and clearly expressed criteria.

The Labor Party’s proposal is to adopt over practically the whole range of restrictive practices the concept that certain restrictive practices and forms of conduct are unlawful or are to be prohibited or both. I confess that there have been too many delays under the present procedures. I do not have a philosophical or practical objection to the proposals in the Bill. I do not have a fundamental objection to changing the existing concept of investigating restrictive trade practices agreements on a case by case basis. There is a proposal in the Bill to declare certain types of conduct to be unlawful or to prohibit those practices being engaged in. We have already accepted this principle of prohibition in the resale price maintenance legislation, and in the 1972 amendments we proposed that some horizontal arrangements, particularly those relating to prices and related matters such as discounts and concessions, should be more expeditiously handled by the Trade Practices Commission. It could well have occurred that prohibitions of specified types of conduct mentioned in the Bill might subsequently have been found to be justified.

As I have already made clear in the House, I believe strongly in the system of private enterprise - a system that has been the foundation of our progress since mediaeval times. A system based on a clear and unmistakeable set of laws which define what restrictive practices are lawful and consequently not prohibited and those which are not lawful and are prohibited is more consistent with liberalism as such than a case by case approach. But I am not convinced - in fact I have the gravest doubts - that the concepts and methods now proposed by the Labor Party effectively meet the needs of this country at the present time. On the contrary I believe that, as understood at the moment and without real qualifications and amendments, the Bill will, if enacted, do great harm to those who really matter, that is, the people of this country - the consumer, the family, mum and dad and the kids.

Let me be specific. The details of the Bill lack certainty. Far too many businessmen will be permanently injured in the carrying on of their normal and fair business operations.

Mr Cohen:

– Shame.

Mr MCMAHON:

– Yes, quite right. Shame! They are entitled to certainty, provided they carry on their business fairly and efficiently and without engaging in restrictive trade practices of an unacceptable kind. The language of the Bill is too general and does not clearly indicate beyond doubt what conduct is lawful and what is unlawful. The Bill gives scant regard to the needs of the environmental and industrial conditions in which producers, distributors, exporters, importers, proprietors and investors can effectively carry on trade and commerce on a viable and profitable basis. Nor does it adequately take into consideration the interests of employees.

Incidentally, it should be mentioned that this Labor Party Bill is inconsistent with the Labor Party platform which states as a policy objective the Labor Party’s approval of ‘legislation against monopolies and to strengthen existing trade practice legislation’. The Bill does not strengthen the existing legislation. It repeals it and introduces new concepts into trade practice law.

Let me now turn to the specifics. I would not want to divide on Parts I, II and III of the Bill - that is, in substance the provisions relating to the creation of the Commission and the Trade Practices Tribunal - nor would I want to divide on Part VIII relating to resale price maintenance, which reproduces with 4 amendments the provisions of the present Act. Three of the amendments clarify the meaning of certain sections and the other extends the provision of resale price maintenance to a manufacturer who induces a retailer to maintain the resale price of his goods that the retailer has obtained through a wholesaler. Nor would I want to divide on Part DC, which relates to the review by the Tribunal of determinations by the Commission, or on Part X, which relates to overseas cargo shipping. Both are, in substance, similar to the existing laws.

I turn now to Part V, which relates to consumer protection. On the face of it and without advised consideration it should be said that several important provisions of this Part of the Bill which protect the consumer are unobjectionable. But there is no provision in the law for consultation with trade, commerce and industry leaders and it is not possible to identify and move amendments relating to some other features in view of the scanty knowledge that is at present available to us. I now come to those clauses which could well be seriously damaging to the Australian economy and society as a whole. I would reject completely clause 29, which provides that the Commission must comply with the directions of the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). That would be the same AttorneyGeneral who, according to his Leader, was guilty of the greatest blunder ever committed by the Australian Labor Party, that is, the raiding of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s headquarters in Canberra and Melbourne without good reason. Is he the type of man who should be given such power?

There is another Part that I would reject unless it is substantially amended, that is, Part VI, which relates to enforcement and remedies. Clause 78 states that criminal proceedings do not lie against a person by reason only that the person contravenes Part IV, that is, the Part relating to restrictive trade practices. The penalties that can be imposed are of a criminal nature and can rise to as high as $25,000 for each offence. But the standard of proof required by the Crown is the standard in civil cases, that is, proof on the balance of the evidence - a comparatively easy proof by the Crown - and not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is grossly unfair, primitive and archaic. It does not fit into modern thinking and concepts and will be strenuously opposed by the Opposition.

We come now to the guts of the Bill so far as commerce and industry are concerned, that is, Part IV, which relates to restrictive trade practices and the provisions of the Bill relating to contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade, monopolisation, exclusive dealings, resale price maintenance, pricing arrangements and mergers. Clause 45 provides that a contract in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful insofar as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations upon a corporation and that a corporation shall not make a contract or engage in or be a party to a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce. The clause lacks precision and definition. We do not know precisely what it means. The definition will depend heavily upon the interpretation of the Tribunal. It has been taken from the United States experience and law and uses American words, such as ‘combination’, which are not appropriate to Australian conditions. It is altogether too general and too difficult to understand.

Whilst provision is made for authorisation by the Commission of certain practices, including contracts in restraint of trade generally, and to exclusive dealings and mergers the authorisations do not relate to monopolisation and price arrangements or ‘fixing. Why this distinction has been drawn is not clear; nor is there any recourse to justification procedures. Of this I am sure: There are some schemes of price discrimination, including confidential discounts, that are advantageous to consumers due, amongst other things, to reduction in price because of the size of the contract and the cost to manufacturers due to economies of scale and, in many cases, the reliability of purchasers. Price discrimination to retailers and manufacturers of this kind could well be anti-inflationary.

The Bill does not prohibit monopolies. It does not attack monopoly powers but only the use of them. The Bill does not clearly define monopoly by clear criteria as, for example, a specified percentage of a specific market. That is the practice today. The Bill uses such phrases as ‘a corporation which is in a position substantially to control a market shall not engage in conduct directed to doing certain things’. The word ‘directed’ is crucial. If action is directed to certain ends the action is prohibited. But there is no definition of ‘directed’ or ‘substantial control’ or of the meaning of the word ‘market’. Those terms can vary from time to time and from place to place. Amendments are critically important to ensure the satisfactory conduct of business.

I have already referred to resale price maintenance, which is dealt with separately in the Bill. It is in substance a reproduction of the existing Act with the 4 amendments I have already mentioned. But the Bill does not continue the exemption provisions if it appears that some resale price maintenance transactions arc justified in the public interest. This exemption should be restored by the Government, unless it can give satisfactory reasons for its withdrawal.

I have also mentioned the reasons why the clause relating to pricing agreements needs much more careful study and how some types of price discrimination are of advantage to the consumer. The clause as presented will have the effect of reducing competition. In fact, it will reduce competition to the general level of the most inefficient. The Robinson/

Patman Act of the United States has been criticised on this ground. As I have said, the refusal of the Government to permit authorisation in the case of pricing arrangements is extremely harsh and unnecessary. This should be remedied.

I turn now to the subject of mergers. Again the Bill does not define what is meant by mergers’. It is intended by inference to cover mergers and takeovers. The Bill prohibits the acquisition of shares in the capital or any assets of a body corporate. The acquisition is prohibited where its effect will be substantially to lessen competition or where it will tend to result in the corporation being in a position substantially to control a market. On the face of it this provision could well turn out to be inconsistent with decisions of the Tariff Board concerning change of the kind necessary to achieve greater rationalisation and a reduction in costs. In this area a clearance from the Commission may be obtained. Clearances are an advisory opinion by the Commission in what are doubtful areas of the Bill’s applicability. However, doubts will remain and the final decision will be with the courts. Here again greater certainty - greater precision - is needed as to the meaning of the words ‘substantially to control* and ‘a market’ and the authorities of the Trade Practices Commission and the Tariff Board should be cleared up.

I sum up in this way: There are features of the Bill that should be approved, but in other respects it is too arbitrary in application and it lacks clarity. Altogether too much responsibility will be left to the Tribunal rather than this Parliament after consultation with all interested parties. I believe that in the interests of efficient Australian production and distribution and in the interests of the consumer much more time is necessary to prevent loss of production and efficiency with consequent price increases and damage to the economy. I can but hope that the Government - the Australian Labor Party - has taken notice of the various objections made by the Opposition. Once having taken notice of them, I hope the Government will realise that this Bill can have disastrous consequences and that it is not in the best interests of the Australian people.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– The Opposition has set its objections to this Bill on the ground, firstly, that in some areas it is vague in its definition and, secondly, it has not had time to consider the implications of the Bill. I shall deal firstly with the first point, which was covered by the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply (Mr Enderby) in his second reading speech. He said:

Legislation of this kind is concerned with economic considerations. There is a limit to the extent to which such considerations can be treated in legislation as legal concepts capable of being expressed with absolute precision. Such an approach leads to provisions which are complex in the extreme and give rise to more problems than they remove.

This idea is then elaborated on by the Minister in his speech. In fact this is one of the problems that must confront people who draft such a Bill. Indeed this is not the only area in which there is difficulty in drafting a Bill which is precise in every specification. One of the fundamental differences in the philosophy of approach to these situations between the Opposition and the Government is that whereever we get the problem of precise definition regarding individual liberties the Bills drafted by the Opposition have tended to trample over individual liberties for the lack of a clearer, more precise definition of the powers written into the Bill. One could quote a number of Acts that affect individual liberties in which this principle of failing to define in precise terms the powers given in the legislation has been ignored in order to be able to proceed with some form of action.

In the absence of precise definition in these economic areas we find that nothing is done. The record of the Opposition suggests that it will continue to frustrate, perhaps genuinely looking for a more precise definition of economic concepts which defy any legislative definition in such an Act. I take one or two examples. What is this ‘unit of competition’ to which we refer when we talk about monopoly and competition between different business enterprises? It seems that here we have to define this unit of competition in terms of an autonomous price-making group that is not influenced by and is completely independent of other price makers in the market. This is a Utopian definition. Quite clearly people in the same industry will share the same technology. They will share similar processes. They cannot be completely independent in the pricemaking environment which leads to their decision on price. The question whether we have an unusual degree of liaison between different price makers in the market clearly must be resolved in each different case. To anticipate the circumstances of each individual case would ‘lead us into tedious definition which would always be subject to criticism. So leaving the question of definition of whether or not there is an unusual level of agreement between price makers in the market to an authority such as has been denned in this Bill is the only possible way by which we can make any progress.

I ask honourable members to consider the position in a market where there is only one price maker. The only restraining influence on that price maker is the price the market will bear. There is no other way by which this price maker can be forced to reduce his price. If on the selling side of the equation another competitor is introduced we find that the first or monopoly pricing situation has been moderated because the first price maker has to take into consideration the price established by the independent price maker who has now entered the market. However there is still a large margin of price left on which both can capitalise. The market price is such that sometimes the seller is prepared to pay more than the economic processes would dictate.

In this case where we have 2 price makers in the market we still have a dangerous situation in which they can capitalise on the price the market will bear. In fact the temptation for these two to collude and come to some form of price agreement is very high because the basis for their agreement is necessarily narrow. They share only a few differences in approach. As the number of sellers in the market increases this ability to tax from the market the price the market will bear also narrows. It is absurd to claim, as the Leader of the Opposition has claimed, that there is no connection between restrictive trade practices and inflation. Clearly where a large number of sellers are operating from independent pricing mechanisms they are incapable, as the number grows, of taxing the market in terms of taking the price the market will bear. Obviously there is a close association between the number of sellers in a market - the number of price makers in the market - and the price they charge in relation to what the market will bear.

There is another important aspect of this matter of competition which cannot be covered, by definition, in the sort of legislation we are now considering. I refer to the matter of innovation. In the main the well-established industries have established a technology and production process which is common to each of the producers in that industry. They share this technology. The innovator naturally will contribute to the efficiency of the industry. How general this contribution will be will depend first on his own share of the total market and, secondly, how quickly the innovation spreads through the market.

We can find plenty of examples of traditional industries where the innovator has been shut out, and the restrictive trade practice is not so much the fact that innovation has been restricted to one particular section of the market as that it has been restricted to the total market, because agreement has been reached between the sellers in the market not to allow other practices to enter into the market. There are many illustrations of this in the Australian scene. No better illustration can be found than in the wool selling area where for 100 years selling brokers systematically prohibited methods of selling other than the ones they themselves adopted. This clearly was a restrictive market practice which one could not anticipate in legislation such as this. The spirit of this was captured by the Minister for Secondary Industry in his second reading speech.

We also heard from the Leader of the Opposition that there is a contradiction between the Trade Practices Act and the protection commission. The implication was that one can achieve efficiency only if there is a large-scale operation. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition has been misled by concentrating on one particular aspect of the competitive mechanism - the economies of scale which flow to the large-scale operator. Of course it is a corollary almost without exception that the large-scale operator ceases to be an innovator. The bureaucracy within the organisation becomes too large to change overnight to introduce innovation. The practice that becomes traditional is the easiest one to adopt so it is not necessarily true that efficiency runs with the large-scale operator. The contradiction that the Leader of the Opposition pointed to is an exception rather than the rule and I do not see that such a contradiction should frustrate the progress of this Bill.

On these 2 issues the Opposition has put forward proposals to frustrate the Bill. This smacks of procrastination because neither of the issues cannot be resolved nor are they too particular in their effect to deserve too much time and consideration. The Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) referred to the clause relating to discriminatory dealing and, in typical Country Party fashion, misinterpreted the whole implication of the clause. He claimed that supply at the same price would not result in a lowering of prices. I should like the House to consider for a moment this clause - clause 49. Subclause (1) of the clause reads:

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, directly or indirectly discriminate between different purchasers of goods of like grade and quality in relation to -

the prices charged for the goods;

the provision of services or facilities in respect of the goods; or

the making of payments for services or facilities provided in respect of the goods.

In this legislation one supplier is being asked to supply at the same price to each of the purchasers of that particular commodity. Quite clearly if the same supplier charges different prices, given the same circumstances in regard to suppliers, there will be discrimination against those purchasers who purchase the article at a higher level than somebody else in the spectrum of the purchasing group. The clause specifically excludes those economic circumstances which justify a change in prices. The question of quantity is dealt with in one of the exclusions. If large scale purchases which lead to economies of scale within the producers’ operation are made, the benefit of that, according to this Bill, can be legally passed on to the purchaser. Secondly any transport costs whether they be cost advantages or disadvantages in relation to different purchases, are also excluded in this part of the Bill.

To say as the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party did that variations of price within one supplier would have a disinflationary effect is to miss the point that this is in fact a discriminatory action against the purchasers. It would have no effect on inflation whatsoever. It would lead to a position where the supplier by excluding a number of purchasers puts itself into a stronger competitive bargaining position in terms of the retail market. Those are one or two examples of the arguments raised by the Opposition to justify this Bill being held up yet again. Generally we should think about the backdrop in which this Bill has come into this House and the time that has been given not only in this country but in other countries to consideration of the problems dealt with by this Bill. Surely it is now time for us in Australia to accept the consequences of the distilled wisdom that has gone into the formulation of this Bill and to become active about it instead of procrastinating and waiting still more years until a Bill is introduced to deal with the problem.

To illustrate this point I refer to a speech made by the Minister for Secondary Industry on 5 May 1971 in respect of the previous trade practices legislation introduced by the then government. He quoted Professor Richardson, the Dean of the Law School at the Australian National University. He said:

Compared with the original Barwick plan, the Bill appears as a compromise yielding ground to various commercial and political interests.

He was referring to the legislation of the previous Government. He continued:

In particular, bilateral agreements no longer have to be registered and several types of bilateral agreement, such as an agreement between a buyer and seller fixing the retail price of goods supplied, have been withdrawn from the proposed Federal control. The list of practices bad in themselves and therefore unlawful has been reduced from 4 to 2. The penalties attaching to parties failing to register a registrable agreement are less severe than originally contemplated and the proposed register of restrictive practices will not be open to public inspection.

This is in contradistinction to the present Act where the secrecy has now been removed in all but the most important areas so far as individual companies are concerned. He continued:

The Government has also abandoned its projected control of mergers. These modifications will no doubt make the Bill more digestible in some business circles and sections of the political Parties of the Federal Government.

He was referring to the Federal Government of the day. Clearly at that stage the implications that have been taken up in this Bill had been considered by the then Government. For its own reasons it rejected them. We now introduce many of these measures because in the light of experience they have become more relevant than ever before. The Bill that we have to consider now makes restrictive trade practices unlawful. This becomes the starting point rather than leaving the interpretations of the legality of trade practices to administrative discretion. We have established a basis in law. Prior to this it was necessary for interpretations from the administrative arm of government to be placed on each case.

We have heard complaint from the Opposition today that this Bill transfers a great deal of power to the legal and administrative arms of our decision making processes. The previous Bill did not, in fact, establish a legal position. It simply required the registration of trade agreements on which an administrative decision would then be made. The starting point now is that restrictive trade practices are unlawful. This is clearly the most proper base from which to establish a position of judgment. A clearance from the Trade Practices Commission can be sought case by case in respect of exclusive dealing and mergers that do not come within the prohibitions because they do not substantially lessen competition.

The whole spirit of this Bill is to maintain competition in the market place and to maintain competition in the innovation processes which increase our productivity over all. It is ironic that this debate should be taking place within the background of the traditional political affiliations. One of the problems that the Opposition seems to confront is that it has failed to identify that the economic mechanisms associated with monopolies and cartels are very little different from the economic mechanisms associated with a nationalised industry. The Opposition cannot defend one without defending the other. It cannot oppose one without opposing the other. The position of maximum competition in many senses is unstable. It is a position which is transitionary from one of cut-throat competition, where practices are introduced into the market place which are not in the interests of either the producers or the consumers, to a position of agreements and cartels and monopolisation.

In order to preserve the optimum position of competition we need a watchdog. We need a rule maker in the competitive mechanism. The Bill before us is one step towards establishing that watchdog and a set of rules within the game in which competition can be used to maximise the productivity of our economic mechanisms for the community at large. It has to be an impartial rule maker. It has to be somebody standing on the sidelines, given the guidelines that are established in such a Bill. It is a difficult situation in which to arbitrate because, as I have mentioned, the optimum competition which exists in the market place appears to me at least to be transitionary in nature ‘and the economic mechanisms are not stabilising at that point. The most stable economic position in the market place is indeed a monopoly or a cartel. Of course, that is because there is exploitation at that level for one party.

The Bill provides an escape mechanism in which the trade practices can be authorised subject to time limits and the public interest.

As I have mentioned already, secrecy ceases to be a feature of the new legislation. The benefits will have to justify the authorisation. The public benefit becomes extremely important in making this judgment. The optimisation of productivity for the community as a whole becomes the hallmark of the legislation. I submit that to oppose this Bill at this time and to frustrate the introduction of this Bill is to consolidate further the position of monopolies and cartels within our community at a time when it has long since become apparent that they militate against the general welfare of the community. It is far better to accept a Bill, admittedly with difficulties in interpretation, to control these groups rather than to wait 2, 3, 4 or, if the Opposition’s reputation in government is anything to go by, 23 years before anything is done.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– It seems quite clear that every generation is consumed with a sense of vanity. Every generation seems to take the view that it alone is confronted with a gathering of unique difficulties. What is more, every generation seems to take the view that it has its own emphatic remedy for any difficulty that may arise. Having listened to the speeches from Government members opposite - the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Whan) and my friend, the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) - I am convined that in essence we are no different today.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that when one deals with the question of restraint of trade one is dealing with a matter of very great antiquity. The early Egyptians 3,000 years before Christ were confronted with the problem of dealing with restraint of trade with respect to wool and clothing. There is nothing new about it. Some of the mummies to be found in the mausoleums would have dealt with this issue. Having listened to the debate, and without being offensive, I think their speeches would have been far livelier on this issue than some of the speeches I have heard from Government members opposite. Thales, the very early Greek astronomer, ascertained from the stars that there was to be a bountiful crop of olives. So Thales, not being a man connected merely with the stars, went out and hired months in advance all of the olive presses. So when it came to the olive crushing season there was Thales in command of all of the olive presses. Genius! Restraint of trade! Diocletian in the year 301 A.D. - I am bound to say that the Minister for Secondary Industry has a strong personal resemblance to Diocletian - had his problems with restrictive trade practices or restraint of trade, as it was known in those days. He had a simple remedy for it. Any person who infringed his system had his head cut off. At least this remedy had the charm of simplicity. About a century later in 483 A.D. there was the Constitution of Zeno. Fifteen centuries later that Constitution was to influence heavily, of all things, the Sherman Act in the United States of America.

Dealing with our own Anglo-Saxon forebears, in pre-Norman times this was an issue. In the days of Edward III mere was the Statute of Labourers. I wonder whether my friends opposite would have any wish to see some of the restrictive trade practices observed by trade unions, artificers, artisans and labourers under this Bill. Like Pygmalion they would. In 1624 there was the Statute of Monopolies, and so it goes. So far as the development of the common law of our people is concerned, we find in the year 1894 the great landmark in the case of Nordenfeldt v. Maxim Nordenfeldt in which it was held by the House of Lords that the 2 criteria to be applied as far as the common law was concerned should be, firstly, that an agreement or a contract made between 2 people had to be reasonable between the 2 parties and secondly, it had not to be injurious to the public. From reading the speech of Lord McNaughten in the Nordenfeldt case one finds that he traces it with an exemplary touch of history back to Queen Elizabeth I. He says that in the days of Queen Elizabeth I all restraints of trade were void as being against public policy. He then went on to show how by dint of the fact of development of economic activity exceptions had to be made. A man sold his business. A man engaged an apprentice. The apprentice wanted to move from one place to another, and exceptions had to be made.

Although it is a trite matter, it deserves to be stated that in the field of trade practices the common law probably has not kept pace with the world. I do not think to say that is any affront to the whole of the edifice of that remarkable achievement of our people the development of the common law. Besides the common law was concerned with contracts in restraint of trade; it was not concerned with practices in restraint of trade. So the problem of the Australian nation and of this Parliament today is to determine what sort of system to opt for to control restrictive trade practices, be they restraints of trade, be they unfair practices, or be they restrictive trade practices of the variety enumerated in this Bill. That is the question, and the Government has come up with the answer in this Bill.

Upon listening to Government speakers, one would gather that this is a document of incredible and deep virtue. I hope before I sit down to show that that is not a well-founded contention. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) said this afternoon without the slightest trace of ambiguity, there is no person sitting on these Opposition benches who is not politically and socially concerned with ensuring that the ravages of unfair competition, the ravages associated with restrictive trade practices, and the difficulties associated with unfair practices are not properly controlled. There is no ambiguity about our position at all, and I defy any honourable gentleman sitting on the Government benches to contest that statement. We stand for the control of those practices which are injurious to the public interest.

Mr Enderby:

– Your record refutes that.

Mr KILLEN:

– The Minister for Secondary Industry interjects mumbling something about our record. Let me say to the honourable gentleman that if someone had backed him on his record yesterday as Red Hope he would have been left impoverished like me. The question is: What sort of system should we adopt? The Labor Government has proposed a system which consists of a commission on the one hand and of a tribunal on the other. Let us have a look at the system which embodies a commission. What qualifications will the Government accept when it appoints members of the commission? The Bill is silent on this matter. It is as silent as one of the mummies of 3,000 years before Christ who dealt with this problem. The Bill gives no indication in this regard at all. Could it be that the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) will get hold of one of the unemployed lion tamers or elephant trainers who has registered as unemployed, say, on the Gold Coast and who collects his social service payments? Will he employ one of these people as a member of the commission? What sort of talents-

Mr KILLEN:

– It is not a case of the honourable member needing taming; I think he needs a brand or two put on him. If one goes through the speech of the Minister for Secondary Industry or the speech of his colleague in another place, Senator Murphy, one will not find one word as to what qualifications we will be expected to respect in the members of the commission. It is not as though the members of the commission will use or wield some trifling powers. These are men into whose hands will be placed the most significant economic weapon, and an error of judgment on their part could conceivably reap the most significant economic damage, one way or the other. So the first revelation of this Bill is that the Labor Government which is seriously contending that it is concerned with restrictive trade practices is prepared to put into the hands of a body with unstated qualifications this most significant economic weapon. This is exacerbated by the fact that the number of commissioners is not specified. How many commissioners does the Minister have in mind - five, eight, fifteen? Is this to be another job for the boys?

A person who is caught up - I will deal with this later - in any of the categories of restrictive trade practices has to submit to the judgment of people with unstated qualifications. I cull one out at random. This is a restrictive trade practice for the purposes of the legislation. The Bill states:

A corporation that is in a position substantially to control a market for goods and services shall not take advantage of that position so as to engage in conduct directed to . . . deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive behaviour in another market.

I ask my friend the Minister for Secondary Industry whether he would kindly give us an explanation of what he understands by the phrase ‘substantially to control’. Does this mean 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent? What is the size of the ‘market’? Is it something around the size of, say, the city of Parramatta, Lake Eucumbene, the State of Victoria or the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia? What does my friend understand by the words deterring or preventing a person?’

As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) asked this afternoon - with respect I adopt his argument which was supported by a very homely illustration - is a corporation which controls a supermarket in the suburb of, say, Mount Gravatt deterring a person from entering into that market place? This is the sort of slap-happy drafting which the Govern ment has put before us and which it expects the national Parliament to accept. Let me turn now to another illustration of what is involved.

Mr Enderby:

– You obviously do not need more time.

Mr KILLEN:

– Being a person of infinite courtesy, I sat here and, even though I wanted to complain loudly, I did not interrupt the Minister when he was speaking. I know that Lent is a little way off, but he should get into practice and indulge in a little bit of silence. Let me turn now to what are described as ‘unfair practices’. Proposed section 53, in paragraphs (a) to (g), deals with falsely doing things. There is no question of intent there. I ask the Minister to put himself in the position of a tractor dealer. I come along to him and, depending on his judgment, say to him: ‘I want to pull some scrub in the outer Barcoo*. He says: I understand you completely. It will be a pleasure for me to help you’. He sells me a tractor. I am out there earning an honest buck, and then I want to do something at Cloncurry. Perhaps I want to move some ore. But the tractor breaks down. Under this legislation conceivably I could have the Minister in gaol for 6 months - although he knows that charity consumes me - because quite negligently and not necessarily falsely he may have said: ‘I warrant that this is quite all right as far as you are concerned’. I then say: ‘No’. I persuade the Attorney-General - I happen to be on Christian name terms with the Attorney-General of this country, something which I suspect some members of the Government front bench are not - to do something and he says: ‘We will take some action about this’. The Minister is then brought before a court. Where does the onus rest? It rests on the Minister. This is done by these great advocates of the rights of the individual, those who would have us marching and singing ‘The Marseillaise’, ‘Land of Hope and. Glory’, ‘The Red Flag’- I knew I would get it eventually - yet they talk about the onus of proof.

Let me take the Minister to what is the centre of this Bill - the Commission and the Tribunal. I observe in passing, because time is belting into me a little, that both the Commission and the Tribunal - at least the presidential members of the Tribunal are to be legally qualified - have to determine the criteria to which they are to look to see whether something is acceptable or is to be authorised Proposed section 90. (5) provides the criteria offered to both the Commission and the Tribunal. Listen to what it says, because the Commission - that is to say those with unstated qualifications - will have to consider this language. It says: the Commission shall not make a determination granting an authorisation unless it is satisfied that-

That is a discretion not reviewable by any court -

  1. the contract, combination, act or course of conduct to which the application relates results, or is likely to result, in a specific and substantial benefit to the public . . .

I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what he understands by ‘a specific and substantial benefit to the public’. I venture to say that the phrase ‘substantial benefit to the public’ has never been examined by any court anywhere at any time. ‘Public interest’, yes; we understand what that means. But what is meant by ‘substantial’? Let us put it in the balance. Is it 50 per cent? No, that is not enough; so kick it up. Is it 60 per cent, 70 per cent or 80 per cent? That is not enough. What I am inviting the House to consider is that under that criterion all that is available is a subjective judgment. I can point that up very quickly. What may be a substantial public benefit to me may well be regarded by the Minister as being an utter and raging anathema.

The second criterion which is available is whether the thing to which the application relates ‘has such a slight effect on competition’. What is meant by ‘a slight effect on competition’? No information is given by the Minister or by the Attorney-General. This is one of the most incredible pieces of drafting that I have ever seen or that has ever been put before the national Parliament. This Bill has been drafted by those who now regard arrogance as being the right to administer anything they like in any fashion they like. If the Minister who is in control of this Bill-

Mr Enderby:

– I will put my glasses on.

Mr KILLEN:

– The Minister will need to do more than put on his glasses to explain to the House and the people what is meant by this incredible drafting. Let the Minister get on his feet and give us the highly dubious advantage of his advice on proposed section 90. (5). I wind up the short argument I have had the opportunity of adumbrating by saying that this is a slap-happy piece of drafting and deserves to be rejected. For that reason I move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

The House is of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until there has been more adequate time to consider the implications contained in the provisions of the Bill’.

No set of people need more time to understand the implications of the Bill than the members of the Government Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Edwards:

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

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) gave his usual entertaining address and I should like to refer to one point which he made. After he had returned from an analysis of ancient history he referred at some length to the fact that this legislation before the House was in some way deficient because it did not, he said, define the qualifications of members of the Trade Practices Commission. I should like to remind the honourable gentleman that in the current Trade Practices Act, the most important man in the legislation is the Commissioner of Trade Practices and I cannot find set out anywhere in that Act the qualifications of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. From what I say later, the extreme importance of that one person to the existing Act will be seen.

The importance of the Bill now before the House is that when it is passed by the Parliament this country will have in operation a legal apparatus that will effectively control for the first time restrictive trade practices of corporations in this country. The fact is that the current Act which this Bill will replace is hopelessly inadequate and utterly incapable of providing a competitive business environment in this country for many years hence, if indeed it would ever achieve that objective. That this is the case is not a matter for mere assertion by myself or by the Government. It has been stated by the Commissioner of Trade Practices in his 1971 annual report in which he said that progress in dealing with anti-competitive agreements and practices needed to be accelerated, otherwise the legislation would take many years to produce a general impact against restriction of competition and in favour of competitive attitudes.

Some further evidence as to progress or the lack of it is also given by the number of examinable agreements that are registered with the Commissioner’s office over a period. In his first annual report in 1968 the Commissioner gave this number as 10,841. In his latest annual report which is for this year the number of those agreements is shown as 12,360, that is, in that 5-year period the number of registered examinable agreements has not been diminished at all but has in fact increased by approximately 1,500. The current Trade Practices Act is with the exception of its collusive tendering and bidding and resale price maintenance provisions, little more than a pretence to provide real competition in the business community. It is the result of an inglorious capitulation by the previous Government to the pressures and persuasions of the business community whose interests it was basically concerned to represent. Early in the 1960s the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, put forward proposals for the control of restrictive practices in this country which were long overdue as he himself acknowledged. At page 13 of his G. L. Wood memorial lecture in 1963, Sir Garfield Barwick said:

All the western world has legislation to deal with restrictive practices; there is no novelty in Australia having such legislation; the oddity is that it has not.

The proposals put forward by the then Attorney-General, although not as comprehensive or thorough going as the situation required, nevertheless would have had a marked effect on the degree of business competition. However, they never came into operation because when the business community protested vigorously about these proposed infringements of their assumed rights to combine against the interests of the public, the then Government scrapped its original proposals. It substituted instead a weak and emasculated Bill that virtually amounted to a fraud and deception on the Australian people in that it gave the impression of controlling trade practices but in fact did precious little about them. It is indeed appropriate that the Minister who had the responsibility for putting that cosmetic legislation before the House in 1965 was the then Attorney-General who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) in this House, which Opposition is again demonstrating its concern for the consuming public by attempting to delay legislation that will effectively and speedily eliminate the multitude of restrictive trade practices that currently impede competition in the business world.

May I briefly refer to various ways in which the Snedden legislation of 1965 watered down the original Barwick proposals. It had been proposed in the Barwick legislation that 4 practices be completely prohibited. These were collusive tendering, collusive bidding, persistent price cutting at a loss to drive a competitor out of business and the use of monopoly power to disadvantage competitors or consumers. The Snedden legislation prohibited only the first two of those practices and even left a loophole for them. The other 2 practices became examinable practices and indulgence in them was not illegal until declared to be so by the Trade Practices Tribunal on investigation of a particular case. The Barwick proposals included as examinable practices the practice of resale price maintenance. This was one of the practices most strongly defended by the business community, so it was no surprise that it was not included in the Snedden legislation. Subsequently, of course, that practice was covered after the previous Government was forced to take action in 1971 following the exposure of this practice by the Australian Council of Trade Unions through Bourke’s store in Melbourne.

Sir Garfield Barwick also proposed to cover mergers and takeovers but that also was missing when the Snedden legislation saw the light of day. Originally it had been proposed that the register of agreements would be open for inspection by persons with sufficient economic interest, but the Snedden legislation provided that the register would be completely secret. There are many other respects in which the legislation brought forward in 1965 by the now Leader of the Opposition was notably weaker than the measures originally proposed but those I have mentioned are sufficient to illustrate the point. The fact is that the present Act is woefully inadequate to achieve its supposed objective of providing a more competitive environment and that inadequacy is directly attributable to the previous Government’s unwillingness to upset its big business friends.

Apart from the ineffectual cover or exclusion of various practices that I have mentioned, the current Trade Practices Act is deficient chiefly for the reason that its procedures are so cumbersome and slow that it is difficult for the Commissioner of Trade Practices to make any headway at all. If we consider the functions of the Commissioner of

Trade Practices we can readily see how extraordinarily cumbersome the procedure is. The Commissioner must keep a register of trade agreements and registration of examinable agreements, as laid down in the Act, is compulsory. As I have mentioned, there are over 12,000 such agreements registered at present. When an agreement is first registered, the Commissioner has to consider whether it is an examinable agreement under the Act and, having determined that, he has then to consider whether it is contrary to the public interest. If he finds it is contrary to the public interest, he then consults with the parties involved to see whether they will abandon the agreement and if they refuse to abandon it the Commissioner may then institute proceedings in the Trade Practices Tribunal. Of course, apart from the agreements, there are also examinable practices, such as monopolisation, and although these are not registered they are subject to a similar procedure to that followed by the Commissioner in relation to agreements. Then, once the agreement or practice is taken by the Commissioner to the tribunal, that body must again consider whether it is examinable and whether it is contrary to the public interest. If it finds the agreement or practice to be so examinable and to be so contrary to the public interest, it may order the parties involved to desist and cease that agreement or practice. Then, if the order is not complied with, a breach of the law occurs which can be enforced in the Commonwealth Industrial Court, soon to be known, I understand, as the Australian Industrial Court.

With such an incredibly complex and unwieldy procedure, is it any wonder that so little progress has been made in this area of affairs? The presumption of such legislation quite clearly is that restrictive trade practices, other than collusive tendering, collusive bidding and resale price maintenance, are not against the public interest until proven to be so in a case by case analysis. Such a presumption just simply does not accord with the facts. In his latest annual report the Commissioner of Trade Practices said at page 4:

From what the Tribunal has said, and from my own knowledge of price agreements, I think they are very unlikely to be consistent with the public interest. It seems to me that the dominant reasons for joining in a price agreement are to remove the uncertainty of the market place and to keep prices higher than they would be without agreement.

Here we have the Commissioner of Trade Practices - and presumably he is in a better position to know than anyone else in Australia - saying that price agreements are very unlikely to be consistent with the public interest. Yet the current Act is drawn in such a way that every such agreement is presumed to be consistent with the public interest unless shown otherwise after a detailed investigation by the Tribunal. In this connection also it is absurd that the Commissioner has the obligation on him to prove before the Tribunal that these agreements are not in the public interest rather than the parties to the agreement having to prove that their agreement is in the public interest. The absurdity of assuming restrictive agreements to be in the public interest until proven otherwise is also shown by overseas experience. On 24 May 1972 Senator Greenwood, the then Attorney-General, made a lengthy statement on restrictive trade practices and monopolisation. In that statement he is reported at page 1964 of Senate Hansard to have said:

The Government has concluded that many of the agreements on the Register of Trade Agreements are likely to be found on- examination to be contrary to the public interest. The Government has reached this conclusion on the information that is now available to it concerning these agreements in Australia and on the experience of other countries with respect to such agreements. I mention in particular the experience in the United Kingdom with respect to such agreements. In that country some 2,700 agreements were registered. In only 10 cases in which their public interest implications were examined by the Restrictive Practices Court were agreements found to be compatible with the public interest.

Thus from the statement by an AttorneyGeneral under the previous Government we can see that the presumption which lay behind the current Act is in direct contradiction of the factual position. It is far more sensible to draw the legislation in a way which conforms with the facts; that is, to assume that restrictive practices and agreements are against the public interest and to prohibit them unless the parties can prove that they are in the public interest. That is what this Bill now before the House does. It declares restrictive practices and agreements to be illegal but provides for the grant of an authorisation to continue such practices if they can be shown to be in the public interest. Such a procedure should lead to a rapid elimination of restrictive agreements and practices in this country which would simply not be possible under the present Act.

Because of the approach of this Bill the importance of the register will become less and less and indeed it will be there only as a register of agreements for which the parties are seeking an authorisation. Although the secrecy of the register will not be removed, this will not be anywhere near as important a defect as with the current Act. Due to the secrecy of the register it was not possible under the present Act to use publicity as a weapon to force firms to abandon registered agreements which would clearly be invalidated when investigated by the Tribunal. Instead, with such an enormous backlog of agreements to be examined, they had every incentive to maintain their agreements at least until they were examined in detail by the Commissioner and perhaps until their case was due to come before the Tribunal. At the present rate of progress that would mean for the most of them that it would be many many years. In Great Britain, by way of contrast, the register was virtually open and many firms abandoned agreements due to the pressure of publicity. The insistence of the previous Government on a secret register was just further evidence of its intention to do as little as possible really to eliminate restrictive trade agreements.

This legislation now before the House not only changes the approach of the law to this issue of controlling trade practices but it also widens the scope of the law and remedies various other defects in the present legislation. In regard to mergers, for instance, the present absence of control, apart from foreign takeovers, is remedied as mergers are prohibited where the effect would be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to result in the corporation being in a position substantially to control a market. This provision is consistent with the assumption that underlines the rest of the Bill; that is, that restrictions of competition are quite likely to be against the public interest.

However, to cover the situation where a merger resulting in substantial reduction of competition is nevertheless in the public interest there is provision for authorisation by the Trade Practices Commission of such a merger and for the Australian Government to direct the Commission to grant such an authorisation where it is desirable in the interests of national economic policy. There are, therefore, substantial safeguards to ensure that economically justifiable mergers which would, for instance, result in making more efficient production, will be allowed. The Bill does not presume as the Leader of the Opposi tion suggested, that business is bad simply because it is big. What it does presume is that substantial restrictions of competition are bad unless they can be shown that there are offsetting benefits, and that is surely a reasonable approach.

In regard to monopolisation, the Bill removes the dominance criterion of a onethird market share. This has been the subject of criticism by the Opposition during this debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) suggested that this would cause confusion in industry because firms would not be sure whether they came under the provisions or not. This would seem to me to be a good thing. It is only if they engage in certain behaviour, such as eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor or preventing entry of a competitor into the market, that they can be caught under this provision. If the removal of the onethird rule has the effect of preventing firms with less than one-third of a market from engaging in such practices, then so much the better. Furthermore, studies by the Melbourne economist Mr N. R. Norman, as referred to in the book ‘Australian Trade Practices: Readings’, strongly suggest that the one-third rule was quite artificial and was not an appropriate measure of the ability of firms to engage in such practices. One obvious example of a case in which the one-third mie is utterly irrelevant would be where a firm which is very strong in one market or a number of markets then uses its muscle to conduct loss leading activities - for instance, a market where it has less than a one-third share. Under the current Act that position would not be covered. But under this Bill now before the House it would be covered. It is clearly preferable to maintain a flexible approach in this matter which is what this Bill does.

In regard to resale price maintenance, this Bill improves the existing provisions by covering points that have been raised by the Commissioner of Trade Practices in his annual report. These concern the minimum advertised price practice and the practice of recommending resale prices. As the Commissioner pointed out in his fifth annual report, a minimum advertised price can be an effective substitute for a minimum selling price as the seller has no incentive to reduce his price to a customer below the minimum advertised price since the customer is already attracted at the minimum advertised price. The practice of recommending prices is allowed to continue but the action required by the Commissioner at present in regard to this practice is formalised by the inclusion of the requirement in the Bill.

Finally, may I return to the central aspect of this Bill? It is a Bill which will provide a competitive business environment in Australia and so produce a more efficient and healthy economy and at the same time make a contribution to the control of inflation. At the present time firms are doing what they like and the rate of progress under the current Act towards a more competitive environment is snail-like. This is all summed up by the Commissioner of Trade Practices in his last annual report in which he said at page 4:

Work under the current legislation is, of course, proceeding. As that legislation is in a sort of twilight period, I think many companies and those advising them are waiting, where they can, for the new legislation before deciding whether to give up their restrictions. In the meantime, when they see a need to raise prices, they are raising them by, agreement with their competitors. Although the Trade Practices Tribunal has now laid down principles of general importance against price agreements under the procedures of the present legislation the principles have to be pressed home case by case.

In other words, at present they are doing what they like. The case-by-case procedure is terribly slow and it will take many years to achieve what this Bill will achieve in a very short time.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– The Opposition agrees with the Government’s view that even more effective legislation in the area of trade practices and monopoly is important and essential. There is no disagreement on that point. If any evidence is necessary, one has only to look at the proposals which were introduced into this Parliament last year by the then Government which recognised the need, as the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) was pointing out, for dealing more expeditiously with the number of agreements then on the register. There were proposals to vary the procedure which then prevailed and still prevails - the Government went out of office before the measure was enacted - in various ways, including changing the onus of proof in proceedings before the Tribunal, eliminating the requirement for compulsory consultations under section 48 and otherwise accelerating the process. So, it is sufficiently evident from those proposals brought down by the Attorney-General of the previous Government that honourable members on this side of the House are concerned about making legislation in this area more effective.

I refer briefly to one other point that the honourable member for Gellibrand made, and that is the folklore that the measure introduced in 1965 - the so-called Snedden Act - considerably watered down the proposals made by Sir Garfield Barwick. It is not possible for me to go into this question in any great detail. I will cite just one point: Under the Barwick proposals monopolisation was a matter for the ordinary courts. All experience indicates that there would never have been a conviction in those circumstances. Under the Snedden proposals monopolisation became a matter for the Trade Practices Tribunal where a more expeditious hearing would have occurred and a lesser standard of proof would have been required.

The other point, which has been mentioned repeatedly by speakers from the Government side and referred to by members from this side, concerns the relationship of this measure to inflation. As the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) said, this measure is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. That is true. But relevance to inflation should not be confused with immediacy. Trade practices policy or antimonopoly policy fits into the category of long haul policies to manage and shape the proper development of the economy. It is in the same category as effective tariff policy, changing and adapting the arbitration and industrial relations system, measures to foster research and development, and policies for rural and industrial reconstruction.

Of course, the classical argument for the policy of competition, which I am sure is accepted by both sides of the House, is that a policy of greater competition serves to restrain the improper exercise of economic power. We want to foster competition for that end. Also it is the self-regulator. It is the socalled ‘invisible hand’, encouraging and directing private activity without too much central control. But apart from this, as I say the policy of promoting competition goes along with the other policies I have mentioned in fostering the good working of the economic system and economic growth. The presumption is that in most or many but not all circumstances - 1 stress that and will come back to it in a moment - competition promotes efficiency in production, an effective allocation of resources in response to consumer preferences, innovation and economic growth. In this way it can have an important and beneficial effect on trends in prices and thus, in the long term on a slowing of the pace of inflation that otherwise would be the case. The combating of restrictive agreements can have some effect in other ways in countering the inflationary process, such as in making it somewhat more difficult - but only somewhat - to achieve concerted industry action in raising prices in the event of wage and cost increases. To that degree it might inhibit the granting of excessive wage increases, but I stress that it would be only to a limited degree. It is well established in economic theory that changes in costs of this nature are the basic factor resulting in industry-wide price increases. All I am saying is that the agreement may foster this process to some extent; but, by and large, it would occur anyhow.

For all these reasons the policy of promoting competition and striking at restrictive trade practices and monopolies is important. I repeat that on that point there is no disagreement between this side of the House and the Government. But it is idle to pretend that the passage of this legislation can have any very significant effect on the price level in the short run. If, owing to these practices, prices are somewhat higher than they otherwise might have been - I am not convinced that that effect is large or widespread - then the effect would have applied last year and the year before as it applies this year and therefore contributes little, if anything, to the process of accelerating inflation. Indeed, in this urgent task of combating the current inflation - now running at the incredibly high level of 14 per cent per annum - it is effective short term policy that is required. A sound, honest, counter-inflationary Budget would have been the most important thing the Government could have done in this area. This legislation is no substitute for the deficiencies of the August Budget. It is idle, therefore, to argue that this Bill needs the most urgent attention. To enable us to look at it closely and to contribute positively from this side of the House to achieving an effective measure, an amendment has been moved. I seconded it. The amendment says: the House is of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until there has been more adequate time to consider the implications contained in the provisions of the Bill.

The Bill represents a significant change in approach. That is one of the things which I want more time to assess and on which I want to seek opinions. On the face of it it adopts the American approach of proscription - a general prohibition on a wide range of practices which then become illegal, and engaging in them attracts penalties. This compares with the procedure hitherto of compulsory registration, investigation of agreements where appropriate and prohibition in relation to any cases where, on balance, the public interest is adversely affected. However there is what appears to be a let-out - the procedure for authorisation or clearance. This is something about which one wants to know more. Clause 45 of the Bill, which prohibits a variety of agreements, including price agreements, is one of the key prohibitions to which I have referred. In relation to this one. however, we have clause 88 (2). On my understanding of clause 88 (2) - the Minister will confirm thisthere is no possibility of seeking an authorisation or a clearance in relation to price fixing agreements.

It can be accepted that there is a wide measure of opinion not only in this country but world wide to the effect that by and large such price fixing agreements are against the public interest and ought to be prescribed. But is it essential that every conceivable agreement of this nature be so outlawed? When I look at the law as it applied in other countries in November 1971 - perhaps this OECD publication does not give the very latest position - I see that in Austria, for example, horizontal price fixing agreements are permitted in principle provided they are duly entered in the cartel registers. I look at the position in Belgium and Denmark and in Germany, where horizontal price fixing is prohibited in principle, but price fixing agreements may be exempted individually from the prohibition if they meet certain requirements, and there is a list of exemptions. And so I could go down the list. In Japan horizontal price fixing is prohibited in principle but exemptions are provided. There are similar provisions in the Netherlands and so on.

In the majority of countries, practically all countries other than the United States, there is this provision for possible exemption. There are notable cases that have been decided in other places - in Britain for instance. I think of the cement manufacturers’ case in which it was established to the satisfaction of the court that the organisation of the market under the agreement in question resulted in prices lower than would otherwise prevail and that the agreement was in the public interest. I could think of other agreements or cases relating to glazed wall and floor tiles, steel scrap and a number of other such cases. Is not the experience in this and other countries of any guidance in this matter? I can think of possible situations nearer home. I have some acquaintances in the insurance industry. I would not want to elaborate on that matter. Perhaps some representations have been made. But there, if nowhere else, is an industry where irresponsible pricing of the product can lead ultimately to very serious consequences, the difficulty in that case being, of course, that the inadequacy and insufficiency of the pricing does not become evident for a very long while, and then a lot of people can be severely hurt.

Assuming that the Government could be moved to amend clause 88 (2) of the Bill we would then have a situation in which under clause 45 price fixing, market sharing and like agreements are proscribed but are subject to authorisation - the obtaining of an authorisation or a clearance. Similarly, under clause 46 exclusive dealing agreements would be proscribed but subject to the possibility of obtaining a clearance, and under clause 50 mergers are proscribed if they substantially lessen competition. So that covers the main range of restrictive agreements. There are of course the other provisions relating to monopolisation in clause 46 and those relating to price discrimination in clause 49. It is hard to conceive of these practices being subject to authorisation or clearance. But the problem in that connection is for industry to know just what is and what is not illegal or unlawful conduct. In respect of monopolisation, for example, what is, as clause 46 states, ‘a corporation in a position substantially to control a market’? How will any firm assess whether it is in a position substantially to control a market? The test of the illegality of a price differentiation not subject to exemption in clause 49 (2) is whether its effect ‘will be or may be’ - I am not quite sure and perhaps lawyers will explain to me some time why ‘may be’ is not good enough - substantially to lessen competition or result in a position substantially to control a market. How will firms interpret this? May I ask the question which I think my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) raised? What is a market? In the celebrated cellophane case in 1953 in the United States 70 per cent of the cellophane market was not deemed to be dominant control, because you had to take the whole market for wrapping materials, of which cellophane comprised only 15 per cent.

We have this position that the main practices are subject to authorisation. What I am trying to judge is whether this legislation is in effect legislation for a case by case approach in disguise. We recognise, for instance in relation to mergers, that we not only have provision for seeking a clearance but we also have clause 90 (9). I do not profess to understand all the legal technicalities, but that clause seems to me to empower the Attorney-General to direct the Trade Practices Commission. Presumably, therefore, if a particular merger viewed objectively under the terms of the legislation would substantially lessen competition and be illegal, the Commission could nevertheless be directed to permit that one on the grounds of efficiency. That brings us to the essence of the matter. The transference of the American procedure to the Australian situation is not readily appropriate because of the critical fact of the small size of the Australian market, using that term broadly. In America, for instance, the annual production of motor vehicles would be of the order of 10 million. In Australia it is 400,000 or 500,000. How then is it possible to transfer the American presumption of the general beneficence of competition - that you can achieve efficiency always by enforced competition - to the Australian situation? This is the key difficulty with this approach. I conclude therefore by saying that what we need to ascertain and what we need time to ascertain is the meaning of the complexity of this legislation and particularly the assessment of what is involved in this process of apparent general proscription but with the provision for authorisation and clearance and for this process of ministerial direction to which I have referred. In those terms I second the amendment moved by my colleague.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– The question of restrictive trade practices was first dealt with in the Tudor period in England. In 1624 the Parliament passed a Statute of Monopolies. Canada was next to pass such legislation. In 1889 it passed what was called the Combines Investigation Act. That legislation was revamped in 1951. In 1890 - the year after Canada passed its original legislation - the United States of America followed with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That was followed by the Clayton Act of 1915, which dealt with takeover bids, and the RobinsonPatman Act of 1936. Britain introduced the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act in 1948 and replaced it with a comprehensive Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956.

Australia did not have similar legislation until 1906. That was in the form of an Act which was then known as the Australian Industries Preservation Act, which was subsequently invalidated in large part by the High Court of Australia in the famous Huddart Parker v Moorehead case of 1909. In the early 1960s the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, introduced, as a Minister, a progressive set of proposals which was submitted to the House in 1962. The enactment came in 1965 in an emasculated form and was finally proclaimed in 1967. In its then form the Act was almost next to useless. The Commissioner of Trade Practices, Mr Bannerman, in his annual report to Parliament in 1971, at the time of the amendments, said:

I feel bound to say that progress needs to be accelerated. There are signs of this happening. Unless progress does become quicker, the legislation will take many years to produce a general impact against restriction of competition and in favour of competitive attitudes.

In 1971 there were 13,276 examinable agreements. Only fifteen were dealt with then outside of the Tribunal. In 1961 the former Government made amendments to the Act. It could have revamped the whole of the Act if it had seen fit to do so. I would like to quote also from the report of the Commissioner to Parliament of that year. At page 13 of his report the Commissioner said:

Coming now to the year on which I am currently reporting, Chapter 1 of this report shows modest progress in terms of anti-competitive restrictions lifted, without the cases concerned going to the Tribunal. Eight cases were dealt with at section 48 consultations and another seven after the cases had been taken up with the parties, but without the necessity for section 48 consultations. The Commissioner’s dealing with cases is time-consuming, because in practice it covers the issues that will be contested before the Tribunal if the cases reach the Tribunal. The Commissioner is not able to take a case to the Tribunal until he has formed the opinion that the restrictions in question are contrary to the public interest, and until he has consulted with the parties, or attempted to consult with them, with a view to securing action on their part that will make Tribunal proceedings unnecessary. It follows that the pattern of restriction will remain in Australia for many years if most cases are to be dealt with case by case at the Commissioner’s level, subject to secrecy and without the assistance of general rules either in legislation or in decisions of the Tribunal.

Those were the words of the Commissioner in 1971, which is when the former Government amended the Act. They were the last amendments before the Act was invalidated that year. We are all aware now of how the Act became invalid. In 1971 the Commissioner of Trade Practices required 2 companies in Queensland - Rocla Pipes and Monier Pipes - to register an examinable agreement - an agreement made on an intrastate basis and not an interstate basis. Rocla and Monier refused to register the agreement and the Commissioner took both companies to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court upheld their defence - their view - and the Commonwealth, to test the constitutional basis of the legislation, took the decision of the Industrial Court to the High Court.

It must have been quite a boon for the Chief Justice of the day, Sir Garfield Barwick, finally to find that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act that was proclaimed in 1967 in an emasculated form compared with the one he had proposed in 1962 was declared invalid by his Court. It was to be declared invalid so that the corporation power of the Commonwealth could be revamped. The corporation power, of course, extends right back to Federation. It was an interesting development in constitutional history. It is probably the most significant decision of the High Court in 50 years. Of course, the upshot of it was if the corporalion power were to be reinstated the constitutional premise for the old Restrictive Trade Practices Act was such that the Act was completely and totally invalid except for the section dealing with resale price maintenance. The Act disappeared from the statute because of that.

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review was a Committee that was set up by this Parliament in 1958-59. It had many distinguished members of Parliament sitting upon it. The members of the Committee were the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, Dr Evatt, Sir Alec Downer, Reg Wright, who is a senator in another place, Mr Percy Joske and Mr Arthur Calwell. Page 113 of the Committee’s report states:

The Committee reported in 19S8 that the Commonwealth Parliament could make laws for the control of harmful restrictive trade practices in interstate trade and commerce but that its legislative power did not extend to harmful restrictive trade practices adopted in intrastate commerce or productive industry. The Committee considered that the Commonwealth Parliament should have an express power to deal with restrictive trade practices so far as they were contrary to the public interest and, for the purpose of determining whether a business practice was contrary to the public interest, it proposed the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission for which section 101 of the Constitution provides, with a minor change in the method of constituting that Commission.

The report went on to say:

At one time, it was thought that section 51 (xx.) of the Constitution, which confers power upon the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth, would enable the Parliament to prohibit harmful practices of the corporations described in the paragraph. In Huddart Parker and Co. Pty Ltd v. Moorehead (1909) 8 C.L.R. 330, the majority of the High Court held, however, among other things, that a law of the Commonwealth Parliament which made it an offence for any of the types of corporations described in paragraph (xx.) to conclude a contract or combine with intent to restrain trade or commerce within the Commonwealth to the detriment of the public, or to destroy or injure by unfair competition any advantageous Australian industry, was ultra vires. The Court held to be ultra vires a Commonwealth law making it an offence for the corporations so described to monopolise to the public detriment trade or commerce within the Commonwealth. Chapter 16, dealing with the Committee’ recommendation concerning corporations, contains, at paragraph 787, an account of the reasoning of the judges in the case.

The report deals then with the Australian Industries Preservation Act of 1906, which contained provisions to stop restrictive trade practices. The report states:

The Parliament’s power to control trading practices and monopolies in the course of external and interstate trade was clear enough but section 5 and 8 of the Act, applying a similar interdiction to the corporations specified in paragraph (xx.) of section 51, were, as the Committee has already indicated, successfully challenged in Moorehead’s case.

What was the strength of the Australian Industries Preservation Act was destroyed by that judgment at that time. So that corporation power remained dormant until the High Court revalidated it just 2 years ago. The original Act of 1965 was a useless piece of legislation. It was not designed effectively to challenge restrictive trade practices in Australia and there were so many provisions in it which allowed let-outs for any company that wanted to register an examinable agreement. I should like to read from the 1971 report of the Commissioner of Trade Practice wherein he said:

By contrast, the private right of action under the 1965 Act is in substance much more limited, because it is a right to sue for damages in the Commonwealth Industrial Court only after the Tribunal has given a decision declaring an agreement or practice to be contrary to the public interest and its order has been disobeyed. Complainants cannot themselves institute Tribunal proceedings, but they might in any event find the expense of Tribunal proceedings beyond their means and the difficulties of getting industry information to deal with the 1965 public interest criteria insurmountable.

In other words, what the Commissioner was saying in almost every report from the time when the Act became law was that the Act was unworkable for the intentions of the legislation and for the benefit of the public. So it is with justification that the Labor Party has always said that the Snedden Act of 1965 was a hopeless piece of legislation. In fact, it was only a pious attempt to suggest that the Government had done anything about restrictive trade practices. As the law stood, if a company registered an agreement it would not be taken before the tribunal. The company finally could be called in by the Commissioner for consultation and persuasion. In the meantime it could carry on with its business. As there were 30,000-odd examinable agreements this meant that action could be 10 to 11 years away. If the Commissioner made an order, all that was required was that the agreement be ripped up. That satisfied the Act. Of course the restrictive trade practice had gone on for years and probably the companies were so au fait with one another that they did not need an agreement anyway. It was very difficult for the public ever to do anything about the restrictive practice. The details of the agreement were secret. They were not examinable by the public so the only person who knew what was in the agreement was the conspirator with the companies that lodged the agreement. If anyone wanted to sue the companies for damages he could not do so unless the companies were penalised for a breach of the Act. There were absolutely no convictions - not one conviction - under the old Act. It was a total piece of sham legislation.

By contrast, this present legislation will prohibit the following practices: contracts, combinations in conspiracies in restraint of trade, monopolisation, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance, price discrimination and anti-competitive mergers. This will be a complete restrictive trade practices Act - as complete as the Acts of the British and Canadian parliaments. Of course, it is based now on much sounder constitutional premises. I can see no reason why the Opposition should object to any of the provisions of this Bill. The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will also assist the Government in the areas of general economic policy by restraining companies and prices of various commodities. It will help in the present fight against inflation and in the future regulation of the economy. I will not take up the time of the House to discuss the matter further. This is a good Bill. It deserves the support of the House and I hope it gets it.

Motion (by Mr Hansen) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 59

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker -Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 46

Majority…. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 47

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

En Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– I am obliged to the Committee for being given the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that as he has risen to speak to clause 1, which is the title of the Bill, that is the only matter to which he will be able to speak.

Mr COOKE:

– Mr Chairman, I am coming to that. It is a very brief clause and it is difficult to say something pertinent about it without some preface. Clause 1 reads:

This Act may be cited as the Trade Practices Act 1973.

In looking at this clause I am reminded of what Oliver Goldsmith once said:’Every absurdity has a champion to defend it’ I have no doubt that there will be some in this’ Committee who will vote for this clause. It is a completely unnecessary clause. Some people may cite this Bill as the Trade Practices Act 1973, but that may depend on whether it passes through this House and whether it passes through another place. The purpose of this clause is to work a traversty of something which has existed in the law for some years, which has worked satisfactorily before, and which the Government now seeks to change.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will be out of order if he debates any clause of the Bill other than that relating to the title.

Mr COOKE:

– Mr Chairman, I am speaking about the title. One might think that this Bill could well be called the Trade Practices Commission Bill. It might more aptly be called the Resale Price Maintenance Bill or the Consumer Protection Bill. There is no particular reason for choosing or for having any aversion to the title ‘Trade Practices Act 1973’. What does it mean? I suppose it has something to do with trade, although I notice that in the Bill there is no mention of trade unions. One would have thought that they might have qualified for a mention in this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is now debating the Bill and is out of order. I suggest that he debate the title of the Bill.

Mr Viner:

– ‘Trade’ is in the title.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Hunt:

– Why?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Because I wish to say something. I suggest to all honourable gentlemen, and the honourable member for Stirling in particular, that if any honourable member thinks he knows more than I do about the chairing of this Committee he knows what to do about it. The honourable member for Stirling informed me how I should run the Committee and said that it was in order for the honourable member for Petrie to debate other than the title of this Bill. The Committee had the opportunity to have a more wide ranging debate by taking a number of clauses together. The Opposition decided not to do that. That is its business and it was entitled to do that. But, if it decides to take the clauses seriatum, it can debate only the words in each clause and nothing else.

Mr Viner:

– Mr Chairman, I feel that you have maligned me. What I said was that the word ‘trade’ appears in clause 1 of the Bill. That was not telling you how to do your job, with due respect.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am not worried about that. I accept your explanation of what you said. I will not accept any direction on how to run this Committee other than from the Committee itself, and that can be done in only one way. I call the honourable member for Petrie.

Mr COOKE:

– Why call it the ‘Trade Practices Act’? ‘Trade’ is not defined in the Bill. I do not think ‘practices’ is defined in the Bill. So, is this really an appropriate title for this piece of legislation? What does ‘practices’ mean? Are we to look up the Oxford English Dictionary in order to find out what ‘practices’ means? Why this particular combination of words - ‘Trade Practices Act’? One might have thought that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) and his colleagues had formed a combination themselves in the naming of this Bill. The name of the Bill has been chosen inelegantly. It gives no information whatever about the intention of the Bill. Normally when one looks at an Act of Parliament one looks at its title to find out the intendment of the legislature and the mischief which the Parliament hoped to remedy by it. By looking at clause 1 of this Bill one would be left completely in the dark as to what the Bill is about. For that reason I suggest that this clause is most inappropriate.

I notice that some honourable gentlemen opposite want to contravert what I say. I hope that they will speak on this clause of the Bill so that we will have plenty of opportunity to understand exactly what is meant by it. One may also quibble with the word ‘may’. Why leave it up to the person concerned or to a member of the public to determine what he will call the Bill? Why not use the word shall’? Why leave a discretion as to what one calls an Act of Parliament? Surely the Government is concrete enough and has enough determination to draft a piece of legislation and name it correctly so that members of the public are not left in any doubt as to what the name of the Bill is. Some may call it the Trade Practices Bill. By implication, some may call it something else. I am forbidden from mentioning other alternatives in suggesting what this Bill might be called for fear that you, Mr Chairman, will rule me out of order. This is a very indecisive way in which to commence a Bill which, we were told by the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) in his second reading speech, is of vital importance and pressing concern to the country.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member is now out of order and if he strays from the point once more I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr COOKE:

– As I attempted to indicate to you before, Mr Chairman, in view of the peculiar way in which this clause is drafted it is extremely difficult to keep to the point without making some explanation of or elaboration on what one has in mind. The Bill says:

This Act may be cited. . . .

Cited to whom? Cited for what purpose? I am familiar with the terminology when one is cited in court as a co-respondent.

Mr Wentworth:

– Not too familiar, I hope.

Mr COOKE:

– Certainly not I. This Act may be cited as a co-respondent, perhaps in some abortive divorce, because certainly the Bill itself seems to be the result of a premature birth in the mind of some American lawyer whose name seems to have been kept secret from us by the Attorney-General. There has been a question on the notice paper since the first week of the session-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will now resume his seat. He is out of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I am impressed by what the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) has just said. It seems to me that we might go a little further because the title does not correctly describe what is in the Bill. In order to discuss the appropriateness of the title, one must look at the Bill-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member will discuss the title and nothing but the title.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Of course. I am discussing the title of this Bill, and whether it is an appropriate title depends upon whether it correctly describes the Bill. Surely that is elementary chairmanship. I am turning my mind exactly to the point. We are discussing the title. Does the title describe the Bill appropriately? We have to consider this, and in order to consider it we must look not at the detail of the Bill, for that would be out of order, but at the general purpose and tenor of the Bill and we might look appropriately at the circumstances in which the Bill was drafted and its title was selected. I would like to move a small amendment. I move:

Omit the word ‘Trade’ and insert in its place the word ‘Fascist*.

That would much more appropriately-

The CHAIRMAN:

– .Order! Is the honourable member moving an amendment?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Before he proceeds to debate the amendment, will he hand it to me in writing?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I have done so already. It is in front of you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will wait till I rule-

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Chairman, I have an amendment before the Chair and I ask you to-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The amendment is not before the Chair until it is read from the Chair.

Mr Wentworth:

– Will you read it please?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It will not be read from the Chair until such time as I dispose of the motion That the question be now put’ which must be put immediately. The question is: That the question be now put’.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Chairman, I rise to order. It appears to me that, when I have moved an amendment for it to be formally before the Committee, under our Standing Orders until the question has been proposed from the Chair-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Wentworth:

– I am quite clear about this, Sir. Under our Standing Orders, until the question has been proposed from the Chair, the motion moved by the Minister is not in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Standing Orders under which this Committee operates are those which have been approved by the House. Those Standing Orders provide that a question shall not be proposed from the Chair until it has been moved and seconded.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Sir. In Committee no seconder is necessary. Do learn your rules, Sir. When you are in the Chair do learn your rules.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat and he will not make any further outbursts like that if he wishes to remain a member of the Committee. The honourable gentleman has asked me for a ruling.

Mr Wentworth:

– No seconder is needed in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable gentleman has asked me for a ruling and I have given him a ruling. The question has not been proposed from the Chair and if the honourable gentleman would take the trouble to think back two or three minutes he would realise that at the dme the motion that the question be now put was proposed I was asking to see the amendment so that I could rule on its validity. The motion that the question be now put has been moved. The Standing Orders provide that that can be done at any time and the motion must be put immediately, and in accordance with the Standing Orders I put the question that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye-

Mr Killen:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order

Mr Davies:

– Oh, sit down, you idiot.

Mr Killen:

– Would anybody in this place dare me to sit down? I have been here a little longer than you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member make his point of order.

Mr Killen:

– Yes, I will. My point of order is this: The honourable member for Mackellar has moved an amendment and he proposed that amendment before the Leader of the House moved that the question be put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not dispute that.

MrKillen - I am delighted, Mr Chairman, to get your confirmation that you do not dispute it. I therefore invite you to observe the contents of standing order 93 which indicates that the question put by the honourable member for Mackellar should be heard before the motion moved by the Leader of the House. It is as simple as that and I hope that discourtesy will not fly from this Parliament, no matter how much those may be encouraged to believe it should.

Mr Enderby:

– Mr Chairman, on the point of order, it seems to me relevant–

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You cannot debate a point of order.

Mr Enderby:

– I am speaking to the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The Chairman can invite comment on a point of order. In this case, I am not sure that I want it. I think I would prefer it if the Minister would sit down and let me rule on the point of order.

Mr Enderby:

– My point of order is very short, Mr Chairman. In making the ruling that you have to make, is it in order to take into account the obvious irresponsible mood that prevails on the Opposition side?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The practice of the House and the practice of Committees of this Parliament has been that the question is not proposed until the mover or, in the case where a seconder is required, until the mover and seconder have completed their remarks in moving the amendment. The honourable member for Mackellar had not finished his remarks. He had moved his amendment. I had asked to see it so that I could make a decision on whether or not it was in order. I had not ruled on that and I now do not propose to do so. The motion that the question be now put was moved during the course of the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar when he was speaking to clause 1. The amendment was not before the Chair as a motion. Had the honourable member proposed his amendment at the commencement of his remarks I would have had to rule in his favour but he proposed it towards the conclusion of a speech in which he had spoken to clause 1. I can rule only that clause 1 was the matter before the Chair when I called the honourable member. His amendment would have come before the Chair only if I had received it, declared it to be in order and proposed it from the Chair at the conclusion of his remarks. I do not believe that his amendment was before the Chair in the manner prescribed within the Standing Orders and I must rule in accordance with what I consider to be the correct position.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Chairman, I ask for some kind of equity in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman–

Mr Wentworth:

– I am speaking to a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no debate on a point of order. I have made a ruling and I do not propose to take any further points of order on this matter. If some honourable member wants to take another course of action, that is his prerogative. But at the moment, the motion before the Chair is that the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Declaration off Urgency

Mr DALY (Grayndler - Leader of the

House) - I declare that the Trade Practices Bill is an urgent Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the Trade Practices Bill 1973 be considered an urgent Bill’. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary, no. The ayes have it.

Mr Killen:

– Hey! Hey!

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Moreton will behave himself like a member of the House of Representatives and will resume his seat.

Mr Killen:

– I object to your impertinence.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Any member who stands and yells out ‘Hey’ to the Chair is not acting in a proper manner.

Mr Killen:

– You were prepared to put the question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question must be put without debate. If the honourable gentleman wishes to look at the Standing Orders–

Mr Killen:

– You were prepared to put the question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have put the question.

Mr Killen:

– And I ask to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You are not entitled to be heard, in accordance with the Standing Orders. The question must be put without debate. I suggest that the honourable member has a look at the Standing Orders before he tries to tell the Chair how to run the Committee.

Question put -

That the Trade Practices Bill 1973 be considered an urgent Bill.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 47

Majority . ….. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the time allotted for the Committee stage be until 4.45 p.m., Thursday, 8 November.

This is an urgent measure. No legislation is more looked forward to than this by the Australian public. The Government had hoped, in the light of the speech this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) in which he expressed the view that it was so important, that Opposition supporters would have behaved tonight in a manner befitting a debate of this kind instead of acting like a group of unorganised larrikins intent only on disrupting the business of the Parliament. There were 4 hours 40 minutes allowed for the second reading debate on this Bill. We had hoped that the debate would have continued for a lengthy time. Even under the proposals I have enunciated, when this debate concludes tomorrow evening, a total of 9 hours 10 minutes will have been devoted to it. Tonight speakers on the Opposition side who rose in this debate were unintelligible in their attitudes. They were determined not only to frustrate the will of the Government to have this legislation debated properly but also they were without any knowledge at all of the subject that they were supposed to be discussing. It is as simple as this. The Opposition had determined that it was not going to debate this Bill. In another place the Opposition ran away from it. Today the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on the second reading ran away from the measure. The Opposition has tonight determined that it would make a farce of the whole of the proceedings and that it would not debate the legislation in any way at all. Its whole intention was to force the Government to take action to ensure that the legislation would be debated. That is precisely what we have done. I say to honourable members opposite: Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes by claiming that you did not want this to be done. Of course you did. I will give you some good advice. Never call my bluff because I am not yet sick of shooting down galahs. This legislation is the most important that has come before the Parliament. Have honourable members ever seen such reprehensible conduct as they saw in the Committee stage earlier tonight when the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was speaking on clause 1 of the Bill?

Tee CHAIRMAN - Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he should stick to the motion.

Mr DALY:

– I am sticking to the motion. I am pointing out why this action is necessary. If the Opposition really aspires to be the government of this country its supporters should behave like people who are paid to be parliamentarians. I do not think one honourable member opposite has studied this legislation and that is why they did not want to debate it in a sensible way.

The Leader of the Opposition has come into the chamber to save his minions from disaster. He must know that those behind him did not want to debate this legislation tonight. I noticed tonight that none of the leaders of honourable members opposite gave much support to those who were endeavouring to disrupt the proceedings. I say to the Opposition without any reservations that it is entitled to use the Standing Orders of this Parliament as it thinks fit but it should not go crook about things when we react in the same way and use the Standing Orders. In case the memories of honourable members opposite are bad I point out that if they can count they should remember that they cannot win when we use the Standing Orders. I do not like to have to remind honourable members opposite of this but I am constantly forced to do so. Either they cannot count or they will not count. The situation is that if honourable members opposite set out - as they did in the Committee stage of the Bill - deliberately to disrupt the Parliament and force us to take action they cannot complain if action is taken.

In another place honourable senators spent only 3i hours discussing whether they would postpone this important measure or not; but we are prepared to allow, despite the Opposition’s disruptive tactics, 9i hours or more in order to discuss all of its ramifications. Therefore I suggest to honourable members opposite that they should conduct themselves in accordance with the Standing Orders of this Parliament and in a manner befitting the dignity of a member of Parliament and not behave like a lot of under-educated larrikins in a place where they are expected to show some respect for the people who elected them to this place. It is an urgent measure. It is a good measure.

That is why I have moved the motion. I hope that it will be carried. Honourable members opposite should not forget that I am talking in their time.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I am, of course, a very sensitive soul. It is with a very great measure of reluctance that I observe that some time ago the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) was in Washington in the United States of America. Where did he stay? At Watergate. Those poor unsuspecting Americans have been thinking for some years that President Nixon had something to do with the bugging of Watergate. I want to say this to the honourable gentleman: He is now seeking yet again to reduce Parliament to a complete formality. The honourable gentleman, depending on his wit, on 48 hours notice whistled away to find out who Baron von Munchausen was, and then returned. Parliament is a talking place. The word .—1- means ‘to speak’ or ‘to talk’. Who is seeking to depreciate that? It is the Minister for Services and Property. His getting up and saying what happened 5 or 15 years ago is to no avail. I am talking about great principles, not about some idle pecccadilloes. This Parliament is being invited to make a decision in a very short time with respect to one of the most significant pieces of legislation-

Dr Everingham:

– That is the motion. You agreed.

Mr KILLEN:

– When the Minister for Health sits there he assumes all the appearances of an owl. When he opens his mouth he disposes of that.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he confine himself to the subject before the Chair.

Mr KILLEN:

– Mr Chairman, why do you not invite the honourable gentlemen opposite to control themselves?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honourable gentleman wishes all interjections to be stopped, I will make sure that they are stopped. I did not do that when the Minister for Services and Property was speaking; but, as the honourable gentleman feels that he needs interjections stopped, I will make sure that they are stopped.

Mr KILLEN:

– That will be the day, when I want any interjections stopped - certainly interjections by that contumelious mob opposite. The simple fact is that the national

Parliament is being invited to dispose of a massive piece of legislation in a matter of a few hours.

Mr Hurford:

– Nine and a half.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Katter:

– This has all the exciting qualities of a crematorium.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentlemen on the side of the honourable member for Moreton also will give him the courtesy of silence.

Mr KILLEN:

– Mr Chairman, I am grateful to you for your indulgence. My simple proposition is this: Surely the Parliament is entitled to debate a matter of great moment in a sensible and reasonable fashion. What is being offered by the Government is in fiat contradistinction to that It is a travesty. It is a very great pity. The Minister for Services and Property may feel himself enwrapped in a sense of comfort, although this evening he has denied the Parliament the opportunity to debate a matter. In years to come there will be those who will look back on him and despise him intensely.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– I rise only to answer some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen).

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Chairman, please help everyone. If this is to continue it is eating into the time for general debate on a very important Bill. Are people allowed to do this all night?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The time allotted for a debate on the allocation of time is 20 minutes. Unless the honourable gentleman wishes to curtail the debate by taking the measure in the Standing Orders, I suggest that he remain silent and all will be dealt with in the appropriate time.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will be very brief. I just want to make this simple point: The Government has introduced this legislation ‘because it believes that it is extremely important. I invite honourable members to reflect on what has happened all day. During the second reading debate members of the Government Party and members of the Opposition parties contributed to the debate. Let me state what the Opposition people said, notwithstanding that this legislation which concerns restrictive trade practices was introduced into the Senate in September. Most of the Opposition contributors to the debate were people who are experienced in the subject of restrictive trade practices - in particular, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). The Leader of the Opposition said in effect: ‘We do not really know enough about this legislation. You have not given us time to think about it. We want more time’. I will address no remarks on the credibility of Opposition speakers generally in this regard, but that was the gist of what the Leader of the Opposition said - ‘We need more time’. He said little else. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) made the same point.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the Minister that he must speak to the allocation of time. He may not debate the second reading.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I take your point, Mr Chairman. But the question of time is involved in making these points. Honourable members opposite said: ‘We want more time’. The Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) said: ‘We want more time’. The right honourable member for Lowe said: ‘We want more time’. The only speaker in the Opposition parties who said “We do not want more time’ - he was completely honest in this sense - was the honourable member for Moreton. And what did he talk about? The code of Hammurabi.

Mr Killen:

– I did not mention it.

Mr ENDERBY:

– He went back into ancient history and spent three-quarters of his time talking about ancient legal history. And we are talking about time! I invite the Opposition members to reflect on how the time of this Parliament was wasted today. When we reached the Committee stage we spent the first 10 or 15 minutes debating clause 1 - the title of the Bill - ‘Which says: ‘This Act may be cited as the Trade Practices Act 1973’. We heard the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) waffling on and wasting 10 or 15 minutes. It became completely obvious to anyone who was listening that the Opposition speakers were determined to do nothing but be frivolous and irresponsible and to act like petulant children, notwithstanding that by common recognition by every critic and writer on the subject in Australia this Bill is terribly important.

Some may disagree with the Bill as some of the more responsible members of the Opposition do. That is their right. But they are not entitled to treat this place with disrespect and ridicule, as they were setting out to do when they started to talk about clause 1 and then went on as did the honourable member for Petrie, who is sitting opposite or lolling in his seat. That is the only reason why the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) moved his motion. This measure is important to the people of Australia. It is an extremely important measure, as was conceded by honourable members opposite when they paused long enough to make any concessions at all. It bears a relationship to inflation. It bears a relationship to the marshalling of economic power in this country. It bears a relationship to the removal of uncertanty in the business community. All these things are terribly important. Yet honourable members opposite spent their time waffling about Watergate and ancient codes, as the honourable member for Moreton did.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The Minister should come back to the allocation of time.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It seems that the only way in which the Opposition can be reminded of the importance of this legislation is for a motion of this sort to be moved.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– We have had inflicted upon the Opposition a number of Bills which have been declared to be urgent. We understand that the Government, content in its numbers, is prepared to ride across this Parliament as though the Parliament did not exist and that all that exists is the Caucus. The Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) sitting at the table has no more authority to speak for the Government as a Minister than anybody else has, because the Caucus will determine this matter. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) is also the father of the House and is acting like a patriarch. Whenever the Government is in trouble it puts up the Minister for Services and Property - the Minister for conservation of a Labor Government in office forever. That is what he is - the Minister for conservation. He comes up with a few smart phrases. Government supporters, orchestrated in a better way than the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, all laugh on cue and the speech that the Minister makes constantly is a speech which has been riveted in his mind by repetition. He is the greatest plagiarist. Everything that everybody has said around this place that is funny the Leader of the House picks up and claims as his own. We are just sick and tired of his stupid presentation of humour. We are here as members of a national Parliament, and as a national Parliament we should discuss this Bill and there should be no limitation of time to the discussion of this Bill. We have demonstrated today that this Bill is a pretence that it will tackle inflation. The truth is that by this Bill the people of Australia will have less consumer protection than they have today.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I suggest that the right honourable gentleman debate the question of the allocation of time.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The allocation of time for this Bill -

Mr Daly:

– Do not interrupt him. I am looking for a new joke.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– They will laugh on cue for you, Freddie. They will laugh on cue for you every time. Your red face is indicative of your high blood pressure. You cannot take the pressure of -running this Parliament. You and your leader, the Prime Minister .(Mr Whitlam), sit here, fail to answer questions and go red.

Mr Enderby:

– I raise a point of order. My point of order - it seems obvious - is that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I acknowledge the point of order. I also acknowledge that 3 previous speakers in this debate have also dealt with subject matter that was not terribly close to the motion. I called each of them to order. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to debate the question before the Chair. I feel that I would be in great difficulty if I tried to rule against the Leader of the Opposition for doing almost exactly what the previous 3 speakers have done.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition referred to my red face. I would remind him that I give ulcers; I do not get them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No point of order arises.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– You are very sick. We understand that. The pressure on the Government is such that the front bench members have all suffered serious ill health. Some of them just cannot take the pressure. The Opposition wants to debate this Bill through. We want time to debate this Bill through, because the more time we have to debate it through the more it will be revealed as a hotch-potch of a Sill. It is a terrible piece of legislation. Only tonight there has been circulated from the Government amendments which go to the very heart of the matter.

Mr Enderby:

– I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is misleading the Parliament. Those amendments were circulated before lunch.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Oh, I am terribly sorry. I apologise.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I want to say only this: There has been 4i hours debate so far, and there is 4i hours left. In the orderly management of the place, it is the best contribution you could get.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time for this debate has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 2 to 28 - by leave - taken together.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I refer to clause 6 of the Bill, which refers to the constitution of the Trade Practices Commission. The clauses which follow that clause give the Opposition grave concern in that they do not spell out clearly the composition of this Commission. They indulge in generalities and refer only to the fact that the Commission shall consist of a chairman and such number of other members as are from time to time appointed in accordance with this Act. I recall only recently the appointment to the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd of the Queensland State President of the Australian Labor Party, the highly gifted Mr Jack Egerton. Following his appointment he uttered the words: ‘It is spoils to the victors’. This gives me concern that the Labor Party, which has already in other areas indicated that it is prepared to prostitute itself and hand out appointments to high positions to its friends, will appoint to this Commission solely people who reflect the views of the Australian Labor Party. The Commission could end up with a pack of socialists running the whole business.

When one turns further into the Bill to clauses 45 to 50 one recognises the tremendous power this Commission will have, and one recognises the fact that the men who are appointed to the Commission should be men who are highly skilled and highly qualified, not just people whom the Labor Party wants to push up the line or push sideways, but people who have the ability to cope with the provisions of the legislation. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that in relation to clause 46 Senator Murphy in his second reading speech referred to a monopolist as being a person who substantially controls a market. The way clause 6 of the Bill has been phrased the Government can appoint any prawn or idiot to a position in which he will make judgment on the words ‘substantially’ and ‘control’ - 2 very important words that are not defined in the Bill. Furthermore, clause 47 (1) states:

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in the .practice of exclusive dealings if an effect of the corporation engaging in that practice will be or may be substantially to lessen competition -

I emphasise the words ‘may be substantially to lessen competition’. The Minister and the Government have run away from the job of defining so many important issues in the Bill, and yet they expect the Opposition to condone a system whereby it is left up to the Government to decide whom it will appoint to the Commission and the number of people it will appoint. Is it any wonder that we on this side of the chamber are shouting out not just to the business community but also to the whole nation to beware of what the present Government is doing? he honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke) made reference in a rather lighthearted manner to the title of the Bill. But people should give a lot of consideration to what this Bill is actually out to do. We heard plaintive pleas from the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) about how this Bill is designed to preserve free enterprise. Yet the Australian Labor Party, which has been sitting on the other side of the chamber as the Government since 2 December last year, is the arch enemy of free enterprise. The comparison was obvious. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) is running around the country attacking those-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he should relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will be coming back to clause 6 of the Bill. The Minister for Social Security has denigrated the private health insurance organisations and claimed that they are inefficient.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman debate the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am just trying to show the importance of the need for a clearer definition of the reference in clause 6 to the Commission. We have this example of how the Labor Party continually denigrates free enterprise; yet today it parades itself as a preserver of free enterprise. I do not believe that clause 6 is good enough. I do not know how supporters of the Government can sit in their places and say ‘hear, hear!’ and that this is a good Bill. Perhaps they lack the honesty of honourable members on this side of the chamber, who say that they have not had time to be able fully to investigate and be able to investigate the implications of this Bill, that is the only explanation for honourable members opposite saying what they have said with such belief. Anybody who reads this Bill - I will be on my feet a lot between now and tomorrow night discussing it - will recognise that it is more famous for what it does not say than for what it does say. We are creating a sitution in this country where we will be placing in the hands of a commission comprised of people we do not know-

Mr Enderby:

– Of the court.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for Secondary Industry and the Minister for Supply might be on the Commission. He has been moved sideways once already in the last few weeks. We will be placing in the hands of the Commission the ability to impose fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars on individuals in this country and to gaol people. I do not believe that that is good enough for a Party which claims that it cares about the freedom of the individual. It is not offering much freedom and protection to the individual in this Bill.

Mir COOKE (Petrie) (10.13) - I do not want to speak for very long on these clauses because, like the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), I want to say a few words as well on one of the other clauses. But I do want to draw the attention of the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply (Mr Enderby) to the drafting of some of the definitions in clause 4. If the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) had seen fit to answer a question that has been on the notice paper since the beginning of the last session as to the authorship of this Bill we might have found out which American lawyer is respon sible for perpetrating these abominations of the English language.

Earlier tonight the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply castigated the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen! for referring to the laws of Hammurabi. Those laws, of course, dealt with cornering the market, monopolisation and things of that sort. Having castigated the honourable member for Moreton for dealing in ancient history, I invite the Minister to look at the definition of ‘services’ in clause 4(1) of this Bill. In paragraph (a) (iii) - I suppose the use of Roman numerals there is somewhat archaic as well - there is reference to the term ‘services’ including a contract for the conferring of rights or privileges for which remuneration is payable - wait for it - in the form of a tribute. What country has exacted tribute since the day of Hammurabi or some of the Mandarins in Peking? Perhaps we are looking forward to our future relations with other countries in this trade practices field. I invite the Minister to look at that clause. I point out to him that it was a complete grab from an earlier American statute which makes nonsense in the Australian context. I also invite him to look at the definition of document’ in the same clause. It includes symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them. Does the Minister think that businessmen in Australia in 1973 are going to prepare trade secrets in hieroglyphics.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! It being 15 minutes past 10 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2952

ADJOURNMENT

Trade Unions - Land Acquisition in the Australian Capital Territory - Urban Transport in Melbourne - Government Building Contracts: Lockouts

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is That the House do now adjourn’.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Last night I spoke on certain industrial matters in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House. The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) was good enough to reply to some of the things I said. I think I should place on record my views of what the honourable member said. The honourable member claimed that he had been an effective anti-communist. As to the past, let me admit quite frankly that claim. I do believe that he has in the past opposed communists. I believe, in particular, that he has opposed communists in the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. There was a very great need for him to do so because the Clerks Union’s ballot machinery was corrupted by communists. A man called Hughes - a communist - was in charge of that ballot machinery. There were all sorts of malpractices going on which were difficult to disentangle.

I wonder how the honourable member feels now when he knows that the close associate - the paid associate - of Mr Hughes at that time now sits on the front bench of this Parliament and is one of his leaders. I wonder how he feels when he remembers that another member of the present Labor front bench stood against the nominated Labor candidate at that time as a nominee of the Hughes-Evans communist group. Let me say in all fairness - I want to be fair in this - that I do not have evidence that the man to whom I have referred as having stood as a Hughes-Evans candidate has maintained those communist sympathies.

Mr Enderby:

– Does the honourable member think that is being fair?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am trying to be fair. I am saying that there was a need to clean them out. I did not say that all supporters of the Government were communists or procommunist. What I did say was that some of them were pro-communist and that others - I am afraid I must include the honourable member for Phillip in this category - were weak, believing themselves, perhaps sincerely, still to be anti-communists. They are still covering up for the communists for Party purposes. I wish to quote what was said by the honourable member for Phillip last night. He referred to my statement that the communist leaders in some of these trade unions were not out to help their men get better conditions and that they were deliberately trying to destroy the conditions of their men in order to produce a revolutionary situation. Speaking of me he said:

He sees this problem as being designed, as he puts it, to get to a revolutionary situation. That is a whole lot of eyewash. It is a load of garbage to talk in this way. It is as far from the truth as one could possibly imagine.

I put it to the House that the honourable member for Phillip knows better; if he does not know better he should. Does he think, for example, that the builders labourers are being led by mild non-communists in Mundey and Owens? Does he not know that those men are out, in accordance with the communist textbooks, to produce a revolutionary situation by means of worker control and things of that character.

Does the honourable member for Phillip not know that it is his duty to try to do something against them; that it is his duty to cooperate with those who are trying to do something against them, from whatever side of the House they come? Surely he knows that the communists are enemies of us all. He has a past of which he might well be proud. I hope he will have a future of which he may be equally proud in this matter. Last night - I have quoted the relevant passage - the honourable member tried to cover up for the communists. For party political purposes he was trying to whitewash what they were doing. He knows that what I said was correct. He has had experience in the trade union movement. Let him come out like a man and maintain his anti-communist stance instead of this deferment of his real feelings for party political purposes. It was not just that be used this one sentence which I have quoted. If honourable members look at his whole speech they will see that most of it is this kind of cover-up.

The honourable member for Phillip said that the industrial trouble did not start on 2 December. That is true, but it got much worse as from 2 December. He quoted figures of days lost. Does the honourable member not know - he does know because he is in the movement - that for every day officially lost through strikes there are many other days lost through people whose work and efficiency of work is impeded because of strikes in key places organised by the left wing for exactly this purpose? Let the honourable member tell the people who have had to walk to work, the people who have suffered from blackouts, whose machines have stood idle, that all that counts is the number of days lost. Let him tell the people who know that the black market is developing because of socialist engineered shortages. They cannot get nails; they cannot get building materials; the workers stand aside because production cannot be organised. This is happening in accordance with a set plan and every Australian should be working against the people who are trying to disrupt our economy and reduce our living standards in accordance with that plan.

I will not have time to quote or analyse the remainder of the honourable member’s speech. I invite honourable members to read the speech, evaluate and assess its value as it appears in print. Surely we must find a way of getting our arbitration system accepted. It is not helped by statements such as we heard from the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) today in which he showed himself to be on side with the strikers, on side with the disrupters. Do you wonder that industrial ferment boils up while the disrupters know they have this kind of friend in the Government in Canberra? It is not obvious that while this kind of attitude is prevalent here in the ranks of the Commonwealth Government these will be an increase in industrial turmoil? Surely honourable members and the country know this fact and they know, perhaps, what is to be done about it. One would hope that the anti-communists on the Government side - there are such people on the Government side - will show some courage and will denounce the left wing members of their party, including their own left wing Ministers who are coming out in favour of this workers’ control which the communists want.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I want to raise an extremely serious matter - the action taken last night in the Senate by the Opposition in that chamber in opposing the Lands Acquisition (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1973. This action by the Liberal-Country Party and Democratic Labor Party Opposition in rejecting this Bill is contrary to all principles previously upheld for the development of the Australian Capital Territory. For the benefit of those honourable members who are not familiar with the story I point out that it was an established principle, even at the time when the Parliament selected the Australian Capital Territory for the seat of government, that the development of the national capital would be undertaken by government and managed under a leasehold system. The rural freeholders in the Territory were not intended to profit from values created by the potential for urban development arising from national investment in Canberra.

In accordance with this principle, when land in Canberra was first purchased by the Commonwealth Government back in 1908 the freeholders - that is, the land owners - were paid $7 per acre. Ever since that time the principle has been maintained that any increase in capital value of the land arising from urban potential would accrue to the community as a whole. Any suggestion that freeholders should benefit from such increased value or that residents of Canberra’s future new towns should be forced to meet resulting exorbitant costs for leases was totally opposed to views previously endorsed by successive Parliaments.

In December 1970 the Gorton Government made a decision to purchase all remaining land in the Australian Capital Territory which was still held under freehold. One such property affected by this decision was the property known as ‘Lanyon’. This is a 9,442 acre property which the Government intends to develop as a site for the satellite city of Tuggeranong. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government offered the owner of the property $ 1.875m. As had been the previous practice, this valuation was based on a valuation of surrounding rural land. It was a reasonable expectation, for 2 reasons, that this offer of $ 1.875m would be accepted: Firstly, because of all similar precedents and, secondly, because the Lands Acquisition Act states that regard shall not be had to any increase in the value of land arising from any proposal to carry out the public purpose for which the land was required. In other words, if the increased land value was due to the Government’s intention to subdivide it or for any other reason, that consideration must be disregarded in determining the price paid to the land owner. However, arising out of this acquisition Lanyon Pty Limited lodged a claim for $35m based on the urban potential of the land. Furthermore, it has contested the Government’s offer, saying that the company itself could be the developer and could get the increased value of the land by subdividing and developing it. If the land owner is successful in its legal action this will completely contradict the spirit of the development of Canberra as has been followed by all governments and parliaments.

The Government introduced the Bill in the Senate to put the issue beyond doubt. However, the incredible decision of the Opposition parties in the Senate was to reject this Bill. What members of the Senate Opposition are saying is that if the court decides that the taxpayer must pay the landowner $35m for his farm, that is all right by them. This is a decision that I find utterly indefensible. Land in the Australian Capital Territory has urban potential, solely because of a decision taken many years ago about where the national capital should be developed. The increased land value is in no way due to anything the freeholder has done to that land. To suggest that the taxpayer should be expected to fork out anything up to $35m is utterly iniquitous and it is hard to imagine bow such wickedness can happen and in such a blatant manner.

I repeat that this action by the Senate Liberal and Country Parties is completely contrary to their policies when they were in government. When they acquired the land they made an offer to purchase the land at rural prices exactly as all land previously bought in Canberra was acquired at rural prices. Not only that, but it is substantially different from the attitude of the Liberal Party in South Australia. When the South Australian Government made a decision to freeze land prices at rural values for the development of the new city of Monarto the Liberal Opposition in that State did not oppose that measure. I think we must bear in mind that if the court decides that the capital gain should accrue to the owner of Lanyon’ that will not be the end of it. There are many other outstanding claims for land being purchased by the Government in Canberra. This could mean that the taxpayer could be up for anything up to $100m.

What extraordinary action by the Senate Opposition. Here they are telling us that we must treduce government spending and yet at the same time they are saying the Government will have to pay anything up to $100m as a gift to people whose farms happen to be in a particular location. Here is the Government trying to do what it can to stabilize land prices so that the average family can purchase a home at reasonable cost and the Opposition parties are doing their best to sabotage the Government’s actions. If we are to be frustrated in bringing about a just scheme for land acquisition for the Australian Capital Territory what chance have we got in trying to control the problem in the States?

I would like to suggest two things to the Government: I suggest that if the Government has to pay for the cost of the land at subdivided prices further development of Tuggeranong should be deferred until the Senate changes it attitude. If the Senate will not change its vote, the Senate which is elected next year will do so. Let the Liberal and Country Party senators and the DLP senators go to the people at the next Senate election and tell them that they favour up to $100m of taxpayers moneys being donated to privileged individuals.

The other thing I want to suggest to the Government is some sort of inquiry to try to determine what type of influence has been brought to bear on the Opposition senators that they should make this extraordinary decision in conflict with their previous policies. This is just one further example of how the various conservative parties in Australia operate. When it comes to a conflict of interests between ordinary Australians and the privileged few it always has to be the ordinary Australian who has to take second place.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– I rise to congratulate the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun). I did not intend to speak on this subject, but being the member for the Australian Capital Territory and having been for approximately 9 months the Minister for the Capital Territory 1 am very concerned at the situation that has arisen. I think it is important that the honourable member should have performed this contribution of recording in Hansard the situation that has developed. I first became aware of what was happening in, I think, late 1971 or early 1972. I placed questions on the notice paper to the then Government about it, trying to elicit information, because my information was that a scheme was being evolved and devised with the assistance and advice of accountants and lawyers to maximise the compensation that would have to be paid sooner or later.

The Government of the day fobbed me off. Anyone who cares to read the Hansard for that time will see that the answers to my questions were really not answers at all. But the truth came out. We know now that the difference between the price that was put on that land - about $1.5m as I remember it. itself grossly inflated and far more than would have been paid if the land had been acquired years ago as it should have been - was matched by a counter offer from the proprietors, T. A. Field Pty Ltd, of something like $35m. No one knows what will happen in the High Court. But if that figure has to be paid by the taxpayers, by most orthodox accepted standards it will have to be passed on to the people who buy land at and live in or rent houses in Tuggeranong. That is a scandal. It is iniquitous. It is a pernicious and malicious development that should have been and could have been avoided.

Most of the points have been made by the honourable member for Kingston, but I make the point that we who sit on the Government side of the chamber listen to the spokesmen from the Opposition side. They use words, I suppose, as we all use words. But words can be used to hide thoughts. I suppose all advocates have to do that to some extent. One judges a person not by what he says but by his actions. If people who listen to words are in doubt as to whether the speaker is sincere or whether he stands for what he is talking about, one should judge what those words achieve. If one applies that test to the Opposition spokesmen in this House one finds that they stand for the very things that the honourable member for Kingston spoke about - a protection of privilege and a protection of wealth.

I can give just a few examples that occur to me tonight. Honourable members opposite opposed and delayed in every way they could the restrictive trade practices legislation of this Government. They really do not want to see free competition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It has always been the practice not to discuss in an adjournment debate things which were discussed in the House earlier. The Minister may allude to the same subject matter but he may not refer to any discussion which has taken place previously.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will content myself with saying that the Opposition advances the interests not of the people of Australia but of the people who benefit from monopolies and restrictive trade practices. When one measures the action of Opposition members in this way one sees that the benefit goes in the way I have described. Consider the Government’s proposals on the Australian Industry Development Corporation - a measure designed to buy back Australia from overseas interests. Where does the opposition to it come from? The Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party. Whose interests does that opposition serve - the interests of the overseas companies.

There can be no doubt about that. The measure is designed to buy back the assets of Australia which have been sold to overseas interests. Who oppose the legislation - the Liberals and the Australian Country Party. They do not use those words to oppose if but that is the consequence of their opposition.

The Government’s proposals for the Industries Assistance Commission are based essentially on the proposition that the system whereby assistance, subsidies and benefits are given to industries, both secondary and rural, should be made public. Who opposed that legislation? The Australian Country Party, because traditionally it had preferred to grant such concessions in its own quiet way and not to have the light of publicity shone on them. So who benefits from the opposition? The people who get those benefits, the people who are not prepared to have the benefits brought out into the light of day where the public can scrutinise their actions. The same applies to the land acquisition compensation measure. The Liberals in the Senate and their Country Party colleagues opposed it. Who benefits from the opposition? The proprietors of the property. That was described so eloquently by the honourable member for Kingston. Who suffers? The people who will some day have to live in Tuggeranong. I finish on that point. Words can be used to hide thoughts but in this situation one has to look behind the words and see what are the actions that those words further and who benefits from them. Then we will know who are the various spokesmen for the various interests in the country.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– The House will recall that in his policy speech last November the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) gave an undertaking to the people of Australia that the Australian Government would provide assistance to upgrade urban transport. The House will recall, too, that at the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council which was held in February the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) gave practical expression to the undertaking of the Prime Minister by committing the Government to meeting two-thirds of the cost of urban transport improvement in the years ahead. I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to the decision of the Victorian Government to exclude from the benefits of this enlightened program .the Ringwood rail corridor in Victoria which serves the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Four major rail works are waiting to be performed along that corridor. The railway line from Box Hill to Ringwood requires triplication. At Ringwood a third platform is required. Track duplication is needed between Ringwood and Bayswater and between Ringwood and Croydon, and the existing signalling installation between Croydon and Lilydale and between Bayswater and Ferntree Gully requires to be replaced. Not only do the comfort and the convenience of a very great number of my constituents depend upon this work being carried out expeditiously but also a deal of the economic viability of the community in which those constituents live similarly depends on this work being done.

I had imagined that recognition would be given to the urgency of this program to be conducted jointly by the Australian Government and the Victorian Government for the upgrading of public transport. I noted in correspondence which has been conducted between the Victorian Government and the Ringwood City Council that the claim was made that in some way these projects were being held up not by .the Victorian Government but by the Australian Government. I noticed that representatives of the Liberal Party in the Victorian Parliament made the claim again that .these projects were being Obstructed by the Australian Government. It is only in recent weeks with the tabling of the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics on a Review of Public Transport Investment Proposals for Australian Capital Cities 1973-74 that the truth has at last come out, as of course is always ultimately the case. This report reveals that in relation to the triplication of rail track between Box Hill and Ringwood the Victorian Government never entertained any idea other than that this project should be carried out .between 1975 and 1978. There was never any intention on the part of the Victorian Government that this project should be carried out in the current financial year.

The report reveals, too, that as regards duplication of track between Ringwood and Bayswater and between ‘Ringwood ami Croydon, the replacement of signalling installations between Croydon and Lilydale and between Bayswater and Ferntree Gully, and the establishment of a third platform at Ringwood, the Victorian Government supplied to the Bureau of Transport Economics for the crucial process of evaluation of the economic viability of these projects information which was judged by the Bureau of Transport Economics to be totally inadequate. The Bureau, through the Australian Government, asked the Victorian Government to provide the information which was deficient and which would have enabled the assessment to be made in time for an appropriation to be included in the August Budget this year. Not only was the information not provided at the time in question, but I am advised by the Minister for Transport that it has still not been provided.

It is clear from this report that the Victorian Government was determined at all stages that the triplication of track between Box Hill and ‘Ringwood would not be commenced until 1975 and would not be completed until 1978. In regard to the vital rail projects further out along the eastern rail route the Victorian Government was insufficiently interested in the welfare of the people of that area to provide the Bureau of Transport Economics with the information on which alone an allocation of funds could responsibly be provided. It should be a matter of concern to us all that projects of this kind, crucial as they are to the urban development programs of this Government, crucial as they are to the well being and prosperity of the people of the outer suburban areas of all our State capitals, can be hindered and indeed aborted in this way by the remarkable apathy of the State governments concerned.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to place on record my concern with the action of the Master Builders Association of Australia in locking out employees who are engaged on government projects. I am encouraged to do so by the remarks made earlier tonight by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). A considerable number of important projects in Sydney are now the subject of illegal lockouts which have some connection with the employers’ reaction to the green bans that have been taking place in Sydney. I have had long discussions with departmental officers about this matter. As a result I decided to convey my views by telegram to the Master Builders Association today. I want to place on record the terms of the telegram. It is directed to Mr J. B. Martin, Executive Director of the Master Builders Association. The telegram reads:

Gravely concerned that Australian Government contracts have been disrupted by illegal lockouts which apparently have your approval Stop Attorney-General’s views are being sought as to possibility of instituting action for breaches of Conciliation and Arbitration Act Stop My Department now examining terms of contracts with a view to imposing penalties where illegal lockouts delay Government contracts Stop Now examining proposal to include consideration of lockout record when determining tenderers’ suitability to carry out government contracts.

I thought I should make some mention of the significance of the matters referred to in the telegram. It is obvious that, in the event of the Master Builders Association committing a breach of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, some consideration ought to be given to the advisability or otherwise of instituting action against it, because the public interest is involved. The facts are that these great public projects were standing in splendid isolation and well away from the green bans issue. I have not taken any public stance at all on the green bans question - nor, of course, has my Department - and it seems to be quite pointless that the Master Builders Association should choose to import this problem from the green bans area into the area of public works contracts. So I have discussed the matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), who is examining the prospects of initiating action under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

There seemed to me to be a need to have someone bear the cost incurred by the delay in these projects. Heaven knows what the cost will be. The projects are many and important. I cannot see why the public should bear the cost. I am studying the terms of the contracts to see whether it is possible to impose penalties on those contractors who have breached their contracts by failing to bring the work to completion by the scheduled time through thenaction. Then it seems to me to be quite appropriate to study the contract system with a view to including in it a process which would take account of the incidence of lockouts applied by prospective contractors or tenderers. What is the point of issuing a contract to a tenderer if he has a provocative nature or if he is going to cause industrial disputes quite unnecessarily by locking people out over matters which have no connection at all with public works projects? These matters are under study.

My Department has provided me with a long list of important projects. They involve a considerable number of telephone exchanges in the Sydney area. There is a large number of people waiting for telephones; they are not just individuals but also industrial applicants, commercial applicants and the like. The action taken by the Master Builders Association is extremely disruptive. In addition, there are such important projects as the Gore Hill studio extensions, the Bradfield Park national standards laboratory and even defence establishments. Already $24m worth of work is held up, and some $27m worth of work in the Sydney area is under threat. This is a total of more than $50m worth of work.

What surprises me is that the Master Builders Association has taken this action. For my own part, I have workable relations with the Master Builders Association. We confer from time to time. However, there seems to be a fly in the ointment, and I regret to say that it appears to be in the form of Mr J. B. Martin, the executive director, who obviously is just bristling with belligerence in respect of trade unions. Since his appointment as the executive director, the state of the building industry in Sydney has been characterised by perpetual strife and provocative actions. I thought that the telegram I sent to the Master Builders Association was in reasoned and rational terms; but to my surprise I discovered this evening that Mr Martin, the executive director, has made a public statement to This Day Tonight’ that he intends to deal with me in the future. That is to say, because a Minister has set about his public duty to keep the public construction program of this country operating in an effective way, he is to become the subject of intimidation by a representative of this organisation. I hope that Mr Martin is speaking for himself and not for the Master Builders Association. I am inclined to think that that is the case. 1 do not know what is implied in the threat that he is going to deal with me. I must say to him, through you, Mr Speaker, that, whilst he appears to have intimidatory tendencies towards trade unions and hopes to succeed with that intimidatory attitude, he has no chance of browbeating me or the Australian Government. Let me make the position clear. This Government is opposed to lockouts and will not take kindly to any contractors who engage in such a practice. The Government will not be intimidated. I do not know whether that implied threat represents any breach of privilege, ‘but I hope to meet the executive officers of the Master Builders Association and I will inquire from them whether they accept that Mr Martin is speaking for himself. I am convinced that a responsible organisation such as the Master Builders Association would not allow a spokesman to say that kind of thing in respect of any governmental Minister, especially since there has been no provocation for such a statement.

It is reasonable for me to contend that the Master Builders Association has no right to transplant the green bans industrial trouble into the public works program of this country. I believe that the Government and I are entitled to an apology from Mr Martin, and I say to the Master Builders Association, through you, Mr Speaker, that it would be very good if it curbed the behaviour of this belligerant spokes man whose attitudes have contributed so much to industrial strife and the suffering and inconvenience of the public in the city of Sydney. I sincerely hope that his attitudes will be more conciliatory in the future and that the Government will be able to maintain the good relations that it has had with the Master Builders Association. So, I place on record my very grave concern at this intimidatory remark and I look forward to a proper explanation of it from Mr Martin and the Master Builders Association.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

page 2960

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Australians Overseas: Return Campaign (Question No. 1041)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the (a) nature and (b) cost of the campaign, announced by him in July 1973, to attract back to Australia the 250,000 Australians working overseas.
  2. Has the campaign been initiated; if not, what action has been taken to date.
Mr Grassby:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. I have discussed a campaign to attract home Australians working overseas with my Department and arranged for specific initiations to be considered.
  2. As a result a revised procedure whereby Australians who had left here permanently and who had spent some years abroad, might return here as assisted migrants is nearing completion. When it is introduced shortly it will receive moderate publicity in those areas in which it is likely to be most fruitful. Beyond this its cost, apart from the expenditure on passage assistance, will be minimal.

Public Service: Transfer to Albury-Wodonga (Question No. 1045) Mr Snedden asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government decided in the broad sense as to which Departments are to be involved in transfers to Albury-Wodonga.
  2. If not, why not, and when is a decision likely to be forthcoming.
  3. Has the Joint Consultative Committee on the movement of Australian Public Service staff to AlburyWodonga been established.
  4. If not, why not, and when is it likely to be established.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Possible strategies for transfer of Australian Government staff to Albury-Wodonga have been examined by the Public Service Board in consultation with relevant Departments. It is expected that recommendations arising from this examination will be put to the Government for consideration in the near future.
  3. No.
  4. The Joint Consultative Committee will be established as soon as the Government decides what transfers are to be made to Albury-Wodonga.

Department of Education: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1077)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2

December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information. If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Questions Nos 964 and 10S7.

Telephone Directories (Question No. 1116)

Mr Mcleay:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has there been a delay in supplying 1973 telephone directories to South Australian subscribers; if so why.
  2. When will directories be made available to members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House, Canberra.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes. Distribution of the new Adelaide telephone director was to have begun before the end of August. Because of this unusually extensive telephone number changes and other alterations necessary this year, production of the directories was unavoidably delayed.
  2. The total requirement for Parliament House was dispatched from Adelaide on 18 October directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Joint House Department, Parliament House, Canberra.

War Pension Applications (Question No. 1149)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister given consideration to introducing a system whereby ex-servicemen who apply for a war pension and have that claim rejected by the Repatriation Department should have available to them the reasons for their rejection.
  2. If so, what was the result of that consideration.
  3. If not, will the Minister give consideration to the matter.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A recent amendment of the Repatriation Act permits regulations to be made requiring determining authorities constituted under the Act to give reasons for their decisions on claims and appeals. Regulations to that end are yet to be made.

As explained in the Second Reading Speech on the Repatriation Bill (No. 3) on 11 September, it is necessary to introduce the giving of reasons for decision gradually, so that determining authorities will have time to adjust to the new requirements. Several of those authorities are now assessing the extent of administrative and other changes that will be necessary, and none of the authorities will begin recording decisions and notifying claimants and appellants until the full implications of the change are known.

  1. See (2) above.

Advisers to Ministers or Departments (Question No. 1199)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of persons who have been engaged by the Government to serve as consultants or advisers to Ministers or their Departments on a non-career short-term basis since 2 December 1972.
  2. Under what sections of the Public Service Act are each of these persons employed.
  3. What was the date of their appointment and, where applicable, the date of termination of their engagement.
  4. What were the terms of their employment including remuneration payable, length of employment, etc.
  5. For what purposes were they appointed.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The right honourable member will recall that as Leader of the Opposition I asked a related question on g September 1971 and on 24 February 1972 was told that the information was not readily available because there appeared little useful purpose in maintaining it in the form sought (House of Representatives Hansard, page 299).

The right honourable member should also be aware that in answer to a somewhat similar question from Senator Mulvihill (Senate Hansard, 25 September 1973, page 863) I explained that the position at present is that consultants are employed by Departments on an ad hoc basis and no central comprehensive record of the details of their employment is available. I also stated however that I had asked that the practicability and usefulness of compiling and maintaining a central record he re-examined. The re-examination is in hand.

Imports

Mr Crean:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– On 18 October 1973 the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) asked me a question without notice concerning the effect of revaluation and the 25 per cent cut in tariffs on import prices and on the general level of importing. In the course of my reply I stated that I would consider these questions further and provide a detailed answer.

The latest month for which the Reserve Bank import price index, to which the right honourable member referred, has been pub lished is May 1973. Between December 1972 and May 1973 the Bank’s import price index fell by 6.7 index points, or 5.8 per cent. This compares with an increase of 2.8 per cent during the corresponding months of 1971-72. A more comprehensive measure of import prices is provided by the implicit price index for merchandise imports derivable from the national accounts published by the Statistician; this shows that, on average, import prices declined by 5 per cent in the first half of 1973. The evidence therefore indicates that there has been a significant fall in the general level of import prices in terms of Australian currency since the December revaluation. This of course has occurred at a time when the general level of overseas prices has been rising strongly.

The right honourable member referred to imports in the month of September. Month to month movements in economic series, such as import statistics, can be affected by seasonal movements and other special factors. A better guide to the underlying recent trend in imports can be gained from the figures for the recent September quarter. During the September quarter recorded imports totalled $l,261m compared with $l,086m in the June quarter and $939m in the September quarter last year. These figures indicate a very strong upward trend in imports and are in line with expectations at the time the Budget was framed. I should hardly need to add that, because of the lags involved, one would not in any case have expected to see, within the September quarter, much if any result, in terms of an increased in flow of imports, from the tariff cut announced in mid-July.

National Conference of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Advisory Counsellors (Question No. 68)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister examined the report of the National Conference of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Counsellors convened in Canberra on 10 and 11 August 1972.
  2. What action has been taken in respect of each recommendation.
  3. Will he call a similar conference during 1973.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: <1) Yes.

Resolution

  1. The Conference expressed strong and unanimous support for the people moved from old Mapoon and asks that the State and Commonwealth Governments assist those people who wish to do so to return there.
  2. Title to all lands presently reserved for the use and benefit of Aboriginal communities be vested in incorporated Aboriginal groups. A revolving Land Fund be established to acquire alienated other land be made available to Aboriginal individuals and communities. An Aboriginal Claims Commission be established to determine Aboriginal claims to land (Alienated like the City of Darwin is from the Larrakia Tribe) and to compensation for land taken by the Crown (and private interests) from the Aboriginal people since the date of colonisation. That land use should not be determined either in economic or social terms by any Government Department, this being an infringement of our basic Human Rights. That the United States, Canada and New Zealand be visited by Aboriginal representatives to ascertain the best settlement in fair and honourable terms. 1’3. That all Aboriginal reserve land in Australia be exempted from the operation of mining and other acts reserving resources for the Crown and that these resources be reserved for development by Aboriginals and Islanders only.
  3. That the Commonwealth take full financial and administrative control of Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia and that the State departments be abolished.
  4. That this Conference feels that it is impossible to consider or debate a centre of any sort in Canberra until the black embassy is re-established on the lawns of Parliament House. We urge the Government to allow the Embassy to be reestablished for the peace and goodwill of the entire Australian community.
  5. That there be guaranteed Aboriginal representation, ‘in each State and Federal parliament, and the* Northern Territory Legislative Council.
  6. The Conference resolved that the housing situation throughout Australia is acute and demanded that adequate housing be supplied immediately in all States and the Northern Territory. Housing designs are to be adapted to the local needs of Aborigines and Islanders.
  7. In view of the powerlessness of the Aged Persons Homes Trust due to the lack of public donations, the Conference urges the Commonwealth Government to grant continual funds in the order of $15-2 Om per year to the Aged Persons Homes Trust.
  8. That a plan be formulated for Aborigines and Islanders on a national basis to be given a housing grant in the same form as the Victorian scheme hut of a greater amount than the $1,500.

Comment

Any proposal for assistance to enable former residents of the old Mapoon mission to return there will be sympathetically considered, but this is primarily a matter for the Queensland Government which is responsible for the administration of reserves in that State.

See comment on Resolution 9 above. The Australian Government will introduce legislation to establish an Aboriginal Land Fund and will provide $5m per year over 10 years for the purchase of land off reserves for Aboriginal communities. Pending the introduction of legislation funds have been provided for the purchase of several properties for communities in the States and the Northern Territory.

See comment on Resolution 9.

The Australian Government is taking steps now to put into effect its policy of accepting from the States full responsibility for the policy planning and co-ordination of Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia.

The present Government took early action to repeal the Australian Capital Territory ordinance under which the previous Government removed the Aboriginal Embassy from the Parliament House lawns. The question of a permanent national centre for Aboriginals in Canberra will be considered by the National Aboriginal Consultative Council.

The Government supports the view that there is a need for special consideration of the representation of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Policy on the provision of Aboriginal representation in State and Federal Parliaments will also be considered.

The Australian Government recognises that the provision of adequate housing for Aboriginals deserves the highest priority and additional funds amounting to approximately $2.5m were provided to supplement the previous Government’s 1972-73 housing program. Increased funds for housing will again be provided this year. The need for full consultation with Aboriginals on the design of houses is recognised.

A grant of $250,000 has been made to the Aboriginal Aged Persons Homes Trust to enable lt to provide more housing for aged Aboriginals, without having to rely entirely upon public donations to qualify for the normal $2 and SI Government subsidy.

The establishment of a housing grant scheme to help Aboriginals to buy homes is being considered and the views of the National Aboriginal Consultative Council will be sought on such a scheme.

Resolution

  1. That this conference demands that full and proper wages be paid to Aboriginal and Island workers on missions, settlements and cattle stations throughout Australia.
  2. That this conference condemns the A.C.T.U. for its hypocrisy in taking action in relation to apartheid in South Africa but no action in relieving the situation of Aborigines in Australia.
  3. That this conference calls on the A.C.T.U. to establish a Black Workers Trade Union to deal with conditions and wages of black people in this country.
  4. That co-operative training centres be established in all States where the need exists.
  5. That Police academies introduce studies in social, cultural and economic problems that are particular to Aboriginal people.
  6. That special Aboriginal police constables be appointed by Aboriginal communities and be answerable to the Aboriginal people who elect them. This should be based on the New Zealand warden system, with power of arrest regarding both black and white people, to also give evidence in court on behalf of Aboriginal people and act as interpreters.
  7. That special provision be made to enable Aboriginal delegates to visit Aboriginal prisoners when this is requested by such prisoners.
  8. That all white police be removed off reserves and be replaced by Aboriginal law enforcement officers.
  9. That the New South Wales Legal Aid Service be adopted as a pilot system and be implemented in all States and the Northern Territory and that educational legal workshops be held so that Aborigines can fully understand the white man’s law.
  10. That the stringent conditions of viability applied by the Capital Fund be modified so as to more readily end the culture of poverty in rural and outback regions of Australia.

Comment

The Australian Government has announced its intention of phasing-out the payment of below-award training allowances in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and of broadening the scape for employment of Aboriginals in award wage work in the Public Service and elsewhere. The Government does not provide financial support to any project employing Aboriginals at less than award wages.

Resolutions 21 and 22 are matters for the consideration of the A.C.T.U.

My predecessor appointed a Co-operatives Advisory Committee to advise the Minister on the establishment of Aboriginal and Islander co-operatives and ways of assisting them.

Officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have accepted invitations from police training institutions to give addresses on Aboriginal matters to police training courses at various levels. It ls intended to hold further discussions with the various police authorities.

The Government is examining ways in which more Aboriginals might be recruited into police forces. The possibility of making special arrangements for the maintenance of order in Aboriginal communities is being discussed with the interested community councils.

This is a matter for interested Aboriginal organisations to take up with the various prison authorities. The Government is ready to support prison-visiting programs of such organisations.

Aboriginal reserve communities are entitled to protection under Australian law to the same extent as other communities and the Government has taken action to meet the requests of several Northern Territory reserve communities for the provision of police stations on reserves. An examination is being made of ways of giving communities greater responsibility in the maintenance of law and order.

The Government is providing substantial grants to Aboriginal Legal Aid Services established in the States and the Northern Territory.

The Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises is now able to make funds available to certain Aboriginal community projects by way of a combination of grants and loans to enable the projects to achieve reasonable viability; loans of up to $20,000 from the Capital Fund are now available at a nominal interest rate of li per cent per annum. Larger loans attract a concessional rate of 5 per cent per annum.

  1. My predecessor convened an interim National Aboriginal Consultative Council which first met in February 1973, and appointed a steering Committee. The Council met again in May and made recommendations relating to the holding of elections to establish a fully-elected National Aboriginal Consultative Council.

National Service (Question No. 148)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government decided to give any compensation to men who were jailed for offences under the National Service Act.
  2. If so, (a) what form did, or will, that compensation take and (b) how many men are involved and for what categories of injury.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. See the answer to (1).

Aboriginal Affairs: Determination of Policies (Question No. 635)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When may a reply be expected to question No. 318, in the name of the honourable member for the

Northern Territory, as the question relates to a Commonwealth public servant whose position purports to be protected by the Public Service Act.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The answer to question No. 318 appeared in Hansard of 28 August 1973 on page500.

Centres for Regional Development (Question No. 710)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

What centres are at present under consideration by the Cities Commission as centres for regional development and what is their present and projected population maximum?

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

Details of the initial studies conducted by the Cities Commission are contained in its Report to the Australian Government which I tabled in Parliament on 27 September 1973.

These studies of regional and metropolitan centres throughout Australia form part of the continuing programme of investigation by the Australian Government.

The purpose of the studies is to obtain a wide range of data not previously available and to investigate deficiencies in urban infrastructure, as well as to identify potential growth centres.

The inclusion of a regional centre in the study programme does not necessarily mean that it will be developed as a growth centre nor should it be assumed that exclusion of centres from the programme means that they will not be considered in the future.

The regional centres, as distinct from the metropolitan growth centres, examined in the initial series of studies are shown below, together with the population statistics as at the 1971 Census.

The calculation of projected population maxima for centres after accelerated development cannot be undertaken until further detailed studies have been carried out. Furthermore, the growth of population depends on the extent to which both private and public resources are committed to any centre.

Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act (Question No. 754)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many cases have come to the notice of the Government in the administration of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act up. to 31 July 1973.
  2. What was the number of proposals and what were the names of the principal companies involved in each of those which were revoked by the Government.
  3. To which proposals has the Government held an objection but found that action was not possible under the Act, and what was the nature of the Government’s objection in each case.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. From 5 December 1972 to 31 July 1973, 233 cases came to the notice of the Government in the administration of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act.

  2. Final orders prohibiting the take-over proposals were made in 9 cases. They were the proposed takeovers of:

    1. M. B. John & Hattersley Limited by PeglerHattersley Limited.
    2. Baillieu Bowring Holdings Pty Ltd by C. T. Bowring International (Australia) Pty Limited.
    3. Perpetual Finance Corporation Limited by G.U.S. (Australia) Pty Limited and Investment and Merchant Finance Corporation Limited.
    4. Sturts Meadows Prospecting Syndicate N.L. by Abadon Holdings N.L.
    5. Minerals Pty Limited by Steetley Australasia Pty Limited.
    6. The Brickhouse Company Pty Limited by Westlyn Investments Limited.
    7. Buchanan Borehole Collieries Pty Limited by Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Limited.
    8. Minerals Mining and Metallurgy Limited by Hockmetals Corporation.
    9. Industrial Sales and Service (Q’land) Limited by Industrial Equity Limited and its associates.
  3. In the administration of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act, the first test applied in the consideration of a proposal coming within the ambit of the Act is whether action can be taken under the Act to prevent the take-over from proceeding. If such action cannot be taken, the question of examining the merits of the proposal does not arise.

Aboriginal Pastoral Companies (Question No. 787)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

How many leases for pastoral properties for Aborigines in the Northern Territory were either approved or in the process of examination by the Minister for the Interior in the McMahon Government.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

At 2 December 1972, two pastoral leases had been approved for Aboriginal pastoral companies by the Minister for the Interior in the McMahon Government. The Lands Board had recommended the granting of two other pastoral leases to Aboriginals, and was reconsidering another two applications.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 7S9)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In view of the report from the Woodward Commission of Inquiry into Land Rights, on what basis will the Government now proceed to provide land for the Gurindji at Wattie Creek (Dafuragu).
  2. Will people of tribal origins, other than Gurindji, living at Wattie Creek be able to share in the land obtained for the Gurindji.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: <il) The Government will await the final report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission before taking action to provide further land for the Gurindji at Daguragu .(Wattie Creek). Meanwhile a study has been commissioned to examine what area of land would be required to allow the group to establish the cattle enterprise -which they wish to develop. Assistance is being provided to allow the group to continue developmental work at Daguragu on the basis of the small area surrendered to provide for a special purpose lease for the Murramulla Gurindji association.

  1. The question of what tribal groups will participate in the further development of the area will be subject to the outcome of the Government’s consideration of the final report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission.

Aboriginal Reserves: Exploration Licences (Question No. 788)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will the Government now proceed to service the 61 applications from Aborigines for exploration licences over areas on Northern Territory reserves.
  1. How many new applications have been received since 2 December 1972.
  2. How many exploration licences have been granted to Aborigines outside reserves since 2 December 1972.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No. As announced on 7 December 1972 action in relation to applications for exploration licences over areas in Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory has been suspended pending the implementation of government policy of granting land rights to Aboriginals.
  2. Since 2 December 1972, one Aboriginal community has applied for an exploration licence over reserved land and eight applications have been received from non-Aboriginals; one application by a non-Aboriginal has since been withdrawn.
  3. Applicants for exploration licences in the Northern Territory are not required to state their racial origin. So far as is known, however, no applications for exploration licences over areas outside reserves have been received from Aboriginals since 2 December .1972.

Land Purchases for Aborigines (Question No. 790)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs purchasing land for Aborigines off reserves in accordance with the terms of the Lands Acquisition Act.
  2. If not, what methods of acquisition have been adopted.
  3. Will the Minister provide details of all property and land purchased by the Government for Aborigines throughout Australia, giving the names of the vendors and the buyers and the amount paid for each property.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. Funds are being provided to communities to permit them to purchase land.
  3. The following properties have been purchased by Aboriginal communities since December 1972:

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 807)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say whether the platform of the Australian Labor Party at the time of the 1972 General Elections stated that Aboriginal land rights shall carry with them full rights to the minerals of those lands.
  2. Can the Minister also say whether the platform was changed at the Surfers’ Paradise Conference to provide for all Aborigines jointly to share the benefits from the development of natural resources including minerals on Aboriginal land.
  3. If so, has the provision in part (2) be accepted by the Government.
  4. If it has been accepted by the Government, does this involve any change in the terms of reference of the Woodward Committee or was the attitude of the Government changed in anticipation of the Woodward Committee’s recommendations.
  5. Does the Government now accept that mineral rights should be held for all Australians equally.
  6. Can the Minister say whether the Council for Aboriginal Affairs has endorsed the formula in part (2).
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The policy of the Australian Labor Party as approved at the 29th Conference at Launceston in 1971 included the statement that ‘Aboriginal land rights shall carry with them full rights to minerals in those lands’.
  2. The relevant section of the policy of the Australian Labor Party as amended at the 1973 Conference states:

All Aborigines jointly to share the benefit from the development of natural resources, including minerals, on Aboriginal lands.

  1. and(4) The Government will determine what action should be taken in relation to land rights, and in relation to minerals in Aboriginal lands, when the final report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission has been received.
  2. No.
  3. No. The Council for Aboriginal Affairs has not to date offered advice or comment on the policy platform.

Aborigines Residing in Urban Sydney (Question No. 896)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister’s predecessor in answer to question No. 552 (Hansard, 28 August 1973, page 501) indicate that the number of Aborigines living in urban Sydney is 5,257.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent report to the Minister for Youth and Community Services in New South Wales which indicates that there are approximately 9,000 people who identify themselves as Aborigines resident in the Sydney metropolitan area.
  3. If the position is as stated, can the Minister identify the reason for the differences between these figures.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The reply to question No. 552 (Hansard, 28 August 1973, page 501) indicated that, at the census of June 1971, 5,257 persons identifying as Aboriginals were enumerated in the Sydney metropolitan area.
  2. The March 1973 report by W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd to the Minister for Youth and Community Services in New South Wales on the ‘Problems and Needs of the Aboriginals of Sydney’, gives an estimated Aboriginal population of about 9,000 in the Sydney metropolitan area. This figure was based on surveys in the course of which a total of 3,863 Aboriginal persons were enumerated. Estimates were made that an additional 5,235 Aboriginal persons were resident in the area, but these persons were not actually contacted in the survey.
  3. It can be assumed that the population would have increased significantly between June 1971 and July-September 1972 when the survey was conducted. It is also probable that a number of persons of Aboriginal descent did not identify as such at the 1971 census and that others were for various reasons not enumerated in the census. The census figure given in reply to the previous question did not include persons who identified as Torres Strait Islanders of whom they were 524 enumerated in the Sydney metropolitan area. It appears that the figures in the survey report do include Islanders. As indicated, the figure given in the survey report is based to a significant degree on estimates. While these were educated estimates, made on the basis of the best information available to the survey team, it may be that the figure of 9,000 is an over-estimate.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: Land Research (Question No. 942)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Has the Land Research Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization been split into three divisions dealing with environmental matters.
  2. If so, (a) what are the responsibilities, (b) who is the head and (c) how many people are on the staff of each division.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. No. However, on 28 March 1973, it was announced that the Division of Land Use Research had been formed from the former Division of Land Research by transferring its crop research functions to other Divisions, in order to free it to concentrate on land use-environment studies. It was also announced that the Division of Land Use Research would be grouped with the Division of Soils and the Division of Land Resources Management to form the Land

Resources Laboratories, and that a Committee of the Chiefs of these three Divisions would be formed, under a Chairman, to co-ordinate their programmes and optimise CSIRO’s contribution in this area of environmental study.

  1. The role of the Division of Land Use Research is to survey and assess the potential uses of land resources and to develop new assessment techniques. The Chief is Dr R. J. Millington and the present staff complement is 142.

The Division of Land Resources Management is concerned with the development of management techniques for achieving optimum productivity consistent with the conservation of land resources, and with the study of the environmental implications of changes in land use. Mr R. A. Perry is Chief of the Division and the present staff complement is 167.

The Division of Soils studies the effects of man’s activities on soils, and their management for the production of crops, pastures, and forests. The Chief is Dr A. E. Martin and the present staff complement is 179.

Army Personnel: Married Quarters at Puckapunyal (Question No. 953)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. Is it intended to build a number of houses for married Army personnel at Puckapunyal.
  2. If so, (a) when will construction commence and (b) will the houses be built in Seymour or Puckapunyal.
  3. If it is not intended to build the houses in Seymour, will he reconsider the decision as it would be of great benefit to Seymour for homes to be built in that town.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Additional houses have been programmed for personnel posted to Puckapunyal. These will be constructed by the Housing Commission of Victoria under the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement. Eleven houses were approved in 1972-73 and a further fiftytwo have been approved for construction in 1973-74.

  2. (a) No advice has been given yet as to when construction will commence.

    1. The Army have requested that the houses be constructed on land that could be made available adjacent to the camp.
  3. It is not intended that the houses be built in Seymour as they are required for camp personnel. However, the final location will be dependent on a decision of the Housing Commission.

Home Savings Grants (Question No. 954)

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Hous ing, upon notice:

What sum has been paid in Home Savings Grants in (a) Victoria and . (b) Australia in each year since the inception of the scheme.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 1000)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What are the terms of reference of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service.
  2. Is there any relationship between the Legal Aid Service and the Council of Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. Will he thoroughly investigate the activities of the Legal Aid Service.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for . Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. There are Aboriginal Legal Aid Services established in each State and the Northern Territory, to provide legal advice and representation for Aboriginals.
  2. No.
  3. With the exception of the New South Wales Service, the Services have only been established this year and I am not prepared to initiate a general inquiry into their activities. I am prepared, however, to consider the need to investigate specific matters if the honourable member wishes to provide me with details.

Child Welfare: Case of Nola Brown (Question No. 1001)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was Nola Brown a child in respect of whom an order had been made under section 36 (1) (b) of the Child Welfare Ordinance committing her to the care of (a) the Director of Welfare or (b) foster parents.
  2. If so, were the foster parents entitled to the care of the child under the Ordinance.
  3. Is any action to be taken to enforce the order of the Court; if not, why not.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See answer to (1) above.

Petrol Tax: Application to Road Development (Question No. 1016)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What is the attitude of the Government to the proposal that all money collected by way of petrol tax be used for road development.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The Australian Government believes that money collected as petrol tax should be regarded as a general revenue tax and not be linked directly to expenditure on road development.

Roads are competing not only with other modes of transport but also with the other objectives of the Government. A direct linking of petrol tax to road development may result in expenditure on services which the community has indicated require high priority, being less than they should be.

It is possible to compare petrol tax collections at any given time to necessary expenditure on roads. However to rigidly link the two would reduce the ability of the Government to attune its policies to match developing circumstances and the changing needs and desires of the Australian people.

Department of Special Minister of State: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1068)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

Will the Minister provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State are members.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committees, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information.

If the right honourale gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible, having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057.

Commonwealth Cash and Conversion Loan (Question No. 1104)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When the Acting Treasurer announced the rates for the Commonwealth Cash and Conversion Loan on 4 October 1973, were there any semi-governmental or local government loans outstanding; if so what were they.
  2. At what rates were these loans being raised, and were these based on rates approved by the Loan Council.
  3. Have these loans been underwritten.
  4. What level of subscription was achieved in the loans and was this less than the mean level achieved in the last 10 years.
  5. Is there serious concern by underwriters, semigovernment and local government authorities about the capacity to raise new public loans.
  6. What undertakings will the Government give to reassure (a) underwriters and (b) semi-government and local government authorities.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. There were no semi-government public loans on the market when the terms of the Australian Government’s cash and conversion loan were announced on 4 October. This is in accord with the established practice of the Loan Council in ensuring that no public loan of a semi-governmental or local authority is open for subscription during a period seven days before the next Australian Government loan is proposed. (2), (3) and (4) See answer to part (1) above.
  2. I am not aware of any serious concern about the capacity of semi-government and local authorities to fill their approved borrowing program in 1973-74.
  3. See answer to part (5) above.

Brisbane Rail Services (Question No. 1108)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What were the results of the survey by the Bureau of Transport Economics into consumer preferences of commuters in Brisbane’s suburban railway carriages.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

Results of the Rail Car Preference survey carried out in Brisbane by the Bureau of Transport Economics have now been analysed, and it is expected that a report will be issued in the near future.

One clear indication given by the survey is that people want to be assured of a seat on the train. Approximately 70 per cent ranked improved seat availability ahead of other desirable changes.

Air conditioning and automatically closing doors also stood out as desirable features of carriage design. Other features of carriage design also elicited strong opinions.

It is expected that the results of this survey will play a significant part in design of new rail carriages.

Rail Service Studies (Question No. 1110)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

With reference to his answer to question No. 549 (Hansard, 22 August 1973, page 268), in which he indicated that studies would be made of urban, interurban and regional passenger and freight movements, will he indicate (a) what studies have now been commenced, (b) the terms of reference of such studies and (c) the extent to which the States are involved in the studies and the numbers of their staff taking part.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. A large number of studies of urban, interurban and regional passenger and freight movements are being carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics in association with other relevant Commonwealth and State Government Departments and Authorities.

In particular the Bureau of Transport Economics Is engaged in a major study of inter-regional passenger and freight flows. This study involves the collection of appropriate statistical information, the estimation of transport cost and demand relationships, and the development of a multimodal inter-regional transport planning model.

In conjunction with this study several projects of a more specific nature are in progress. These include:

Evaluation of development proposals for the Port of Brisbane

The potential benefits of reducing the number of Australian port calls by container ships by increased use of surface modes A study of Brisbane’s airport needs

An aptimal upgrading program for the Melbourne-Adelaide railway

Determination of the optimal rail wagon fleet to perform the Australian main line freight task

A study of interstate rail freight terminals

Container handling on Australian railway systems

Assessment of the upgrading needs for the single track section of the Sydney-Melbourne railway

A study of competition between modes in long distance passenger movements.

Several studies are also proceeding on urban passenger movements and on the level of transport services and facilities in the major cities. These studies include:

An examination of household characteristics and travel patterns in the Sydney area

Estimation of a complete demand function for urban passenger transport

Studies of the intra-urban effects of airport, port and rail terminal developments.

In addition the BTE has a continuing commitment to the evaluation of specific public transport projects put forward by the States for Commonwealth assistance. A number of subsidiary projects are associated with this program and include:

Analysis of bus replacement cycles

A survey of consumer preferences in rail car riage design (see answer to question No. 1108)

  1. I do not propose to list the terms of reference of the above studies in detail as their aims are implicit in their descriptions.
  2. A high degree of co-operation has been achieved between the Bureau of Transport Economics and State Authorities. However the degree of State involvement varies widely between projects and is often on a partial basis. Hence the numbers of State per sonnel involved in the studies cannot be estimated. However virtually all projects require substantial State contributions in the provision of data and technical assessments, and in project formulation and development.

Australian Loan Council: Local Government Representation (Question No. 1130)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. In the event of local government being represented on the Loan Council, how will the representatives be selected.
  2. Will the Loan Council approve allocations to the same regional groupings as proposed under the Grants Commission legislation.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) These would be matters for consideration by the Loan Council.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 1213)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice:

  1. Is a high percentage of the total costs of aged persons’ homes built by charitable organisations paid to architects.
  2. If so, will he investigate the possibility of making a central planning authority available to provide plans suitable for aged persons’ homes in order to minimise costs.
Mr Hayden:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. No. As a general rule architects’ fees are charged at the rate of 6 per cent of building costs.
  2. The establishment of a central planning authority would have little impact on costs as the Australian Government already meets two-thirds of architects’ fees under the Aged Persons’ Homes Act. However, my Department, in conjunction with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, is producing a comprehensive guide on the design and planning of aged persons’ homes. The handbook, titled ‘Housing the Aged’, will be distributed in the near future to all organisations conducting or planning aged persons’ homes.

Radio and Television Stations: Shares (Question No. 748)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

What changes in the beneficial ownership of the shares in:

television companies and

radio stations were

approved and

not approved since 1 January 1972.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

-The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The attached statement contains details of applications made for changes in the beneficial ownership of shares in companies holding licences for commercial television and broadcasting stations since 1 January 1972.

Urban Renewal Projects (Question No. 1002)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. Does he intend carrying out a survey on urban renewal projects, including the nature of capital funding of such projects, being undertaken by (a) State Governments, (b) local governments, (c) private enterprises and (d) any of the foregoing in conjoint cooperation.
  2. If so, when will this be done and how long is it expected to take.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

At this stage I do not intend to carry out a survey on urban renewal projects including the nature of capital funding on projects being undertaken by (a) State Governments, (b) local governments, (c) private enterprises and (d) any of the foregoing in conjoint cooperation but I may in the future as the need arises and in line with the Government’s economic priorities.

Australian Resource Projects: Japanese Equity Capital (Question No. 1023) Mr Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice: <1) Has his attention been drawn to statements by the Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for

Secondary Industry, reported in The Austraiian on 19 September 1973, that the Government welcomes Japanese equity capital for Australian resource projects.

  1. If so, has the Minister made an offer to Japan, on behalf of the Government, to relocate its pollutionprone industries in Australia in exchange for increased purchase by Japan of Australian manufactured goods.
  2. Has he had consultations with the Minister on this matter; if so, when.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Please see answer to (2).

Postmaster-General’s Department: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1089)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the inter-departmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

page 2974

No

On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the Right Honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information.

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057.

Department of the Environment and Conservation: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1091)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Dr Cass:
ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a question without notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information.

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057.

Department of Immigration: Staff (Question No. 1098)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he indicate on 30 January 1973 that there can be staff savings in the Department of Immigration to ease the growth in the Public Service.
  2. If so, what savings did he have in mind and how many positions are involved.
  3. What action has been taken to effect such savings.
  4. When will, or when were, these savings introduced.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) Yes. Bearing in mind employment at that time, it seemed that a lower intake of migrants for the forthcoming year would be appropriate.

In the period January-June 1973 the employment situation improved to such an extent that the immigration program for 1973-74 was established at the same level as for 1972-73. Consequently, no significant change in overall staffing requirements has eventuated.

Tariff Board: Hearings in Western Australia (Question No. 1168)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What Tariff Board inquiries have been held in Western Australia during each of the last 5 calendar years.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to a belief in Western Australia that the Western Australian business community is neglected in Tariff Board inquiries; if so, is this belief well founded.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Public hearings by the Tariff Board on the following references have been held in Western Australia over the past five calendar years:
  1. No. Notification of Tariff Board references are extensively advertised in all States and the venues for public hearings are decided by the Board after considering the location of firms intending to present evidence before it. During the past five calendar years the Board has made visits of inspection to the following companies in Western Australia:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731107_reps_28_hor86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant