House of Representatives
3 June 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3197

BASS ELECTORAL DIVISION

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is my intention to issue a writ tomorrow, Wednesday 4 June, for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Bass in the State of Tasmania in the place of the Honourable Lance Herbert Barnard, resigned.

The dates in connection with the election will be as follows:

Pate of nomination- Thursday, 12 June 1975.

Date of polling- Saturday, 28 June1975.

Date of return of writ- on or before Friday, 25 July 1975.

page 3197

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray.

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport,in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley, Mr Bonnett, Mr Bourchier, Mr Cadman, Mrs Child, Mr Coates, Mr Corbett, Mr Erwin, Mr Garrick, Mr Hewson, Mr Hodges, Mr Jacobi, Mr James, Mr Jarman, Mr Keogh, Mr Lamb, Mr Lusher, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Staley, Mr Viner and Mr Young.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October,1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bennett, Mr Connolly, Mr Graham, Mr Hurford, Mr Macphee, Mr Ruddock, Mr Wentworth and Mr Young.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private interprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Lead to the nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.
  3. Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far mor than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

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

Petition received.

Wool Reserve Price

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

That the state of the wool industry is such that a stable reserve price scheme is paramount to the survival of the industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the reserve price be maintained at at least 250 cents.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Corbett, Mr Hewson, Mr Hunt, Mr King, Mr Lusher and Mr McVeigh.

Petitions received.

Nuclear Power

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 the use of Uranium as an alternative source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposal of radioactive wastes, nor likely to be.
  4. That the export of Uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of Uranium from Australia only discourages importing countries from investing into research on viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian Uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved Third World will increase yet further.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and exporting of Uranium until perfectly safe disposal methods for the radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their plea for a fair share of the world’s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley, Mr Cope, Mr Graham, Mr Macphee and Mr Ruddock.

Petitionsreceived

Solar Energy

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 the world’s current major sources of energy are finite and will probably be depleted during the next century.
  2. That atomic energy is currently an unacceptable alternative energy source as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  3. That solar energy is the only acceptable alternative energy source as it is inexhaustible and non-polluting.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately increase the expenditure on solar energy research to an amount comparable with the current expenditure on atomic energy research and will give assurances to maintain solar energy research expenditure at this level, at least, until the year 2000 A.D. and maintain CSIRO control of and responsibility for solar energy research, until an appropriate commission can be established.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair and Mr Coates.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 Parliament should pass the Bill concurrently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a National Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property, damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a fund can be established using the medium of the proposed Australian Government Insurance Offices.
  3. That a plan for such a fund be submitted to the Treasury forthwith.
  4. That no sound reasons for the non-establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office exists.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that the further competition from a Government Office will engender further useful competition.

  6. That the insurance industry is failing to cope with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent national disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, that is the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation are commended by your petitioners.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs being spent by the private insurance industry to oppose the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as taxpayers and citizens of Australia, we are concerned as policy holders and prospective policy holders of insurance agents actively campaigning against the proposed legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support the Bill and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bennett.

Petition received.

Subsidy for Child Care

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:

  1. ) There is gross unfairness in the present payment of Government subsidy to selected child care centres and kindergartens,
  2. No matter whether they are conducted by churches, by community effort or for personal profit, these centres for the care and education of young children fulfil the same purpose and
  3. Government subsidies are provided from taxes paid collectively by all parents yet only a proportion benefit.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House withdraw all subsidies from child care centres and kindergartens and make arrangements for individual payments to be made to the parents of children attending such centres or kindergartens.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction,

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540 000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilised in light water reactors overseas,

And whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for biomedical uses,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

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

Petition received.

Increased Subsidies for Students

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our Government to:

  1. To provide more financial assistance to students who have to go away from home for their education.
  2. To make provision for cottage type homes.
  3. To set up information centres for country parents to obtain information of courses available, accommodation and costs.

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

Petition received.

Country Telephone Services

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Whereas the PostmasterGeneral in a statement to Parliament has decreed that a Telecommunications Commission be established and that within that Commission districts be established at locations to be decided: Your petitioners humbly pray that on Vesting Day for the Telecommunications Commission there be no less numbers and no reduction in classification of existing positions in any country location as a consequence of any reorganisation that may be contemplated. Also that the ratio of country staff to metropolitan based staff be maintained.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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 Medibank should not be forced upon an unwilling Australian people.

That taxpayers money should not be used to mount an unprecedented propaganda campaign to sell Medibank to the people.

That any system of comprehensive health care in Australia should not be based upon salaried general practitioner or specialist services or allocated hospital staff as proposed by Medibank but upon the principle of freedom of choice of doctor at the surgery and in the hospital.

That private hospitals should be supported and maintained as a viable, independent and necessary pan of national hospital service.

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

Petition received.

page 3200

SOUTH VIETNAM

Notice of Motion

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Australian Government should:

1 ) do all in its power to inform the Australian people as to the extent to which civil, political, social and religious rights continue to exist in South Vietnam,

not rely exclusively upon United Nations reports in respect of the foregoing, and

) begin to apply humanitarian principles in its dealings with Vietnamese refugees.

page 3200

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3200

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer a question. Is he aware that, in his absence overseas, the Acting Treasurer was directed to place on the Prime Minister’s desk all communications and papers concerning overseas loan raisings? Is the Treasurer aware that a similar directive went to the Minister for Minerals and Energy? Why had the Treasurer, before that time, kept the letters of introduction or accreditation to a prominent Melbourne citizen secret from the Prime Minister?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question is yes, and the answer to the third is that I did not.

page 3200

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT FOR APPRENTICES

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration aware of the vulnerable employment situation for apprentices in times of reduced business activity? In view of the necessity to ensure a continuous and increasing supply of skilled manpower in apprenticeship trades, can the Minister inform the House of any action he has taken to alleviate this situation?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Apprenticeship training is a matter of great concern to the Government and earlier this year the Government decided to give to employers a subsidy of an amount equal at that time to $3 1 a week for every first-year apprentice who was put on in the early part of the year. As a result of that subsidy, I am pleased to be able to say, the number of apprentices that has been taken on by employers has increased quite considerably above the number that it was thought would be the maximum that would be recruited before the subsidy was agreed upon. It gives me an unusual kind of pleasure to be able to tell the House that the Minister for Labour and Industry in the New South Wales Parliament, my colleague Mr MacHewitt has gone on public record in praising what my Government has done in this regard. In fact, he has issued figures to show that the number of apprentices recruited during the first few months of this year will exceed the number recruited in the same period of the previous year. We must remember that the number in that previous year was a record- a total of 43 000 having been recruited for the whole of Australia, against a previous total of 32 000, representing an increase of more than 30 per cent in one year. For the recruitment this year to have reached such heights as it already has, in a year when there has been a sharp economic downturn, is, in itself, testimony of the success of the Government’s subsidy for apprenticeship training.

page 3201

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer: Has the Government received a request from the Premier of Western Australia to have the question of the Government’s overseas borrowings placed on the agenda at the Loan Council meeting scheduled for 19 and 20 June? Has he seen the Premier’s statement today that the Western Australian Government is far from satisfied with the Government’s explanations about the $2,000m loan dealings of the Minister for Minerals and Energy? Will he agree to the Premier’s request, and will he make to this Parliament and to the Loan Council a full statement about Mr Connor’s activities?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am aware of the statements made by the Premier of Western Australia about the $2,000m loan. I will make available to Parliament at any time my knowledge of that transaction as I have done from the beginning.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Will you table the letters involved- the letters of introduction?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, for the reasons that have already been given in answers to questions on that point by the Prime Minister and by the Minister concerned. I think this House and this nation would have welcomed success in the attempt that was made to raise a loan for national purposes. Had that attempt come to fruition, I think the States would have benefited from the transaction. It seems to me unreasonable to look at the situation in any other way. As I have explained to this House several times, since 1973 and the increase in the price of oil, an amount of some $60,000m has changed directionit has come under the control of different people, and a large amount of that money was being invested for wealthy individuals in various financial circles in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe.

I think that this Government, as did every other government, had a responsibility to ascertain the circumstances which existed with respect to the availability of those funds. I believe that our Government and other governments that took similar steps were justified in exploring the new areas for available funds and available investment. I think that was a perfectly reasonable step to take, and I believe, as I explained when I was first asked a question on this matter in Australia, that had our Government not taken the steps to explore the new circumstances we should have been vulnerable to criticism for failing to do so.

page 3201

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Transport aware that more than 19 000 tons of cargo is piled up at north western and northern ports in Tasmania as a result of the recent stoppage of the Merchant Service Guild and the work to regulations move by terminal superintendents? What action does the Government contemplate for the lifting of this backlog of cargo? Finally, will the Minister use his good offices with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to ensure that a decision the Council made a few years ago to exempt Tasmanian trade from industrial disputes is implemented in view of the fact that we in Tasmania do not enjoy the alternative forms of interstate transport- road and rail?

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

-I am aware of the build-up in freight in northern Tasmanian ports. I have had discussions with Australian National Line officials about it. They have positioned the ‘Lysaght Enterprise’ on that route for the time being in order to try to lift the load, to get it out of the way. As the honourable member knows, this backlog has been brought about by a series of maritime disputes. The last one, which has caused quite a deal of trouble and havoc with regard to a build-up of cargo, concerns the terminal superintendents, who have been working restricted hours. The result is that ships have been sailing light loaded and a build-up of freight has taken place. Honourable members will be interested to know that disputes- and so many of them frivolous disputes- in the maritime and associated industries, have cost the Australian maritime industry about $ 10m so far this year. Unfortunately Tasmania is one of the States that is so vulnerable to this type of action. The honourable member asked me whether I would use my good offices with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I have already been in touch with Mr Souter’s office drawing his attention to the agreement which the ACTU entered into some time ago. I have asked him to take this matter up with the maritime unions with a view to them giving an exemption to Tasmania so that we can get rid of this back-log and ensure that the movement of goods out of that island can take place.

page 3202

QUESTION

PAYROLL TAX

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. I am sure he is aware of a substantial body of economic thought- I might add, with which I agree- that payroll tax by its very nature adds to the inflationary spiral all the way along the line. I ask the Treasurer: Will he have discussions with the Prime Minister with a view to working out financial arrangements which can be implemented at the forthcoming Premiers Conference for the States in order that this tax may be abolished, thus contributing to the attack on inflation?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I think it is obviously the case that a tax of this sort adds to costs. If it is possible to eliminate taxes that have that effect it is desirable to do so, in times of inflation or at any time for that matter. However, I point out to the House, that the demands for revenue, for State purposes particularly and for general Australian Government purposes, are so great at present that it is extremely difficult to make any effective adjustment of tax rates to reduce the revenue coming from those sources. For some weeks now the Government has had the tax system constantly under study- that study will continue right up to the preparation of the Budgetwith the idea of adjusting the tax system so as to have the best possible anti-inflationary effect. I assure the honourable member that payroll tax, along with other forms of tax, will be taken into account in that respect.

page 3202

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is he aware of an article in last week’s ‘Bulletin’ which boldly criticises the Commonwealth Employment Service? Does he know that this article stated that the Northcote branch of the Commonwealth Employment Service recently sent notices to all the people on income maintenance payments scheduling them for an interview at one time? Is it true that more than 1000 people spilled out of the office into the main street of Northcote? Is the Commonwealth Employment Service as insensitive and inefficient as made out in this article?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did see the article and I was expecting somebody from the Opposition to ask a question on it. Knowing the author of it, members of the Opposition realised that to ask a question on the article would have put them in jeopardy of being made to look fools. Of course the honourable gentleman who asks the question does so in a different sense. He virtually discredits the article from the beginning, and he is right in doing so. There have never been at any time 1000 people on income maintenance who were serviced from the CES office at Northcote. The most people who have been in receipt of income maintenance from Northcote at any one time has been 380, and at present only 100 are in receipt of such maintenance. At no time has there been a crowd of 1000 people queued up to get into the Northcote office. In fact, if that number of people were queued they would stretch back for something like half a mile and it is almost certain that they would be seen by people other than just Mr Samuel. Mr Samuel is notorious for the campaign of denigration that he has been waging against the Department of Labor and Immigration for the last several months, if not for the last couple of years. Mr Samuel does not intend to allow the facts to spoil a good story. That is the way he operates. If he finds that the facts do not fit the story the facts are dropped and the story is published nonetheless. Another statement made by Mr Samuel in relation to the Department was:

Its insensitivity in dealing with people is notorious, the latest example being cited is the action of a major Melbourne branch.

He then went on to tell this imaginary story about everybody on income maintenance payments being told to turn up at the one time and about the number of people who in fact turned up being 1000. This is not true. I even suspect that it is a lie and that Mr Samuel knows that it is not true. But Mr Samuel is not prepared to allow lies to stand in the way of publishing something which he feels will have a denigrating effect upon the Department of Labor and Immigration.

page 3203

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question. Why did he prompt the Prime Minister to call for papers concerning loan raisings from the Department of the Treasury and from the Minister for Minerals and Energy during the absence of the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister overseas?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition is speculating. He has no basis on which to make such an assertion.

page 3203

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA POLICE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Attorney-General and Minister for Police and Customs propose to meet State Police Ministers to discuss with them the creation of the Australia Police? If so, will he also discuss with them the Australian Law Reform Commission’s important inquiry into the relationship between the police and the public?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

– I certainly intended to meet with State Ministers with responsibilities for police matters. Following upon a meeting that took place in Brisbane two or three weeks ago, I was party to arrangements which were to lead to a meeting which was to take place in Canberra this coming Thursday and at which, I hoped, we would have discussed the very matters that the honourable gentleman has mentioned. The arrangements were made because the relations between the police and the public are of continuing and great importance to citizens generally and to all politicians in particular. Of course, the creation of the Australia Police, with its opportunities for improving the relations between police and citizens, is a matter that should be discussed by Ministers from the Australian Parliament and the State Parliaments who have responsibilities for police matters. I regret to say that the request that I directed to the Leader of the Opposition for a pair in order to attend that meeting this Thursday has been refused. One hears the plaintive cries of the Opposition that greater attempts should be made to consult with State Ministers. No one tries harder than Ministers on this side to do that very thing. But the sullen sense of frustrated arrogance which comes through, reflecting the pique of the Leader of the Opposition who refuses pairs in a situation such as this, speaks for itself.

page 3203

QUESTION

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask this question of the present Minister for Social Security. It is about the confusion in the Government surrounding the tax deductibility, after Medibank commences, of private medical and hospital insurance contributions. Did the present Minister, who I understand is soon to become the new Treasurer, state categorically on 1 7 March that contributions for private insurance would continue to be deductible? Did the present Treasurer, who we understand is to become the new Minister for Social Security, say on 21 May that the Government’s intentions would be made known at the appropriate time? Did the Minister seize the unique opportunity presented to him last week to have a full and frank discussion on this confusion with the then Acting Treasurer? If he missed that chance, will he quickly clarify the matter with the present Treasurer who has now returned, or will he tell us how many days we will have to wait before the Treasurer-elect will to able to give us a final answer to this question?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– As a matter of fact, to confess in the privacy of this chamber, I had several intelligent discussions with the Acting Treasurer last week. I found it one of the most inspiring experiences that I had come across.

Mr Nixon:

– Did you look in the mirror while you were at it?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Often. I prefer that to looking across the chamber as I have to do right now. As I said before, costs for contributions to private medical or hospital insurance will be a tax deductible claim. I have said that before, and I reassert it.

page 3203

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to reports that the New South Wales Government has set up a telephone information service to answer questions on Medibank? Can the Minister inform the House whether this action indicates a change of attitude to Medibank on the part of the New South Wales Government and whether this action is motivated by altruistic or rather less worthy motives?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-I am sure that the New South Wales Government will try to be helpful but I am afraid that it will make periodic errorsfrequently throughout the day. Accordingly I would suggest to people who genuinely want to know the details about Medibank, its operations, and their rights and entitlements under this scheme, that they ought to go right to the horse ‘s mouth. They ought to contact Medibank which has an office in each capital city. If honourable members do not mind a commercial, people in Sydney should ring 232-0444, in Newcastle 26-181 1, in Wollongong 28-5888, in Melbourne 32-80441, in Adelaide 21-21999, in Perth 22-1114, in Brisbane 62-6888 and in Hobart 347-999.

Mr Keogh:

– What was the number for Brisbane again?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will give that to the honourable member later. People may write to Medibank at GPO Box 9999 in the capital city of their State or Territory to obtain full details.

page 3204

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister a question. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer has implied this afternoon that a letter of accreditation for overseas loan borrowings was issued to a distinguished Melbourne business man, and it was acknowledged in this chamber by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that such a letter was given to another- not a Melbourne business man- at about the same time, will the Prime Minister advise this House how many such letters of accreditation have been issued? Will he advise whether it is for that reason- that is, that there is a number of such lettersthat he has required that no action be taken in respect of overseas borrowings henceforth without his specific approval? If that is not the reason, why has he issued such instructions?

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

-Mr Speaker, I regret that I was not present when you took the chair today. I was at a meeting of the Executive Council of which Joseph Martin Riordan, the honourable member for Phillip, was sworn a member.

Government supporters- Hear, hear!

Mr WHITLAM:

-Accordingly, I was not able to hear questions before my arrival to which the Deputy Leader of he National Country Party may- or in my experience, may not- be accurately referring. Since people’s reputations may be involved in these matters, as I have said earlier and I now repeat- he is not so obtuse as to have forgotten- such questions concerning individuals should be placed on notice.

page 3204

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Social Security noted an article on Medibank in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ by John O’Hara? Is this article an accurate reflection of Medibank as proposed by both the legislation and the guidelines enunciated by the Australian Government, or does it bear a remarkable resemblance to New South Wales propaganda?

Dr Klugman:

– Even the editorial of that paper does not agree with the article.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– As the honourable member for Prospect points out, the editorial in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ does not agree with Mr O Tiara’s article. I understand that Mr Lewis is very happy with that article, and well he might be because of the fairly valid semblance it bears to the releases he has been responsible for recently. Very quickly I will go through some of the inaccuracies in that article. Mr O’Hara restates, as though there is something significant and impendingly disastrous in it, that none of the States has signed the agreement. That is true, except that Tasmania currently has before its House of Parliament the agreement. Under its legislative requirements the Tasmanian Government is obliged to enact legislation to formalise the agreement. South Australia is in the final stages of accepting it, and only this week I concluded discussions with the Health Minister of that State. As I understood Dr Edwards’ comments when I met him last week, or it might have been the week before, he is satisfied with the progress of discussions between us. The only hurdle now to a conclusion is the National Country Party in the coalition government in Queensland. The Liberal Party there is very happy- in fact, enthusiastic- at the prospect of joining the Medibank hospital program.

Mr O’Hara said that the indications are that there are no prospects of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia joining the hospital side of Medibank in the immediate future. Well, surprise, surprise! I have been saying that for some time. It is the New South Wales State Premier who has been demanding that he should be allowed to join Medibank by 1 July. The hard fact is that it has been the cheap political obstructionism practised for cheap political pointsscoring up until fairly recently on the part of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia that has prevented this impediment to the acceptance of the program now. The Australian Government would love to have those 3 States join by 1 July but the problem is that negotiations have not been and cannot be concluded by 1 July. Mr O’Hara goes on to say that these States ‘refused to accept Mr Hayden’s demand that the Commonwealth control the development of new hospital services, the fees for private patients in public hospitals, and the method of paying the doctors’. I have never suggested that we wanted to control the development of new hospital services and I am not interested in that aspect of the provision of health services at all. My colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, is interested in the development of those services and is developing a cost sharing program. As I understand it, this is a voluntary program and the States can take up the proposition or reject it as they wish.

It is true that we seek to establish fee levels for private patients in public hospitals and to establish consistency m the method of paying doctors who provide medical services in public wards of public hospitals, but these matters are open to negotiation. We will certainly not deviate far from the general principles and the States are not obliged to join the Medibank program, but if they do not do so they will seriously financially disadvantage themselves. For the most lightweight statement that Mr O’Hara makes, I refer honourable members to his comment that the Australian Government in effect will contribute less than 50 per cent of the net operating costs of hospitals because of its control of income tax. He asserts that because the Government will provide the money to the hospitals through the State authorities which will in turn pay wages, we will get back about 25 per cent which he says is the average rate of tax callback through the tax system. Unfortunately the average rate of tax call-back is much less than 25 per cent but, putting that to one side, even on his basis our task of raising money would be much more onerous and demanding than it would be for the States if we were getting only 25 per cent, on Mr O’Hara ‘s say so, from tax call-back.

The fact is that the States receive from the Consolidated Revenue sources of the Australian Government something more than 50 per cent of their expenditure to cover things like the operating costs of public hospitals and it never seems to have occurred to Mr O’Hara, who is faithfully echoing Mr Lewis, and it obviously has not occurred to Mr Lewis, that all the money which any government spends, whether it is a federal, State or local government or some semigovernment authority, comes from the public in some form or other, either by way of tax raisings or through collections. On average the Australian Government contributes more than 50 per cent of what the States spend and this is one of the biggest liabilities we have in our Budget. As for the rest of the money which the States spend, they too raise it through taxation and, to the extent that people make these silly points, which are totally irrelevant to any rational mind, Mr O’Hara’s comments also apply to the States.

page 3205

QUESTION

FUEL PRICE EQUALISATION

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In discussing the implications of the next Budget upon the rural sector, and in view of the importance of freight and transport costs to an effective decentralisation policy, will he consider establishing a fuel price equalisation scheme throughout Australia?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– This matter has been considered not only by the present Government but also by previous governments. I think the introduction of such a scheme is unlikely in the near future.

page 3205

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON ROADS

Mr MULDER:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to the advertising in the daily newspapers by an automobile association claiming that the Federal Government has ripped off millions of dollars from the average motorist while not providing better roads?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

-I have seen the half page advertisements by the Australian Automobile Association questioning the policies of the Government on road construction and facilities. The Government is aware of the state of roads, and that is the reason why in the road legislation last year we increased the allocation from $868m, which was the amount that had been allocated over the previous 3 years under the Commonwealth Aid Roads scheme, to $ 1,126m for the first 3 years of the present road legislation. At the Premiers Conference in February this year the Prime Minister and the Government agreed to increase the Government’s allocation to the States by $30m to take care of inflation. That was the amount that the States had asked for. The Prime Minister wrote to various Premiers and asked them how much was required so that the State authorities could re-employ all the people who had been displaced. The amount asked for was $30m, and that is what was given. I think the States were highly delighted. I notice there was very little criticism in what they had to say about the matter.

Spending the proceeds of petrol tax on roads is a matter that goes back as far as 1959 when the then Treasurer, in reply to a question which I directed to him, indicated that there was no longer a nexus between petrol tax and the amount of money which was being made available to the States. In 1965 I also directed a question to the then Treasurer, the late Mr Harold Holt, who said that it was the prerogative of the Government of the day to use petrol tax collections for whatever purpose it wanted to use them and that they were not exclusively for roads. This is more or less the policy of the present Government and the past Government.

One thing I notice about the advertisements of the Australian Automobile Association is that none of them makes any mention of the fact that the New South Wales Government, for example, has a tax on petrol which is going to return it about $100m a year. Why does the Association not start putting some pressure on the New South Wales Government to do something about roads? I will give just 2 examples of the amount of money being allocated by the States for roads. In New South Wales last year the State Government provided $124m for roads. This year it increased the allocation to the magnificent sum of $ 124.6m, whereas the Australian Government increased its allocation to New South Wales by some $18m. If the New South Wales Government had increased its allocation by the same percentage another $22,500,000 would have been available for roads in New South Wales this year. In Queensland the State Government actually reduced its allocation by $600,000. At the same time the Australian Government increased its allocation to Queensland by some $12m. When the Australian Automobile Association is wasting so much money on advertising to make an attack on this Government I sincerely question the political integrity of the organisation and wonder whether its action is not just part of a Liberal Party campaign.

page 3206

QUESTION

BUDGET PREPARATIONS

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did he return to Australia so that he would be able to pursue Budget preparations vigorously and adequately?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer is yes.

page 3206

QUESTION

TRADE UNION TRAINING COLLEGE

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration a question. Now that the college for training trade unionists will shortly be in operation, will the Minister make available to all trade union organisations a special information brochure setting out the details of this provision for unionists? May I add that I believe that this is the greatest innovation since falsies gave an uplift to women in the late 1 920s.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Sydney for the excellent suggestion that brochures be issued to all trade unions throughout Australia, explaining to their members the facilities that shortly will be available to trade unionists in the line of trade union training. An allocation of $3m was made in the last Budget to meet the cost of the Trade Union Training College and the State training centres. Unfortunately, all of that allocation Will not be spent because the College has not yet been built. The Cabinet has decided, however, that the College will be built. The Trade Union Training Authority Bill, which was passed by both Houses of the Parliament, authorises the building of the College. When the College is completed we will be able to offer these further facilities to unionists and thus make Australia the most advanced country in the world in the field of trade union training. Of all countries in the world, Australia will stand out as a beacon light for others to follow.

page 3206

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. What would be the effect on unemployment if the private sector had to match the benefits of the Government’s proposed Australian Government employees superannuation scheme? Did the Minister not clearly state in a number of letters some time ago that he considers that no government is justified in providing for its own employees benefits which it is beyond the capacity of the economy to provide for Australians generally? Is that not still the position?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is more than a year since I wrote letters in that strain- at least 1 8 months or thereabouts.

Mr Staley:

– You were right.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was at a time when the Government had not taken a decision and when the matter was the subject of public debate. It is true that I sent out many letters to trade unions and to members of the Public Service, telling them that in my view the cost of the scheme would be astronomical if it were applied to everybody in the community. That is common knowledge. My remarks were published at the time in the union journals, most of which attacked me for the views that I held.

Since that time I have put my side of the question to the Cabinet and the combined wisdomand may I add perhaps the greater wisdom- of the Cabinet and the Caucus has seen fit to take an opposite view, and I stand by that view.

page 3207

QUESTION

EDUCATION: TERTIARY ALLOWANCES AND FEES

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. In view of attempts to cut Budget expenditure, in the forthcoming Budget will the Minister ensure that tertiary allowances will be no higher than unemployment benefits or pensions? Secondly, will he consider making tertiary allowances and tertiary fees subject to a means test and generally introduce a system of repayable loans rather than grants for tertiary students, remembering that these students generally will become recipients of well above average incomes?

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

– I think it would be true to say that the Labor Government was elected on a program of means-tested tertiary allowances. At one stage we supplemented that program with a straightout emergency grant. I have received a report from a committee chaired by Dr Williams of the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which suggests changes in the level of funding and in the means test. I am not in a position to anticipate any Cabinet decisions that will be made on this scheme in the Budget context. So I ask the honourable gentleman to excuse me from giving him a definitive reply. However, the kind of suggestion that he has made is necessarily under consideration. Cabinet has several things to consider including an analysis of the whole structure of the means test by a reporter N. J. Thompson to make it fairer. That would be all that I would be able to tell the honourable gentleman at the present time. The question of tertiary allowances will be under consideration.

page 3207

OIL FROM COAL

Mr HEWSON Is the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware that the Chairman of the Victorian Gas and Fuel Corporation, Mr Neil Smith, is reported to be in East Germany at the present time studying the techniques of production of oil from coal as part of the Victorian Government’s feasibility study? If the feasibility study reveals that our Latrobe Valley brown coal can produce oil economically, will the Minister consider giving financial assistance towards the maximum sized plant required for such economical production? Has he ever been approached by the Victorian Government or has he, in accordance with a motion carried in this House, ever made approaches to the Victorian Government to make the project a joint venture in the national interest? Is he aware that the difference between the present price per barrel of imported oil and the price per barrel of oil from coal is only about $1.50? Would he use that small difference in price as a barrier to Australia’s being an independent producer when quantity production would further reduce the cost?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member for McMillan will be pleased to know that my Victorian counterpart, Mr Balfour, has suggested that he may come along to see me, together with the Chairman of the Victorian Gas and Fuel Corporation. We will be very happy to confer with them and to progress the matter beyond that point.

page 3207

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON ROADS

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Transport a supplementary question to that which was asked by the honourable member for Evans. In view of the fact that the Australian Automobile Association considers that the proceeds of the 22.3c a gallon tax on petrol should be allocated solely for the use of highways and roads, will he consider an extra tax for motorists to pay for the deaths of 3500 Australians killed on Australian roads and for the costs that some 90 000 Australians injured on our roads each year impose upon public hospitals, workers compensation and social welfare benefits? Will he also add another tax to that for the pollution that is caused by the millions of motor vehicles in Australia?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

-I am always reluctant to support any increases in taxation. In regard to the number of people who are being unjured today on our roads, I am hopeful that the Government’s legislation in regard to compensation will fully cater for that situation. Unfortunately, the Australian Automobile Association is so shut in in its thinking that all it can see is roads. If the Association had its way, this country would have nothing but roads. There would be no forms of public transport. Motor vehicles would be the only way by which the Australian people would be able to move around and we would have the problems that have been referred to by the honourable member for Robertson who is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety which is doing such excellent work in this area. It becomes so apparent that all that we do with roads is to create the opportunity for more deaths.

A similar situation applies in regard to pollution. We know that from time to time in Sydney and Melbourne the levels of carbon monoxide and other forms of pollution in the air have been far in excess of the levels recommended by the World Health Organisation. This Government is not a government committed to roads; it is a government committed to providing a transport system in the interests of the people as a whole and in the cheapest possible manner. That is why it has put so much money into assisting the States. As I said in reply to a question yesterday, the Government has already approved a program for some $207m to upgrade urban public transport. This Government will be responsible for $ 138m of that amount. It will continue to assist transport in that way and so help to reduce the need to build expressways and freeways, which the Australian Automobile Association would have it do.

page 3208

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr CONNOLLY I direct my question to the Treasurer. According to the Minister, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority is prepared to offer Australia $250m as a first instalment. Does he anticipate further instalments? Does he agree that SAMA is a major lender and deals only directly with governments? In view of this, why did he collude with the Minister for Minerals and Energy in using an intermediary to obtain funds from the Middle East?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The information that I gave yesterday about the discussions with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency is about as far as I can go. I cleared with the governor the matter of publicity. Normally the Monetary Authority is quite averse to any publicity being given to negotiations being held with it. I cleared with the Authority that it approved the statement that we have had discussions and the amount involved. I do not intend to go any further in the matter.

page 3208

EDUCATION OF SERVICEMEN’S CHILDREN

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on Educational Turbulence among Australian Servicemen’s Children by Lindsay Mackay and Brian Spicer of the Faculty of Education, Monash University. I might say that education turbulence means the disturbance of their educational careers, not misbehaviour. Due to the limited numbers available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 3208

SCHOOLS COMMISSION REPORT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14(2) of the Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Schools Commission for the triennium 1976-1978 together with a statement on that report, and seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave will not be granted. Leave will be given for the Minister to read the statement and the Opposition would then ask that the motion be moved, that the paper be -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 3208

HOUSING INTEREST RATES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Housing Interest Rates Committee in Western Australia.

page 3208

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes. In the ‘Bulletin’ of 31 May an article appeared headed ‘Wrong Job Figures Face Sack’. Among other things it said:

Labor Minster Cameron last week released the results of a Bureau of Statistics Survey in September last year which confirmed reports of massive inaccuracies in CES registrations and the certainty of many tens of thousands of dole frauds.

On page 17 of the ‘Bulletin’ there appeared a box article captioned ‘Don’t Bother to Apologise’, which I thought was a statement of policy on the part of the ‘Bulletin’. It referred to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and myself and to statements we made in January 1974 rebutting a rather exaggerated claim about staggering levels of bogus unemployment benefit claims paid. This article said, inter alia:

The Bulletin replied in its columns to these Ministers at that time -

When we rebutted the statement- that we stood by our report, and would not be intimidated.

It went on later to say:

We do expect more than a mere knee-jerk defensive reaction when a scandal of this magnitude is uncovered.

I think that the best quote I can give to that as a firm rebuttal to the exaggerated interpretations, which cannot be justified, for which Mr Samuel is responsible in his article, comes from a letter published in various newspapers and sent out under the signature of Mr J. P. O’Neill, Commonwealth Statistician, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. He said:

I am concerned at possible misinterpretations that are likely to arise from publicity recently given in the media to a survey of persons registered as unemployed.

He said later:

No questions were asked about unemployment benefits and it is therefore quite impossible to obtain from the survey results any information about persons in receipt of such benefits.

Mr Samuel’s article draws unwarranted conclusions, is mischievous and is unreasonably unfair to people in the Department of Social Security, to the system of unemployment benefits and, I suggest, is a cheap way of developing an article.

page 3209

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) indicated that I unreasonably cancelled pairs for the rest of this week. The reason for that was that at 9 o’clock on Monday of this week our Whip was advised that all pairs were cancelled by the Government for Monday, although pairs had been arranged. If the Government is going to break pairs at a moment’s notice, the Opposition will not co-operate in the granting of pairs.

page 3209

QUESTION

PRIVATE HEALTH FUNDS: ATTEMPTS TO MISLEAD CONTRIBUTORS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have received letters from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. I have selected the matter proposed by the honourable member for Kingston, namely:

The attempts of private health funds to mislead contributors.

I, therefore, call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in thenplaces. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I am raising this matter of public importance to draw to the attention of the House and the public the attitude of certain health funds which are making a sly attempt to mislead their contributors, both in relation to the provisions which will be made for Medibank after 30 June and, therefore, the best course of action that contributors should take after 30 June with regard to membership of private health insurance funds. What the funds have failed to do so far is the culmination of a protracted series of actions designed to frustrate the smooth introduction of Medibank.

I remind the House that the Government’s health insurance proposals have been put to the electorate as part of its election policy in the last 3 House of Representatives elections. Those proposals were endorsed by the electorate at the elections both in 1972 and 1974. The controllers of these private health funds are, therefore, acting anti-democratically by trying to frustrate the program of the elected Government. I emphasise the word ‘controllers’ because it is most important when talking about the health funds to distinguish between the controllers and the contributors. The hapless contributors, of course, comprise most members of the public. Since the introduction of the present health scheme, which was introduced by Sir Earle Page under the Menzies Government in the 1950s, people have been forced virtually to belong to a voluntary health insurance fund. On the medical side they have had to belong to the fund, otherwise they would not receive the Commonwealth benefit. Not only would they not receive a fund benefit if they did not belong to an insurance fund but also they would not get the Government benefit. Therefore, they were blackmailed virtually into belonging to the private health insurance funds.

The same practice applied on the hospital side. Sir Earle Page, as the Treasurer in a LiberalCountry Party Government, required the State governments to charge fees even for public hospitals. Contributors had to belong to those funds if they were to get back in rebates amounts paid as hospital fees. It was not only the fund benefit that they were to get; to get their full Commonwealth benefit of $2 a day, they had to belong to a fund. If they did not belong to a fund they received a Commonwealth benefit of only 80c a day. Therefore, the contributors were blackmailed into belonging to medical and hospital funds under the system that endures to the present day. When I refer to contributors to the funds I am speaking of virtually all members of the public. I ask honourable members to contrast their position with that of the controllers of the private funds. These are a very small cabal of people not representative of the contributors but in many cases are representative of the organised medical profession, answerable to nobody and never consulting the contributors whom they are supposed to serve. Because people were obliged to belong to these funds under the Earle Page scheme, the people controlling the funds found themselves suddenly in control of very large amounts of the public’s money. It could scarcely be called a voluntary donation for the reason I have stressed, because people virtually had to belong to a health fund to get the Commonwealth benefit.

Surely, therefore, the controllers of these funds had a solemn responsibility as custodians of the public’s money to see that these funds were used properly. I would suggest that this responsibility on the part of the controllers of the health funds has been abrogated in the past and right up to the present time with regard to the transition into Medibank. Repeatedly, action has been taken contrary to the best interests of contributors and without consulting the contributors to those funds.

Let me put to the House what would have been a reasonable course of action for the funds to take with the approach of Medibank. I suggest that it would have been reasonable for them, first of all, to have been quite candid and to have told their contributors what they would get from Medibank. The funds could have told their contributors that they would receive an 85 per cent rebate on the standard fee of general practitioners and specialists. The funds also could have told their contributors that this rebate would be available to pensioner patients as well as to everyone else in the community, unlike the rebate under the present voluntary health scheme. The funds could have told their contributors that doctors’ fees would be covered not only for consultations in consulting rooms and for specialist investigations but also for doctors’ visits when patients are in hospital. The funds could have advised their contributors that contributors in participating States under Medibank no longer would have to pay contributions if they went into a public hospital ward. The funds could have told their contributors that if they were private patients the Commonwealth benefit would increase from $2 a day to $ 1 8 a day if they stayed in the fund. But the funds did not go to any pains to point out what this would have meant to their contributors in the form of lower contributions after 30 June.

I should think that the second reasonable thing that the funds could have done would have been to propose to the Department of Social Security reduced contributions levels in the hospital tables. Applications have been made; but they have been made very belatedly, only a few weeks before Medibank is supposed to be introduced. No question of reduced contributions was raised by the funds until the very recent past, in the last couple of weeks. The funds could have provided for lower contribution rates for hospital insurance, they could have provided for a separate table, and they could have pointed out what they were seeking to do with their new medical benefit table, which was to cover the 15 per cent gap between the rebate and the standard fee.

The third reasonable thing that the funds might have done but have not done would have been to advise the public well in advance of what these new tables would be and what the people would have to contribute if they wanted to be, say, private patients or public patients in hospital, or whatever. Fourthly, I believe that what the funds should have done was to announce 30 June as a cut-off date, at which time all the contribution revenue and all the reserves of the funds would be consolidated, put into liquid form, and a rebate given to all the people who had contributed to the funds in the years and months up to 30 June 1975. I stress this point, which is very important, and I hope that the Minister for Social Security will do what he can to ensure that the public will get back the money which is left over in these funds and which contributors have been forced to pay for so many years.

What have the funds done, in fact? Despite the important changes that will occur, many funds have been sending their usual accounts to contributors, making no mention at all of the new arrangements. They have sent out accounts for continued full medical and hospital contributions for the period beyond 30 June, despite the fact that those levels of contribution would no longer be necessary after that time. Accounts were sent out as though Medibank did not exist. There was no mention that the Commonwealth hospital benefit would rise from $2 a day to $ 1 8 a day. There was no mention of the fact that, after 30 June, Medibank would cover up to 85 per cent of the standard fee or leave a $5 gap, whichever was the greater, for people having medical consultations. Of course, what the funds have actually done is to decide to continue their hospital tables for private patients and to provide, as I have said, cover for the 15 per cent between the rebate and the standard fee. Of course, this would mean that, after 30 June, if people belonging to private funds stayed in the hospital fund, their contribution would be much less, and, of course, their medical contribution would be very much less because nearly everything will be covered under Medibank.

However, the accounts went out, and the funds made no effort at the outset to explain what the situation was. In other words, the funds are misleading the public in an attempt to get people to continue their private insurance automatically after 1 July. It was only after the accounts went out that some of the funds advised their contributors of the new rates which would be offered. In other words, contributors were encouraged to over-pay, and not until after they had over-paid did the funds advise them that refunds could be obtained or that the amount could be credited, say, to a hospital fund. In many cases the refund can be obtained only by special request, and in some cases people would have to go to the headquarters of the fund and complete a form. Surely the onus should operate in the other way: The money- reserves and allshould have been refunded automatically to the people and the people should have been able to belong to the fund after 1 July if they wanted to do so. (Quorum formed) The Department of Social Security has now told the funds that they should not collect medical contributions to cover periods after 1 July. Some funds have complied with this. However, others have not done so and are collecting contributions for periods after 30 June, as though Medibank will not exist.

Surely it is utterly deceitful for the funds to behave in this fashion. Unless contributors are on the alert, they may be paying amounts to the private funds unnecessarily. Surely the controllers of these funds, as controllers of public money, should protect the rights of the public. Personally, I believe that the funds should be made to go further and refund all the contributions and reserves held at 30 June, or when the State concerned becomes a participating State under Medibank. The funds should rule the line at 30 June, because they have built up large reserves from people who have had to contribute to them and that means that those reserves are now the property of the people who have contributed in past years. Now that many people no longer will wish to insure, surely they are entitled to get some of their money back.

It is utterly ridiculous that the funds have been able to act as though they were a law unto themselves, without adequate government control and without contributor control. The poor old contributors are never consulted. The position is similar to that which operated when the Government invited the funds to act as agents for Medibank. On that occasion the funds merely announced that they would not act as agents for Medibank; they made that decision without consulting their contributors. Finally, some funds did make a statement about reduced contributions. There was a statement in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of 16 May, in which the President of the South Australian Association of Health Benefits Organisations, Mr W. K. Moon, announced that there would be reduced contributions. However, in that statement he made no effort to separate medical and hospital contributions and he tried to pretend that the whole thing would continue in the same sort of package as had applied previously. The statement was completely misleading. But I take it it was printed verbatim by Mr Barry Hailstone, who rejoices in the title of medical writer for the ‘Advertiser’. Obviously he has no understanding of the Medibank scheme, because he seems to accept uncritically everything that is handed to him by way of Press release from Mr Moon. This extraordinary power that the private funds have is a result of the collusion on the part of previous Liberal governments and the present Oppositioncontrolled Senate. There is no accountability in spite of the efforts of the Labor Party when in opposition to provide accountability for these funds to the Parliament. The Government still has not power to control the activities of the funds except by deregistration, which obviously is an extreme measure to have to take and would disadvantage contributors. But that state of affairs we can blame on the Oppositioncontrolled Senate which resisted the attempts by this Government to have adequate power over the funds to protect the public’s money. I cannot understand why the Opposition in this place persists in what I regard as a diabolical attempt to protect the people in charge of these funds, contrary to the interests of the members of the general public. I hope that if the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) speaks after me on this issue he will join me in denouncing this reprehensible effort on the part of the controllers of the funds. I hope he will co-operate in ensuring that members of the public have adequate control over and adequate access to their own money which they have been forced to contribute to these funds for many years under the iniquitous voluntary health schemes started under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-The best way I can describe this matter of public importance is as fantastic. It is fantastic. Fantastic is a word which has 2 basic meanings. Colloquially Australians have used it to mean good or great. But the literal meaning of the word fantastic is that something is unbelievable. That is exactly what this matter of public importance which has been brought on at this time is. It is unbelievable that the Labor Party would bring on this motion. We have the economy in absolute unmanageable chaos, drifting around like a rudderless ship. We have the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), one of the most discredited and disgraced Ministers ever to sit on those benches, who is trying to flog off Australia’s credit abroad to raise $2,000m. We have a spill in the air. It can be seen on the faces of honourable members opposite. It is fantastic to look at the looks on their faces as they sit there. We even had their own Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who, because -

Mr Whan:

– Wishful thinking on your part.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Eden-Monaro, who always makes inane interjections, says that it is wishful thinking. I remind him that his own Prime Minister last Thursday morning before breakfast, when he recorded an interview for ‘Monday Conference’, which I would think is a pretty kinky time of day to record ‘Monday Conference’ anyway, but that is when he did it, said that he wanted a spill. Here we have a government whose own Leader says in effect that he does not trust his Ministry- the 26 of them- enough, and therefore he wants a spill. We have that running at the moment in the Labor Party. We have the second Treasurer (Dr. J. F. Cairns) in a period of 12 months sacked in disgrace- the Treasurer who will go down in history as the Treasurer of this Commonwealth who never presented a Budget. We have the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) who could not wait to quit, who could not wait to split from this rabble who sat behind him and who are doing this to the country. He could not wait for the chance to leave. We have all these things.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very much enjoying the acrobatics of the shadow Minister for Health, but I draw your attention to the matter of public importance before the House which is:

The attempts of private health funds to mislead contributors.

I am at a loss to understand how the honourable member for Hotham can relate that subject to his comments on the Minister for Minerals and Energy.

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

-I would not directly uphold the point of order because I think the honourable member for Hotham is getting around to the point, but slowly.

Mr CHIPP:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am enjoying the discomfiture of my friends opposite, but I am getting around to the point very slowly. I shall respect your wishes, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. We have the Deputy Prime

Minister bringing the fight within the Labor Party out into the public again with a fantastic Press release issued last night. We are politicians, and to use the adjective of the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), we know the diabolical trouble that the Government is in. We expected a diversion today. We expected some sort of smokescreen. One of the forms of the House which a smokescreen can take for a political Party in trouble, is a discussion on a matter of public importance. So we expected a discussion on a matter of public importance. But we thought it would need to be good; something that would really grab a headline.

Mr James:

– No.

Mr CHIPP:

– We did not expect that it would necessarily be something that somebody like the honourable member for Hunter, with his intuition for detective work, had discovered- that Mr Kemlani was not an obscure Pakistani financier, but in fact a proxy member of the board of the Bank of England. That might have warranted page 1 headlines and taken some of the heat off the Government as would one or 2 other issues. But no, we have this fantastic motion about the attempts of the private health funds to mislead contributors, raised by the honourable member for Kingston. I felt sorry for him because we had to call a quorum to get his own people into the House while he was speaking. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), who is about to become Treasurer, was not in the House. The Treasurer, who is about to become Minister for Social Security, was not in the House. Who was listening to the honourable member for Kingston? The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who, notwithstanding his many talents, could hardly describe himself as being conversant with private health funds or nationalised health insurance. The bad timing of this matter of public importance is exquisite; it is pathetic. But it does highlight, I suggest, the agony that is now Jim Cairns. It is one of the many concessions that the Labor Party has made recently to exquisite masochism. Surely it is the act of a groggy, punch-drunk Government swinging blindly at anything that confronts it.

Mr Kerin:

- Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Again I must draw attention to the matter before the House. The honourable member for Hotham has been speaking for 6 minutes. There is only one member of the Liberal Party in the chamber. The honourable member opposite is not getting around to the point at issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I shall not uphold the point of order because, as I mentioned previously, the honourable member for Hotham is slowly getting around to the matter before the Chair. The honourable member still has 9 minutes left to speak and I am certain that he will respect the wishes of the Chair.

Mr CHIPP:

-Yes, I shall do that immediately, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence. The fact is that it is very difficult to dignify this motion by any argument at all. From time to time we have been accused of being champions of the private health funds. That is untrue; it is false. What we do stand for is the concept of competition between private health funds. We repel the concept that was promised by the Prime Minister in 1 97 1 in a speech to the Fabian Society in which he said that the first act of nationalisation that his Government would undertake would be the nationalisation of the private health funds. That is one of a few promises that he has honoured. Not satisfied with that, the honourable member for Kingston speaks today for 15 minutes to denigrate the health funds. Anyone would think from hearing the mania, the obsession that the honourable member for Kingston and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and other members of the Labor Party have about private health funds, that the funds were rapacious, multi-national, profit-making monsters that have invaded Australia and which are taking money by the millions from Australians. What are these funds? They are co-operative organisations.

Mr Clayton:
Mr CHIPP:

-Well, I wonder if the comedian from Isaacs, when he is reasonably coherent, would tell me who gets the dividends of the millions of dollars that the private health funds pay out. The whole proposition is just absurd. This is a pathetic smokescreen to try to take heat off the Government.

It is unfortunate that one of the words that the honourable member for Kingston used in his proposal for a discussion of a matter of public importance was ‘ mislead ‘.

If there has been any misleading in the field of health or health schemes it has not been done by the private health funds; it has been done by the Government itself with $1.5m of taxpayers’ money that it has scandalously spent without mandate, without authority, on a public education campaign. Even that scandal was not bad enough. The Government could not tell the truth even in that advertising. The honourable member for Kingston used the word ‘mislead’. One of the things in the Government’s $1.5m advertising campaign which has been splattered through radio, television and the Press is that it is a free health scheme- so the publicity says. The adjective ‘free’ is curious when used to describe something which, through the admission of the Minister for Social Security, will cost $ 1,408m of taxpayers’ money. It is a very curious adjective to put to a scheme that will cost that amount of money. But perhaps the worst example of misleading is in the newspaper advertisment which states:

Whoever you are, wherever you live, you can still choose the doctor you want to see.

This is publicity by the Government paid for out of taxpayers’ money. That statement is deliberately and palpably untrue. The advertisement goes on to say:

For instance, Medibank need not affect the existing relationship between you and your family doctor.

A former distinguished member of the Australian Labor Party, now an independent member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Allan Fraser -

Mr Keogh:

– Now extinguished.

Mr CHIPP:

– I acknowledge that interjection from the honourable member for Bowman so that it will appear to his discredit in Hansard. Mr Allan Fraser disowned and disproved this. We have been saying for months that this is not true, that if one wants one’s own doctor under Medibank of course one can have one ‘s own doctor until one goes to hospital. As soon as one goes to hospital one has to pay, according to the Minister for Social Security, between $20 and $30 per day for the privilege of having one’s own doctor. That is what Medibank does for one. This advertising is a bunch of lies which has been printed at the taxpayers’ expense. I conclude with the honourable member for Kingston -

Dr Jenkins:

– You have not started.

Mr CHIPP:

– I have not started on him yet, but I am about to now. A man who proposes as a matter of public importance for discussion the accusation that somebody is misleading somebody else has circulated to literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on Commonwealth letterhead a letter dated 2 1 April, addressed to God knows whom. It is addressed: ‘Dear Friend’. This man, a member of Parliament whom one would expect to show a leadership in business morality and in conduct wrote this letter on 21 April:

Dear Friend,

I am writing to you to point out a possible saving to your of some $16.

As you know, Medibank comes into force on July 1,1975. Medical insurance organisations have clauses . . .

The letter goes on to state:

You can therefore stop paying your medical insurance from the end of this month (April).

Should you incur large medical expenses during May or June you would, of course, have to pay the contribution arrears to obtain your refund. As the family rate for medical insurance is $1.96 per week, you can save eight or nine times $ 1 . 96. Considering the huge reserves of the larger funds and their anti-Labor propaganda, you may consider that you can use the money for better purposes.

The letter continues. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The letter read as follows)-

Marian City of Shops 297 Diagonal Road OaklandsPark,S.A.5046

Telephone 965777 21stApril, 1975

Dear Friend,

I am writing to you to point out a possible saving to you of some $16.

As you know, Medibank comes into force on July 1,1975.

Medical insurance organisations have clauses along the following lines, e.g. Mutual Hospital Association-

Members, whose payments are more than two months in arrears, are not entitled to benefits. However, the membership may be reinstated by paying the arrears. ‘

You can therefore stop paying your medical insurance from the end of this month (April).

Should you incur large medicalexpenses during May or June you would, of course, have to pay the contribution arrears to obtain your refund. As the family rate for medical insurance is $ 1.96 per week, you can save eight or nine times $1.96. Considering the huge reserves of the larger funds and their anti-Labor propaganda, you may consider that you can use the money for better purposes.

If you intend to accept public hospital treatment after July 1, you could also stop paying hospital insurance after the end of April. However, if you intend to maintain private hospital insurance after Medibank begins, you should continue hospital contributions through May and June.

Yours sincerely,

page 3214

QUESTION

RICHIE GUN

MHR for Kingston

Mr CHIPP:

-I thank the House. What the honourable member for Kingston has done, as an MP, as a member of the medical profession, is to send thousands of these letters out asking people to welsh on a deal, asking them not to pay their debts but if they can get away with something from the health funds to do it I ask the honourable member for Kingston to stand up and deny that he has done this sort of despicable thing. I can guarantee him that in his borderline seat of Kingston the morality surrounding the sending out of a letter like that will be made well known to the constituents at the next election. This matter of public importance is a farce. It is humbug. It is pathetic and, as I began to say, it is, according to a literal translation, fantastic.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-We have just seen an Actors Equity performance in this House completely irrelevant to the matter under discussion, which is not surprising because the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), even though he has been the shadow Minister for Social Security for nearly 3 years, still does not understand what Medibank is about. It is a great pity but it is true. He told us that the fact that private health funds are misleading contributors is not an important issue. It is an important issue. It means that they are trying to get $1.86 a week per family in the case of New South Wales and higher amounts in some other States. That amounts to some $95 a year. That amounts to some $200m rip-off from the Australian population under false pretences. This is the important thing. It is false pretences. The funds are trying to pretend to the Australian population, to the present contributors, that it is necessary for them to continue their medical insurance cover, which it is not necessary to do in any Australian State or Territory after 1 July. Even the LiberalNational Country Party Government in New South Wales, in a 2-page advertisement in all Sunday newspapers last weekend stated:

After July 1, there will be no need to continue your medical insurance.

That is the important point. Yet the funds- the Hospitals Contribution Fund and the Medical Benefits Fund in New South Wales and so on- are trying to continue with a scheme which has the same name as the present scheme. They will continue to call it scheme M. M used to stand for medical cover. They say that in future it will stand for multi-cover. The funds say that multicover will cost no more than the present medical benefits contributions- $1.86 a week for families and 93c a week for single persons. They have worked it out to be exactly $1.86 so that people will not realise that they will be subscribing to something to which it will be no longer necessary to subscribe after 1 July. Surely if there has ever been trickery or attempted trickery in Australia on a huge scale- as I pointed out, approaching $200m a year- this is surely that sort of trickery.

When the funds submitted their costing to the Department of Social Security it was found that it was impossible to cost the scheme. The funds included a large number of alleged services. They all have extreme limits on them. The funds included just about everything which is tax deductible so that the $1 . 86 may be tax deductible.

They included school health care, funeral expenses, out-patient treatment, private hospital theatre fees and dental services- dental services with extreme restrictions. An amount of 55c a week is to be charged to cover dental services. If one looks at the cover and read it in detail in fact one finds that it does not cover normal dental services available. It mentions orthodontists, endodontists, pedodontists and periodontists, but it does not mention the ordinary dentist doing fillings. That is the sort of multi-cover that the funds will provide.

They will cover the repair of prosthetic appliances, the provision of wooden legs, the provision of overseas health care which is already, by the way, covered under Medibank. Those are the sorts of propositions which the funds say they will cover. Most importantly, they will charge people more than 45c a week for what is called the ‘Medibank gap’ which is exactly the gap that has been in existence until now in relation to medical benefits refunds. An 85 per cent return or a maximum $5 moiety has always been the maximum return. The Australian Medical Association has always argued that it is terribly important to retain that gap so as not to get overvisiting by patients to medical practitioners. So it is still necessary for the patient to contribute something towards the cost of his medical treatment. What are the doctors doing now? With extreme hypocrisy the Australian Medical Association has supplied posters to all Australian doctors ‘ surgeries asking the doctors to show them to their patients. The posters ask the patients to stay in what is called, in the case of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, multi-cover so that they will get that 15 per cent gap refund. What utter hypocrisy! On the one hand the doctors are arguing that there will be over-visitation on the part of the patients to doctors if doctors bulk bill and that there will be over-visitation on the part of patients if there is no 1 5 per cent gap; then they are asking people to insure themselves for that 1 5 per cent gap.

The honourable member for Hotham in one of his wilder statements referred to the funds as cooperative and mutual organisations. In fact, what is the truth? The funds have large memberships yet the memberships have no say whatever in the running of those funds. For example, in case of the Hospitals Contribution Fund- which is the second biggest fund in New South Wales- I have previously pointed out that there is no provision at all for election to the council of the fund. In the case of the Medical Benefits

Fund of Australia, which claims to cover membership of some 2 500 000, only medical members have a vote. Clause 7 of that fund’s constitution provides that: medical members of the association shall be elected by the council or the committee appointed by the council to select medical members.

In other words, only a very small number of people can be appointed as electors for that body. Yet the honourable member for Hotham has the hide to call the funds co-operative organisations. Members have no say whatever in those organisations which are being run by people who are completely unrepresentative of the contributors. They are being run by persons who represent big business for one reason or another. The latest report of the MBF council indicates that there are 12 active AMA members on that council out of 24, plus a consultant from the Development Finance Corporation Ltd, a former deputy general manager of the Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co. Ltd, a National Country Party member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales and a director of country newspapers and television who, I think, is a relative of a prominent member of the National Country Party. There is another board member of the Development Finance Corporation, a director of companies, including Australian Fixed Trusts Ltd, Queensland division, and representatives of Queensland oil refineries, the National Bank of Australasia Ltd, City Mutual Life Assurance Society, Mutual Acceptance Limited Finance and an ex-Liberal member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly. They are the people who have been appointed by the medical members of the MBF to represent the average contributor. Therefore it is not surprising that the people who are running MBF are not taking a very great interest in it. I think that is one of the depressing things that it is being left to the general manager and to similar sorts of people who are concerned only with keeping going and having a huge turnover so that they can collect large salaries.

For example, if one sees Mr Cade of MBF on television one realises just how loose he is with his facts. He will appear on television one night and say that 75 per cent of the people join at intermediate and private rates. The next night he will say that 90 per cent of the people join at the intermediate and private rates. As far as he is concerned 15 per cent is neither here nor there. Of course the other important thing is that he ignores the fact that the reason people have joined at intermediate and private rates in New South Wales and in most other States except

Queensland is that there was a very strict means test for admission to hospitals. Unless one joined at the higher rate one was not covered when one went into hospital.

I reiterate it is a scandal the way the health insurance funds have tried to mislead their contributors. The funds are not pointing out to the contributors that what they will offer them after 1 July is in fact completely unnecessary. It will be a contribution to the coffers of the funds and it will amount to nearly $2 per week per family. I urge all members of the House to go into their electorates and to point out to their constituents that it is completely unnecessary- as the Government of New South Wales pointed out in its advertisement last weekend- to keep medical insurance going after 1 July.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-If anybody should be on trial in the Parliament today for misleading the public of Australia on matters relating to health it should be the Government. Never has there been such a campaign of deception waged against people concerning their future health requirements and needs in this country than that engaged in by this Government over the last 12 months. The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), in one of the few points he made in his tirade against the private health funds, spoke about the belated action by the private health funds in advising contributors about the situation after 1 July. He said it was only several weeks ago that notification was given and that this should have been done earlier. This is quite interesting because until a certain document came from the Department of Social Security to the private health funds it was completely impossible for the health funds to know what would be the rules of the game after 1 July. I refer to a circular entitled:

Australian Government Department of Social Security Conduct of Private Health Insurance after 30 June 1975.

This circular was sent to all health funds. It is dated April 1975. Looking at the day on which it was dated, let alone at the day on which it got to those organisations, how could people have more time to know what would be the situation when the organisations themselves were not told by the Government. So the charge about the private health funds misleading the contributors falls flat and is thrown right back in the honourable member’s face because the Government has not given the health funds the rules of the game to be played. To add to the confusion which private health funds must be under in relation to the situation on 1 July, one has to refer to an article which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Age’ on 22

April by Michael Smith, the medical reporter under the heading of:

Medibank: What it Will Save Insurers.

The article states:

People will have to insure for $39 a day in private hospitals compared to $30 a day for a private ward in public hospitals.

This is after 1 July. Apart from discrimination against people in private hospitals this adds to the confusion of health funds. That statement has not been refuted or corrected in any way by the Government. Will there have to be 2 levels of insurance by private health funds in relation to a person who decides he wants to go into a private ward in a public hospital or a similar ward in a private hospital? There is a difference of $9 a day in the actual charge. Once again the Government has been misleading the people. It has not told the health funds or anybody what will be the real situation. What is the position of taxation deductions for people after 1 July? The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) very correctly and, I believe, cleverly, drew this matter to the attention of the public today when he contrasted the contradiction between the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden)- that is the Minister at the moment- and the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). In a number of replies the Minister for Social Security has given to various people both in writing and in public statements he has pointed out a whole range of insurable items which the health funds could have after 1 July and which would be tax deductible. Yet the present Treasurer, who is soon to be the Minister for Social Security, gave another answer to a question which I placed on notice on 2 1 May. I put 8 questions before the Treasurer and asked whether certain items would be tax deductible after 1 July. These were very important items for the health insurance funds, contributors and the people of Australia to know about. The Treasurer’s answer was as follows:

The honourable member’s question raises issues of policy with respect to which the Government’s intentions will be made known at the appropriate time.

What a farce; what a misleading of the public; what a sham when we have the Minister for Social Security saying one thing and the Treasurer saying a completely different thing. I hope that when the portfolios of these Ministers are reversed, their statements on these matters will not also be reversed.

For the last 12 months the Government has embarked on a Goebbels-like attempt to mislead the Australian public in relation to the state of the health funds of this nation. The Government has worked on the assumption that if a charge is repeated often enough the people will believe it. That is the basis on which the Government has operated and also the basis on which this discussion of a sham matter of public importance is raised.

What about the excessive reserve funds which the health funds were supposed to hold? That charge was repeated day after day in this Parliament and in Press statements. Two health funds in New South Wales took up the challenge. They took the Government to court and won their case. There was no such thing as excessive reserve funds being held.

I turn next to the question of long waiting time for rebate payments for health insurance contributors. In the last few weeks, question after question in Dorothy Dix fashion has been asked in this House on this topic. The reply has been that the situation is terrible and that contributors must wait several weeks before rebate moneys are received but that when Medibank comes into operation rebates will be received within 5 days of lodging a claim. The Government must have far more confidence in the ability of Medibank to repay rebates within 5 days than the chemists of this country have- or than the Department of Health itself has- in the ability in the Department of Health to repay pharmaceutical benefits scripts in 5 days.

Let us look at the record of the Government in this other area of health repayments. At the present time the average chemist in Australia is waiting more than 5 weeks for the repayment of minor pharmaceutical benefits items. Those items are minor when compared to the items on which Medibank payments will be made. If a repatriation script is involved, the wait is up to 2 months. What a farce it is to say that one Government section will be able to provide rebates within 5 days when another section of the Government is failing so miserably to do so.

Further to this point about repayments being made within 5 days, I refer to an interesting article in the ‘West Australian’ of 9 May which states:

Cash payments from Medibank offices in WA would be limited to about $75 when the scheme started on July 1, the State manager of Medibank, Mr Alan Keating said yesterday.

On the one hand we are told that rebates will be received within 5 days of lodging a claim, that people will get them immediately, on the other hand we are told that these repayments will be limited to$75. If a person is exercising his or her right as a private patient with a private ward, bearing in mind the charges that would be levelled against that person in that ward, that person will need more than $75 before this scheme has been underway for very long. I nearly said what a misconception that was. What a deception, I should say. The whole scheme is misconceived. But what a deception is this example of how people will receive rebates in respect of medical or hospital expenditure.

I refer next to the claim by the Government that it will end discrimination in hospitals with the introduction of Medibank. All that the Government is doing is introducing discrimination in respect of those people who believe that they have a right as Australians in a free society to be treated by their own doctor and to have the hospital ward accommodation of their preference. The honourable member for Hotham referred to the case of one of the former shadow ministers of the Labor Party disowning the Government on this very issue. I refer to Mr Allan Fraser who said that it was never the intention of the Labor Party to discriminate against the person who exercises his or her right to be a private patient. That is exactly what the Government is doing in terms of this scheme. The Government claims with respect of midwifery cases that the woman patient will have the choice of her own doctor. That doctor will be available only if there is a sessional arrangement for him in the State concerned. There are doubts about specialists. Complete doubt exists about the situation after the post-confinement period as well as in cases where a pediatrician is needed for a child. Allan Fraser is on record in these respects also.

Today, in its editorial, the ‘Canberra Times’ has charged this Government with misleading the Australian public as the Government will discriminate against Australians who wish to have the right to have their own doctor. I quote from the editorial:

The inevitable upshot is that from July 1, when the Medibank scheme becomes effective, there will be serious complications both for hospital administrators and for their patients-

So the editorial goes on.

Dr Klugman:

– Ah!

Mr LLOYD:

– I agree that I have read the wrong quotation. The next point that I was about to make was whether the scheme would actually be underway after 1 July.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Read thelot.

Mr LLOYD:

– I would, but there is not time. Let us look at the claim of no discrimination. We have not been told yet- the State Ministers for

Health are worried about this aspect- whether a person who has the temerity to go into a private ward of his .or her own accord will receive less cover and be charged far more than the public patient, and probably far more in a private hospital, or whether there will be no medical rebate for radiology or pathology services. How does this situation relate to the suggestion that the Government is ending discrimination in hospitals in Australia? The Government is just introducing a new form of discrimination.

What will be the position in country hospitals? Country people have been misled. Complete confusion exists in country areas of Australia at present as to what will happen in country hospitals after 1 July. We have the interesting case in Victoria where somebody came down from Canberra thinking that bush nursing hospitals were only health centres in Victoria and did not have beds. That person found that the situation was completely different from what he had expected. The position in that respect also is completely confused. What about the hospital construction program in which the Government will build hospitals to provide huge numbers of beds which, under Medibank, will be utilised to a greater degree than beds are used at present in providing services to people? We have now been informed that as a result of a conference of State Health Ministers the hospital construction program will be cut.

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

page 3218

TASMANIA GRANT (ASSOCIATED PULP AND PAPER MILLS LIMITED) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May on motion by Mr Enderby

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports this legislation. The need for it is obvious. But the need has arisen only because of the quite impossible policies of the present Government It is the policies of the present Government in relation to the total Australian economy and in relation to the State of Tasmania which have made this legislation necessary at this time.

We have the failure of the Government’s economic policy over 2Vi years. We have the failure of the Government to develop policies which take proper account of the needs of industries of

Tasmania, just as those policies fail to take proper account of the needs of industries and people in all other States of the Commonwealth. For example, the 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut has hit industry throughout Australia. It has hit Tasmanian industry. It has hit the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd very viciously indeed. As a result of that, we do not have a proper reorientation of Government policies; we have a band-aid approach to paper over the cracks and to try to hide from the Australian people the impact of the failure of Government policies.

You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is rare that a government in its first year of office establishes 4 records, in its second year in office looks like breaking all those records, and in its third year in office looks like breaking those records again. I do not know how much the Government is proud of its achievement. It has achieved record unemployment, record interest rates, record inflation and record industrial unrest. Industrial unrest and inflation have hit Tasmania and Tasmanian industries probably much more harshly than industries on the mainland. Tasmania’s industries are dependent for transport upon sea transport and upon the waterfront where disturbances and unrest are much greater than they have been in some other parts of Australia. I understand that there is a 48-hour strike at present by the maritime unions whose members are refusing to load Australian National Line ships, again making it harder for industry to survive in Tasmania.

We have had the promises of this Government. The promises sounded fine. In 1972 and 1974 we were promised that inflation would be reduced and full employment would be established. That is what the Government said in 1 972 and in 1974. In 1974 the Government said that only Whitlam could do it- only Whitlam could do what he had done, that is, establish records about which I have spoken, especially at a time when in other countries the level of inflation was improving and the economies of those countries were coming under control.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) also promised a reduction in interest rates. Because of his close relationship with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he promised a reduction in industrial unrest. There has been less communication and more abuse between this Prime Minister and the trade union movement or the present Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the trade union movement than I think we have seen in any government in the history of Australia since 1945. We need only to have listened to the President of the ACTU speaking on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program ‘AM’ this morning to hear him describe some present Government activities as ‘sheer insanity’. It does not really sound as if the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party are all that close together. That promise with respect to industrial unrest was a mirage and a myth as is so much else of what the Government has sought to do or promised the Australian people that it would do.

It promised restraint on Government spending in the middle of 1974. It imposed restraint on the States for a while, but Caucus had something to say about that. The then Treasurer issued in this House a very positive statement- a good, tough statement- on the economy, but there were no measures at the end of it. The trouble was that Caucus had rubbed out all the measures and the Treasury had not had time to rewrite the speech making it appropriate to the one or two minor matters that were left in it. Restraint on Government spending is anathema to the present Government. It does not exist, as far as the present Government is concerned. The Government promised a restoration of the housing sector last year, but the housing sector is still in grave difficulties. It promised an efficient and prosperous private sector in 1975, but the present unemployment figures, the capital investment figures and the unemployment figures that will be announced on Saturday or Sunday do not indicate that that is the situation.

Let us look at the reality. We know of the promises. The promises are fine; but we have the highest rate of inflation in our history. It is over 17 per cent; whereas it was 5.6 per cent when the Government took over. In the United States of America, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland inflation is falling, but in Australia it is rising- Brogan and Gruen say that it could go to 30 per cent on present policies. The Treasury is reported to have said that it will go to 30 per cent on present policies. I understand that Professor Arndt has made equivalent predictions. I understand also that it is the view of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions- I apologise to him if I do him an injusticethat on present policies, as I think he has already publicly stated, inflation and unemployment will go much higher. We have record inflation and we have the highest unemployment since the depression, but it is much worse in comparative terms because expectations are so much higher now. In April 1972 unemployment was 92 000; in April 1975 it was over 280 000-a proud record for this Government. A significant part of the unemployment is in Tasmania. A significant part of the unemployment is in the electorate of Bass, which has been vacated recently by the present, though only for a short while, Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard).

We have record industrial unrest. There were 6 million man days lost last year as a result of industrial unrest- a record since records were first kept in, I think, 1913. This again is a tribute to the Government and to the way it mismanages and bungles its affairs on every front. There will be a record Government deficit of $2,000m this year as a result of policies for which the Prime Minister is directly responsible because a major part of the deficit flows directly and intimately from proposals of the Prime Minister himself. It is no good sacking one Treasurer and proposing to sack another in order to bring in a third- three in 12 months, if that is what it is to be- and trying to pretend to the people of Australia that the ills of the economy are past.

Mr Duthie:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am still waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to touch on the Bill that is before the House. I have not heard it mentioned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-The Bill is a fairly wide one. I will not uphold the point of order because the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about unemployment- a matter that is referred to in the Bill.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-One of the major purposes of this legislation, as I understand it, is to prevent unemployment rising in Tasmania. If the honourable member who interjected believes that this measure is not directed to preventing unemployment rising, he is certainly wrong and does not know what the Bill is about. If he does not understand that unemployment is caused by the unreasonable and extravagent expenditure of this Government, he also does not know what life is about- but then nobody in the Government does. Honourable members opposite know only what happens in their own Caucus. They are concerned only with that and not with what happens in respect of the wider interests of the people of Australia and, in this instance, the people of Tasmania. The honourable member who interjected and, for that matter, the Minister for Defence who is no longer a member of this House have never in my memory got to their feet in this House and defended their own State against the policies of this Government. What they do in the privacy of Caucus is another matter, and no doubt they are brave men when they get back to Tasmania. However, they are not very brave men when they get back to Tasmania.

However, they are not very brave in this Parliament. They do not speak in support of their own State. They do not speak against the policies of the Government which are destroying industry in Tasmania and throughout Australia. The same can be said of other honourable members. It can be said of Mr Speaker. He is somewhat restrained now, but before he was elevated to that position I had not noted him speaking for the motor industry in Geelong and of the unemployment which is likely to occur there as a result of the initiatives of the Government in bringing another manufacturer into Australia.

At the point at which I was interrupted I was saying that the record Budget deficit is the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister whose own extravagant expenditure plans- the national compensation plan, Medibank and national superannuation, which are pet hobbies of the Prime Minister- will add enormously to the deficit next year. Is he going to abandon these plans? Is the present Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) or the one we will have on Saturday, if Saturday is the day he is to be appointed- perhaps the present Treasurer will be allowed to introduce the Budget and then he will be sacked- proposing a deficit of $4,000m or $6,000m? There is one estimate which indicates that if all the expenditure plans of the Government are carried through as promised there will be a deficit of $6,000m. What will that do to inflation? What will that do to unemployment? Both will rise.

The Government cannot understand that the continual pump priming in the present fashion will only add to unemployment because the preconditions for a successful take-off in the private enterprise sector just do not exist. For pump priming through deficit financing to be successful there must be some stability in the economy, there must be at the worst a very modest level of inflation, there must be relative stability in wage rates, there must be confidence in the future and there must be the circumstances in which industries, small and large, can and will invest in the future of Australia. What board room has made a forward investment decision over the last 6 months or will do so over the next 6 months? Last year the problem caused by the Government was related to a credit squeeze and an inability to raise funds. Very real problems were caused by the credit squeeze and the high rates of interest. This year, while funds might be a little easier to gain, industries are not borrowing and investing in the future because they have no confidence that they can cover the cost of the borrowing because of inflation and what even the Prime Minister in one or two of his perspicacious moments has called excessive wage claims. So the Budget deficit will be the result of the Prime Minister’s policies and he cannot wash it out of his hair by saying that it was the fault of poor Frank Crean or poor Jim Cairns or poor Bill Hayden. Will the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) be the next one? He is the one who undercut the present Treasurer by informing the Prime Minister of negotiations and suggesting to him that he ought to ask for the papers concerning the overseas loans.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The Leader of the Opposition is taxing my patience a little. He has now definitely gone beyond the Bill and I suggest that he get back to it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Tasmanian industry, like the rest of industry, is concerned about the unemployment that has been caused by the policies of this Government. The unemployment situation is exemplified by the fall in employment in the housing industry. In 1972 housing approvals totalled about 107 000; in 1974 they totalled 84 000. As a result of Government policies the costs have gone from $14,000 to $ 1 9,000 for the same sized house. The housing industry is an example of an industry which has gone down on its knees. It is a comparable example because we could have been talking about the housing industry instead of about legislation providing special measures to assist Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. The total private sector is virtually on its knees at the moment. The Director of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia said recently that 160 000 small Australian enterprises are at risk and that a very large part of total manufacturing employment is in some danger of closing down because profits have been attacked by so many successive policies of this Government. The amount of the gross national product which they represent has fallen from over 14 per cent to under 9 per cent. On the face of it, this would appear to be part of the deliberate policies of the Government, although now at the eleventh hour the Government supports the claim by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd before the Prices Justification Tribunal for price increases because the Prime Minister sometimes recognises that profiits are necessary if employment is to continue. But the Government does not act in that way and it does not realise that its total expenditure policies make it impossible for it to act in that way.

What has gone wrong? There has been a lack of a coherent approach. The Government has played politics with the economy. Its theology has been more important than the practical realities of what is happening in Australia. There were 4 Budgets in 1974-75. The Government says that it has to look at the economy on a continuous basis. If there was any stability in the economy and if the Government had a capacity to plan ahead and to understand, it could have had, as the previous Government had, one Budget in a year, and people would know what the situation would be for the rest of the year, companies could plan ahead and companies could invest. Companies like APPM would not have to be the subject of special measures from this Government in order to survive and prevent unemployment rising in a local area. It is only because of the extreme instability created by the idiotic policies of this Government that measures of this kind are necessary.

Last year we had the Treasurer’s Budget Speech in September, a statement by the Prime Minister in November about some other concessions and this year an announcement in January about a cut in sales tax on motor vehicles which gave a very significant advantage to 3 large multinational companies but which ignored completely and absolutely the thousands of small purely Australian companies, because the measure of their difficulty and harm was that they would have to lay off only 5, 10, 15 or 50 men, not the 5000 that General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd would have to lay off. Where is the Government’s theology in that? It is helping large multinational companies but ignoring the thousands of purely Australian companies in equal difficulties. They were ignored and they continue to be ignored.

The unco-ordinated and ad hoc tariff and currency measures have also added to the problems of industry. What is going to happen next? Is there to be another Treasurer on Friday or another Treasurer on Saturday? If so, will he last until the time of the next Budget or until after it, or will he survive only to put a Budget to the Caucus and then be dismissed, as it appears the present Treasurer is going to be dismissed? The Prime Minister is adept at changing his Ministers. The Prime Minister is adept at blaming his Ministers. He ought to understand that he is the Prime Minister and is responsible for the actions of his Government. He cannot maintain his own purity by laying blame for the problems and difficulties of his Government on other Ministers. It ought to be understood that he has a total responsibility for the actions of all his Ministers.

Who are the other Ministers he mentioned on ‘Monday Conference’? It should be noted that that program was recorded early last Thursday, as I understand it. Last Thursday he was saying that he had no confidence in some of his Ministen, that there are much better people. So far only one has gone. Who are the others who are going to go? Is the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) one of them? Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Attorney-General? Does he have confidence in other Ministers? We just do not know. He is just starting. Where is he going to finish in trying to establish confidence in his own Ministers? If the Prime Minister has no confidence in his own Ministers, how can companies like APPM, how can industry, how can the Australian people and particularly the Australian who is now employed and does not know whether he will be next on the list of unemployed have confidence in a government in which the Prime Minister himself says he has no confidence? It is a sheer nonsense. I believe that the Australian people will understand it and I am certain that the people of Bass will understand it when they have an opportunity to express their feelings a little later this month.

There has been a total cynicism by this Government in attacking the root causes of the present problem. It started off by saying: ‘More wages, bigger wages, better wages ‘ and using the Public Service as a pacesetter. It now says that the Public Service cannot be used as a pacesetteror at least half of the Government members do. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said today: ‘I am right. The Government is wrong but the Government view prevailed ‘. He made it quite plain that in his view some measures currently before the Parliament are operating as a pacesetter in a way that is detrimental to the wider good of Australia. More often than not the Minister for Labor and Immigration has been right in a number of things he has said about the economy and growing unemployment. He has been ignored on each occasion, perhaps largely because the Prime Minister has been out of the country almost more days than the Parliament itself has been sitting and has not been here to listen to one of the few Ministers to whom he ought to listen. I think if the Prime Minister wanted a responsible Treasurer he ought to consider the Minister for Labor and Immigration as a Treasurer. At least he has some experience and he has shown -

Mr Chipp:
Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I think that the Minister for Labor and Immigration in what he has said about the economy and the causes of rising unemployment over the last 1 8 months has been much more nearly right than have the Treasurers or the aspirants to the office of

Treasurer, and certainly much more nearly right than the Prime Minister. But perhaps he would become too close to the sun and too powerful a force if he were given that responsible job. I have no doubt about his capacity to fill it with honour and distinction.

There has been a cynical approach to wages. The Government has known every time it has encouraged trade unions to ask for a higher wage or for a more significant return that because of the impact of the progressive tax scale a larger part of the total income of the country automatically goes into the hands of the Government. Therefore the trade unions’ efforts to maintain their position and their standard of living under the impact of the progressive tax scale are essentially self-defeating. They feed the coffers of the Government and serve no other purpose. The Government ought to be explaining that with great force to the trade union movement, but it has not done so.

The Government has failed to deal with the problem of the mushrooming deficit. The increasing size of the deficit results from proposals made by every Minister which almost automatically get accepted. The Government talked about cuts earlier this year. One Minister came away from Cabinet crestfallen because he had made a proposal for new expenditure and it had not been accepted. That was regarded as a cut. It was the first cut there had been in anything this Government had done, but the definition of ‘cut’ in the Government’s terms is an interesting one.

We have heard what the Prime Minister has said about the changing causes of inflation. Firstly it was imported, then it was caused by excessive profits, then it was caused by wages, then it was the fault of the Treasurer, and now it is the fault of another Treasurer. Always the Prime Minister had an alibi. Who is going to be next? What is the next excuse? Why does the Prime Minister not say that inflation is still overseas caused when it is falling in a number of countries which are our principal trading partners? If it is overseas caused it ought to be coming down in Australia, but it is still rising. It is falling in Japan, Germany, Canada, the United States of America and other countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Prime Minister knows quite well that inflation in Australia is caused by the policies of his Government, and policies for which he in particular has a personal and intimate responsibility.

There has been a total avoidance of responsibility by the Prime Minister and an apparent total capacity to try to blame other? for the errors of his Government when he, as Leader of the Government, ought to accept responsibility in total terms for what the Government does- its successes and its failures. He has repeatedly dumped policies, Ministers and promises. We had the confusion at Terrigal. He tried to pretend that the Government was going to support private enterprise, but then it introduced measures for the Australian Government Insurance Corporation and the Purchasing Commission which represent one of the most dangerous and difficult attacks on private enterprise that we have ever seen. For good reason those measures have been postponed until the Budget session.

Inflation has to be reduced. Unless it is reduced there will be no return to full employment, no reduction in interest rates, no return to a healthy private sector, no lasting relief for those on fixed incomes and no return to stability in the housing market. A coherent plan to rehabilitate the Australian economy would involve a cut in Government spending. The present Treasurer has said that there will be a cut in Government spending in all programs that are new. Is that why he is going to be sacked on Friday? Wage growth must be controlled and the Government must put its arguments to wage tribunals. Capital investment must be encouraged or there will not be a creation of jobs. The taxation burden has to be reduced, and the Australian people need to believe that a firm and determined Government is in power, not a politically irresponsible rabble such as we have seen over the last 48 hours.

There can be no confidence in the present Government’s ability to achieve stability and sense in the Australian economy because of the infamous record of this Government; the record that leads to the kind of special measures which are necessary to paper over the cracks which we see at the present time, namely record inflation and unemployment, low levels of housing construction, high interest rates, record and growing Government deficits -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I refer the honourable member to the contents of the Bill. The first paragraph of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) states;

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament to pay to Tasmania, in accordance with the provisions of Section 96 of the Australian Constitution, a sum not exceeding $650,000. Such payments are to be made in return for Tasmania providing financial assistance to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, subject to that company in turn maintaining employment at agreed levels.

I think that the honourable member is straying away from the contents of the Bill. I ask him to make sure that he keeps his remarks as relevant as possible to the Bill.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I am well aware of the contents of the legislation but I am pointing out that this legislation, while it has our support, would not be necessary if there was sound economic management in Australia. Therefore what I have been saying, I put with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, is entirely relevant It is necessary to point out what needs to be done to the Australian economy so that this kind of special measure will not be necessary in the future.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I make the point to the honourable gentleman that this is not a debate on the general economy. It is a debate on a specific Bill. The honourable gentleman should make sure that his remarks are relevant to the Bill.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-With respect, my remarks are relevant to the Bill because the cause and need for this legislation have come forward because of quite specific Government policies; for example the 25 per cent tariff cut which has made the industry, which is the subject of this legislation, uneconomic, therefore requiring special Government help. It is necessary to talk about Government policies which have led to the necessity for this legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the APPM and other parts of Australian industry, Tasmanian industry in particular, have been brought to their knees as a result of the policies of this Government as a result of the failure of the Government to tackle industrial unrest. As I have pointed out, there has been an avoidance of responsibility. We have a lack of credibility and confidence in the Government. We have seen what has happened in respect of overseas loans, the wool price proposals. What effect will these actions have on Tasmania. We have seen that this Government is unconcerned about the difficulties at Greenvale. What has happened to day? There has been chaos in the Government itself.

Quite specifically I think that the Government’s failures are more significant for Tasmania than for the rest of the Australian economy because of the difficulties of transport between Tasmania and the other States of Australia. The Prime Minister said that measures would be undertaken to see that more efficient and cheaper transport would be provided between Tasmania and the other States. But as a result of Government policies transport costs have soared largely through industrial unrest and other difficulties. This has been the result of the failure of Government policies. We have a situation in Tasmania as a result of Government policies where unemployment has risen in some areas by 100 per cent since April 1974. Nearly 2000 people are unemployed in the city of Launceston. These are problems which are shared throughout Australia, but they have a particular impact on Tasmania because of that State’s greater difficulty in competing in the wider Australian markets.

The problems created by Government policies apply also to rural industries in Tasmania where costs, inflation, the lack of the superphosphate subsidy and, again, transport costs have hit APPM, the wool industry and rural industries which are now in great difficulty. This measure is one that should never have been necessary. It has become necessary as a result of the total failure of Government policies. We have seen other measures of different kinds which affect other Australian industries in other States, none of which would have been necessary if there had been common sense and responsibility in the Government’s economic policies. I hope that this suggestion is wrong, but I have been advised that not one member of the Australian Labor Party is to speak on this legislation, that not one member from Tasmania is to speak and that not one member is to stand up and defend the Government and the Government’s infamous record in relation to these matters.

Mr Enderby:

– I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable gentleman to tell outright untruths? He knows that the next speaker will be a Tasmanian representative from this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The following speaker depends upon who rises.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

-Thanks to the indulgence of the Chair we have been listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) making a dummy run of the election speech which he will make for the by-election in Bass. Of course, he will need to do much better than this in Launceston. However, I want to deal with the matter that is before us. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a grant not exceeding $650,000 for Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd to maintain employment in its mills at Burnie in Tasmania at Ballarat in Victoria- it would be interesting to know whether the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Erwin) is to take part in this debate- and at Shoalhaven in New South

Wales. Under section 96 of the Australian Constitution, the Australian Government will make the payment to Tasmania, which in turn will make advances to the company, subject to certain employment conditions that I will deal with at a later stage.

This grant is one of 4 proposals which have been the subject of negotiations between the company and the Australian Government since 1 April when, at a meeting in Sydney, the company was officially advised that it could expect to receive no assistance from the report prepared by the Temporary Assistance Authority. The Australian Government has now agreed to the 4 proposals, and we all hope that orders will soon pick up making it possible for a return to full employment. The proposals included a monitoring control being established by the Department of Manufacturing Industry over the level of orders for imported paper, so that if orders for imported paper reached a rate of 6000 tonnes of dutiable paper in any successive period of 3 months, an automatic reference will be made immediately by the Department to the Temporary Assistance Authority. This sets a trigger figure for another reference, if imports are averaging 2000 tonnes a month.

In addition, the Australian Government will issue a directive to all its departments to purchase Australian-made paper in any of their requirements. I sincerely hope that the State governments will also encourage their departments to buy Australian-made paper. When the company previously encountered trouble in 1961, the Tasmanian Government at that time instructed all its departments and instrumentalities to buy Australian-made paper, and although this is a widely held concept, it is a matter for regret that in other mainland States we note occasionally where some State governments buy paper from overseas. The third proposal related to paper for telephone directories. The Australian Government has agreed that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department will increase its order from an anticipated 3000 tonnes to 6000 tonnes from the company’s mill at Wesley Vale in Tasmania. I should point out that this has had an immediate effect on employment at Wesley Vale where it was anticipated that there would be some retrenchments and work sharing. However, with this order, there has been no marked effect on the employment situation at Wesley Vale except in the reduction from a 7 day week to a 5 day week. Finally, the Australian Government agreed on a grant of up to $650,000 to assist employment at APPM and this is embodied m the Bill now before Parliament. The grant will reimburse the company for interest paid on a loan necessary to finance the accumulation of additional stocks.

It is important that we review the circumstances leading up to this grant. On 1 3 December last year APPM announced its intention to retrench 160 employees because of falling orders for paper. I immediately contacted the then Minister for Manufacturing Industry and made arrangements for his personal assistant, Mr John Iromonger and Mr Noel Scrivener of the Department of Manufacturing Industry to go to Tasmania for discussions with the management and unions of APPM at their Burnie and Wesley Vale plants. These officers completed a report which formed the basis of discussions held in Melbourne one week later, on Friday 20 December, at a conference convened by the Acting Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, and attended by representatives of APPM, the unions and myself. An agreement was arrived at whereby the company agreed that there would be no further retrenchments pending a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on the problems facing APPM.

I point out that the company showed great social responsibility in keeping its bargain over the next few months by not retrenching any employees, even though stocks of paper built up to very high levels. Orders for paper were running at approximately 40 per cent of what was expected during the first 3 months of this year and the company was obliged to stockpile approximately $12m worth of paper. The plant at Burnie was producing 4300 tonnes of paper a week and, with orders at a rate of 1800 tonnes a week, 2500 tonnes of paper was being stockpiled every week. I understand that an additional financial burden of approximately $2m had to be met by the company in insurance, cartage and storage of this paper. The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) released the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on 7 April. He announced that the Authority had not recommended any assistance for the company. The Temporary Assistance Authority advised against any further restrictions on the import of paper but said that it was fully aware that Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd faced a difficult period until the middle of 1 975.

At this point I must take issue with the Leader of the Opposition. He blamed the Government’s action in regard to imports as one of the major problems affecting this company. I must point out to him- of course, he should know this- that the Temporary Assistance Authority is an entirely independent body which makes its appraisal and recommendations of the case on the facts before it. This particular report indicated that there should not be further restrictions on the import of paper. So the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition is entirely phoney, except for the point that I will make in a few minutes in relation to the fact that imports did rise during the end of 1974. But for the period under review- up to the end of 1974- the Temporary Assistance Authority, which is completely independent, found that there was no reason why there should be further restrictions on the import of paper.

But under the Temporary Assistance Authority legislation, as in all fairness the Leader of the Opposition should have pointed out, the Government is obliged to accept the Authority’s decision. However, because of my involvement in the problems facing APPM and its employees as from 13 December last year, the Special Minister of State said in his Press statement that discussions on the report had already been held between the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) and interested parties. Mr Lionel Bowen went on to say that discussions on ways of helping the company overcome its present difficulties and maintain employment were continuing.

The problems facing APPM have resulted from 2 causes. We all remember that there were widespread reports about the middle of last year that there was a world shortage of paper. This resulted in panic buying by paper merchants and customers throughout Australia. Of course, this is a point which the Leader of the Opposition skated completely over. We all know of the reports of panic buying by customers and of world shortage of paper. This particular aspect was referred to by the manager of APPM at a mass meeting which was held at the Wivenhoe showgrounds on Monday, 10 March, when the manager made it quite clear that paper stocks being held by APPM customers came from panic buying in 1974 but that they must eventually run down and this could result in increased orders from the mill. Coupled with this panic buying last year was the marked increase in imports towards the end of 1974. 1 readily admit this and note that those imports took place. Imports in August 1974 were running at 190 per cent above those for August 1973 and the September figure rose to 255 per cent. Imports fell away at the end of the year and have been of no significance for the first 5 months of 1975. However, as I pointed out, a monitoring system has now been established and an immediate reference will be made if imports reach the rate of 6000 tonnes in any consecutive period of 3 months.

I have mentioned before the fact that orders for APPM paper are running at the rate of only 40 per cent of what was expected in the first 3 months of this year and that it was obvious that the company would have to take drastic steps to reduce production in order to clear the accumulated stocks of paper. The Government was advised by the company when it received advice that the Temporary Assistance Authority had not recommended any assistance that it would have to cut production to 50 per cent. A reduction of 50 per cent of production would have meant the retrenchment of 1 100 employees at the company’s 4 mills at Burnie and Wesley Vale in Tasmania, Ballarat in Victoria and Shoalhaven in New South Wales. More than half of this total number of employees would have been retrenched at Burnie with corresponding retrenchments at the other 3 mills. The 4 proposals that I have outlined were designed to assist the company to increase its production from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. Everybody knew that the company could not hope to go immediately up to 100 per cent production until it had cleared its accumulated stocks and orders had picked up.

I have pointed out also how the orders of paper for telephone directories have helped the mill at Wesley Vale to the extent of ensuring at least a 5-day working week. The other 3 mills could run at only 75 per cent production with no retrenchments, providing the various trade unions co-operated and accepted the principle of work sharing on the basis of 3 weeks on and one week off. The alternative to work sharing involved the shutting down of one machine at Burnie. This would have involved the retrenchment of 230 people in Burnie, 130 people at Shoalhaven and 50 people at Ballarat. By its action the Australian Government has saved the jobs of some 700 people and by work sharing it can be seen that the jobs of 1 100 people could be saved. Mass meetings of unionists were held and the work-sharing principle has been adopted at Shoalhaven and Ballarat. In Burnie 9 unions out of the 11 unions involved agreed to accept work sharing. Thus, approximately 2000 employees at Burnie are working on the basis of 3 weeks on and one week off for a 2-month period after which discussions will again be held between the unions and the management and the position will be reviewed. Approximately 200 unionists in the other 2 unions involved rejected the work sharing principle and 6 retrenchments have taken place.

In giving the assistance outlined in this Bill the Australian Government is anxious that employment be maintained at the highest possible level. I repeat that by its action the Government saved the jobs of at least 700 people and with the acceptance of work sharing, this could result in saving the jobs of 1 100 people. No one wants to see large sections of the plant closed down because this could have very serious consequences on employment and in social terms in Ballarat, Shoalhaven and Burnie particularly, both for the families directly concerned and for many of those indirectly dependent on the company and its employees. I point out that alternative employment opportunities are very limited and that Burnie particularly is heavily dependent on the company’s operations. The Minister referred in his second reading speech to clause 5 of the Bill. This relates to employment undertakings to be ‘ given by the company and refers to the maintenance of the 75 per cent production with which I have already dealt. With the co-operation of all unions, work sharing is a possibility. However, if some unions refuse there will have to be some retrenchments from within their ranks. If, overall, work sharing fails, it is inevitable that one machine will close and retrenchments will be spread equitably between the members of the unions involved. I have referred already to the number of employees who could be involved. If it becomes necessary to make any other retrenchments beyond this point the express agreement in writing of the Tasmanian and Australian Governments will be required. The company will keep the 2 Governments advised of the levels of employment and of the levels of production and stocks in respect of its pulp and paper manufacturing mills each month, together with such information and explanations as are required from time to time. I commend to the House the Bill and the assistance given by the Australian Government in its 4-point proposal. I must point out that we received no assistance from the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in 1961 when 450 employees were retrenched sent out of the gates, and employment at the mill was reduced to a 4-day working week.

The Opposition fails to recognise the vital contribution that APPM makes to the Tasmanian economy. This was highlighted in a recent report which was compiled by economists from John Paterson Urban Systems Pty Ltd and which shows that the APPM group contributes more than $40m a year to the economy of Tasmania. The study commissioned by the company shows that APPM employs more than 3500 people, or 1 1.5 per cent of Tasmania’s total manufacturing work force. In the north-west region, APPM employs 42.6 per cent or almost half of the manufacturing workers. APPM also is responsible for the indirect employment of almost another 800 people through the letting of contract work, particularly in the forest based activities of logging, carting and roadmaking operations. The research shows that the group provides employment opportunities for a wide range of skilled and unskilled workers, for urban concentrated workers as well as for dispersed rural workers, and for an ample number of female workers, which in the current economic climate is a most important factor. I point out that APPM has 372 females on its payroll in Burnie alone.

The study concludes:

By any standards, the APPM group’s operations in Tasmania represent a significant and vital manufacturing industry.

When examined in the context of the Tasmanian State economy, and of particular regional economies within the State, the APPM operations assume far larger dimensions and become a vital component contributing in a highly significant way to the current and future welfares of those economies.

Expenditure by APPM within Tasmania on the purchase of materials and services during the year 1972-73 totalled $ 18.7m. A further $2.8m went to fixed capital expenditure. More than $3.6m was paid directly and indirectly to State and local governments. All this money expended in Tasmania is redistributed in the regional and State economies, directly generating further income and employment in all sectors of those economies and also indirectly generating benefits by multiplier effects of second round spending.

During the period under review in the report- 1972-73- the company paid out a total of over $ 17.4m in wages and salaries. APPM also purchased $20.2m worth of materials and services that were manufactured or provided within the State of Tasmania. This included $5.6m worth of packaging, engineering and other material supplies. I should point out that the bulk of APPM spending is concentrated in Burnie, Devonport and the north-west coast area, with significant expenditure in Launceston. The study emphasises how this spending has created and supported specific industries in the regional economies- for example, the production of bale flats and pallets at Burnie and of engineering supplies at Burnie, Devonport and Launceston. I am very pleased to be a supporter of this Australian Government which was quick to recognise the problem when attention was drawn to it on 20 December 1974. 1 am very proud indeed to note the quick response by the responsible Australian Government Ministers to the need for assistance- unlike what happened in 1961 when the company received no assistance, when 450 people were sacked and when the employees were put on a 4-day working week. This time the Australian Government was quick to give assistance and came up with a 4-point proposal. I have outlined the 4 points which have been accepted by the Government and by the company. One of them is the subject of the Bill before the House. It provides for a grant of up to $650,000 to enable the company to service a loan which was necessary because of the large stocks of paper it holds in its inventories at this stage. I have pointed out the reason why the company built up the stocks and the great social responsibility it snowed to its employees and to the State of Tasmania.

I sincerely hope that it will not be long before it is possible to reduce the stocks as orders pick up so that the company will be able to increase its production from the present 75 per cent to 100 per cent as a result of the action of this Government and the employees will be able to go back to working full time. I commend those unions which have accepted the work sharing principle in an attempt to see that at least the majority of the people in the mill are kept in production and kept in employment until such time as conditions return to normal and APPM gets back to full production in Burnie, Ballarat in Victoria, Shoalhaven and Wesley Vale.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies), as was to be expected, skirted around the real point at issue here, and that is that the necessity for this measure in the first place has been due to the inept and chaotic policies of this Australian Labor Party Government. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said, the Opposition will not oppose this Bill. As a result of the policies of the Government this major Tasmanian company, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd- a major supplier to the printing and publishing industry, which is probably the fourth largest manufacturing industry in Australia- was brought to a point where it had virtually no commercial alternative but to close down or at least to shut down a major part of its operations. It was pressed not to do so, by a Government running as scared as a Government can run, in an attempt to maintain employment at all costs in this electorally sensitive Tasmanian area. So why should the company, its employees and their families bear the costs of continuing unwanted production- production that is not ‘commercially prudent’, as the company itself saidbecause of the disastrous economic situation brought about by the Government?

Yet the cynical electoral expediency of the matter leaves one breathless. All over Australia there are upwards of 250 000 people unemployed; inflation is rife; there is no growth; and investment is stagnant. But while out there Rome burns, to speak metaphorically, the Government fiddles in this place with Bills to provide for a referendum on simultaneous elections, electoral Bills to provide for a great gerrymander of the electorate and anything that might assist the Government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The Opposition speakers- that includes both the Leader of the Opposition and now the honourable member for Berowra- have strayed from the Bill. I ask the honourable member to keep his remarks relevant to the Bill.

Dr EDWARDS:

– The matters I was mentioning receive priority, whereas the great issues facing the country and creating the circumstances that give rise to this measure- the high unemployment in Tasmania and elsewhere, the inflation, and no growth- are neglected. Of course, the cover-up for unemployment is not neglected. The Government attempts to cover up with the Regional Employment Development scheme, the unwarranted demands on the National Employment and Training scheme, the so-called SANMA program, which gives special assistance to non-metropolitan areas-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Once again I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that he must speak to the provisions of the Bill and keep his remarks relevant to the Bill. If he continues to stray from the Bill, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Dr EDWARDS:

-As I say, those matters received priority. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the measure before the House, for the following reasons: Firstly, there would be a great deal of hardship and social dislocation in the area, with the dearth of alternative employment opportunities in the area. Secondly, a case can be made that the APPM company has been more clearly a victim of the Government’s mishandling of the economy than most. Thirdly, this Government’s policies are at fault. Last night on ‘Monday Conference’ the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), in referring to this measure, said: ‘You cannot by any normal standards justify what we are doing in Tasmania on this issue , that is to say, in any normal situation of sound economic management or sound government economic policies. But, of course, we do not have that. We have a government which is unconcerned and complacent about the rampant inflation and widespread unemployment existing in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I have warned the honourable gentleman to keep his remarks relevant to the Bill. If he continues to flout the ruling of the Chair on this matter I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Dr EDWARDS:

– I am trying to be constructive in this matter by offering suggestions as to how it might be ultimately resolved. I put it to the House that the matter will not be resolved by the measure before the House. My first point in that respect, is that the Government has to put its mind to the overall issue of achieving a well ordered economy. The problems being experienced by APPM Ltd are shared by hundreds of other firms and in particular small businesses in Australia which have been brought to the brink of collapse by the soaring wage costs, the impossible taxation burden and the high interest rates that we have under this Government. If those problems could be solved then the problems being experienced by APPM Ltd and other businesses would largely look after themselves.

As the Minister stated in his second reading speech and, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies), the problems of APPM Ltd were referred to the temporary Assistance Authority. The impact of the Government’s ill conceived economic policies are shown clearly in the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority. I stress that it is the Government’s policies which are to blame. Inflation is the first problem. Its impact, in terms of soaring wage costs, affect, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Dr EDWARDS:

-I am making a point in relation to the Authority’s association -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have warned the honourable gentleman now on 3 occasions to keep his remarks relevant to the Bill. This is not a debate on the economy, as I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition. This is a debate on a specific Bill granting special assistance, under emergency circumstances, to a particular company. The Bill is not a broad Bill. It is of a specific nature. The honourable member must keep bis remarks relevant. I warn him now that next time he strays from the provisions of the Bill I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Lucock:

– I rise to a point of order. While I agree, in principle, with the remarks that you have made, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the occasions when you have drawn the attention of the member speaking to the Bill I still believe, with respect, that there must be a point when members speaking to this Bill must also comment on unemployment, inflation and other factors that have given rise to the legislation before us. Whilst honourable members must not deviate into a general debate I think some tolerance must be given to allow them to mention those matters. They are related to the Bill and deal with the circumstances behind the introduction of the Bill. I think you will see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, is completely wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The ruling has been carefully considered. I have had a very careful look at the Bill and at the Minister’s second reading speech. I want to make it quite clear that this is not a debate on the economy generally. The honourable member for Lyne has been Chairman of Committees in this Parliament. At the present time, he is a Deputy Chairman of Committees. He knows the Standing Orders and he is well aware that a Bill of a specific nature, such as this, deals with a specific problem. Inflation and general economic conditions are not covered by this Bill. I have made this very clear. I intend to abide by that ruling.

Mr Lucock:

– I rise to order. I did not disagree with that statement in your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with you and I stated that I agreed that we should not have a general debate. I still believe that tolerance must be given for honourable members to mention a matter which is relevant to the Bill under discussion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can be assured that I will give as much tolerance as possible. I have given a great deal of tolerance this afternoon to both the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Berowra. There is a limit to that tolerance. If the ruling of the Chair, which you agree is correct, is deliberately flouted then I will have to take action.

Dr EDWARDS:

-The difficulty facing me is that I am trying to be constructive on this matter. I want to refer to the point mentioned by the honourable member for Braddon. He referred to the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority. As far as I can recall, the Minister in his second reading speech referred to the reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority and its outcome -

Mr Enderby:

– It had nothing to do with the state of the economy.

Dr EDWARDS:

-The Minister interjects that it had nothing to do with the state of the economy. That is typical of the Minister’s understanding of these matters. As I have said on previous occasions, the Minister having discovered that imports traditionally come from overseas thinks he is a well qualified economic expert.

Mr Enderby:

-They do.

Dr EDWARDS:

– I should like to inform the Minister that this has much to do with the case. The reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority has a lot to do with the general circumstances I have mentioned. The Bill before the House flows from the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority, as the honourable member for Braddon made quite clear. There is no way in which I can discuss this matter and offer some constructive advice to the Government without making reference to the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority. The difficulties APPM Ltd finds itself in are clearly examined in the report.

Mr Ellicott:

– The Government ought to welcome your advice.

Dr EDWARDS:

-As my colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth says, the Government ought to welcome my advice, though modesty inhibits me from underlining that point. Nevertheless, the position is that it is clearly shown in the report that the company is in great difficulty. That is the essence of the point. On page 27 of this report it is stated:

The Authority is fully aware that APPM faces a difficult period until the middle of 1975 . . .

I will try to make clear to the House why that is so.

Mr Kelly:

– That is right. It is a very sensible and responsible attitude.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Indeed. If we do not get to the root of the matter we will get nowhere in this discussion. What is shown clearly in this report is that the company is in serious difficulties. One of its major difficulties is the high cost of financing stocks which the company has accumulated and, with the encouragement of the Government, it is to accumulate more. Indeed, the essence of this measure is to provide to the company interest on a loan necessary to finance those stocks. It is a very high interest rate. That is precisely the point to which I was leading amongst other points. In Australia, at the moment, we have a very high level of interest rates which have been brought about by policies of this Government. There is no question about that. The honourable member for

Wakefield has stated that this imposes a very high cost, not only on this company but also on many others. Indeed, the whole purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment by this Parliament to the Tasmanian Government of $650,000 for this purpose.

However, the biggest difficulty is the position of the company vis-a-vis imports. As I have said, the competitiveness of the company is affected partly by soaring wage costs associated with inflation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot help but make that point. In part, the company’s adverse competitive position vis-a-vis imports resulted from the tariff decision early in 1973 in relation to this industry, the compounding of that by the 25 per cent tariff cut in 1973, and the very extensive revaluation of the currency. In these circumstances, there was a rapid build up in imported stocks of paper in Australia. It is true, as the honourable member for Braddon has said, that in the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority it is stated that, while imports have been at a very high level, they are low enough now. That was written in February-March 1975. Of course they were low at that point. Very large stocks had been built up and, naturally, the level of imports then had fallen away. The report goes on to state: … so that any action to restrict the present low volume of imports would do little, if anything, to assist the local manufacturer.

I suggest that that is an arguable conclusion and one which, while this Government meekly has accepted it, the Government could well have questioned in the interests of the industry in Tasmania.

Mr Davies:

– It cannot do that.

Dr EDWARDS:

– It can. It would be perfectly at liberty to send the report back, drawing attention to the argument that I am now going to put. One might have thought that if, as and when the high stocks referred to in the report were worked down, in the absence of restraints on imports, buyers who once had turned to imports would be likely to turn to them again. In that event the order books of Associated Pulp and Paper Mills may continue- even now they may be being affected in this way- to remain less than full. Therefore, in the proposals in this Bill, we are not getting to the heart of the matter.

True, the situation in the industry is difficult. In recognition of the difficult period through which’ the company is going, we have this measure to provide for the payment of interest on the money financing the considerable and not commerciallyjustified build up in stocks of APPM ‘s products resulting from continued production and employment. I suggest that it is greatly to be hoped that a long-term Industries Assistance Commission inquiry on this matter will be initiated in the interests of the people of Tasmania and that such inquiry will be conducted with expedition. I add the hope that the current production in excess of what would be commercially prudent-I quote APPM itself- does ultimately find a market. Otherwise, the last state of the company will be worse than the first.

With that warning, the Opposition does not oppose this measure. As I have said, the Opposition recognises the potential hardship and social problems that a substantial cut-back in production of the Burnie plant would cause. There is the clear impact of the Government’s illconceived economic policies on APPM. Those policies have brought the company to this condition and, in those circumstances, the Opposition can do no other than wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond

- Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided: (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

Ayes………. 60

Noes………. 55

Majority……. 5

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Enderby)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to this Bill-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 56

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3232

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Consideration of Senate’s message.

Clause 4.

Section5 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate ‘s amendment No.1 -

Leave out paragraph (b).

Clause 6.

Section16 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

Leave out paragraph (a).

Clause 13.

After section41 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 41 a. (1) A person (other than a person who is, or is entitled to be, enrolled by virtue of seciton41 ) who-

Penalty: $10.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

In proposed section 41a (1 ) leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), insert the following word and paragraph: and (b) has left, and is living outside, Australia, but has a fixed intention of returning to Australia and of living within a Subdivision,’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 4-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or the spouse of such a person who is living with that person.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 5-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out’orher’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 6-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

In proposed section 41a (2), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 9-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 10-

In proposed section 41a (3), after paragraph (b), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate ‘s amendment No.11 -

In proposed section 41a (4), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 12-

In proposed section 4 1 a ( 4), leave out ‘ or she ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 13-

In proposed section 41 a, leave out sub-section (6).

Senate’s amendment No. 14-

In proposed section 4 1 a, leave out sub-section (11).

Clause 17 (Names on Roll may be objected to).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 15-

Leave out the clause.

Clause21 -Proposed new Part IXA.

Senate’s amendment No. 16-

Leave out the clause-

Clause 23 (Members of certain legislature not entitled to be nominated).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 7-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 24.

Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 18-

Leave out paragraph (b).

Senate’s amendment No.19-

Leave out paragraph (c).

Clause 27.

Section 85 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 20-

Leave out paragraph (d).

Proposed new clause 28A.

Senate’s amendment No. 21-

After clause 28, insert the following new clause: “28a. After section 88 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 88a. (1) The Division Returning Officer for each Division that exceeds 260 000 square kilometres in area shall keep a register, to be called the Register of General Postal Voters.

Where a person is enrolled as an elector for a Division referred to in sub-section (1 ), otherwise than by virtue of section 39a or 41a, and it is normally difficult for him to vote at a polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled by reason of-

the distance between the address in respect of which he is enrolled and the nearest place in the Division that is normally appointed a polling place; or

the lack of adequate means of transport from that address to that place. he may at any time make an application in writing to the Divisional Returning Officer to be registered on the register for the Division.

An application shall be signed by the applicant in his own hand writing and shall set out the name and address of the applicant and the grounds of the application.

Upon receipt of the application, the Divisional Returning Officer shall-

if he decides that the application is properly made and that there is sufficient reason for registering the applicant under this sectionregister the applicant; or

if he decides otherwise- reject the application, and shall notify the applicant in writing accordingly.

Subject to sub-section (6), the Divisional Returning Officer may at any time cancel the registration of an elector under this section, and in that event (except where the elector is deceased) he shall notify the elector in writing.

The Divisional Returning Officer is not empowered to register an elector or (except where the elector is deceased) cancel the registration of an elector under this section after 6 o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ, and before the close of the poll, for an election.

An elector who is registered under this section is, by force of this section, but subject to Part VI and to the regulations, entitled to vote at an election in accordance with this Part.

As soon as practicable after the hour of nomination for an election the Divisional Returning Officer shall send a postal vote certificate and a postal ballot-paper or postal ballot-papers, as the case requires, to each elector who is registered on the register for the Division, other than an elector who has made an application under section 85.’.”

Clause 29 (Inspection of applications).

Senate’s amendment No. 22-

Leave out the clause.

Proposed new clause 29A.

Senate’s amendment No. 23-

After clause 29, insert the following new clause: 29a Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in sub-section (1 ), after the words “each postal vote certificate”, the words “, other than a certificate referred to in sub-section (1 a),”; and

by inserting after sub-section (1) the following subsection: “(1a) The Divisional Returning Officer shall mark each postal vote certificate issued under section 88a in the manner prescribed. ‘ ‘. ‘.

Clause 30.

Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2).

Senate ‘ amendment No. 24-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 31.

Section 94 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘a Divisional Returning Officer, a Registrar, a Returning Officer or an Assistant Returning Officer or delivery to a presiding officer,’ and substituting the words ‘the appropriate officer’.

Senate’s amendment No. 25-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 32 (Preliminary scrutiny of postal ballot-papers).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 26-

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause:

Section 96 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after the word “ballot-papers” (first occurring) the words “and all applications for registration under section 88a”; and

by omitting from paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “application for the certificate” and substituting the words “ relevant applications “. ‘.

Clause 38 (Printing of House of Representatives ballot papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 27-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 39 (The polling).

Senate’s amendment No. 28-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 40.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 29-

In sub-clause (5 ), paragraph (b), leave out ‘6 ‘, insert ‘ 8 ‘.

Clause 42.

Section115 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting . sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following subsection:

Senate’s amendment No. 30-

At the end of paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section (1] add the following sub-paragraph:

Have you already voted either here of elsewhere in this election (or in these elections, as the case requires)?’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 3 1 -

Leave out sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section (1).

Clause 45 (Marking of votes in Senate election).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 32-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 46 (Marking of votes in House of Representatives election).

Senate’s amendment No. 33-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 47 (Informal ballot papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 34-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 48 (Scrutiny of votes in Senate elections).

Senate’s amendment No. 35-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 49 (Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections ).

Senate’s amendment No. 36-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 50 (Scrutiny prior to receipt of absent voters ‘ ballot papers, etc.)

Senate’s amendment No. 37-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 51 (Return of writ for election of Senators).

Senate’s amendment No. 38-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 52 (Return of writs for House of Representatives).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 39-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 57.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 40-

Leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Clause 65.

The Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Forms A to F (inclusive) and substituting following forms:

FORM E Section 104 (1 )

Ballot-Paper

page 3235

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed the name of the State]

Election of [here to be printed the number of Senators to be elected] Senators.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the square opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1, 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers.

FORM F Section1 04 (2 ) and 1 05

Ballot-Paper

page 3235

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed name of State].

Electoral Division of [here to be printed name of Division].

Election of one Member of the House of Representatives.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

If you so desire, you may, in addition, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates by using other numbers in numerical order beginning with the number 2. [ To be included only where there are more than two candidates].

Senate ‘s amendment No. 41-

In proposed Form E, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the squares opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1, 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers. ‘, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert1 , 2 and so on, as the case requires] in the squares immediately to the left of the names of the respective candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 42-

In proposed Form F, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert ‘ 1 and 2 ‘ where there are two candidates, ‘1,2 and 3 ‘ where there are three candidates, ‘1,2,3 and 4’ where there are four candidates, and so on as the case requires] in the squares respectively opposite the names of the candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the House insist on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

I do not intend to take a lot of time over this. I merely put on record again the reasons why we insist on disagreeing to these amendments. I quote from page 2789 of Hansard of 26 May where, on behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I announced the reasons. They were:

Because the Senate amendments have the effect of removing from the Bill the electoral reforms agreed to by this House, in particular the major reforms contained in the clauses dealing with optional preferential voting for Senate and House of Representatives elections, the printing of party affiliations against the names of candidates on ballot papers for the purpose of clarifying the choice open to electors when they cast their votes, the drawing for positions on ballot papers at House of Representatives elections, and those reforming postal voting procedures.

When the reasons were sent back to the Senate Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, left no doubt that there was no sense in persisting with these amendments in that chamber. I quote the final sentence of his statement recorded on page 2057 of the Senate Hansard. He stated:

I put to the Committee that the Senate’s view then was quite clear and I ask the Senate to stay with the decisions we made previously on this matter.

The Senate then divided and reinserted these amendments which are sent back at this stage. This is again a classic case of blatant obstruction in the Senate of legislation for which the Government has a mandate won at 2 elections and which was passed by a Joint Sitting of this Parliament. Undoubtedly this is a case where we will ultimately have to ask the people of Australia to pass judgment on the obstruction of the Senate. This legislation has been debated in this Parliament for quite a long time. All the arguments of those opposite will not take away from the fact that this is nothing more nor less than obstruction, an endeavour to emasculate the Bill and to destroy all its main features. Despite what was said by the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) the Senate did not review the legislation; it just restored a few minor changes which the Liberals made some years ago and which they passed in this place under the guise of reviewing the Bill.’I do not intend to hold up the business of the House. I repeat that it is blatant obstruction and that the Government will not tolerate it. The Government disagrees with the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

I mentioned a moment ago the reason why I take this course. I will not hold up the House any further. Again there is blatant obstructionism on the part of the Senate. There is no purpose in pursuing this matter a further time in the Senate. Accordingly, the Bill will be laid aside and it will join that long list of Bills upon which the people ultimately will pass judgment.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition has made clear its position in relation to this Electoral Laws Amendment Bill on more than one occasion. But I take this opportunity again, since the Government is bringing the Bill and the amendments back into this House, to refer briefly to our position. It is certainly not a case of idle obstructionism, as the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) would have people believe. Of course, strictly speaking this is not a Bill of reform. I have had occasion previously to point out to the Minister the distinction between reform and change. In his lexicon they are the same thing. In fact, they are very different. This Bill intends to change the existing electoral laws and procedures for the conduct of Federal elections in favour of one party, and that party is the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Duthie:

– That is not true.

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member for Wilmot says that that is not true. If he cares to read the reports of the debates he will see where I have referred -

Mr Duthie:

– That is a party statement.

Mr GARLAND:

– That interjection by the honourable member scarcely does him and his background credit. But let me proceed. It is intended by this Bill to improve the fortunes of the Australian Labor Party at future elections.

Mr Duthie:

– That is not true.

Mr GARLAND:

– That is my clear position and I maintain it in spite of the interjections by the honourable member. I have pointed out in some detail in previous debates, when dealing with the various principles involved, just why we take that view. In the face of the Government trying to improve its electoral fortunes and to change the electoral laws in its favour, it is quite silly to say that because we object to the Bill and vote against it in this House and in the Senate that is obstructionism. If we were to agree to all the proposals to change boundaries and electoral laws we would need about 60 per cent of the votes to be against the Labor Party in order to get a majority of seats in the House. My colleague the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and other colleagues took the opportunity, when debating boundaries recently, to point out that if they had been agreed to, the percentage of seats obtained by the Labor Party would be greater than the percentage of votes it would get. The figures used related to votes recorded at the last 2 general elections. Those proposals, the proposals contained in this Bill and the proposals contained in another Bill, which relates to disclosing donations and which no doubt will be debated again shortly, are part of a package by the Government to change the electoral laws in its own favour.

The Minister for Services and Property, who is at the table and who is in charge of this legislation, has said on behalf of the Governmentthis was a little bit in the form of a threat, but let me be mild on this occasion- that this matter will be brought forward at a later date. He conjured up the view of another Joint Sitting of the Parliament. Of course, that presupposes that the Government will decide to call a double dissolution. It seems a long way from that stage at the moment.

Mr Mathews:

– That is what the Opposition said last April.

Mr GARLAND:

– I take the honourable member up on that point. It was the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who used the grounds he had to call a double dissolution. It was the Opposition which put the Government into the position of having to have an election for the House. It was the Government which made the decision to have a double dissolution. I draw that distinction. I see that the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) is nodding, so he agrees with me’. The Minister for Services and Property has said that he regards this Bill as one of those to go to a Joint Sitting. I point out that that means 2 things. It means, firstly, that the Government has to take a decision to have a double dissolution because it is only under those circumstances that a Joint Sitting can be held. Secondly, and more unlikely, the result of that double dissolution has to be that the Labor Party wins the election in the lower House. That is very far from reality when one looks at the polls and listens to what people around the country are saying. Of course, Bills will be presented to a Joint Sitting and proceeded with only if the Labor Government wins by having a majority of the number of members in the House of Representatives and the Senate combined. So, they are important aspects.

I think the real significance is that the Government sees that its only chance of rigging the electoral laws is as as result of a double dissolution and a Joint Sitting. The Government knows that otherwise the Parliament will not agree to the changes. Why should it? I come back to the principal point I have made in these debates before. We have a system which has resulted in both sides of the political spectrum in this country being elected. The Australian Labor Party under the existing law won the elections in 1974 and 1972. The Liberal Party and the National Country Party won elections prior to that. The law cannot be so bad, so biased or so one-sided if both sides have won under that law and if- this is the important criterion- the percentage of seats won by the Government Party is pretty close to the percentage of votes which it gained across the country. That is the position. These proposals attempt to change that.

I come reasonably briefly to some of the major aspects of this Bill, which is called a reform but which I say is a detrimental change to the electoral laws. For instance, the Bill seeks to prevent postal votes received after the close of the polling booths on polling day from being counted; it seeks to have them declared invalid. It may be that honourable members who have city electorates I have one- really do not understand the time that it takes for applications for postal votes in isolated regions to be received by the returning officer and for the ballot papers to be sent out. After all, the returning officer cannot send out the ballot papers until he knows the names of the candidates. They are not known until about 3 weeks before polling day. The ballot papers have to go out, be filled in and be returned. The existing law allows a 10-day period for that. That is not an unreasonable time, considering the state of the mails in this country, considering the isolation of many people in country areas and considering the rights and interests of the sick and infirm who have to cast votes in this way.

One might ask: Why is it that this change is necessary? Is it terribly important to get the final result by the next morning? Is it worth disfranchising a significant number of peoplethis is a significant number of people- in order to get the result in a few hours rather than in 10 days time? Is it essential to have the government changed or confirmed in office as quickly as that? Is it a tremendous help to the commentators on television on election night to be able to see the votes in front of them as being final? Or is it, as the Opposition believes, that the Labor Party is not favoured by late postal votes and that at election after election those Australians who use their right to vote by postal vote tend to favour the non-Labor parties and therefore the Government would like to cut them out? That is what is really behind that provision.

There are many provisions. One of the major ones relates to optional preferential voting. The Australian Labor Party had for a long time a policy of first past the post voting. It has now changed that to optional preferential voting, which is really a step on the way to first past the post voting. The Prime Minister has ambitions which include abolishing the Senate and either reducing the States to empty shells or getting rid of them, as he has referred to them many times as having boundaries which are anachronistic. He has shown that he is in favour of only one Parliament with one chamber and 2 political parties. He is a man who has a number of ambitions, and we are not sure whether all of them have been disclosed. Perhaps the Constitution itself needs to be heavily amended for his purposes.

The Prime Minister for a long time has been a supporter of first past the post voting. Let me illustrate what that means. Anybody who votes for a candidate who is not one of the 2 major candidates- that cannot be known until the count has finished, or after it has started- does not get a vote at all. For a long time Australia has had the preferential voting system, in which all preferences are counted. The great value of that system of full preference voting- I am not going to get into a discussion of voting systems and counting systems in any great detail- is that every person who casts a vote has a say in who the elected candidate is, once the 2 major contenders, the 2 most favoured candidates, are known. That is a very fair system. It is a system which is employed by a number of organisations including, on many occasions, the Australian Labor Party in its own organisation, in order to get the fairest result.

There is no such thing as the perfect voting system or the perfect counting system. Certainly some are better than others. The preference system is the one which has applied in the main in Australia for a long time. That system has the great advantage to which I have referred that everybody is given a say in an election in relation to choosing between the 2 most favoured candidates. The Labor Party wants to change all that. Originally, as I said, it wanted the first past the post system. That system means that anyone who votes for a minor party candidate has no vote at all. Votes for those candidates are eliminated as there is no distribution of preferences. Such voters in a real sense are disfranchised. The first past the post system takes away the rights of electors. It also eliminates the rights of candidates with little party support or candidates representing small parties to have counted whatever support they do have in the electorate.

What the Labor Party now proposes in this measure, what we completely disagree with and will not agree to, is the proposal that the differences between the 2 systems should be met half way. It says that a voter does not need to complete all preferences. A vote will be counted even if only one preference is shown. That is an encouragement to the introduction of the first past the post system. I would not have any doubt that some if not all Labor Party candidates would try to encourage a situation in which not all the preferences were filled in. The system would be changed quite dramatically in that respect.

Why does the Labor Party want to do this? It seeks to introduce the system because it believes that people who in the past have exercised their right to stand as minor candidates have been detrimental to the Labor Party. That Party has always desired to cut out the influence of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It has desired not quite so much to reduce the influence in the past of Australia Party candidates, although that attitude may change shortly. But, on balance the Labor Party, as these minor candidates have acted against its interests, wants to eliminate their influence in future elections. That is what is behind this move. It is not to make work easier for the elector. It is not to get a fanresult. Its purpose is to assist the Labor Party.

These are just 2 elements that one can pick out quite simply- that is, the postal voting system and the optional preference system- which are the opposite to what all our experience in Federal politics shows is required. Government members come into this place and implacably support these proposals. They will not consider for a moment the amendments that we have made, which are amendments of deletion. They try to say: ‘This is obstruction. You are against reform’. This is like trying to enter into negotiations with a burglar to determine how one’s assets should be divided. We will not have a bar of these proposals at all. They are a lot of nonsense. I conclude by saying that there is a number of provisions in the legislation which ought to be separated out.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-Mr Speaker -

Mr Daly:

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is -

Mr McVeigh:

– Using the sledge hammer again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member resume his seat.

Mr McVeigh:

– Well, tell him not to use the sledge hammer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member resume his seat and not make comments.

Question put:

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 3240

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Clause 3.

Senate’s amendment-

In paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section (6a), leave out designation’.

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

– I move:

That the amendment be disagreed to.

By way of explanation, and this matter will not require lengthy debate, clause 3 provides that if a chairman of the Grants Commission was formerly a judge of a federal court or a State court he shall have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. The Senate has removed the word ‘designation’, and our disagreement is over that word. The Government has appointed Mr Justice Else-Mitchell as Chairman of the Grants Commission. I have noticed the remarks that were made in the Senate and I think they are a little incorrect in that they could be interpreted as indicating that the Government was suggesting that the Grants Commission must always be under the control of a lawyer, that it should always be assumed that he would be a judge and therefor entitled to have that designation. That is not the case.

If honourable members look closely at clause 6A they will see the words ‘if the chairman was’. The qualifications of a judge have to be earned by a person prior to his obtaining the appointment. In Mr Justice Else-Mitchell we have one of the most distinguished members of the New South Wales Bar. Even the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) would agree that at the Bar His Honour was an outstanding personality, that he was a brilliant student, an excellent advocate and became a first class judge and, having earned all those qualifications, became entitled to the title or designation ‘Mr Justice’. The Government thinks that it would be petty and miserable to say that because such a person became Chairman of the Grants Commission he could no longer be called ‘ Mr Justice ‘. I think it is a bit too petty for us to accept that argument. If the Senate looks at this question, in its wisdom it would agree that the Government is not trying to suggest that, because we now happen to have a very efficient and experienced chairman who was formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, this would always be a judicial appointment.

Mr Ellicott:

– He was one of the first judges to realise what was wrong with the Superior Court.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Well, that is an argument in his favour, but I am not arguing that point now. What we are arguing about is the word ‘designation’. Did this excellent person earn his title? There is no doubt that he did. Do honourable members opposite believe that if a member has the title ‘right honourable’ conferred on him and later becomes Chairman of the Grants Commission he is no longer entitled to the title ‘right honourable’? If a knight of Her Majesty is appointed as chairman, is it suggested that he is no longer entitled to the title ‘sir’? Why should the person appointed lose any such designation? We should not get caught up in the attitude that by allowing the chairman to retain his former designation there would be some drastic change in the behaviour of the Grants Commission.

We might say in fairness to His Honour Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, who has been in the position of chairman for some months now, that he has performed a splendid job in his dealings with local government. The letters I get from councillors he has met applaud his behaviour, common sense and understanding of their problems. These are things that come with experience in legal matters. Some honourable members opposite would know that it is no barrier to be a lawyer and that it does not follow that because one is a lawyer one is barred from holding office. The converse is true for certain experience and qualifications are welcome and, in the case of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, his experience and qualifications in his meetings with local government representatives have shown the value of having such a man appointed to this position. He has the ability to assess evidence, and to be impartial. He brings to the Grants Commission the qualities we want in its Chairman- impartiality, an understanding of the problems and the ability to assess accurately the evidence submitted. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. The position is simply that and, accordingly, I have moved that the Senate’s amendment be disagreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That Mr Keogh, Mr Keating and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Opposition does not want to delay the House on this matter. The Grants Commission is an important commission; it is an important part of government structure. We simply want to repeat our attitude that should a judge be appointed to the Commission we have no objection to the rank, status and precedence which that person enjoys continuing but we are opposed to his designation of judge continuing. This is not in any way to detract from the present incumbent and I would like that to be understood. We have seen a tremendous number of commissions set up by this Government and we do not concede that a judge necessarily is the right person to lead these commissions. Certainly we do not agree with the precedent that has been set and we can see other possibilities should this precedent be accepted. Having said that, the Opposition does not want to pursue the matter or to delay the Bill. It simply restates its opposition on the question of designation.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I address my remarks to the reasons which have been adduced for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I rise to order. At this stage we have not had a chance to draw up the reasons.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for such disagreement, I bring up such reasons. (Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows):

Because:

By Royal Warrant, there is entitlement by former Judges of a Supreme Court to the designation ‘The Honourable’, and by custom, to ‘Justice’ or ‘Judge’. The title will, of course, follow from the rank and status as a Judge, which is provided for in the Bill and which was not challenged in the debate in either House.

In the exercise of the wider functions the Commission now performs of inquiring into applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance there is probably a greater need for the impartiality and objectivity which accompanied the investigation into applications by claimant States.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the committee’s reasons be adopted.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-For a very few moments I wish to address my remarks to the reasons which the committee comprising the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) adduces for disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate. The second paragraph of those reasons deserves mention, even if for only one or two moments. The second paragraph casts a reflection upon the past. It is worthy of being considered very carefully by this House. It states:

In the exercise of the wider functions the Commission now performs of inquiring into applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance-

These are the important words: . . . there is probably a greater need for the impartiality and objectivity which accompanied the investigation into applications by claimant States.

I believe that represents something of a reflection on the past. The words, as they are read, can only be understood to mean what they actually imply- a greater need for the impartiality and objectivity which accompanied the investigation into applications in past years. In the past I have expressed my views concerning the appointment of Mr Justice Else-Mitchell as Chairman of the Grants Commission. In the past I have indicated quite clearly that the judge’s past training and experience, especially considering applications by States for assistance from the Grants Commission, did not fit him for that task, but I bowed to the proposition that His Honour, having been a judge of the Supreme Court in New South Wales, was entitled to be able to continue to hold a designation which was appropriate to him as a judge. I argued then that it was worth reflecting for a moment on the fact that Mr Justice ElseMitchell was being given a title, a status and a position superior to that given to former Chairmen of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I do not agree for one moment, nor will I accede for one moment, that the judge has a position, experience and a title which ought to be in excess of that given, for example, to Sir Leslie Melville when he filled this position. I agree that perhaps tradition ought to have a place in this, but the second paragraph of the reasons which are proposed for disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate is unacceptable to me. It indicates that impartiality and objectivity did not exist in the past as they ought to have existed. It also makes it quite clear by implication that a greater expertise is now being given to the task of Chairman than existed under the Commonwealth Grants Commission with Sir Leslie Melville and others as Chairman. I will not agree with that proposition. I make my protest quite clear, and I believe that the protest would be very difficult to deny.

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

– I am sorry that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) had to make the remark that he felt His Honour Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was not qualified or entitled to be Chairman of the Grants Commission. He said that he felt that unfortunately His Honour did not have the necessary experience. The real issue is that we are talking about the designation, which does not really go to the fundamentals of the functions of the Commission. It goes to whether a person who is Chairman of the Grants Commission is entitled to a designation which he earned prior to becoming chairman. That is the difficulty of the honourable member for Lilley.

The second paragraph of the reasons for disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate is by way of explanatory memorandum and says that the Commission now has wider functions. They are not limited to inquiring into applications by States. The Chairman now has to deal with applications from 900 local authorities on a basis little different from that on which he considers claims from the States. The reasons for disagreeing to the amendment are by way of explanation. Although it is not mentioned in the Bill itself, there is a wider need now in local government. It should not be thought that because there is a wider need a lawyer- a Supreme Court judgeshould therefore be debarred from sitting as Chairman. Let me put it on record that His Honour Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was responsible for some of the major local government investigations in New South Wales, being appointed by the New South Wales Liberal Government to undertake those investigations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3242

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Proposed new clause 6A.

Senate’s amendment-

After clause 6 insert the following new clause: 6a. Each new proposal for the collection and compilation by the Bureau of Statistics in relation to information shall be laid before each House of Parliament before its implementation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

An amendment was moved to the Bill in the House of Representatives suggesting that all proposals for the collection and compilation of information by the Australian Bureau of Statistics be laid before the House before their implementation. It was said at the time that this would not be a practical way to deal with matters because it could well be that we would need to collect statistics urgently, particularly when the House was in recess. If we adopted the amendment that was originally moved and the House was in recess we would not be able to get the information. An example given at the time related to imports statistics which were required last December when the House was in recess. Accordingly that proposal has not been pursued here. Nevertheless, by way of compromise it is suggested that the Parliament should always be kept informed. Accordingly the proposal now is that where it is appropriate we will indicate to the Parliament the type of statistical information being sought, and if it is being sought when the House is in recess it will still be obtained and notice of the information will be given within 5 days of the House resuming. I think that is selfexplanatory. I thank the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson), the Opposition spokesman handling this matter, for his cooperation.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Opposition stated its attitude during the debate on the second reading of the Bill. Of course, the Bureau of Statistics has enormous scope. There is to be a tremendously increased number of surveys which it is accepted will be in the national interest. We hope that the information that flows from these surveys will be used in the national interest. We are in an age of computerisation. We have agreed that the Australian Bureau of Statistics will have the status of a statutory authority. We were concerned about aspects of privacy. We are aware that the Government is to bring in a Bill later this year- we hope it will be later on this year- which will give us the opportunity to debate that matter in some depth.

We originally moved an amendment that all new surveys should be placed before Parliament. The amendment now proposed by the Government is acceptable to us. It is a compromise. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) says, any new initiatives will come before the Parliament unless they are for the collection of information on a voluntary basis or where, when the Parliament is in recess, it is necessary to commence implementation of a proposal connected with business information as distinct from any of the social issues which are obviously of concern and in relation to which we are concerned about the aspects of privacy. The Minister has been very courteous in discussions with me about this matter, as have the officials of the Bureau. The Opposition accepts the amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In the last 5 years probably no person in Australia has been more outspoken against the survey procedure that has been used previously than has yours truly. I have been a most vociferous campaigner for reform, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance of change. The amendment moved by the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is sitting at the table, provides that if a survey is to be compulsory the proposal has to be laid on the table of the Parliament if the Parliament is sitting; but if the survey is not to be compulsory the Parliament will not see it. That is what one would call coming half way. I assure the Special Minister of State that, whilst the Opposition accepts the amendment, I have no intention of accepting it completely in the future. I hope that when my Party returns to power it will in fact continue to bring about open government in the area of surveys.

I recall that in the case of non-official surveys, in which the disclosure of information is not compulsory, the explanation was given that a person would be advised that he or she did not have to take part in the survey. By telling the person that, the obligation is discharged. The Minister is a very busy man. I have a lot of respect for him. I hope that he will take what I have to say in the next couple of minutes as being the truth, because it is the truth. We have a situation in which the people conducting surveys are not telling the people being interviewed that they do not have to participate. One very high official in the Minister’s Department explained the reason for this to me by saying: ‘If you go to people and say that they do not really have to take part in a survey they will tell you that they do not want to take part’. He said that if people are given the impression that they must answer the questions they respond. We know that people who refuse to take part in certain surveys leave themselves open to a financial penalty. Regrettably, many people are not as familiar as people in the Public Service in Canberra or in government are with what is going on in the national capital and are frightened of the penalties that they will face if they do not answer the questions that are being asked. They simply say: ‘All right, I will do it’. I believe that the Minister has to impress firmly upon the minds of his departmental officers that they have a firm obligation to explain to people right at the outset that they do not have to take part in non-official surveys.

At exactly 7.50 tonight I had a telephone call from Mrs Heather Simpkins of Morningside in Brisbane. She was very upset because officers had called on her in the last couple of days and demanded information for a survey. She told me that her husband was retrenched last October after 14 years with Provincial Traders Ltd in Brisbane. Prior to that he had served with the Australian Army for 12 years and had served in Korea. She has a daughter who is a third year apprentice, who has been unemployed for some months and who, unlike her father, has been receiving unemployment benefits. Her father is too proud to accept them. The woman conducting the survey justified her presence by saying that Mrs Simpkins had already received a letter saying that she had been selected. When Mrs

Simpkins explained to the woman that she was not interested the woman responded by saying that she had been chosen. She was not told that it was obligatory to answer the questions. Mrs Simpkins said to the lady conducting the survey: ‘This survey stinks. Why do you want to know these things?’ The lady interviewer said: ‘It is going to be brought up in the Parliament’. Mrs Simpkins responded to that by saying: ‘Tell Mr Whitlam to get lost’. This type of reaction is understandable. Mrs Simpkins was prompted to say that after she had been asked what her husband had earned, what her daughter was spending and so on. No doubt the departmental officials will be able to trace the survey to which I am referring. Mrs Simpkins could not give me the details over the telephone because she did not have the original letter with her. But I assure the Minister that there are thousands upon thousands of Australians who are being plagued- I use that word advisedly- without justification, for private information.

I see this as a total invasion of privacy, unless people are told in clear terms at the outset that they do not have to take part in the survey. As far as I am concerned, if the Department has a problem in collecting information when it tells people that the survey that is being conducted is not compulsory, that is its problem. There has to be complete and utter honesty. But at the moment the Department is hiding behind the cloak of ignorance which regrettably exists in Australia.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is my intention, in speaking briefly to this amendment, to congratulate the Government on going as far as it could possibly go in relation to the nature of surveys conducted by the Statistician. I am a very great user of information supplied by the Statistician. I find it very useful. The services which the Statistician and the Deputy Commonwealth Statisticians in the various States- I do not know whether that is to be their new title- give to members of Parliament and those who have a broad social interest are very beneficial. The amendment which has been proposed and which the Government, in effect, has accepted states that: . . . each new proposal Tor the collection of information for statistical purposes by the Bureau shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament before its implementation .

There is a period of 5 sitting days during which the proposed survey shall lie before the House.

We are all aware that these days both compulsory surveys and sample surveys concerning households, income, production, social affairs and all kinds of other economic indicators are conducted by the Statistician. I think that the Government, in giving instructions to its own survey collectors, will have to advise them to utilise whatever tact is appropriate, but under no circumstances to allow objections, whether they be valid objections or contrived objections, to destroy the nature of the survey. A survey can so easily be destroyed by those who, for one reason or another, good will or ill will, understanding or misunderstanding, in fact will not co-operate in terms of the survey. I do not know of any cases, even though I have heard rumours otherwise, in which surveys that have been conducted on behalf of the Statistician have resulted in the leaking of information which has been injurious to certain people. I have always admired the Statistician for the way in which he has applied the rules concerning the size of a survey and has not allowed information concerning surveys to be made available to people on an individual basis.

I say to the Government quite sincerely that I believe that it has gone as far as it could possibly go in accepting the Senate’s amendment. I believe that even with this amendment a great deal of tact will be required by the information collectors, by the Statistician and by the Deputy Statisticians in the States in seeing that the applicability, the sense, the wide-ranging verification and the truth of the surveys are not destroyed by people not co-operating. Again I congratulate the Government, and I say that sincerely.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Chairman -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I call the Special Minister of State.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I am sorry, but it is a matter between the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and I cannot afford to allow the time of the Committee to be wasted. The 2 views that have been put probably are symptomatic of whether we are to have a successful Statistician or not. The honourable member for Lilley clearly indicated that if we are to be successful in the field of statistics we have to get the information. The honourable member for Griffith says: ‘No, you do not have to get the information unless it is given voluntarily’. I have been assured- this has been the practice for years- that unless we get the information -

Mr Nixon:

-It is not high pressure methods, you know.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-There are no pressure methods. Honourable members of the National Country Party know that farmers and graziers have to complete the forms. They do so without any objection and they do a good job. But the honourable member for Griffith says that it is a waste of time for us to collect any information in the electorate of Griffith. Should we leave out that area from surveys that are taken and leave the problems to be ascertained somewhere else? Whether we are talking about crime, poverty or about the needs of the man on the land, we have to get the information. Under the Act, the information collected is confidential. As the honourable member for Lilley says, the information has never been disclosed. There is nothing new in conducting surveys. The Opposition, when in government, did so for years. It has become a sensational factor, a gimmick for the honourable member for Griffith in order to get a few votes.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is dishonest. I did it for 5 years under Mr Gorton, Mr McMahon and now Mr Whitlam.

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

– The honourable member failed until now, apparently, but that is another matter. The point that I want to make is this: I believe the Australian Government Statistician when he says that if we were to give publicity to these things and allow the Press and other people to condition the answers, the results would be useless and worthless. If we are talking about crime and matters that are personal, we have to get the information if we want to get the statistics. The information collected is never disclosed. Secrecy is required under the Act and there is no evidence that the information has been disclosed. The honourable member’s objection is spurious. He is destroying the whole merit of the operation because he implies that this information will be spread to somebody else. If it becomes obvious that people need not worry about the survey, nobody will complete the survey forms. If that impression is created, it will be the honourable member’s responsibility. The position is like that in regard to optional voting in local government. Twenty per cent of the people will participate. In this situation the whole efficacy of the Statistician’s role would be destroyed.

The honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) have some responsibility in this matter. The. honourable member for Griffith has none. He just wants to seek publicity. The honourable member wears that problem. But do not let us have it on the basis that we will misuse the statistics. The clear position is this: The Statistician has a role to play and it is very important for the information to be collected. It is a world wide practice. The same statistics are collected throughout the world on the same basis. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that statistical information should be given full publicity and that answers should be suggested. If that were what happened, once the suggested answer was given the whole efficacy of the survey would be destroyed. If the surveys were conducted on a voluntary basis most people would not bother and would give the same invalid answer that was given by the honourable member’s constituent as to what somebody could do with the survey. That sort of thing conveys nothing and it does no credit to the honourable member for Griffith to mention what a constituent said could be done with it. It is no contribution in relation to the needs of the Australian community. If everybody adopted that attitude we would have no statistics at all. This information is sought to compile the statistics. Everybody has to do it to assist in the obtaining of statistical information which can be used by both Government and Opposition. Accordingly, I ask that we approve the resolution.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Chairman, -

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3245

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 2.

Senate’s amendment No. 1-

In sub-clause (3), line 2, leave out ‘or members of the Council or to make regulations under this Act’, insert ‘or to make regulations under this Act and the power of the AttorneyGeneral to appoint members of the Council’.

Proposed new clause 16A.

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

After clause 1 6, insert the following new clause: 16a. It is unlawful for a person-

to incite the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of this Part; or

to assist or promote whether by financial assistance or otherwise the doing of such an act. ‘.

Clause 17 (Liability of principles and employers).

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

Leave out the clause.

Clause18.

A reference in this Part to the doing of an act by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person includes a reference to the doing of an act for two or more reasons that includes the first-mentioned reason, whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act.

Senate’s amendment No. 4-

Leave our ‘whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act’, insert ‘provided that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act ‘.

Clause 20.

The functions of the Commissioner are-

Senate ‘s amendment No. 5 -

Leave out paragraph (b).

Clause 23 (Taking of evidence by prescribed authority).

Senate’s amendment No. 6-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 25.

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause: 25. (1 ) A person aggrieved by an act that he considers to have been unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II may subject to this section institute a proceeding in relation to the act by way of civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for any one or more of the remedies specified in Section 26.

A proceeding may not be instituted under this section in respect of the doing of an act (other than an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 16) in relation to-

accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons; or

employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.

No proceeding shall be instituted unless the person aggrieved has received prior to the institution of such proceeding a certificate signed by the Commission stating that the Commissioner, a Conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commissioner has presided over a conference directed by the Commissioner under section 22 (1 ) and has endeavoured to settle the matter and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled.

No evidence shall be given or received and no statement shall be made in any proceeding instituted under this section with respect to anything said or done at a conference directed to be held pursuant to section 22. ‘

Clause 26.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

Leave out sub-clause (2).

Clause 27.

Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makes it an offence to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II.

Senate’s amendment No. 9-

After ‘act’, insert ‘or agree with another person to do an act’.

Clause 28 (Dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred).

Senate’s amendment No. 10-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 29 (Inciting acts of racial discrimination).

Senate’s amendment No.11-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 30.

Penalty: $500.

Senate’s amendment No. 12-

In sub-clause (1) leave out ‘, a prescribed authority referred to in section 23 ‘.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 13-

In sub-clause (2), leave out the paragraph (h).

Clause 47.

Senate’s amendment No. 14-.

Leave out sub-clause (1 ).

Senate’s amendment No. 15-

Leave out the sub-clauses (4) to (8).

Clause 48 (Exercise of jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court).

Senate’s amendment No. 16-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 49.

Senate’s amendment No. 17-

Leave out sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following sub-clause: ‘(1) A person who-

has instituted or proposes to institute a proceeding in a court under section 25;

has done or is alleged to have done an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted under section 25; or

c) is prosecuted for an offence under section 30; may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding. ‘

Senate’s amendment No. 18-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘, or an officer of the Australian Public Service authorized in writing by the AttorneyGeneral,’.

Senate’s amendment No. 19-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘ or officer’.

Senate’s amendment No. 20-

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘or officer’.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the amendments of the Senate be agreed to.

The Senate has amended the Racial Discrimination Bill in a number of respects, the most important of which are as follows: First, the power vested in the Commissioner for Community Relations to commence legal proceedings where he is unable to effect a settlement by conciliation has been removed. Second, the power of the Commissioner to apply to a judge to obtain evidence to assist the conciliation process and prevent its frustration has also been removed. Third, offences relating to increment and the promotion of racial hatred that are required by the International Convention have been removed. Amendments have also been made to the Bill to remove the provision making employers vicariously liable for the acts of their employees and vesting the Superior Court and the Industrial Court with jurisdiction in respect of proceedings commenced under the legislation.

The Government will accept these amendments but I have to say that is does so with a total lack of enthusiasm. It would have preferred that the Commissioner, as representative of the public interest, should have had power to bring proceedings on behalf of disadvantaged persons, persons with language difficulties and persons who may be diffident about enforcing their rights under the legislation. The Race Relations Board of the United Kingdom has such a power. The Government would have much preferred to have had retained the power to require evidence to be given before a judge to assist in the conciliation process and prevent its frustration. This is a modified form of a power that is contained in the Canadian and New Zealand legislation, but it has been misrepresented by the Opposition as a ‘star chamber’ procedure. That is typical of Opposition posturing. The procedure is in fact under the supervision of a judge and provision is made for legal representation and legal aid. The sole purpose of the provision is to prevent the conciliation processes of the Bill, which the Opposition supports, from being frustrated by non- cooperation of persons alleged to have discriminated on grounds of race. The effectiveness of the Race Relations Board of the United Kingdom is widely recognised as being impeded by the absence of these powers and their absence in the United Kingdom permits the Board’s attempts at conciliation to be virtually ignored.

The Opposition has represented the provision as providing a procedure that is novel, but in fact it is a modified version of a provision that occurs in a great number of Acts of the Australian Parliament. The compulsory evidence gathering powers of the Commissioner of Taxation, the Commissioner of Patents, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Director-General of Social Services, the Public Accounts Committee, the Industries Assistance Commission and royal commission provide just some few examples. The Government would also have much preferred the inclusion of the offences relating to incitment and the promotion of racial hatred so that the requirements of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination could have been followed more closely in Australian law.

However, having made these comments on the amendments successfully moved by the Opposition in the Senate, the Government is nonetheless gratified that the main objectives and framework of the Bill have received general support from the Opposition. Opposition members could hardly oppose them. There is thus a substantial area of common ground between the Government and the Opposition on the philosophy underlining the main thrust of the legislation. The legislation will declare racial discrimination unlawful. It will provide comprehensive legal remedies. It will establish a Commissioner to examine complaints on a systematic basis and engage in conciliation. The Commissioner will have power to engage in programs of education and research to combat racial discrimination.

Moreover, the legislation, even in its amended form, still has a number of features that constitute an improvement on the legislation of many other countries. It is new to Australia. We have not had it before. We should have had it years ago. It applies to a broader range of acts based on racial discrimination than is found in overseas legislation and contains fewer exceptions. It gives an aggrieved party the right to apply to the Courts for a remedy. The Commissioner is cast in the role of an independent conciliator and will have power to act on his own initiative as well as in respect of complaints made to him. The Commissioner will, in addition, have power to promote programs of education and research. The legislation will allow positive orders to rectify injuries caused, as well as injunctions. It will permit damages to be awarded as compensation for the distress caused by humiliation. It also has sanctions against the intimidation of a person seeking a remedy under the legislation.

The legislation is a significant step forward in the development of policies for the promotion of human rights in Australia. The Government is proud of the initiative represented by it. I commend the Bill, as amended, for acceptance by the House.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition is very pleased that the Government has accepted the amendments which have been made to this Bill in another place. The Opposition believes that the amendments will have the effect of replacing the blunt instrument of the Bill as originally presented with a process of conciliation and education which we believe will do a great deal more effectively to reduce the incidence of racial discrimination in Australia than would have been the case with the Bill in its original form. There is no doubt, as the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) said, that a common ground exists between the Government and the Opposition concerning the abhorrence of racial discrimination. But it is an extremely tender area.

Throughout the Australian community there are many people of good will, without racial prejudice, who do not believe that one achieves anything in a reduction of racial tension by passing the type of legislation that the Government originally wanted. There are in fact a great number of people of similar good will who believe that one does nothing towards reducing the incidence of racial tension by legislative coercion. As occurs in so many matters of this nature where there are genuinely held views across a spectrum, a consensus has to be achieved, and the Opposition’s view is that the correct way of approaching it is to put emphasis on conciliation and education, to decriminalise the procedures originally proposed. It was for that reason, and not because of any reluctance to oppose racial discrimination, that the Opposition moved the amendments.

The Minister referred to the experience of the Race Relations Board in the United Kingdom. The Opposition does not believe that the experience of that Board is substantially relevant to the Australian experience. The problems of racial discrimination and racial tensions in the United Kingdom are vastly different from problems of the same nature in Australia. The legislation in its amended form, which we welcome and which we support, now conforms to the Opposition’s view that the best way to promote harmony between the races in Australia is through the process of conciliation, education and- one hopes, in the long term- greater understanding between the races without the existence of legislative coercion of the type originally proposed. The Opposition gladly supports the motion of the Minister.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I am very pleased that the Government has undertaken to support the amendments moved by the Opposition, as has been outlined by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and by my colleague the honourable member for Benelong (Mr Howard). I was a little disappointed in the Attorney-General when he said that this was typical of Opposition posturing. I think that this is one measure that has been through this Parliament in my time in this Parliament where there has been a genuine attempt by both sides of the Parliament- both in the House of Representatives and in the other place- to have a debate on this very sensitve subject free of acrimony. It was a genuine attempt to bring about a common sense of purpose. So I think that it does him, or his speech writers, less than justice to forward the point about Opposition posturing. There is no posturing about the Opposition’s attitude towards the Racial Discrimination Bill.

As my colleague has stressed, we are as much against racial discrimination as anybody in the land but we believe that the original proposals put forward by the Government were perhaps a little bit too enthusiastic in some areas. We have sought to safeguard individuals’ rights to express their opinions. We have stressed conciliation and I am glad that the Government has accepted that point of view. I think I can speak for just about everybody in the Parliament when I say that I hope there will be no court case brought in relation to the workings of this Bill. I would like to see the conciliation procedures so effective that there would be no necessity for a court case to be brought. As my colleague has said, our attitude was engendered by a genuine desire to bring about a reduction in that little bit of racial prejudice which was not inadvertent and, as the honourable member for Bennelong said, we rejected the blunt instrument approach. We thought that the powers of the commissioner were too strong and too much. If we are proved wrong in the future no doubt we will have another look at it.

I am glad that the Attorney-General has said that, despite our approach, the Bill is a step forward. I think that it is a step forward in bringing about a realisation within the total Australian society that racial discrimination, which I firmly believe is largely inadvertent, should not be countenanced. On a personal basis, I was very disappointed that some groups have said that my not recording a vote in the Opposition’s approach to clause 28 when it was debated in the House was due to some reluctance to be totally in favour of the Opposition’s position. I make it clear that I firmly reject clause 28 as it was originally drafted and I am glad that the Government has also now accepted that the original clause 28 should not be included in the Bill. I, like the Attorney-General and the honourable member for Bennelong, hope that this will be a significant step forward in assisting community attitudes to what has been a very intractable problem in other countries. I do not see it as having that significance within Australia. I support the Government’s viewpoint in relation to this Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I rise to take part in the debate simply because I did not take part in the debate earlier in the House and since then I have become the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I feel that I should say, that personally, I applaud the Government’s decision to accept the amendments that were made by the Opposition in the Senate. I think that they make the measure a much better measure than it was when it was introduced into this chamber. A lot of people are opposed to a racial discrimination Bill. They believe that the law should not attempt to enforce morals in this area. Of course, it is true to say that the basic solution to discrimination lies with individuals. In the end, the law cannot solve the problem at all. In the end, it depends on people having the proper attitudes to one another and not allowing matters such as are referred to in this Bill to affect their decisions about people. In the end, one cannot legislate for morals.

But at the same time the law has always had a part to play- the common law and the statute law- in embodying the moral attitudes of society. I personally believe that a racial discrimination Act, as this will now become, embodying as it does the aspirations of our society for attitudes that ought to exist between individuals in the society will, in the end, promote the proper relationship. However, that relationship has to be promoted in the right way. There is a passage in the New Testament about which I have always wondered where it is said that you ought to settle your differences on the way to court. In a way this Bill embodies that very concept. In other words, it attempts to settle the differences on the way to court. It is to be hoped that all those differences whenever they arise will be settled in accordance with the conciliation procedures that have been adopted and that are now being adopted by both sides of this chamber. I believe that that is the only way by which this problem can be solved. I hope the court will never hear a case. It is a great hope, maybe a vain hope, but let it be the wish of all of us.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3250

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Clause 3.

Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:

Senate’s amendment-

At end of proposed section 3 of the Principal Act, add the following new sub-section:

In discharging the functions of the office a section of not less than two of the professional staff shall be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of Members of the Parliament in priority to services for Ministers.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-I move:

The amendment proposes that a section of not less than two of the professional staff of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel shall be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of members of the Parliament in priority to services for Ministers.

The amendment is unacceptable to the Government for 2 reasons. First, in the opinion of the Government, the needs of private members would be less adequately met under the amendment than they are at present. Secondly, the amendment would seriously prejudice the legislative program of the Government of the day without a corresponding benefit to private members.

Under arrangements that have existed for many years, the services of the official draftsmen are available to private members with one qualification- and one qualification onlynamely, that the Attorney-General may decline to provide these services in circumstances that would substantially prejudice the legislative program of the Government. In practice this qualification has not, under the present Government at any rate, prevented the reasonable requirements of private members being met expeditiously and efficiently. Assistance has been given to members of both Houses on numerous occasions and in many cases very substantial drafting work has been involved.

I should say, for the assistance of honourable members, that the efforts of Parliamentary Counsel and the efforts of the Government to make Parliamentary Counsel available to Opposition members will continue wherever it is possible and reasonable to fulfil the services of members of the Parliament. The most common need of private members, and in particular, official Opposition spokesmen, is for amendments to current Bills. These are often required at very short notice indeed. Under the present system, the First Parliamentary Counsel is usually able to make available the services of the draftsman responsible for the Bill itself. The significance of this should not be overlooked. The draftsman responsible for the Bill is available to members. He is able to give guidance to the member in the light of his knowledge of the whole Bill and to deal with the matter quickly. Moreover, with the consent of the member concerned, the draftsman may be able to assist in reaching a form of amendment that would be accepted by the Government.

If the Bill is amended as proposed by the Opposition in the Senate, it could hardly be expected that the services of draftsmen other than the two specifically allotted would be made available. Honourable members are aware of the enormous pressure that has been placed on Parliamentary Counsel in recent years. Parliamentary Counsel have the task of implementing the Government’s legislative program. In these days, when the legislative program is so enormous, Parliamentary Counsel have a task that is of almost heroic proportions. They manage magnificently. Even if these draftsmen who might be provided for if the amendment succeeded were competent and experienced, they would scarcely be able to prepare satisfactory amendments in the time usually required because of their need to familiarise themselves with details of the Bill. I am speaking on the basis of what would be the position if the amendments become law.

Moreover, acute problems of priorities among private members themselves would arise. For example, if 2 private members each asked for the drafting of a major Bill, the services of the 2 draftsmen could be fully occupied for months. How would questions of priority on that basis be decided? A private member could ask for the drafting of an elaborate Bill that would have no chance of becoming law because it did not have the support of the Government, and in the meantime the legitimate requests of other members for amendments that might be realisable could not be fulfilled.

Any difficulties that arise under the present system- they are rare, and certainly less than they could be under the system envisaged by the amendment- would be attributable to shortage of skilled staff in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to cope with the enormous work load that now exists. The First Parliamentary Counsel is making constant efforts to increase his staff and, if trained persons were available, he would be appointing them irrespective of the present amendment. It would therefore be a mistake to think that the amendment would merely require the creation of 2 additional positions which could be readily filled with competent and experienced draftsmen.

I mention in passing that a member of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel will shortly be visiting England in connection with studies and interests that he has. I have authorised him to make informal inquiries when he is in the United Kingdom in the hope that perhaps we may be able to attract additional recruits to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel here in Australia. To sum up, the Government considers generally that the amendment made by the Senate would not be in the best interests of either private members or the Government. The Government asks the Committee to disagree with the amendment.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition regrets that the Government does not agree to the amendment that was inserted in another place. I would like to point out again, as I think Opposition speakers pointed out during the Committee stages of this Bill, that the Opposition’s amendment in no way represents a criticism of the assistance given hitherto by parliamentary counsel to members of the Opposition. We freely acknowledge the help that they have given. But what the Opposition seeks in this amendment is an important principle: There should be some statutory recognition of the rights of private members so far as the drafting of instruments and amendments in the Parliament are concerned. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) in his brief comments a few moments ago suggested that this is something that should beleft on an ad hoc voluntary basis.

Mr Enderby:

– On a flexible basis.

Mr HOWARD:

-He suggests it should be left oh a flexible basis. The Government has sought to put on a formal basis a number of things which hitherto have existed on an informal ad hoc basis. This is a matter to which previous Oppositions have drawn attention. I think the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), former Senator Murphy and other members of the Government when they were in Opposition raised this point. It is a concession that was not made by previous governments. If that is the case- obviously it isthat is a criticism that the concession was not made, but that is not a reason for the concession not now being made. The Opposition thinks this is a time to make the concession, now when the rights of private members in Parliament are being constantly categorised as declining. There has been talk that, so far as the functioning of Parliament is concerned, it is all the Government’s way and it is all the Executive ‘s way.

The Opposition believes that this amendment should be put into this Bill. If we are to regularise the status of parliamentary counsel and if we are to give legislative form to practices which have existed on an informal basis during the past three or four years- I think since 1970- we have to go a step further and give some legislative recognition to the right of private members in this House to have the use of not less than two of the professional staff of parliamentary counsel. I am not saying that the use those 2 members of staff would be to the entire exclusion of other members of Parliament but private members would be given the priority. The Opposition still wants the amendment to be included and will vote against the resolution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:

That Mrs Child, Mr Cope and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. (Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows):

Because the present arrangements for assistance to private members by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel are more satisfactory both to private members and to the Government than the arrangements proposed by the amendment.

Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:

That the committee’s reasons be adopted.

page 3252

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 31 December 1975 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 3 to 1 7 ( 1 974) and 1 to 19 (1975) introduced into the Parliament and not enacted to date. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to reports by the Tariff Board on-

Fibreboard Containers, Paper and Textile Bags and

Photographic and Cinematographic Apparatus, etc.; reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on-

Apparel Sections 1 and 2

Certain Textile Floorcoverings

Diesel Engines exceeding 1 500 kW

Food Processing Machinery

Foundation Garments

Glass and Glassware

Gloves, Mittens or Mitts

Industrial Tractors

Mushrooms

Passenger Motor Vehicles

Polyamide and Polyester Yarns

Steam, Gas and Water Fittings

Textile and Apparel Machinery

Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabric

Woodworking and Metalworking Machinery

Woven Man-made Fibre Fabrics and

Yarns, knitted fabrics and towelling; and reports by the Temporary Assistance Authority on-

Ball bearings

Consumer electronics

Domestic refrigerators, washing machines,

Clothes dryers

Injection moulding machines and

Motor vehicle tyres

I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 3253

SHIP CONSTRUCTION BOUNTY BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 June.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

-In concluding the remarks on this Bill that I commenced last evening, I want to speak for a few moments about the current situation at the Evans Deakin Industries Ltd shipyard in Brisbane. I am particularly concerned about the viability of the industry in this shipyard, because it remains the only major yard engaged in ship construction in Queensland and I for one believe that it is most essential that shipbuilding remain in the State of Queensland. However, so far as I can ascertain from the information that I have been able to obtain, there seems to be a lack of interest on the part of the Evans Deakin management in continuing in shipbuilding. Of course, during the many years for which the previous Government controlled this industry it did not at any time give Evans Deakin- or, for that matter, any other shipyard in Australia- any confidence in the future of the industry. Like the previous Government ‘s policies in so many respects, its policy regarding the future of the industry was a stop-go policy. There was never any confidence on the part of the management or the trade unions engaged in shipbuilding that there was a secure future.

As I said last evening, when the present Government came into office in December1972, ship construction in Australia, particularly in respect of Evans Deakin, was completely in the doldrums. The position at present is much worse and that position is not in any way, shape or form due to the actions of this Government. I think that that should be made absolutely clear. The management of Evans Deakin has shilly-shallied during the past few years in respect of its own intentions about staying in shipbuilding. As long ago as April1973 the management said in its annual report that if no further orders were forthcoming the shipyard would close in August. However, owing to the actions of this Government at that stage and since then, particularly in securing the contract for the Santa Fe oil rig for that company, it has been able to stay in shipbuilding, but still today the situation is that there has been no clear and definite statement from the management that it wants to continue in shipbuilding or that it has any plans to remain in operation at the shipyard at Kangaroo Point. There has been talk that the company may move the shipyard down the river, but the position as to that also is quite indefinite. The company announced at its annual meeting on 10 October 1974 that it would withdraw from conventional shipbuilding and concentrate on ship repair, offshore rigs andthe servicing of vessels, but since then there have been other statements by the management. It advised the Government that it was still its intention to remain interested in the appropriate types of conventional shipbuilding.

In early April this year the Trades and Labour Council in Queensland was so concerned about the future of shipbuilding at the Evans Deakin shipyard that it wrote to me- I know that the Council also wrote to the Prime Minister and contacted other Ministers- in regard to the forward program of orders, and expressed at that stage its belief that unless immediate orders were given to the company the yard must close down before many months. Already at that stage the rundown of staff was under way as the Santa Fe oil rig neared completion. Of course, the work force was down to the last100 or so workers and the closure of the yard seemed imminent. I understand that since then, in the past couple of months, no real effort has been made by the Evans Deakin management to secure future shipbuilding contracts. At this stage it is probably too late for the company to secure an order and keep the yard going. There is no doubt at all that the yard will have to reach an almost total closure position even if the company is successful in regard to any of the tenders currently open and being considered. I accuse the management of not being interested in a future shipbuilding program. Because it has not been interested in a future shipbuilding program and has not been prepared to accept the responsibility for that decision, it is trying to blame this Government.

It would be of no advantage to this Government to see the closure of this yard, yet it appears at the moment that there is no alternative to such a closure within the next few months. In recent years it has been obvious that Evans Deakin has not been able to compete on the open market for shipbuilding contracts. It has even been suggested at times- some sections of the trade union movement have suggested it- that this Government should take action to secure contracts for Evans Deakin, but I would not condone that action for one moment and I am sure that even the Opposition would not suggest that that sort of patronising and protectionist attitude should be adopted by this Government. The previous Government was not prepared to do it. I am sure that members of the Opposition would not suggest that we should engage on that type of a program to secure future shipbuilding contracts for Evans Deakin Industries Ltd when without doubt the management has been incapable of winning contracts in open competition.

Unless the management is prepared to tackle that problem and to face the keen competition that exists from other shipyards and secure contracts for its shipyard the yard faces inevitable and certain closure within the next few months. It is impossible for the present Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and this Government to do anything at all to prevent that happening, particularly, I repeat, because of the attitude of the Evans Deakin management in recent years in failing to be definite in its plans and to be absolutely positive in its efforts to compete with other Australian shipyards and to secure contracts for the workers of Evans Deakin and to preserve that industry in Queensland.

I know that the honourable member for Griffith is very edgy about this. So he should be edgy. The problems that exist at that shipyard were created in the days of his Party’s government. The technological needs of Evans Deakin were never brought up to date because the management had no security and no backing from the previous Government to ensure that it would have a secure and viable industry. So it ran down over the years progressively -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock) Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The attempt by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) to apologise for the Government’s forced closure of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd is pathetic and tragic and it does not even sound true. He must be very dry after a speech of that nature. The fact is that just as Evans Deakin will close so has Walkers Ltd closed and so has the Adelaide Ship Construction company closed. Only 2 shipyards out of six remain open after 2 years of this Labor Government. As the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) pointed out, quite properly, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) went to the Evans Deakin shipyard in 1972 and promised that he would make sure that there would be enough ships available for construction to keep Evans Deakin in business. He failed to keep that promise.

Mr Keogh:

– They cannot win a contract.

Mr NIXON:

– The honourable member can cry as much as he likes until the cows come home; they will not give any milk. I shall continue my remarks where I left off in the Committee stage of this Bill the other night. All of these matters referred to introduce a large element of uncertainty regarding the operation of this new bounty system. I believe that this will have an adverse effect on the Australian shipbuilding industry simply because of the adverse effect it will have on the investment decisions of shipowners wishing to build ships in Australia. One of the means by which the Australian shipbuilding industry can increase its productivitywhich it must do- is through the modernisation and updating of shipbuilding facilities. This will require an injection of substantial capital into the industry, and so long as the industry is uncertain as to its future that investment will not be forthcoming.

I should now like to make some general observations on the Australian shipbuilding industry and indicate the Opposition’s thinking on these issues. The basic problem of the Australian shipbuilding industry is that of a market. There has not been a stable market in Australia for shipbuilders. Instead we have had a stop-go situation which has resulted in confusion as to the long term prospects, and investment decisions have been based on the wrong criteria- and caused by the Labor Government. It has also meant that the skilled work force which is essential to a sound shipbuilding industry has not been given the confidence and long term security which is required in order to ensure productivity and the maintenance of skills- again caused by the Labor Government.

For the industry to be efficient and competitive it must have confidence, and to have the confidence which is necessary to ensure the large injection of capital there must be some continuity of markets. One of the main reasons for lack of confidence in the Australian shipbuilding market is the nature of the ships which have been constructed in Australia since 1947, when financial assistance was first granted to the industry. There has been a conspicuous lack of rationalisation and specialisation in the Australian shipbuilding industry. Each yard produces vessels from the smallest to the largest types. Nor is there any continuity in production. Australian vessels are one-up exercises with all the waste involved in such an approach. There are few instances of vessels of the same specification or plan. The economies in shipbuilding which have been achieved overseas as a result of the standardisation of construction and of models are strikingly absent from the Australian industry.

Of course, one of the reasons that Australian yards are not able to construct 10 or 30 or even 100 vessels of the same specification is that they do not receive orders for more than one or two vessels which are the same. There are some exceptions. The Whyalla yard constructed the ‘Lake’ series for the Australian National Line in the 1950s. Recently the Broken Hill Pry Co Ltd designed and constructed 2 roll-on roll-off steel product carriers. The design work has been acclaimed throughout the world, yet the company has been able to construct only 2 vessels at a cost of $12m each. I venture to say that if a dozen or more similar vessels could be built the cost of each vessel would decline considerably.

To stay in business the Australian shipbuilding industry has been forced to do too much. Instead of attempting to construct every conceivable size and type of vessel- from the largest tanker to the smallest patrol boat- it would be better for the industry to specialise. It is in these circumstances that it can not only become viable but it would also stand a good chance of becoming competitive in international terms. Although our labour costs are expensive by world standards Australia has the cheapest steel in the world. I also believe that the type of vessel most used in Australian waters and in the Australian export trade could easily be constructed here on a mass production basis. I am referring to a bulk carrier in the 25 000 to 30 000 dead weight tons range.

Apart from these questions concerning rationalisation of the Australian shipbuilding industry there is also the overriding question of the type of financial assistance which the industry should obtain. I refer to the questions concerning the credit arrangements and the support through the taxation system which the shipbuilding industry should have. The 1969 Tariff Board inquiry as well as the inter-departmental committee established in 1971 both opposed the concept of providing extended government credit facilities to the shipbuilding industry. The Coombs Task Force report was opposed to the existing limited subsidy to the industry on account of the cost to the community and to the public revenue which resulted from the bounty. It can be assumed that any taxation concessions proposals would have met with resolute opposition. Again I am reminded of a promise by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in 1972- another promise of aid to the shipbuilding industry broken.

The level of Government support for shipbuilding overseas through extended credit arrangements and accelerated depreciation is quite considerable. For instance, the 1972 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey found that in Japan 85 per cent credit was provided for the shipbuilding industry at 6.5 per cent interest with two-thirds of this amount publicly financed and repayable over a 10-year period after a 3-year period of grace and one-third privately financed repayable over an 8-year period. For export vessels there existed joint public and private finance for 70 per cent of the capital cost of a ship repayable over 8 years at 7.5 per cent interest.

In the United Kingdom and the United States there are similar schemes. The Opposition believes that the only way in which a healthy Aus.tralian shipbuilding and shipping industry will be brought about is through the provision of liberal credit and depreciation arrangements which recognise the special risks involved in shipowning. The nature of the shipping industry and the risks involved are such that capital will be attracted into the industry only if imaginative and flexible credit and depreciation measures are made available. Australia is the world’s only island continent. We are one of the great trading nations of the world. Our prosperity depends upon our ability to export our own products and resources and to import the goods which are produced in other parts of the world. It is incomprehensible that a nation such as ours should not be one of the world’s leading maritime powers. The annual cost to Australia of freight is of the order of $ 1 ,000m. The savings in foreign exchange and the acquisition of skills and resources would more than offset the cost involved in creating a national fleet. A large proportion of the real profits that we should obtain from the export of natural resources is lost to this country because of the costs involved in shipping.

The Opposition believes that Australia is not only capable of becoming a large-scale maritime nation but also that one of the functions of the national Government is to encourage this development. What needs to be done in shipbuilding is to give the Australian shipbuilding yards terms that are at least equal to those of overseas yards. Give them a chance to compete. The other action required from the Government to make Australia a great maritime nation is to make the Australian flag ships more competitive with ships from comparable overseas countries. By comparable countries I mean countries that have a similar standard of living to Australia. Let us take as an example a Norwegian ship which carries a complement of nineteen. In Australia a similar ship would require a crew of thirty.

The trouble is that there is too much featherbedding of crews in the Australian shipping industry. Australia will never become a maritime nation of any consequence while this Government is prepared to featherbed the crews in overseas trade. A comparable situation could be found in a 70 000 ton tanker with an Australian crew travelling around the world. It would cost $3.8m a year more than an overseas tanker crewed by a British crew, and Britain has a reasonable standard of living to be sure. We cannot have a featherbedded shipping industry when the crewing rates are so high and expect Australia to become a maritime nation. It is quite the reverse of proper policy. It will not lead to Australia becoming a great maritime nation except at great cost to the Australian consumer. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but it does not believe that it will have any success at all in leading to a decent shipbuilding industry in this country.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I shall answer a couple of matters raised by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). He referred to 3 shipyards which he blames the Labor Government for closing. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) certainly gave the facts as far as the 2 Queensland shipbuilding yards are concerned. The other yard mentioned was the Adelaide Ship Construction Company. Perhaps I can enlighten the House on a few facts about that company. It is true that this yard closed down in early 1973. It is obvious that there were problems before that and that the company intended to close the yard down. The owners of the yard fully intended to phase out operations and to close it down early in 1973. At the time there was a 4000 ton ship to be built at the Whyalla yards for one of the major shareholders in the Adelaide Ship Construction company.

A proposal was put forward that work on the 4000 ton ship which was to be built at the Whyalla yards be transferred to the Adelaide Ship Construction yards. The company would not agree to that proposition. At least this would have saved that shipyard for some time and given it a chance probably to rationalise its activities and still be a viable proposition. But the company decided not to go ahead with this proposition. As a result the yard closed down early in 1973. I fail to comprehend how the Opposition can say that these yards ran into trouble in early 1973 because of the fault of the Government which was elected late in 1972. I have some figures here which were given to a union deputation which came over from Adelaide on the matter of the Adelaide Ship Construction company. They were given to me by the Minister.

Of 33 ships on order at that time 19 were in a range which could have been handled by the Adelaide Ship Construction company but the company did not tender for one of those ships. This is something which proves what I said earlier, that is, that the company was at no time interested in carrying on. All it wanted was the excuse to get out and that is what it did. It is completely dishonest for the Opposition now to say it was the Labor Government which forced the closure of this yard. That is completely untrue.

The honourable member for Gippsland made a number of remarks about Australia’s moving into the field of overseas trade. It is a fact that until the present time Australia has carried less than 1 per cent of its trade in Australian ships. This Government has taken the bull by the horns. It has taken steps to ensure that Australia will carry in Australian ships its fair share of trade. While it was not expected that this could be achieved overnight opportunities for expanding overseas and coastal shipping were examined in the very early stages of the new Labor Government. As a result, proposals have been successfully developed to the point where orders for several new ships have been placed both locally and overseas.

Some of the measures taken by the Government to date have resulted in increased participation in the dry bulk and oil tanker trades. The Government has given its approval for the Australian National Line to order two 120 000 dead weight tonne carriers from Swedish yards and two 137 000 dead weight tonne bulk carriers from German shipyards. These ships are of a size which is too large for Australian shipyards to handle. Our largest shipyard is Whyalla and I think its maximum is about 85 000 tonnes. These vessels will be delivered in 1976 and 1977 and will be used in the carriage of iron ore to Japan. With these bulk carriers, which represent an investment of more than $ 100m, Australia ‘s bulk carrier fleet engaged in the carriage of our mineral exports will exceed half a million tonnes. These vessels will be capable of carrying between 5 million and 6 million tonnes of ore to Japan a year, that is, 10 per cent of the trade. At present we carry less than 1 per cent. The maintenance of crude oil supplies from overseas is of major importance. The Australian Government is entirely dependent upon foreign flag ships for the maintenance of these imports.

I know the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) wants to close the debate but I point out that it is a fact that Australia is moving into the tanker trade. It is buying a fleet of 6 vessels of between 65 000 and 70 000 dead weight tonnes. These will certainly assist in carrying our oil imports and will save Australia from becoming completely dependent on overseas ships to carry its essential commodities. This Government has taken the bull by the horns by introducing a new shipping pokey. I hope it will ensure a long range future for the Australian industry and will see our shipyards get to the stage where they are completely viable and capable of competing with overseas shipping, and that Australia will have a national shipping line of which it can be proud.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Frankly, I fail to completely comprehend what the previous speaker was talking about because there is hardly any shipbuilding industry left in Australia. The great pOliCY which he supports has come after the horse has bolted. Since the Australian Labor Party has become the Government Evans Deakin Industries, Walkers Ltd and Adelaide Ship Construction Company have all closed down. I concede that when my Party was in government the shipbuilding industry was faced with difficulties. It was never easy. But the uncertainty of those days has since the election of a Labor Government been replaced with a feeling of hopelessness. That is why the 3 shipbuilding companies closed down and said: ‘We give in. It is impossible to carry on’. I had not intended entering this debate this evening but the remarks of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), whose electorate is in Brisbane, were such that I wondered to which country he was referring. I thought there must have been an Evans Deakin in some other part of the world because so much fiction was contained in his comments tonight. The honourable member smiles. I do not say he is agreeing with what I have just said but it is a friendly smile.

The truth is that the management of Evans Deakin was not inefficient as the honourable member suggested. I believe he has been unfair not only to the management but also to the men who worked in those shipyards. I recall that in 1972 when the Labor Party had a candidate called Mr Foat opposing me for my marginal seat -

Mr Keogh:

– He did well, too.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-He did well. He went close, but not close enough. The honourable member for Bowman should know what closeness is, because he went close last time. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stood in the Evans Deakin shipyard- I have repeated this in the House on 2 previous occasions- and said to the men: ‘If you want to work, vote for us. The Labor Party will promise you jobs and more orders’. I do not know what the orders were for. Perhaps they were for unemployment benefits because that is all the men ever got. I recall in May of last year returning to Brisbane with Sir Charles Court, the Premier of Western Australia. Those men who were left at Evans Deakin ‘s shipyards said: ‘We are no longer interested in politics. All we want is work’. They saw the writing on the wall. They saw that under a Labor Government the industry was closing down fast.

It is a pity that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is not with us this evening. He is the arch enemy of progress for the shipbuilding industry. He has been placing orders overseas, and spending money with abandon, with the approval of the several Treasurers that we have had since Labor came to power. The Minister has gone overseas and allowed the Australian National Line to place orders outside this country. The honourable member for Bowman said that quotations or tenders by Evans Deakin were never satisfactory. I have raised the case in this House before of a tender by Evans Deakin that was lower than that of the State Dockyards in the electorate of the Minister for Transport, but the State Dockyards was awarded the job. That case has never been satisfactorily explained. But I know that both management and workers- or ex-workers- of Evans Deakin shared concern about what occurred in those days.

To honour the promise that I made to the Government Whip, I will conclude now. I finish with this remark: I find it ridiculous that the world’s largest island, remote from most other parts of the world, every month is losing its capacity to build ships. I ask honourable members to contemplate the situation. Australian no longer has a capacity in more than 2 shipbuilding yards to produce vessels in the event of war or any other catastrophe in which we might have to be self-reliant. There are justifiable arguments against simply propping up industries. But there are vital industries in certain countries and the shipbuilding industry is a vital industry for Australia.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

– in reply-I rise to speak very briefly at the conclusion of this debate. With great respect, so much nonsense has been uttered by some speakers on the Opposition benches that their remarks must be put right. I remind honourable members of some basic facts related to the Australian shipbuilding industry. The subsidy that was paid to that industry in 1972-73 amounted to about $30m. There are 5 000 men employed in the shipbuilding industry. That means that the Australian taxpayers meet the wages bill of the Australian shipbuilding industry. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that fact; there is something to be rather proud of in it. But one should not lose sight of the fact that this support was a policy of the previous Government. It is a policy continued by this Government. Indeed, when the previous Government was in office protection to the shipbuilding industry was such that, for all practical purposes, a total ban was imposed on all imports. To use the expression of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), the industry was feather-bedded to that extent.

Indeed, the shipbuilding industry was inefficient. There can be Utile doubt about that. One has only to search one’s memory and to think of the case of the Evans Deakin company: My God, when I was first reading about the shipbuilding industry, probably 15 years ago, Evans Deakin was in a state of perennial crisis. When I first came into this Parliament in 1970, one of the first debates that I heard was on the crisis at Evans Deakin. The shipyards were located in the wrong place and, as the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) has pointed out, Evans Deakin cannot compete with Australian shipyards, let alone overseas yards.

Let us put this matter in proper perspective. This Government for the first time has introduced an element of reason into the Australian shipbuilding industry. The subsidy has been put on a proper rational basis. The import policy has been changed. Ship imports will be allowed in only when an Australian shipowner can find a ship overseas that he can buy at a price cheaper than the subsidised Australian price. The Australian Government pays nearly half the cost of construction of an Australian ship. At the top level, the subsidy is 40 per cent. That is what Australian taxpayers, through the Government, contribute. Let me measure that in terms of the freight component that Australians pay on goods that are carried around the Australian coast. I have seen a figure- I draw on my memory for it- of approximately $9m a year. That is the unnecessarily high price for freight that Australians pay. Do not think that the Australian shipbuilding industry is not looked after, because it is. What is happening- every expert who is familiar with the subject speaks of it- is that there should be rationalisation. The 2 shipbuilding yards which do particularly well, which do not complain and limp and stagger from one crisis to another, are BHP at Whyalla in South Australia and the State Dockyards at Newcastle in New South Wales. They do very well. Their order books are extremely good. If time was available I could quote to honourable members examples of those orders.

The honourable member for Gippsland misleads the House when he brings into the discussion Walkers Ltd at Maryborough. I was Minister for Secondary Industry when Walkers Ltd decided to close down. It had been flooded out for the fourth time in 18 months. When one went to its yards one saw the pole where the record flood level was recorded. Walkers Ltd was sick and tired of being flooded out. That had nothing to do with Government policy unless honourable members opposite wish to attribute floods to Government policy. I spoke to Dr Hughes who was the General Manager of Walkers Ltd. I said: ‘Look, no one wants to see you put people off. What is the best answer? What can we do to help?’ He said: ‘Only if you gave me an open cheque every month would I keep going in shipbuilding. We should never have been here. It was a tragic mistake for the shareholders. The best thing that we can do is to get out of the damn thing. We should never have been in it and we should have concentrated on the thing that we do very well at; that is general engineering.’ Walkers Ltd has concentrated on general engineering. It is doing very nicely because it was Government policy to assist such a company to do so.

Mr Nixon:

-What about Adelaide?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Honourable members have heard the honourable member for Bowman speak ad nauseam on that aspect.

Mr Nixon:

– He does not know about Adelaide.

Mr ENDERBY:

– He comes from Adelaide.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He does not. He comes from Brisbane.

Mr Nixon:

– Yes. He comes from Brisbane. What is wrong with you?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Enough is enough, when one hears the puny attempts by members of the Opposition who declaim: ‘Blame the Government! Blame the Government! Blame the Government! ‘ The Government pays the wages bill for every worker employed in the Australian shipbuilding industry. Not only does it do that but also does it say to the ship owner who wants to have a ship built or bought somewhere that that shipowner cannot buy a ship overseas unless he can buy it at a price less than the subsidised price at which a similar ship would be available in Australia. That means finding a price overseas which is half the price at which it can be built in Australia. That is not a bad deal. The rationalisation process is taking place. It is working better than ever before and better than it did under the former Government when the shipbuilding industry limped from one crisis to another. The future of the Australian shipbuilding industry is sound.

Bill agreed to.

BUI reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3259

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-The Telecommunications Bill 1975, as amended by the Senate on 2 1 May, was passed by the House of Representatives on 28 May and was received back in the Senate on 29 May. So, it is to all intents and purposes the law of the land. That is to say, an Australian Telecommunications Commission has been established to take over from the erstwhile Postmaster-General’s Department those functions, duties and responsibilities which relate to the operations of the national telecommunications service. The Senate was unable to agree to the inclusion in the Bill of the Government’s proposal to give to the Australian Telecommunications Commission the power to take over from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission the international telecommunications service.

Accordingly, the Senate amended the BUI by deleting the clauses providing for this amalgamation or take-over. Speaking in another place at the conclusion of the debate on the Bill, the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) said that the Government opposed the amendment and would have to decide whether it would accept it at a later date. In this House in his second reading speech on the Postal Services Bill the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) said:

Although the Government proposes to proceed with the 3 Bills as amended by the Senate, it objects to the removal of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the ambit of the relevant Bills and proposes to take separate action.

This Bill represents the action which the Government proposes to take. The purpose of the Bill, in essence, is to reintroduce into the Telecommunications Act which was passed last week those clauses which were removed by the Senate amendments, and to incorporate the functions of the OTC (Australia) in the brand new Australian Telecommunications Commission. Before going on to discuss the points made by the Special Minister of State in his second reading speech on 29 May, I make the general observation that, in introducing legislation simply restoring provisions that were amended by the Senate, the Government is adopting a novel, if not unique, tactic. Further than that I do not wish to go at this moment. I will now deal in detail with some of the points the Minister raised. The Minister said:

Following the majority recommendation of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office, the Government decided to merge the national and international telecommunications services in one commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

No recommendation was made in the Vernon report, there being 2 different views. The report of the Royal Commission, some 600 pages of it I might add, was presented to the GovernorGeneral on 19 April 1974 and just 3 working days later on 24 April 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced the Government’s acceptance of the principal recommendations, including the incorporation of the OTC. The

Government is obstinately adhering to this decision which, at best, must be termed hasty. The Minister also said: . . . amendment to these Bills in another place had the effect of preserving an illogical division of control over the common functions of national and international telecommunciations services. The Government is convinced that a comprehensive national approach to telecommunications services is essential, as in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, West Germany, Sweden and France where the internal and external telecommunications services are under the control of single Government authorities.

A reading of the existing Overseas Telecommunications Act and the new Telecommunications Act shows a clear line of division between the OTC’s activities and those of the new ATC. The key difference between the two is that in respect of international telecommunications all faculties, such as satellites and cables, require multilateral agreements with other countries whereas domestic telecommunications are a matter for unilateral decision by Australia alone. As revealed in its annual reports, the OTC has a fine reputation in the international sphere. These international requirements must remain no matter what type of new international services are introduced, including direct telephone dialling. The only inference which can be drawn from the Minister’s statements is that the necessary international facilities and arrangements will remain but that they will be under the control of another organisation. Surely the key thing at risk here is that the fine OTC machine for international negotiation in the multilateral environment will be dissipated and lost if the OTC were absorbed by the much larger ATC.

The Minister cites countries to suit his argument but, as is well known, the existence of separate organisations to carry out these two separate and different functions is by no means uncommon in some of the most technologically advanced countries, such as the United States of America, Japan and Canada. The Minister went on to say:

Increasingly, services are being operated on a world-wide subscriber-to-subscriber basis and there is no logical reason for separate control of international services.

The implication is that when there are subscriber-to-subscriber services the international organisation, that is, OTC, becomes redundant or should be under the control of the domestic organisation. Surely, no matter what happens in the future, Australia will require these submarine cable links, satellites and the other technical equipment currently controlled by the OTC. As at least the last 3 annual reports of the OTC have shown, it has been ready for direct overseas dialling for some years. The argument concerned with overseas STD is a red herring designed to confuse the situation. No Australian is disadvantaged in his use of overseas services by the existence of the OTC, but the removal of the OTC would place this at risk. The Minister continued:

Regarding the statements made by the honourable member for Gippsland yesterday about the efficiency and profitability of OTC there should be no illusion on this matter. Because of the exclusive area of telecommunications operated by OTC, that is the provision of international links only, the costs of which are reducing as more sophisticated bearer equipment is developed, the overseas telecommunications organisation of every country throughout the world is making a profit.

The OTC does not operate in the exclusive area of the provision of international links. In addition to Australia’s cable and satellite links and other associated and necessary facilities, such as telephone and telex exchanges and operating centres, the OTC provides Australia’s coastal radio service to ships at sea through some 14 radio stations around the coastline. As shown in the transcript of proceedings of the Vernon Commission, many of the OTC services are unprofitable. In reply to a question on this matter Mr White, the General Manager of the OTC, said:

I suppose the first thing I should say is that of the 200-odd places to which we provide a service only about 70 are profitable. The balance we provide in order to provide a service to the Australian community so that they can communicate to these places.

We operate a coastal radio service which has 2 principal objectives. One is to provide commercial communications with ships at sea, and we do this at a substantial loss, but we do it because the service has to be provided. The other is to provide a safety watch on the distress frequencies under what is called the safety of life at sea service, the SOLAS service.

With regard to the coastal radio service, the OTC’s most recent annual report, 1973-74, reveals an operating loss of $ 1.7m for the year. The Minister in his second reading speech in this regard said:

On the other hand it is equally true that the cost of providing domestic services is increasing in every country in the world and although the national network has to be provided and maintained at a high standard without which OTC could not operate at all, the costs of doing this are not reflected in the payments made by OTC to the Australian Post Office. For this reason OTC in Australia and overseas counterparts will continue to appear efficient because they are operating in a narrow profit-making pool of communications at the expense of the local telephone user.

The OTC’s most recent annual report reveals that in 1973-74 it paid to the Australian Post Office over $ 13m for the use of the domestic network. This was an increase of almost $3m on the previous year and represented over 30 per cent of all OTC expenses. As could be expected, these figures have increased significantly since that time and I understand that now it could be in the order of $20m, in addition to taxes and dividends paid to the Government. In referring to this question, Sir James Vernon in the report of the Royal Commission said:

As regards the reasonableness of charges paid by the OTC to the APO the basis for payment can be objectively examined and if appropriate, adjustment can be made. However, the ability of the relatively prosperous international operation to ‘subsidise’ the less profitable national service is very limited.

Whilst not in the public domain, the PostmasterGeneral is aware that negotiated and formally agreed financial arrangments covering payments made by the OTC to the Australian Post Office exist. They have been freely entered into by both parties and were updated as recently as 1 April 1975. If these were revealed they would show that the payments made are equated to OTC’s paying the full going domestic rate for the use made of the Australian Post Office network to carry calls to the subscriber. The Minister said:

It is logical to merge the 2 organisations as this will permit better co-ordination of total operations, simplified billing arrangements and improved service to customers.

The Minister’s comment on billing arrangements is in conflict with his own statement that ‘arrangements have been made to preserve separate accounting for the international service ‘.

With regard to improved service, OTC’s record stands high with its Australian users. The outcry from these very same users- the Overseas Telecommunications Users Action Committeemust arise from their fear that merger would mean a deterioration of service, not an improvement. Regrettably, and I think mistakenly, the Minister launched an attack on the OTC’s record in regard to its relations with the Papua New Guinea Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In particular, the Minister said:

OTC always had an excuse for refusing calls for assistance from the Papua New Guinea Department of Posts and Telegraphs and was endeavouring to retain control of Papua New Guinea’s external communications.

The OTC has a connection with Papua New Guinea going back to October 1946 and is obviously proud of its record. When Papua New Guinea assumed self-government on 1 December 1973 and as a consequence took over the radio stations under OTC control, no fewer than 59 indigenous OTC staff were transferred to the Papua New Guinea Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Ten of them had recently returned from a training course in Sydney as international telecommunications officers. Also, a number of OTC’s Australian personnel continued working at Port Moresby, Lae and Rabaul on loan until trained local staff could replace them. OTC staff are continuing to operate and maintain the SEACOM- South-East Asia communicationscable station at Madang and are providing training for Department of Posts and Telegraphs personnel at that station. I do not call that a bad record of co-operation.

The Minister went on to criticise the OTC for its choice of Madang, instead of Lae, as the site for an ARM cross-bar exchange. Much of the key material relevant to this issue is not publicly available. However, all significant action for the development of facilities in Papua New Guinea was taken with the approval of the then Postmaster-General in accordance with the Overseas Telecommunications Act. In the case of the Madang exchange as cited by the Minister, approval to proceed was given by the Postmaster-General of the day only after he had consulted with his Department and reached agreement with the then Minister for External Territories. The technically complex Madang v. Lae situation has its origins in the fact that the SEACOM cable, originally planned to land at Lae, had to be located at Madang because sea bottom conditions at Lae were totally unsuitable.

With regard to assistance with staffing, not only is the Minister’s information totally incorrect but the very reverse is true, as can be shown. The last 3 annual reports of the OTC reveal in the sidelined sections OTC’s record in the training of Papua New Guineans to ensure a smooth takeover on self-government. The OTC staff magazine ‘Transit’ reveals that OTC made avail.able a number of key personnel from its Aus- tralian staff for secondment to the Papua New Guinea Department of Posts and Telegraphs after self-government. In addition, at the present time a senior OTC officer is working for that Department as head of its international services division.

With regard to a new cable between Papua New Guinea and Australia the Press reports in the Papua New Guinea ‘Post Courier’ for July 1974 reveal that accord exists between OTC and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to lay a $8m cable between Port Moresby and Cairnsnot Madang and Cairns, as incorrectly stated by the Minister. OTC’s relations with the Papua New Guinea Department of Posts and Telegraphs have improved dramatically since selfgovernment, when responsibility for telecommunications in that country was taken over by the local people replacing the previous expatriate senior staff, mostly drawn from the Australian Post Office. The Minister said:

The merging of the 2 organisations would avoid continuing and protracted negotiations between two separate managements on technological planning and cost sharing. These negotiations and the diverse aims of the two separate managements required the Postmaster-General of the previous Government . . . to have an APO/OTC Policy Liaison Committee formed in 1969.

Sir James Vernon said in his report:

The single organisation that would develop from the merging of the two systems might appear at first sight an attractive simplification of the present situation, where the existence of two independent organisations has undoubtedly given rise to arguments in respect of the planning of the networks and their inter-working arrangements. Planning and co-ordination will always be necessary however as between national and international networks and the study group approach referred to previously would seem to be an effective way of exposing differing viewpoints and resolving complex issues. The Chairman does not believe that problems disappear and that planning is necessarily optimised by the creation of a single central planning authority.

That was Sir James Vernon’s view of things. The key point here is that negotiations between the overseas and domestic services on technological planning and cost sharing are necessary whether OTC is merged or not, unless the real intention is for domestic priority to inhibit technical development of the overseas services and for concealed cross-subsidisation of revenues to occur. That could be the plot the Minister has in mind. The Minister said:

In moving to merge the services into one Commission, the Government has no intention of dismembering the Overseas Telecommunications Commission organisation and of submerging it in the large national organisation. On the contrary, the Interim Australian Telecommunications Commission proposes the retention of an international unit reporting directly to the Managing Director, who will be the chief executive officer of the Commission and a member of the Commission itself. The Interim Commission has already taken steps to overcome certain problems foreseen by Sir James Vernon. Arrangements were made for a senior OTC officer to be detached to assist in developing an organisation and a relationship between the international unit and the rest of the organisation of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. At its May meeting, the Interim Australian Telecommunications Commission adopted a series of proposals which were the outcome of this work.

If the legislation were passed, no provision for any continued existence for OTC would exist. On the contrary, it would repeal the Overseas Telecommunications Act, thereby abolishing the OTC as a corporate entity. If indeed separate identity for the overseas services is part of the Government’s wishes, why has this not been included in the Bill? In its absence, one can only assume that the Government intends or is indifferent to OTC’s disappearance as an organisation. In the absence of statutory safeguards, no agreement between managements can prevent the process of retribution against OTC which the legislation clearly envisages.

The statement that arrangements are being made concerning the future role of OTC in the new Commission changes nothing. It has to be expected that, following the Government’s announcement of its intentions, discussions will take place between officials of the OTC and the Australian Post Office. One can imagine that in such discussions OTC would endeavour to achieve the best possible arrangements for the continuity of overseas services. All such discussions must be held within the framework of the draft legislation, which makes no provision for the continued separate existence of OTC. Continued independence by retention of the Overseas Telecommunications Act is essential if the Government’s professed intention of ensuring that the capability built up by OTC is not destroyed is to have any meaning.

In conclusion, let me say that the Opposition is opposed to the Bill because it thinks it is unnecessary. The commissioners who inquired into the Australian Post Office were unable to reach a common view on the question of whether the Overseas Telecommunications Commission should remain as a separate entity or should be merged into the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission. The Opposition agrees with the view put forward by the Chairman of the Commission. The Commission’s report states: … the Chairman believes that it would be altogether premature to take a decision at this time to merge the wellestablished OTC with an ATC not yet in being.

The situation will be seen in proper perspective only when the new Commission is properly established and when the boards of management of the 2 commissions have been able to study the practical inter-working of the national and international systems. The Opposition opposes the Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– in reply- I appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I think it is pretty obvious- I say without any disrespect to him- that his speech was prepared by an official of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and that clearly indicates some of the difficulties in this matter. It is also indicative of the fact that a large advertising campaign has been indulged in on behalf of the users. I think that the records show that OTC, which has a monopoly in the field, spent $900,000 on advertising.

Let us get to the specifics. I have in my hand a reply to the statements I made in respect of the standing of OTC with Papua New Guinea. I am glad to have the reply because it supports the accuracy of those statements. The honourable member for Gippsland might appreciate the fact that I happened to be the Postmaster-General at the time when I made the statements and I as aware of the fact that my counterpart in Papua New Guinea had to come all the way to Sydney to see me in an effort to overcome the difficulties that he was then experiencing with OTC. He could not get any co-operation in respect of the cable between Cairns and Port Moresby.

I have in my hand a telex message which states that Mr Kaibelt Diria had said that he had to make special representations and come to Sydney because at that time the OTC was not in favour of the cable proposal and considered that Papua New Guinea should have a satellite earth station instead. He said that it would be more expensive for Papua New Guinea to have to operate such a station which would require further complex technologies which were not considered desirable. Mr Kaibelt Diria said also that he had been completely frustrated by the OTC’s procrastination and he was not enjoying any special relationship, as had been suggested. The message states that the OTC did not appear to appreciate the posts and telegraphs network development plan when it successfully pressed for a solution contrary to PANDT advice and installed the international telephone arm exchange at Madang. PANDT has now commenced construction of the arm exchange at Lae in accordance with the original exchange plan, and at considerable extra cost. It is not of much use for the honourable member for Gippsland to tell me that everything was very sweet and all reason up there. There was a sense of frustration and a lack of communication in respect of this matter. The telex message proves the point that we made.

Australia cannot afford to let personality cults intrude into commissions. One of the things we have to look at in the OTC is whether there is a personality cult which works on a system of gradation, requires that one has to live at Point Piper and drive a Mercedes-Benz and requires the provision of perks. Such a situation is not good enough. The serious part of this is that the Australian Telecommunications Commission provides services for 3.5 million people and it hooks up to the OTC network. The Australian Telecommunications Commission has 80 000 employees while the OTC has 2000 employees. The great danger is that employees of the OTC will virtually work in a sterile area and will lack promotional opportunities. Many of the people in this area will have very limited opportunity for advancement. However, if they were to come within the whole ambit of telecommunications and within the system that employs 80 000 people one can imagine how much more favourable their advancement opportunities would be. For that reas’on the Government is anxious to stress that this is an important Bill. If the Bill is not passed the overseas service and staff of OTC will be placed in a position where they will be uncertain of promotional opportunities. They will miss out on wider career opportunities which could be available to them on the establishment of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. We sound that wanting because the future of OTC is not certain. Even the honourable member for Gippsland said: ‘Perhaps at some later stage it might be appropriate’. At that later stage of the development-

Mr Nixon:

- Sir James Vernon said that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Well, he is not always right. This was a minority decision. We respect his view and he is entitled to it, but there was a majority view against him. Let us put this on the record: We are to establish with the concurrence of the Opposition the Australian Telecommunications Commission which will provide faculties within Australia and which will employ a large integrated staff. However, the Opposition’s proposition will have the effect of creating a situation wherein 2000 employees of the OTC who will not have the opportunity of being general managers in the higher echelon will wallow in an area where the best position they will be able to attain will be, perhaps, technical officer grade 1. They will never get the same opportunities as will be available to those employed in the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

I would like members of the Opposition in their usual impartiality in matters which are not political, to have a good look at this situation. It would be a sheer delight if we had an AuditorGeneral’s report on the OTC. If we did we could have a look at how and where funds are spent. Let us have a look at this matter in a manner in which politics and personality cults do not intrude. The great weakness in this debate is that the Opposition has been brainwashed by a select few. It has been encouraged to think that the separate bodies will provide a better service. It is a bit ridiculous to think that a separate body can do something special for people who have been provided with telephones and landlines by the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Is it not a fact that if one flashes the letters ‘OTC on the screen one is entitled to a 10 per cent rebate? Is it not a fact that if one uses a certain advertisement one is entitled to a 10 per cent rebate? Is it any wonder that there is a users’ association, which has a vested interest in the matter? If we have a look at all of these matters we should do so on the basis of an AuditorGeneral’s report.

We should look at this Bill from the employees ‘ point of view and we should not pay any attention to the strong men who say: ‘Your future is in jeopardy unless there is continued division and separation’. I put it on record- not on a political basis: How in the name of fortune can 2000 skilled men get the same opportunities as their counterparts working in the Australian communications scheme which has 80 000 to 85 000 employees now? If they are left behind how will they ever catch up? It might suit a person working for OTC who is on a high salary, has high superannuation benefits, receives all the perks of office and has plenty of overseas tripsthey leave the average member of Parliament for dead for the number of trips they make overseasto stay on in a separate organisation. We do not deny the fact that these people might have expertise in negotiating international agreements. The Australian Telecommunications Commission would still need personnel to carry out this task. Indeed, the Australian Telecommunications service has people with expertise who negotiate international arrangements. This staff is negotiating in respect of satellites. The Australian Telecommunications Commission will have its own; the OTC does not have one. I want to make it clear that we are trying to get some uniformity with respect other nations.

I do not want to delay this matter any further. I would encourage the honourable member for Gippsland, as a fair-minded person, to have a good look at this legislation on the basis of whether he could not do better, and have a few inquiries made as to what is the real reason for the users association and why he got so much information to assist perhaps a select few. We do not approve of the Opposition’s objection and we want the Bill to proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 3265

SUPERIOR COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-This is the third time that this Bill has been before this Parliament and before this House. It falls to my lot once more to state the Opposition’s attitude. I say categorically that the Opposition’s attitude has not changed one bit. The Opposition is as opposed to this Bill as it was when it was first introduced into this House. It is opposed to it on the basis of deep seated principle. One thing is clear: This Bill is as offensive in principle as it was when it was first introduced. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been put many times in this House by members on this side of the House. But I think that it is important to note at the outset that the BUI is somewhat antiquated. It has been introduced so often into this House that the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has forgotten to bring it up to date. But, of course, we know why he has forgotten to bring it up to date. It is because he thought the Opposition would oppose it and because the Government hopes that it will be a double dissolution measure. What a double dissolution measure this would be. It is a measure that, if it ever becomes law, presumably win refer to the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959. It does not, of course, refer to the Family Law Act which has recently passed this Parliament. It does not refer to the fact that a Family Law Court has been established. When one analyses this BUI, one finds that it is completely out of keeping with the reality of the legislation that has passed this Parliament.

For instance, it proposes for the Chief Justice a salary of $31,450. That salary of $31,450 would not attract a district court judge in New South Wales at this stage. We know that the salaries which are being offered to supreme court judges are well in excess of $3 1,450. Of course, I am not trying to laugh the BUI out of the Parliament. It is just a fact that the Government has not brought it up to date. This underscores one basic fact, namely, that there are some aspects in relation to which section 57 of the Constitution ceases to have effect. I suggest that the Attorney-General have a fresh look at section 57 to see whether it can appropriately apply to a BUI that no longer in many respects has relevance.

I want to consider for a moment why it was that the Superior Court was first conceived. A great deal has been made of the point that this idea was first conceived by Sir Garfield Barwick, now the Chief Justice of the High Court. Subsequently a BUI was introduced by Mr Nigel Bowen, now the Chief Judge in Equity in New South Wales. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the present Attorney-General, and the previous Attorney-General have referred from time to time to the fact that this BUI has had the support of these eminent parliamentarians and judges. It is significant to look at what the present Chief Justice said about the Superior Court. He said:

My own basic objective in proposing a new Federal Superior Court was to free the High Court of Australia as of this time but particularly for the future for the discharge of its fundamental duties as interpreter of the Constitution and as the national court of appeal untrammelled by some appellate and much original jurisdiction with which it need not be concerned.

That is an article that the Federal Law Review published in 1964- Volume 1, Federal Law Reports.

The reason expounded by the Chief Justice for this court was that it would take away the workload of the original jurisdiction of the High Court. That basic reason has long since disappeared because the original jurisdiction of the High Court has now been passed on to the Supreme Courts of the States to a very large degree. Honourable members Will recall that some time ago this Parliament put through an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act which gave the taxation jurisdiction to the Supreme Courts of the States. Now justices like Mr Justice Bowen, for instance, in New South Wales are exercising what was originally the jurisdiction given to the High Court- the original jurisdiction. The workload of the High Court in relation to original jurisdiction matters, like taxation, has now been relieved. Therefore the original reason for the Superior Court has completely disappeared and it is only now and again that one will find in the High Court lists matters of original jurisdiction- a matter, for instance, referred there recently by the other House and currently being heard; matters where litigants wish to bring proceedings against the Commonwealth and where the jurisdiction cannot be taken from the High Court.

So let us understand that the basic reason for the Superior Court, as originally conceived, has gone. Let us have no more of these statements by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and others that this was a court that was conceived and supported by the previous Government, by the Chief Justice or by Mr Justice Bowen. The real solution in this matter is not to proceed with this court but to attempt basic constitutional reform of the judicature chapter of the Constitution and in the meantime, I suggest, to use what has been referred to by Mr Justice ElseMitchell, for instance, in an article that he had published in the Federal Law Review, as the autochthonous expedient- the use of the State courts as repositories of Federal jurisdiction.

The real problem that we face is not a need for another set of courts. Indeed, we have enough already to confuse our people- courts differently named, courts with different jurisdiction, courts at Federal level, State level and Territory level. What could be more confusing to our people than this wide variety of courts? What could be more expensive to our people than this wide variety of courts? We in this Parliament ought to be engaged in modernising our judicial system, and this cannot be achieved until we have undertaken a far-reaching reform of chapter III of the Constitution. Let us ask what are the basic components of a just yet efficient judicial system. First of all, an independent judiciary. There is no need at all to dwell on that because that would be accepted by all of us- an independent judiciary. Second, a competent judiciary able to deal with the cases before it. Sometimes it is - necessary to have a special judge to deal with particular matters. That can be so in relation to family law. It can be so in relation to patents. It may be so in relation to other areas of jurisdiction. The second requirement is a competent judiciary.

The third thing that is needed is a minimum of technicality. It is an affront to our judicial system that time and costs can still be taken up in arguing useless questions of jurisdiction. Time and again the time of the courts and the costs of litigants are eaten up by argument over jurisdiction in our courts- questions of Federal and State jurisdiction, questions relating to the writs of mandamus and certiorari and the like, questions asking whether this is judicial or adminstrative power that is being exercised. So what we want is a judicial system that has a minimum of technicality. Again we need a judicial system where the individual should be able to have all aspects of a particular problem dealt with by the one court. The very basis of our system of law is the supremacy of law. How can we have supremacy of law in a system where we go to a court and the court has to say: ‘We cannot answer your problem because we do not have jurisdiction to deal with this aspect of it’? A court is not a court of law unless it can enforce all the law that is relevant to the problem of the citizen. So what we need is a court which exercises the supremacy of the law in all its areas- State, Federal and territorial.

Again the court should be physically and financially accessible. It should be physically accessible because it is an impossible dream for this Parliament or this Government to believe that it can establish a Federal court in all the main country centres of this country of ours. It is impossible to conceive of Federal courts sitting at remote places in the States. What we need is a set of courts which are physically accessible to our people. We have such a set of courts which can be the basis of a new judicial system. That set of courts is, of course, the State courts and they are there ready to use, accessible to our people. Also the courts should be financially accessible. Much has been done already in the field of legal aid, and I will leave that aside. So far as practicable all courts should follow the same procedures. There should be a proper system of appeals ensuring a hierarchy of courts. There should be a proper appellate system which contains at least 2 appeals for people to test- certainly one as of right. I believe that the judiciary should make its own contribution to law reform in this country and there should be a means through which the judiciary can make that contribution.

Last, we should have a national judicial system. For my part, I support the idea that appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished. I support its being done in the proper and appropriate way. Those are the aspects of a judicial system that we should be seeking to achieve in this country to make it efficient and to make it just. If we examine the history and interpretation of chapter III of the Constitution we will find that it offends in many respects. For certain we have a strong, capable and independent judiciary. But that is not because of chapter III of our Constitution; it is despite it. It is because of the individual capacity of the judges who sit on our High Court and on our other courts. It is a known fact that the High Court is regarded as having the competence of courts such as the Privy Council, the House of Lords and the United States Supreme Court. But that is more the accident and not the result of chapter III.

A quick analysis will indicate the constricting effect of chapter III of our Constitution. First of all, section 72 preserves life tenure. The High Court in Alexander’s case determined that many years ago, and it is quite unlikely that that decision will be upset. In other words, every judge has to be appointed for life. One instance that can be given is this: If jurisdiction under chapter III were given to a person of the nature of a magistrate and it happened to be the judicial power of the Commonwealth, that jurisdiction would have to be given to a magistrate who was appointed for life.

Debate interrupted.

page 3267

ADJOURNMENT

Palestine Liberation Organisation- Purchase of Leyland Motor Corporation Site- Interest Rates

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

– I wish to speak on a matter which has caused great consternation and violence in our very harmonious country. I refer to the recent granting of visas to members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It had been my intention to speak on this matter in the grievance debate last Thursday, but time did not permit me to speak. I do wish, however, to endorse fully the speech made by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) in that debate. I am very happy to support both his reasons and his opinions. I regard my speech tonight as a personal reaffirmation of his position.

Australia has citizens of Arab and Jewish origins and living most harmoniously with one another. They feel certain ancestral allegiances in the same way as Celts, such as myself, feel a sentimental cultural attachment to the land of their forefathers. But they feel and act primarily as citizens of Australia. It is, therefore, most regrettable that the recent violence which has marred our campuses should have arisen. It has not been confined merely to our campuses. It has been viewed on television in homes throughout Australia. Most Australians believe strongly in free speech; but there is a difference between free speech and allowing into Australia persons whose charter contains the integral aim of destroying a country which we recognise as a sovereign state.

Australia has a legal and a moral obligation to support Israel’s right to exist. Australians of Arab origin support that, as do Australians of other origins. Equally, most Australians who have interested themselves in events in the Middle East believe that a solution to the vexed problems of that region necessarily will include the creation of a state of Palestine. Australians of Jewish origin also believe that. But, however the lines on the map may be drawn, the states of Israel and Palestine must exist together and respect each other’s territorial integrity. Israel’s recent combatants- Egypt and Syria- appear to be ready to accept that idea. If detente is to mean anything, so should the Soviet Union. It is, therefore, essential to peace in the Middle East and to world peace that the PLO be forced to moderate its aim of destroying Israel. The concept of a state of Israel is something from which the world should not run. Discussion about precise boundaries will be possible only after the PLO has accepted that fact.

By allowing the PLO to send representatives to Australia to preach the right of Palestine to exist in lieu of Israel, the Australian Government has encouraged the PLO to think that Australia might withdraw her support for the right of Israel to exist. Australia should be moderating the terrorist tactics of the PLO, not encouraging them. Australia’s contribution to the settlement of the Middle Eastern problems may be small, but it should be no less responsible for that. At a time when our ANZUS partner, the United States of America, is trying to maintain a fragile detente, it is irresponsible for the Australian Government to do anything which might undermine the progress of the United States towards peace. We find that the Government has granted visas to representatives of the PLO to preach a doctrine of hate and to cause violence and disruption of a kind which is common elsewhere but which could and should be avoided in Australia.

Earlier in the year the Government refused visas to the PLO because it anticipated this very social disruption. Then it granted visas to the PLO students, and the Government’s own worst fears were realised. Yet, in spite of the riots and violence it has granted a visa to Mr el Surani a senior member of the PLO. Why? The PLO is dedicated to the destruction of Israel by force. Its terrorism has not been directed merely at the Israeli Army, as the Zionists directed their terrorism against the British Army. It has been directed against women, children and persons with no involvement in the Middle East who happen to be at airports or in aircraft. It would be as logical for the Government to allow representatives of the Irish Republican Army to come here. Such a visit not only would offend the United Kingdom Government but also would sow discord amongst Catholics and Protestants in Australia, just as the PLO visits sow disruption amongst our harmonious Arab and Jewish citizens. Likewise, with the Croatian-Ustashi movement and other extremist organisations which resort to terror. Whether of the Right or the Left, they have no place in Australia.

On 29 January 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that Cabinet had decided not to grant visas to a proposed PLO delegation. The Prime Minister’s reasons were:

Because a visit at this time would exacerbate divisions within the Australian community.

How has the situation changed? Why is this time any different from 4 months ago? On the same day, 29 January this year, at a Press conference the Prime Minister said:

There is, however, no doubt that, at the present time, there are strong feelings on the Middle East. There is no need for people from either side to express those views in Australia. The views are quite well known in Australia and anybody in Australia is quite free to express them.

Again I expressly endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Perth with regard to that reason. One must ask again: How has the situation changed in a mere 4 months? Now it has been presented to the Australian people as a free speech issue; but should terrorists who have attacked and slaughtered innocent civilians be granted the right of free speech, especially when their speech and their actions are aimed at the destruction of a democratic state which we sponsored and support? On 26 November 1974 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, said in the Senate:

We would welcome the PLO stating what we have stated several times, that is, the right of Israel to exist must be paramount in all negotiations.

How is that policy advanced by the decision to grant visas to representatives of the PLO? Surely that stated policy of the Australian Government is undermined? Surely a just solution to the problem of the right of an independent state of Palestine to exist can be found only when the right of Israel to exist is clearly and very widely recognised?

Yet the Government has granted visas not only to students identified with the PLO but also to Mr el Surani. Moreover, the Prime Minister told Parliament that he would be happy to meet Mr el Surani if his engagements permitted him to do so. The PLO would be foolish indeed if it did not regard that as a weakening of Australia’s resolve to support the right of Israel to exist. It would be foolish if it did not present it to the world in this light. Australia thereby has lost a golden opportunity to help moderate the PLO and to bind it to a recognition of the need to negotiate with Israel on the creation of a state of Palestine. A state of Israel and a state of Palestine must live and work together for peace in the Middle East. By its sanctioning of the PLO terrorism, sky-jacking and murder, the Government has failed in its international responsibilities to help make this idea and this ideal into a reality.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I want to draw the attention of the House to a rather extraordinary set of circumstances concerned with the purchase of some land in Sydney from the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia. On the face of it, the Government appears to have paid about $10m too much for this land. One does not know why, and some explanation should be given. The land was last valued in January 1973. Its unimproved capital value was then $7 ½m The Government gave $19 ½m for the land. The Government may say that it had a valuation of $20,500,000 for the improved land, and that is true, but the Government bought the land for housing and for demolition. The documents show this quite conclusively. Let me go through them. The original arrangements were made by the present Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), who was then, I think, Minister for Overseas Trade. He started these negotiations in September 1974. They were very friendly negotiations but by 9 October the acquisition of the land had been foreshadowed and the present Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) then, I think, Minister for Manufacturing Industry- was involved at that time with the negotiations. However, the originator, the initiator, and the prime mover appears to have been the present Treasurer. On 1 1 October there was an agreement to purchase, although the price was not yet mentioned, and the matter went to Caucus on 16 October. I read the report, which states:

The Caucus move involves allegations that the deal:

Is unconstitutional because the Federal Government has no authority to buy land and develop housing estates in any State.

Was taken without the authority of Cabinet.

Is a waste of money because the Leyland land, at Zetland in the heart of Sydney, is grossly overpriced at the $18m value attributed to it, and is unsuitable for residential purposes because of underground water problems.

When this matter went before Caucus, Caucus held it up and put it to a committee. On 17 October the Federal Government got in contact with the New South Wales Government, asking that Government to re-zone the land so that it could be used for housing. There is no question that this was what was in the Government’s mind at that time. On 23 October Caucus agreed, somewhat reluctantly, to the Government’s plan and on 28 October the matter went to Cabinet again. Cabinet decided to go ahead with the purchase but to try to get the price down because the land was too dear for the housing for which the Government intended to buy it. That is shown on the documents. The whole thing is well documented here and if one puts together the various things that have been published, the matter is quite clear. Cabinet decided, as I have said, on that date, and I quote:

Cabinet endorsed the decision to buy the site but added the stipulation that a lower price should be obtained, if possible.

Then we come to the extraordinary thing. This was that at some time about 10 December representatives of the Army visited the site. They were told to visit it, and within 3 days it was decided that this site should be purchased for Army purposes. This meant that some value could be put on the improvements, and it would almost seem as though Cabinet and the Government or the Minister had gone out of its or his way to pay an extra $10m to Leyland, a multi-national firm. This is quite scandalous. I cannot read all the documents, because I have not time, but they are here and the matter is completely documented. The Minister or Cabinet or the Government, whichever it may be, appears deliberately to have gone out of his way or its way to find a means of paying an extra $ 10m to Leyland. This is quite extraordinary, because even after that the Government still meant to use the land for housing.

In February this year the Department of Urban and Regional Development got in touch again with the New South Wales authorities and asked for the necessary re-planning to be done because it still had plans of using the land for housing. It is sure enough that this military use was thought up at the last moment as a way and means of giving to Leyland a price which was much greater than the unimproved value of the land and which previously had been discussed and arranged in general outline and principle with Leyland. That company had to get its $19,500,000 because that was the deal, and some way had to be found to give the company that money. It was not a case of resumption. Of course, if it is a case of resumption, the Government has to pay for what is the value of the improvements, whether the Government wants them or not. It was not that kind of thing at all, because this was a case where Leyland was asking the Government to bail that company out.

Why, in these circumstances, is money paid for improvements? Perhaps the Government can make up the fiction that it sent the military down at the last moment and the military said that it could find a use for them. We know that this kind of fiction goes on inside Government departments when Ministers put the pressure on, but why was the action that I have mentioned taken in this case? As I have said, the Minister in charge throughout appears to have been the present Treasurer. Of course, the Minister at the table signed the contract as Minister for Services and Property, but I exonerate him entirely. It had nothing to do with him. He is simply the lay figure in all this. The negotiations appear to have been done by the present Treasurer. Why does he go out of his way? I do not think that he loves multi-national companies. Indeed, he has said often enough that he does not like them. He did not do it to preserve the jobs of the people working in the factory at Zetland, because they have lost their jobs. I do not think the Minister was corrupt. I do not think that in any way he took any consideration for this or did it on the side, but why did he do it?

I have looked for this and I can find only one link, and that is a personal link in the Minister’s staff. It is recorded in the Press that a Mr Pola, who was public relations officer for the company and a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party, was very close in these negotiations, and the other person is an ex-employee both of Leyland and of Mr Pola who was, for Leyland, in charge of her. That is somebody on the staff of the Treasurer, a Miss Junie Morosi.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would suggest to the honourable member that he is getting awfully close to making an allegation which would require to be moved in this House on a substantive motion.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not saying anything against the Treasurer. What I am saying is that this is the sole link, because the association between Mr Pola and Miss Morosi is very close and everybody knows that for a long time the Treasurer has been putty in Miss Morosi ‘s hands.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– In his usual contemptible manner, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) did not tell me that he was raising this matter tonight. No doubt he has already given it to the Press. In an extravagant, unsubstantiated and malicious way he has made allegations which, coming from anyone else, would be taken seriously. Tonight, with that initiative for which I am renowned, I happen to have with me the documents on this matter. After I finish blasting the honourable member out of the chamber with the facts of the case I hope he will tender his apologies to me and to all concerned and give up acting like a guttersnipe in this Parliament and act more reputably as he should I shall now give him the facts and put the record straight. On 10 October 1974 the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, the honourable Kep

Enderby, and the Managing Director of the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia, Mr David Abell, jointly announced that the Australian Government and the company had agreed upon certain arrangements to enable restructuring of the company’s activities in Australia. A Press statement dated 10 October was released. I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

page 3270

MINISTER FOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

page 3270

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER FOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, MR KEP. ENDERBY, AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA, MR DAVID ABELL

page 3270

LEYLAND

The Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Mr Kep Enderby, and the Managing Director of the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia, Mr David Abell, announced today that the Australian Government and the company had agreed upon certain arrangements to enable restructuring of the company’s activities in Australia. The Minister and Mr Abell said that the two basic principles involved were:

The company will gradually phase out its manufacturing activities at Waterloo but will expand facilities at its Enfield plant to continue making the Mini, Mini Moke and Mini van.

This will be in addition to the company’s strong truck and bus division operating from plants at Revesby (NSW) and Footscray (Victoria) and the profitable parts and accessories division at Liverpool (NSW).

The mainstay of the company’s passenger vehicle sales in a new car division will be supplied from the parent company in the United Kingdom and will include a wide range of successful cars, including renewed emphasis on Rover, Triumph and Jaguar.

The Government will assist Leyland in its restructuring. The Government will provide liquidity by offering to: purchase the company’s 63 acre site at Waterloo at an agreed valuation purchase approximately 800 Leyland vehicles arrange early payment for vehicles already delivered, and progress payments against current contracts for truck, bus and Landrover orders.

The negotiation of the program follows two months of talksinvolving the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, Mr Enderby and Mr Abell. During the negotiations the Government insisted on the most generous possible terms for those workers retrenched. Mr Enderby said the major concern of the Government was to keep these figures at a minimum and minimise hardship to employees.

Some unemployment will result, but we have been particularly concerned that the most generous redundancy payments will be made to those employees affected’, Mr Enderby said.

Mr Abell said he anticipated the numbers employed in the new company structure would exceed 3000. He said there would be generous redundancy payment to those retrenched. Mr Abell repudiated reports that 5000 jobs would go at Leyland and stated the figure would be close to halfthat.

Mr Abell stressed the company had arranged an assistance plan for those losing their jobs. Government and private agencies would operate on and off the Waterloo site to find alternative employment for those seeking it.

Additionally the company had asked for the establishmentwith the Government- of vocational guidance services, a re-training service and a general counselling service using joint resources and locations.

Mr Abell praised the Government’s humane and intelligent response to an unprecedented situation.

The new plan would afford the company expanding opportunities and he anticipated that sales of the restructured Leyland group would achieve $ 100m in the first year.

He stated that production of the P76 would phase out fairly quickly’, according to requirements. He gave an assurance of continuing availability of parts and service for this and all other Leyland vehicles. An all-time purchase of $1.8m spare parts would guarantee back-up of P76 and other locally manufactured vehicles.

Sydney

October 10, 1974

Mr DALY:
ALP

– I thank the House. The announcement said that the Government would assist Leyland in its restructuring by: Purchase of the company’s 63 acres site at Waterloo at an agreed valuation; purchase of approximately 800 Leyland vehicles; early payment for vehicles already delivered and progress payments against current contracts for truck, bus and Landrover orders. Following this decision the normal processes were applied of assessing the relative interests in departments for acquirement of a property of this nature in Sydney. For the purpose of negotiating with the company for the purchase of the property the Australian Government valuers were requested to provide a valuation of the property on the normal basis of a willing but not anxious buyer and a willing but not anxious seller. Negotiations for the purchase of the property were conducted by officers of the Department of Services and Property in keeping with the normal responsibilities and procedures of that Department. The gentleman who handled this personally is a man of outstanding integrity and capacity.

The Australian Government valuation of the property was: Land, $ 12,850,000; improvements, $7,650,000-a total of $20,500,000. The Department of Housing and Construction inspected the property on 23 October 1974 and reported that all improvements were of a good standard and were generally in excellent condition. Following negotiations by the Department of Services and Property the property was purchased for $ 19.5m- $lm under the valuation. The purchase was of the land and improvements and did not include plant and equipment. The honourable member for Mackellar has been to some secondrate State department and received a leak that we had paid $19.5m for the Leyland site and that this price did not include the buildings, which could be removed by Leyland as required. Of course that leak is patently absurd, as is the suggestion. The purchase was of the land and improvements but did not include plant and equipment.

Following assessment of relative departmental needs the property was acquired for defence purposes. Defence authorities have judged that the property is ideal for their purposes and would result in a net financial advantage to the Government of $22.5m. This figure includes the purchase of plant and equipment at excellent prices. I shall show the honourable member how we are saving that money. The cost of acquisition of the Zetland land is $ 19.5m; alterations and additions would cost $1 lm. The equipment would be $lm-a total cost at Zetland of $31.5m. The estimated cost at current prices of alternative provision of a new warehouse complex at Randwick to be constructed progressively over a period of years was $40m. The value of the real estate which would be offered back to the community as a result of this purchase was $14m. The total offsets were $54m and the net financial advantages from the occupation of the Zetland site by the Department of Defence at current prices is $22.5m. This in itself shows the profit that the Government has made on this transaction. The acquisition and use of the property for defence purposes will enable substantial areas of land currently occupied by the Department of Defence at Randwick, Marrickville and Wooloomooloo to be made available for more suitable land use for the benefit of the community generally.

That is a factual statement of the position. The valuation was made in accordance with the usual procedures laid down by government departments, by previous governments and by this Government. As I said, these negotiations were conducted by a man of the utmost integrity, Mr Paul Smith, the Chief Property Officer in New South Wales of the Department of Services and Property. The slanderous, unprincipled and unsubstantiated charges made by the honourable member for Mackellar are in keeping with the infamous record of smear and blackmail that he has brought to this Parliament. He will hide under the shelter of Parliament but outside is not game to say anything. He makes attacks in this

House on a young lady but then runs for cover, as he did in relation to a court case involving one of the members of this Parliament. Nothing is too contemptible for him to raise. Of course, anybody but the honourable member for Mackellar would be taken a bit of notice of. No wonder the Opposition wants to get rid of him. He is getting older and sillier every day of the week. The honourable member should contact the source of his leaks in New South Wales and let those people know that the facts are not right. Before he makes charges against reputable public servants, against the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) and others he should make sure he knows the facts. The real facts of the matter are that we are saving $22.5m. Land that is currently occupied by the Army will be given back for public purposes in the future. In every way this transaction in one that brings great credit on the Government. Far from wasting $ 10m of the taxpayers’ money we have saved the taxpayers more than $22.5m, which is in keeping with this Government’s practice of doing the best possible for all concerned and saving in every way possible the taxpayers’ money. I hope the honourable member, having heard that reply, and knowing the facts as they are, will apologise. I hope that if he intends to raise such matters again in the way he did tonight after I had answered his questions on this matter the other day, at least he will have the courage to tell me that he is going to bring it up and will not sneak in here like a burglar and try to steal a march on me knowing full well that he was going to put over a false story and get it in the Press and not give the Minister responsible the opportunity to answer it. The honourable member should now get up and apologise and not -

Mr McLeay:

- Mr Speaker, how can you let the Minister call the honourable member a burglar?

Mr DALY:

– Burglar? I will go further; he is a bushranger.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Boothby might let me decide.

Mr DALY:

– I give that explanation to the House. I hope the honourable member realises that his remarks are based on falsity and are absurd.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Mr Speaker, having been misrepresented -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Firstly, I said that I considered the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) the Minister responsible, and I did tell him that I was going to raise this matter. I knew that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), whom I do not regard as the responsible person, would be in the House. Secondly, I withdraw nothing. I did not say that the improvements were not. worth this amount. What I said was that the Government resumed the land for housing and meant to demolish the -

Mr McLeay:

– It is no good for housing.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Of course not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Boothby allow the honourable member to continue.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It still stands on the record that the Government applied for this purpose to the Government of New South Wales and meant to demolish the buildings.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is debating the question now. The fact of the matter is that what the honourable member is saying now is false. The land was resumed for defence purposes. The fact that the honourable member has a leak from a second-rate State department does not matter -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Mackellar is making an explanation on a matter on which he claims he was misrepresented on what he had said. I suggest that he confine himself to that.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I was quite clear in saying that the improvements were there, but I also said that the Government resumed this land for housing purposes and right at the last moment raised this fictional defence issue within a few days -

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– … that it would have an excuse to pay more for the land.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will remain silent while I am calling on a point of order.

Mr Daly:

– The point I take, Mr Speaker, is that the honourable member is not making a personal explanation; he is debating the point. I think accordingly he should be called to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think I should explain to the Minister that the honourable member is not making a personal explanation; he is making an explanation on a matter which he raised in his speech on which he claims he was misrepresented. I think the honourable member has made the point that he raised. I do not intend that it should go any further.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-In the few moments left to me I wish to raise a matter of considerable concern to me, namely, the comments of Mr R. R. Carey Evans in his annual report to the Australian Finance Conference. He made certain comments on interest rates in the report which I consider are of the utmost importance. He wrote:

Of prime concern to this industry, to other leading finance sources and to their customers is the current and future level of borrowing rates.

Until there is a serious attempt to tackle the problem of inflation, there is no hope of any real easing of interest rates and the many problems that they are causing.

He is quoted -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

page 3272

TREATIES

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 June 1975, by command of

His Excellency the Governor-General:

Treaties which have entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by signature:

Trade Agreement between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, signed at Canberra on 26 November 1974.

Trade Agreement between Australia and the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, signed at Sofia on S December 1974.

Cultural Agreement between Australia and Thailand, signed at Bangkok on 16 December 1974.

Agreement concerning the Continuing Relationship between Australia, and the European Organisation for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers, signed at Paris on 30 December 1974.

Agreement between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Cultural Co-operation, signed at Moscow on 15 January 1975.

Agreement between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Scientific-Technical Cooperation, signed at Moscow on 1 5 January 1975.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany constituting an Agreement concerning the Launching of a Skylark-Vehicle and Pay Load at Woomera for Scientific Purposes, signed at Canberra on 19 December 1974 and 1 1 February 1975.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United Kingdom amending the Agreement for Air Services between and beyond their respective Territories, of 7 February 1958, signed at London on 13 and 14 February 1975.

Exchange of Letters between Australia and Malaysia constituting an Agreement concerning the future operation of the Trade Agreement of 26 August 1958, signed at Canberra on 2 1 February 1975.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the Discontinuation of Facilities Measuring the Physical Effects of Disturbances in the Atmosphere or in Space and the Transference of these Facilities to the Australian National University, signed at Canberra on 31 January and 26 February 1975.

Agreement between Australia and India on Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technology, signed at New Dehli on 26 February 1975.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and United Kingdom January amendments to the Agreement on Social Security of 29 January 1958, signed at Canberra on 6 March 1975.

Exchange of Letters between Australia and New Zealand constituting an Agreement further extending the Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Preferences of 7 May 1973, signed at Wellington and Canberra on 27 March 1975.

Exchange of Letters between Australia and New Zealand constituting an Agreement on Rules of Origin covering Preferential Trade between Australia and New Zealand to enter into force on 1 October 1975, signed at Canberra and Wellington on 1 1 April 1975.

Treaties which Australia has signed and which will enter into force by an exchange of notes:

Cultural Agreement between Australia and Italy, signed at Rome on 8 January 1975.

Agreement between Australia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia relating to Air Services, signed at Belgrade on 3 April 1 975.

Treaty which has entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by accession:

Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects, opened for signature on 29

March 1972 and acceded to by Australia on 20 January 1975.

Treaty which has not yet entered into force and to which Australia has become a Contracting State by acceptance:

Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation, adopted by the twenty-sixth World Health Assembly on 22 May 1973 and accepted for Australia on 1 1 March 1975.

Treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the United States of America, signed at Washington on 14 May 1974.

Protocols for the Further Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971 and the Food Aid Convention 1971, Constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1971, opened for signature at Washington on 25 March 1975 and signed for Australia on 1 1 April 1975.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1973 and signed for Australia on 30 December 1974.

International Telecommunication Convention and Optional Additional Protocol to the Convention, signed at Malaga-Torremlinos on 25 October 1 973.

Withdrawal of reservations to treaties:

On 17 March 1975 Australia deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an Instrument withdrawing its declaration of 6 February 1954 and substituting a new declaration under paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

On 17 March 1975 Australia deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an Instrument abandoning all but one of its conditions of acceptance made at the time of accession on 21 May 193 1 to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes drawn up at Geneva on 26 September 1928.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3274

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Transport: Grants (Question No. 89)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last three years.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Detailed information on research grants in each of the past three financial years is set out below:

Nuclear Energy (Question No. 444)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all research projects being undertaken in Australia into the applied use of nuclear energy which are receiving financial support from the Government.
  2. What proportion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of nuclear energy.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each project.
  4. How many people are involved in each project.
  5. 5 ) Where is the research being undertaken.
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) See answer to Question No. 449.

Atomic Energy (Question No. 449)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all research projects being undertaken in Australia into atomic energy which are receiving financial support from the Government.
  2. What proportion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of atomic energy.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each project.
  4. How many people are involved in each project.
  5. Where is the research being undertaken.
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided.
Mr Connor:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) An exhaustive survey of all the research projects bearing on nuclear energy has not been undertaken, However, the twenty-second Annual Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which was tabled in Parliament on 17 October 1974, lists at pages 105 to 110: the main research programs in progress within the Commission; research contracts awarded by the Commission during the year 1973-74; and research projects carried out within Australian tertiary education institutions with support by the Australian Government through the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. (4), (5) and (6) Approximately 1200 staff were employed by the Commission as at 30 June 1 974; the disposition of this staff is set out on page 93 of the report referred to above, which report also sets out at pages 107 to 1 10 details of persons involved in research projects carried out within tertiary education institutions. The report also provides information on the location of the research projects being undertaken and the Government’s support for each project.

Community Centres (Question No. 456)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

How many community centres have been established with the financial support of the Government since 2 December 1972.

Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the following publications that contain the information which you seek and which have been distributed to all members-

1 ) Department of Tourism and Recreation, ‘ Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’.

Australian Government Initiatives in Tourism and Recreation, February 1975.

News releases of 19 November 1974, 26 January 1975 and 23 March 1975.

Department of Transport (Question No. 880)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of this Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. ) Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

Many of the staff in my Department and in Authorities under my control are engaged from time to time on work which might be classified generally as ‘research and development’. However, interpreting this expression as it is normally used to cover applied research, the following details are relevant:

(a) Air Transport Group, Department of Transport -of 68 persons employed within this Group, the majority are based in Melbourne. However, there are several employed in each of the mainland State capital cities.

Surface Transport Group, Department of Transport

Bureau of Transport Economics 33 are employed in Canberra, 8 in Melbourne and 8 in Sydney.

Road Transport Branch Land Transport Policy Division 9 are employed in Melbourne.

Australian Shipping Commission- 4 are employed at the Commission’s head office in South Melbourne.

(a) Air Transport Group, Department of Transport

Aviation Medicineassembly of a data bank of occupant injuries in aircraft accidents.

Airports Developmentairport engineering research and development.

Airways Engineeringstudies in advanced techniques; formulation of concepts for new types of air route and airways facilities; study and analysis of new overseas concepts for possible application in Australia; design, test and evaluation of equipment of systems to a stage where feasibility can be demonstrated; provision and servicing of laboratory facilities for the scientific study of unique investigation and measurement problems.

Air Safetyinvestigation of aircraft accidents in order to develop preventive or remedial measures.

Surface Transport Group, Department of Transport

Transport Economicsresearch programs to assist in the formulation of Australian Government policy concerning reduction of transport costs; improvement of transport efficiency; co-ordination of transport systems; rationalised planning of future transport facilities.

The foregoing involves the evaluation of the nature, capacity and adequacy of existing transport systems; investigation of the cost structure of individual systems and their methods of rate and fare setting; the effects of regulations on transportation and, in the long term, an assessment of the nature and extent of the transport task. Objective appraisals from time to time of proposed transport projects.

Road Safetyresearch studies related to road safety.

Australian Shipping Commission- market research; planning for new shipping lines and trades; consideration of economic prospects and costing.

Total expenditure per annum is in the vicinity of $3.9m.

(a) Air Transport Group, Department of Transport

Aviation MedicineDirector of Aviation Medicine.

Airports DevelopmentSenior Assistant Secretary (Airports Development).

Airways Engineering-

The nature of research and development plans and programs in this area is undertaken in accordance with Air Navigation Regulations, known Departmental policy and Australia’s commitment to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and is approved at the appropriate levels, (iv) Air Safety-

The authority for this activity is derived from the Air Navigation Regulations and the extent of the activity is controlled by the Secretary, Department of Transport, acting through his delegate the Assistant Secretary (Air Safety Investigation).

Surface Transport Group, Department of Transport

Transport EconomicsResearch and development work in this sphere is carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics and originates from three sources, viz: direct reference by myself; references from myself arising from decisions of the Australian Transport Advisory Council; requirements of a general nature to provide inputs to specific studies (controlled by the Director, Bureau of Transport Economics).

Road Safety-

The nature of the programs or projects in this area is decided by myself and my Department, taking into account the recommendations of the Expert Group on Road Safety, and having regard to requests which emanate from the Australian Transport Advisory Council and its advisory committees.

Australian Shipping Commission- The work undertaken is decided by the General Manager or the Assistant General Manager of the Australian National Line.

Save the Regent Theatre Committee (Question No. 896)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Further to the answer to question No. 325 of 16 July 1974 in which the Prime Minister indicated that a submission had been received from the Save the Regent Theatre Committee by the Government on 2 March 1974, has he considered the submission; if so what is his attitude to it.
  2. If he has not yet formed an attitude, when does he expect to do so.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The submission from the Save the Regent Theatre Committee has not yet been considered other than in general terms. The proposal falls within the scope of the Government’s National Estate policies and consideration in that context will be necessary.
  2. Essentially the matter of the future of the Regent Theatre rests with the Victorian State authorities. The Victorian Branch of the National Trust has recently reinstated the Regent Theatre on its 20th Century register and as the importance of this building is now recognised, every effort should be made to prevent its destruction. I believe Victorian State authorities are currently discussing the future of the Regent Theatre and the Australian Government will be guided in its attitude to the project, by the results of these discussions.

Community Leisure (Question No. 963)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What capital grants for community leisure facilities for Western Australia have been made or approved since 30 June 1972.
  2. Who received the grants, and for what purposes.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Information in respect of all capital grants made by my Department for community leisure facilities is provided in the following publications which were circulated to all members:

    1. Department of Tourism and Recreation ‘Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’.
    2. News Releases: 19 November 1974; 26 January 1975; 23 March 1975.

Tourism (Question No. 1301)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. With reference to page 37 of his Department’s report for 1973-74, what activities involving the Parramatta River are examples of innovative use of a resource which reflect planning of the Department.
  2. What funds have been allocated for these activities.
  3. What organisations have been involved in these activities.
  4. How many people, outside of government, have participated in these activities.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Government’s funding through the A.I.P. of the Duck River Parkland Development is indicative of the potential of the whole Parramatta River Area for innovation in recreation programming. Planning for such use is continuing.
  2. $255,000.
  3. Auburn Council and N.S.W. State Planning Authority.
  4. It is not possible to give an estimate of the numbers of people who have participated in the Duck River project.

Civil Defence (Question No. 1151)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September ‘974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 18 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department.
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. 3 ) How many officers and employees took part.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

-The answer to the right honourable member’s questions is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) Detailed information is set out in the accompanying Table.

  1. As already stated by the Prime Minister, the Australian Government has taken a leading role in preparedness for civil emergencies, e.g., by the establishment of a Natural Disasters Organisation.

Children’s Commission: Australia Council (Question No. 1543)

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

-On 5 December 1974 in answering a question asked of me by Mr Snedden (Hansard pages 4852-4) I undertook to provide information on children’s programs administered by my department in a supplementary answer. I also undertook to provide similar information for programs administered by the Australian Council for the Arts (now the Australia Council). The information is as follows:

  1. CHILDREN’S PROGRAMS

The relevant programs are the Childhood Services Program, which commenced in October 1974, the Child Care Act Scheme (March 1973) and the Interim Pre-school and Child Care Services Program (January 1 974). The purpose is to promote the well-being of children, to enhance their quality of life and promote equality of opportunity for both children and their parents. The Australian Government’s objectives in this area were set out in a statement tabled in the House of Representatives on 19 September 1974 by the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Hansard page 1 594).

The right honourable member will be aware that the Children’s Commission Bill has been introduced into the Parliament.

The Childhood Services Program is directed towards the provision of services for children before school age and for school children out of school hours.

Grants are authorised by my colleague the Special Minister of State in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and details of grants under the Interim Pre-school and Child Care Program and the Childhood Services Program have been included in statements tabled by him on 5 December 1974 (Hansard page 4699) and by the Minister for Education on 9 April 1974 (Hansard page1217) and in press statements by these Ministers, in particular those of11 April1975 by the Special Minister of State.

Under the Child Care Act Scheme capital and recurrent assistance has been determined by the Minister in accordance with the provisions in the Act and on the advice of the Child Care Standards Committee.

Under the 1973-74 Interim Pre-school and Child Care Services Program, capital and recurrent assistance was determined in joint consultation with State authorities and voluntary groups.

The 1974-75 Childhood Services Programs are developed through consideration of proposals by State level consultative committees which represent a cross section of State Government, Australian Government and community interests. The State level committees forward proposals to the Interim Committee for the Children ‘s Commission which subsequently makes recommendations to the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister.

Most of the funds under the programs have been allocated to community groups, local government authorities and State Government departments, the only grants for individuals having been those made under the Child Care Act for approved research projects paid through the institutions with which the individuals are associated. These have amounted to some31 per cent of the total funds allocated under the research program.

Publicity for the programs takes the form of ministerial statements, press releases, direct mailing of information, consultations with interested individuals and groups and attendance at appropriate public meetings. In the case of the Child Care Act Scheme information booklets were also distributed. Appropriate entries and articles were included in local government publications and in the Department of Urban and Regional Development booklet ‘Australian Government Projects’ which was distributed widely, including to all local government bodies. Under the Childhood Services Program, funds are available for the employment of persons to assist communities to develop proposals. In addition, the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission is looking at ways in which information may be made more generally available to the community and expects to have a general information booklet available shortly. Action taken so far includes an entry in the revised edition of the Department of Urban and Regional Development publication referred to above.

In 1972-73, $227,950 was paid out under the Child Care Act Scheme and this rose to $2,152,011 in 1973-74. In the first year of operation of the Interim Pre-school and Child Care Services Program,1973-74, $6,5 1 1,603 was distributed under it. It is expected that expenditure will be in the vicinity of $43m this financial year.

Grants in all cases are made for specific purposes and certificates are required to confirm that money has been spent for those purposes. Liaison with other authorities of the Australian Government, the States and where appropriate, with community groups and local government bodies, ensures that there is no unwarranted duplication of expenditures.

  1. THE AUSTRALIA COUNCIL

The Council advises the Australian Government on matters relating to the arts and is the Australian Government’s financial agent in the arts. It consists of twenty-four members from the arts, the general community and the government. Its seven constituent boards serve the principal areas of the arts: aboriginal arts, crafts, film, radio and television, literature, music, theatre and visual arts. In addition the Council itself administers the following programs:

The Community Arts Program, which funds community festivals and projects involving multi-arts forms.

International, which funds cultural activities in the performing and visual arts and crafts into and out of Australia and advises other government departments in matters of cultural exchange.

Entrepreneurial Program, which funds entrepreneurial bodies and festivals which deal with more than one art form.

The aims of the programs administered by the individual boards are as follows:

Aboriginal Arts (program commenced May 1973): To preserve what remains of indigenous Australian culture and where possible revive traditional music, song, dance, art and craft

Crafts (February 1973): To promote excellence by wider access to and understanding of the groups in the community generally; to stimulate an imaginative approach to crafts and to raise crafts to their rightful status as a profession.

Film, Radio and Television (February 1973): To promote the pursuit of excellence, discover new talent and foster an originality in style and content in visual and aural media; to stimulate the widest variety of film and video activity in Australia; to provide opportunities for using these forms of expression by peoplein every area of Australian society, in particular, by groups hitherto denied such opportunities; and to spread as widely as possible through our society an awareness of potential use of these media.

Literature (March 1973): To support the writing of all forms of creative literature, including novels, short stories, poetry and plays, also biographies, history and the humanities, the main criterion being whether the proposed works are likely to display literary distinction; to support the publication of works of literary merit, including magazines and periodicals; and generally to promote Australian literature here and abroad.

Music (January 1973): To develop excellence in music in Australia, including opera, by expanding professional opportunities to both creative and performing artists, by encouraging the formation of new methods in music education, by responding to community needs and promoting Australian music.

Theatre (March 1973): To support professional activity in drama, dance and puppetry, including training and youth projects, and to assist audience development and community participation.

Visual Arts (March 1973): To improve the status and condition of artists, to stimulate the creation and exhibition of new works of art; to encourage a greater community involvement in and understanding of all forms of visual an, and to assist and encourage education and public involvement in the visual arts. Included are painting, sculpture, photography, industrial design, architecture, art education and the conservation of cultural material.

Community Arts (June1973): To encourage arts activities in the community at large, to make arts more accessible to individuals and groups who have had little or no contact with the arts and to broaden participation in them.

In 1973-74, $13,998,946 was paid in grants through all programs. It is expected that expenditure in1974-75 will be about $20m.

The boards and programs are administratively pan of the Australia Council. The Council itself is a statutory authority established by the Australia Council Act 1975, and the legal authority to expend public money is vested in the Council, under the terms of the Act.

The conditions surrounding eligibility for grants vary from program to program and there are also varying eligibility requirements for different categories of assistance within programs. Each board provides an application form which sets out the complete requirements for eligibility in each category of its program. An applicant is required to state on his application if he is not presently applying or intending to apply for a grant for any other purpose.

In 1973-74, 6205 applications for assistance were received, of which some 40 per cent were successful and represented some $ 13.9m in expenditure for the year. About 45 per cent of the grants went to groups and 55 per cent to individuals. All grants are approved by the respective boards and a written report has to be provided for each project, as well as a statement of account for each grant. The Council has recently completed an analysis of the 1973-74 grants and is assessing trends in funding across all boards to enable it to formulate forward planning and policy. In addition, studies are made by field officers for community needs in the arts. The following areas have been or are in the process of being surveyed for cultural needs:- Warringah Shire, Southern Highlands (Bowral, Berrima, Moss Vale), Wollongong, Western Suburbs of Melbourne, Western Suburbs of Sydney, Mosman, N.S.W. Region 7 (Bathurst-Orange area), Strathfield and Burwood, N.S.W. Surveys are proposed in the following areas: Liverpool, N.S.W., Bankstown, N.S.W., Baulkham Hills, N.S.W., Marrickville, N.S.W. and Mount Gambier, S.A.

The information program of the Council and the boards is determined in the light of these and other analyses.

Information about the program is disseminated by means of regular national and regional press advertising, announcing particulars of grants available and inviting applications; by open meetings, accessible to the general public, held by most boards in rotation between the various States; by regular releases of information to the national media; by publication of annual reports and various information pamphlets; by community arts officers answering queries on all aspects of the Council’s activities and assisting with the filing of group/individual applications; and by interviews in the media by senior officers of the Council.

Department of Tourism and Recreation (Question No. 1600)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each publication prepared by his Department for distribution to the public.
  2. How often is the publication printed.
  3. Which offices of his Department are responsible for the preparation of each publication.
  4. What is the purpose of each publication.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of each edition of the publication.
  6. How many copies of each edition of the publication are produced.
  7. How many people receive the publication.
  8. Is it distributed free of charge.
  9. If so, to whom and how is it distributed to them.
  10. 10) If not, what is the selling cost of the publication and what are the retail outlets.
  11. When was the publication first produced.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. to (11) I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for the Media to a similar question (No. 1581) addressed to him. This appeared in Hansard on 4 December 1 974 on page 45 90.

Urban and Regional Development (Question No. 1731)

Mr Snedden:

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

With reference to the answer to Question No. 1555 (Hansard, 13 December 1973, page 4857), has the information service of his Department finalised compilation of lists of different types of groups interested in urban and regional development including resident action groups, progress associations, local government associations, academics and developers; if so, will he make a copy available to me.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer Mr Snedden to my reply to Question No. 567 ( Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 5860). In this reply I indicated that my Department is currently examining the possibility of publishing a directory or directories of organisations based on the information contained on its computerised list of groups involved in urban and regional development, which also serves as a mailing list for the Department’s monthly news magazine Community.

I would be pleased to arrange for Mr Snedden to inspect a print-out of the general mailing list. If a decision is made to proceed with one or more directories of organisations and groups on the mailing list, the results will be made available to him.

Street Lighting (Question No. 1733)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. With reference to question No. 245 in which I sought information on expenditure by local government authorities on street lighting, could he arrange, as offered, for the five metropolitan area county councils to be contacted so that the information I have sought can be obtained.
  2. Will he also provide the information I sought previously as it relates to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1) (i) Street lighting is authorised and paid for by each constituent local council having regard to funds available. Within these limitations county councils are providing what they consider to be a satisfactory level of street lighting for urban areas within their jurisdiction. Bearing in mind the variations required due to differences in traffic densities, population clusters and other factors county councils consider any attempt to quote an actual percentage of streets with an adequate level of lighting would be an almost impossible task and would have doubtful meaning.
  2. The area covered by the St George and Sydney County Councils are fully developed and there are no areas where street lighting is not provided. In regard to the county councils where new suburban development is taking place, lighting is erected concurrently with the street reticulation mains. The usual practice is to erect street lighting at the time the electricity supply system is being reticulated through each area. The lights are then energised when the constituent council considers that building development warrants such action.
  3. In relation to the Australian Capital Territory the National Capital Development Commission advises that for the twelve months ended 30 June 1974 the sum expended towards street lighting and ancillary works in Canberra was $1,062,875. In their view residential streets in Canberra are provided with adequate street lighting and as a general rule residential streets in new suburbs are progressively provided with street lighting during residential occupancy of an area.

Sports: Subsidies (Question No. 1769)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sports have been subsidised by the Government.
  2. What sums in total has each sport received by way of subsidy since 2 December 1972.
  3. What sports have yet to be subsidised.
  4. How many participants are there in each sport in Australia.
  5. What are the national associations for each sport in Australia.
  6. Where are they located.
  7. What sums have been allocated to sporting teams at Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education and other tertiary institutions since 2 December 1972.
  8. What sums have been provided for sporting teams at primary and secondary schools.
  9. What contributions have been made by the Government to assist upgrading of sporting facilities in Australia.
  10. What are the details of these contributions.
  11. How many people in Australia have directly benefited through Government subsidies for sport.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The following is the answer to the right honourable member ‘s questions:

  1. , (2), (7), (8), (9), (10) Grants to sports in 1973-74 are listed in the Departmental ‘Review of Activities to 30 June 1974’ which was circulated to all members and tabled in this House on 24 September, 1974.

Press releases which are also circulated to all members progressively advise of 1974-75 grants.

  1. I am unaware of any sport which meets the criteria set down governing grants to sporting organisations and has not received assistance.

    1. , (S), (6) Up to date information on these questions would be best obtained by contacting each sporting organisation direct.
    2. Many thousands of people throughout Australa have benefited through Government grants and subsidies to sport. It is not practicable to provide the right honourable member with precise figures.

Aviation Agreements (Question No. 1818)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With which countries is Australia presently in the process of negotiationg aviation agreements.
  2. With which countries have aviation agreements been entered into since 2 December 1972.
  3. What first, second, third or fourth freedom advantage did Australia gain through these negotiations.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. There are no countries with which Australia is presently negotiating new Air Services Agreements.
  2. Since 2 December 1972 Air Services Agreements have been initialled with Fiji and Burma and an Agreement has been signed with Yugoslavia. These Agreements have not yet entered into force because this is dependent upon their ratification by the Contracting Parties. An Agreement between Australia and Malaysia came into force in January 1 973, but was initialled before December 1 972.
  3. Each of the above Agreements will allow Qantas, as the Australian designated airline, the advantage of transit and traffic rights to, from and over the other country party to the Agreement along the specified route concerned.

Minister for Tourism and Recreation: Staff (Question No. 1874)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (5) I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in answer to question No. 1862 (Hansard 5 December 1974, pages 4844-4850).

Local Authorities: Revenues (Question No. 2065)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will he answer my question No. 1729 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13November, 1974.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to question No. 1729 which I gave on 15 April, 1975. (Hansard, page 1650).

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 2121)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 306 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 6 July 1974.

Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 306 (Hansard, 14May 1975, page 2297).

Department of the Capital Territory: Grants for Specific Programs (Question No. 2122)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1567 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 1567 (Hansard, 14 May 1975, pages 2297 and 2298).

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 2124)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 64 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 10 July1974.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 64 (Hansard, 6 March 1975, page 1238).

Urban and Regional Development (Question No. 2171)

Mr Snedden:

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

Further to Question No. 567 concerning the list which has been prepared by his Department of various groups involved in urban and regional development, will he make a copy available to me.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I have reservations about making freely available a mailing list that has partly grown through individuals and organisations writing to the Department asking for copies of Community and other Departmental publications.

I have however written to Mr Snedden repeating an invitation I made in response to an earlier question from Mr McLeay (No. 1416) for him to inspect a print-out of the mailing list, which, as he is aware, contains several thousand addresses.

If a decision is made by my Department to proceed with the project to publish a directory or directories of organisations and groups contacted regularly through this mailing list, the results will be made available to Mr Snedden.

Department of Social Services: Internal Manual (Question No. 2264)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1.974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. 2 ) Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 1 6- Department of Social Services internal manual ‘.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. As the existing Department of Social Security internal manuals were drawn up by the previous Government I felt it . was not proper to release those manuals in case they in any way embarrassed the previous Government. However, very soon after assuming my portfolio I requested the Social Security Advisory Council to, in consultation with the Department of Social Security, redraft these manuals in line with the more sensitive social values of the present Government. This has been done and the manuals are now in the process of being printed. They will be made available for scrutiny at all offices of the Department of Social Security.

Pensioners: General Surveys (Question No. 2266)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy ‘, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 32- General surveys of pensioners by Department of Social Services’.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing service.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) Yes. In a press release dated 1 March 1973 I announced the release of this report.

Aged Pensioners: Accommodation (Question No. 2267)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy-Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples ofSecrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 33- Department of Social Services Survey of Accommodation of Aged Pensioners’.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. In a press statement on 1 March 1973, 1 announced the release of the report to which the honourable member refers. Reference to the release of this report was also made in the Spring 1973 edition of the Social Security Quarterly.
  4. See answer to Question (3).

Rehabilitation Programs (Question No. 2268)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item34’Departmental Studies of Economic Benefits of Rehabilitation Programs’.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) A report entitled ‘Survey of Persons Placed in Employment during 1969-70 Following Rehabilitation’ appears as Item No. 36 on the list of reports made available to the public and announced by me in my press statement on 1 March 1973. This report would appear to be the one referred to by the honourable member.

Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons (Question No. 2270)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, S December 1974, page 4763 ), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’,on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 36- ‘Independent consultants’ report on mentally and physically handicapped ‘.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes..
  3. and (4) Item 36 in Mr Spigelman ‘s book apparently refers to Joseph Griffith’s report on ‘Rehabilitation Services in Australia’. This report was included in the list of Departmental reports made available to the public by me and announced in a press statement on 1 March 1973.

Medical and Hospital Funds (Question No. 2271)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’,on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 37- Financial Details of Medical and Hospital Funds.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) In accordance with Section 76a of the National Health Act a report ‘Operations of the Registerd Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations’ is published each year, and provides financial details of medical and hospital funds. It is assumed that this is the report to which the honourable member refers. (Section 76A was included in 1970 and reports in accordance with that Section have been published for 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73.) The report in respect of the 1973-74 financial year is currently being prepared and should be available for the Budget session.

Health Funds (Question No. 2272)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763) has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy ‘, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 38- The register of health funds.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. When the Minister for Social Security grants approval to the registration of a medical or hospital benefits organisation under the National Health Act, details of the registration are entered in a register as required under Section 73 of that Act.

The particulars entered are-

  1. Name of organisation;
  2. State of registration;
  3. Date of registration;
  4. Minister’s signature and date of signing.

In accordance with Section 73 (4) the register can only be inspected by a person authorised in writing by the Minister. This provision has been in the Act since its inception.

All the details in the register plus conditions of registration of the organisation are published in the Australian Gazette so there is no question of secrecy concerning the details in the register.

All organisations were re-registered in 1970 and such registrations appeared in the Gazette as have all subsequent additions to or deletions from the register.

The restriction of the inspection of the register is unnecessary. I cannot find any reason to justify this secrecy to which previous governments were so obsessively committed. Accordingly the removal of the restriction on the inspection of the registers will be considered when next the National Health Act is being reviewed.

Security Mail Interception (Question No. 2325)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 99- Statistics on security mail interception.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)and (2)Yes

  1. No.
  2. See the answer by the Prime Minister to part (3) of Question No. 2243 and the matter raised in this question is within the compass of the Inquiry by Mr Justice Hope set in train by the present Government as the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security.

Protective Security Handbook (Question No. 2326)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy’, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 100- Protective Security Handbook.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes

  1. No.
  2. See the answer by the Prime Minister to part (3) of Question No. 2243 and the matter raised in this question is within the compass of the Inquiry by Mr Justice Hope set in train by the present Government as the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security.

National Fitness (Question No. 2340)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy ‘, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 73- Commonwealth Council for National Fitness Survey.
  3. ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) In November 1973 the printed report ‘Australian Youth Fitness Survey 1971’ became available and was distributed widely to all tertiary institutions, State Education Departments, National Fitness Councils and professional recreation organisations. It is now available to all persons who request a copy. It was published for the Department of Tourism and Recreation on behalf of the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness.

National Estate (Question No. 2361)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) How many applications has his Department received from voluntary organisations, local government bodies and individuals seeking financial assistance to protect the National Estate.
  2. ) For what purpose has assistance been sought.
  3. How many applications have been approved to date, and for what purpose.
  4. Which voluntary organisations, local government bodies or individuals have received assistance to date.
  5. Does he intend to publish regular information on the way in which funds under the National Estate Program are being distributed.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. ) There were approximately 700 (seven hundred) applications from voluntary organisations, local government bodies and private individuals for National Estate assistance under the 1973-74 Program.

A total of 854 (eight hundred and fifty four) applications was received for the1974-75 National Estate Program:

These applications were considered by the Interim Committee on the National Estate.

  1. Assistance has been sought for the following purposes:

Studies relating to buildings and areas of historic or natural importance; studies of restoration techniques;

The acquisition of urban and non-urban open space;

The acquisition and/or restoration of historic buildings;

The protection of Aboriginal Sites;

Public education and professional training related to the National Estate.

  1. Under the 1973-74 Program 69 (sixty nine) projects were recommended by the Interim Committee and approved by me:

Under the 1974-75 Program 212 (two hundred and twelve) projects have been recommended by the Interim Committee on the National Estate:

Grants have been allocated for the purposes outlined in (2) above.

  1. Recipients of grants include: the National Trust in all States conservation bodies historical societies academic institutions city and shire councils

Under the Financial Assistance Legislation grants can only be made to incorporated bodies.

  1. Detailed statements were released to the Press by myself jointly with my colleague, the Minister for Environment, and the appropriate Minister in each state government on the following dates:

The Interim Committee on the National Estate has prepared a report which may be tabled during the current session. This report contains a detailed account of the submissions that were received and the rationale behind the Interim Committee’s recommendations for the distribution of funds.

A bill to establish the Australian Heritage Commission has been introduced in the current session. This body will succeed the Interim Committee on the National Estate. I am certain it will keep the House and the people of Australia fully informed of its activities.

Disadvantaged Schools Program (Question No. 2419)

Mr Fisher:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. How many submissions were received from schools under the Disadvantaged Schools Program.
  2. ) How many have been approved to date.
  3. How many submissions have been received under the Special Grants (Innovations) Program.
  4. How many have been approved, and how many rejected to date.
  5. 5 ) Are funds still available under this Program.
  6. If not, will those submissions already made, but not yet assessed, have to be updated and resubmitted to share in future budgetary allocations.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. On the advice of the State Government or Catholic Education Authority concerned812 Government and 211 Catholic Systemic Schools had been declared disadvantaged at 21 May 1975. Each of those schools, after discussions involving staff, parents and, in some cases, students, submits proposals for projects to the ‘Task Force ‘ or other such group appointed by the Government or Catholic Education Authority. Each Government and Catholic Education Authority has then submitted proposals to the Schools Commission.
  2. All proposals by Government and Catholic authorities for the use of recurrent funds have been approved and all declared schools have received supplementary resources through these means. All capital projects proposed by Government authorities and all except 7 of those proposed by the Board for Catholic Systemic Schools have been funded by the Schools Commission. The 7 capital projects submitted by the Catholic authorities but not yet funded are now the subject of further discussions with the authorities concerned.
  3. Under the Special Grants (Innovations) Program 3 450 submissions have been received.
  4. So far the Commission has recommended for funding 997 school level projects, 20 system level projects and 4 national level projects. To date 1 359 applications have been unsuccessful. The remainder comprise those still being assessed and those held in reserve should further funds become available as referred to in (5 ).
  5. All funds available to the Program have been committed although a surplus may develop if some offers of grants cannot be accepted. Some additional projects may therefore be funded later in the year.
  6. Projects not fully assessed will be held, if applicants agree, until it is known whether more funds will be available. Applications will not have to be re-submitted but some amendments may be required in the light of the delay which will now take place. Applicants will be invited to provide the Commission with revised information or alternatively the Commission’s consultants will assist the applicant to prepare the necessary revision before a final assessment takes place.

Telecommunications (Question No. 2432)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. What progress has been made in the implementation of the area re-arrangement of the telecommunications section of the Postmaster-General ‘s Department.
  2. If no progress has been made at this stage, is it intended that regional re-arrangements will be left to any proposed Commission.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office suggested a form of organisation for the Telecommunications Service that would decentralise responsibility in management and administration by bringing technical and commercial activities relating to standardised services together under the control of Telecommunications Managers in each District.

Following acceptance by the Government of the Report, the management consultants, Cresap, McCormick and Paget Inc. were engaged by my Department to translate this concept into a specific organisation.

The Commission of Inquiry also recommended a revised form of district organisation for the Postal Service.

I issued a detailed statement on both forms of district organisation on 20 May 1975.

Medibank (Question No. 2491)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the time honoured endorsement ‘ Benefits Accepted ‘ on doctors’ accounts to be totally unacceptable under the proposed Medibank Scheme.
  2. Will ‘Benefits Accepted’ claims be rejected by Medibank.
  3. What will be the position regarding acceptability of Australian Medical Association Item Numbers on accounts.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) ‘Benefits Accepted’ endorsement on doctors’ accounts will be acceptable under Medibank.
  2. Australian Medical Association item numbers will be converted by the Health Insurance Commission for manual processing and payment of benefits for the equivalent Medical Benefits Schedule item numbers. However, the processing of claims will be facilitated if Medical Benefit Schedule item numbers are shown on accounts issued by doctors.

National Air Monitoring Program (Question No. 2506)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice:

  1. Is his Department responsible for the administration of the National Air Monitoring Program in order to establish a base line monitoring station m Australia; if not, why not.
  2. What sum has been spent on this program to 3 1 March 1975.
Dr Cass:
Minister for Environment · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The National Air Monitoring Program has so far been comprised of feasibility studies on the establishment of a baseline monitoring station in Australia. These studies have been administered by the Department of the Environment.
  2. $23,086.30.

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Publications (Question No. 2197)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. 1) What are the names, quantities printed and costs of all publications produced by his Department during the years 1973 and 1974.
  2. Broadly, to whom are the regularly produced booklets, newsletters and type productions distributed.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750603_reps_29_hor95/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant