House of Representatives
4 June 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3027

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Aurukun Community: Mining

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:

Whereas the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act was passed in contravention of a 1968 agreement;

Whereas this Act conflicts seriously with Commonwealth Government Policy on Aboriginal Affairs and on Australian equity in multinational corporations working in Australia;

Your petitioners therefore note with appreciation the statements already made on the matter by Government members but humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will also

  1. initiate a Commission of Enquiry into the whole matter
  2. b) insist that no mining take place on the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve until a full environmental impact study has been made by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development
  3. refuse to grant an export licence to the Consortium until detailed negotiations are held at Aurukun by Consortium representatives with the Aurukun people, the traditional owners of the land and advisers of their choice, and an agreement satisfactory to all has been reached.

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

Petitions received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Commonwealth Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance Vote by $21m and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We, your petitioners, do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government

  1. As a matter of urgency reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance Vote so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance be spent this fiancial year to send some of our more productive cows to the Indian Subcontinent where they are urgently needed for milk production and breeding purposes. The needless slaughter of thousands of cattle throughout Australia each day is an international disaster and the Commonwealth Government is urged to take immediate action.
  2. Such initiative by the Commonwealth Government would over-night restore confidence in the Dairying Industry and would provide an immediate market for many of our surplus cattle.
  3. 10 000 children die from malnutrition and its associated causes every day on the Indian Sub-Continent, mainly because there is nothing to replace the mother’s milk. On humanitarian grounds we urge the Commonwealth Government to send as many as possible of our more productive cows to help overcome this great human injustice.

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

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21 million, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. As a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;
  2. Reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and
  3. Establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

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

Milk Substitutes

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;
  2. That children allergic to cows’ milk and other dairy products who often include asthmatics and sufferers of respiratory complaints depend on Soya Bean milk such as Isomil or Prosobee as a mam source of protein;
  3. That the Government’s action is responsible for a 100 per cent increase in the cost of milk substitutes frequently involving parents in expenditure of $10 per week to sustain desirable protein intake for an affected child;
  4. That there is an urgent, humane need to restore milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that milk substitutes be restored to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones and Mr Keating.

Petitions received.

Health Insurance Commission

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

That the Health Insurance Commission be empowered to offer medical insurance cover at the level currently offered, and hospital insurance cover for accommodation in standard, intermediate and private wards of recognised hospitals and approved private hospitals with no financial disadvantages to members of the public who wish to exercise a true freedom of choice by staying with Medibank as their chosen method of health insurance.

Under the proposed Health Insurance Scheme starting on 1 October those members of the public who wish to stay with Medibank and take out additional hospital insurance are to be disadvantaged financially by $85 per annum compared to members of the public who wish to insure solely with a private health insurance fund for medical and hospital cover, and your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will empower the Health Insurance Commission to offer all forms of hospital insurance cover.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrE. G. Whitlam.

Petition received.

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members and friends of Bankstown Conservation Society respectfully showeth that:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian Society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grams and Administrative Support Grants to community organizations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government’s programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Capricornia 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 humbly pray that the House take steps to repeal the Metric Conversion Act and restore the traditional and familiar weights and measures.

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

Petition received.

Woodchip Industry

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

  1. That Australia is not well-endowed with natural forest areas only amounting to 4.5 per cent of the total land area.
  2. That very little of this forested area, is reserved in national parks, most of the remainder being directly (as State forests etc.) or indirectly (as Crown lands, over which forestry exercises timber extraction rights) under forestry control.
  3. The most of this remainder is liable to be totally destroyed by woodchip projects, due to soil erosion, nutrient loss, fire damage to young saplings in artificial forest regeneration projects.
  4. That many forms of arboreal wildlife are thus threatened with extinction.
  5. That grossly inadequate consideration has been given to the process of recycling packaged paper.
  6. That it is not in the long-term interest of the Australian people that these forests are converted into material for short-term use of excessive packaging.
  7. That it is a severe abuse of democratic rights to subsidise forestry practice with public money without adequate consultation of public interest.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately cancel all current woodchip export licences.
  2. Immediately provide more funds into research for the recycling of used packaged material.
  3. Ensure that any future applications for woodchip leases be preceded by an environmental enquiry, to be conducted by a panel of environmentalists and public-spirited conservation bodies independent of the Australian Forestry Council or any State Forestry Commission.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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

That the undersigned persons believe that the $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that since the Australian Assistance Plan is providing the opportunity for citizens of Australia to participate in an integrated planning process with all levels of Government and since Regional Councils for Social Development foster self-help and extensive volunteer activity in local committees.

We your petitioners do most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on the 4th of March 1976.

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

Petition received.

Australian National Library

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

  1. That as of 29 March 1976 opening hours of the Australian National Library have been reduced to the following times: Wednesday and Thursday, 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.; Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Public Holidays, 9.30 a.m. to 4.45 p.m.; Sunday, 1.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m.
  2. That the expenditure cutbacks and consequent reduction in the hours of opening of the Australian National Library has seriously disadvantaged part-time students who are able to devote only evening hours to study.
  3. That because of the reduced hours of operation, students, particularly those in the Arts Faculties, have a very limited time available in which to consult primary source material held at the Australian National Library.
  4. That the suspension of purchasing of books on an individual basis, and of university theses on micro-film will seriously disadvantage research students.
  5. That the Australian National University Library and the Canberra College of Advanced Education have only limited collections, both requiring to be complemented by the Australian National Library collections.
  6. That the lowering of educational standards as a consequence of the restrictions on educational facilities, would result in immeasurable non-economic cost to the community.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Australian National Library be accessible to readers 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. daily.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Home Mortgage Interest

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the proposal to exclude all persons from the benefit of tax deductibility for mortgage interest rates other than first home buyers in their first five years of home purchase is a repudiaton of the Government’s election undertaking to maintain the scheme.
  2. That the effect of the proposal will cause hardship to many current beneficiaries of the scheme, in that existing benefits will termiante, thus putting housing loan repayments beyond reach.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.

  1. that the Government reconsider its decision to drastically curtail the scheme;
  2. that the principles applying to the scheme as introduced by the Labor Government be maintained; and
  3. that benefits be upgraded by indexation to take account of the effects of inflation.

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

Petition received.

Cambodia

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

That whereas all people criminate, have the right to life, liberty, and political and religious freedom;

And whereas there are increasing reports of human slaughter and repression by the Communist-led government in Cambodia;

Your petitioners humbly pray, that the Members in Parliament assembled, will take steps to:

  1. Send a joint Parliamentary team to visit Cambodia and assess the situation.
  2. Support the admission of news teams to visit Cambodia.
  3. Support the sending of a Red Cross team to assist with relief work.

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

Petition received.

Under-Privileged Schools

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

That the public schools in the inner city of Sydney are in desperate need of special grants and provisions, viz.,

The maintenance of current expenditure

The allocation of smaller classes

The absorption of unemployed teachers

The provision of more specialist teachers, such as bilingual and remedial teachers

The provision of special grants for disadvantaged schools

The provision of cash grants for aid and equipment, and the

Implementation of building programmes to improve the deplorable conditions in these schools

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to ensure that Grants to underprivileged schools in the Sydney inner city area are retained.

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

Petition received.

Social Security Payments: Indexation

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 distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen and that many medications, formerly a pharamceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcements of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price-Index;

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list;

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log;

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00) was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Means Test

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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all Aged Pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

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

Petition received.

page 3030

NOTICES OF MOTION

Interest Rates

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

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

That in the opinion of this House the policy of high interest rates which characterised the administration of the preceding Labor Government has already been too long maintained.

This House therefore urges this Government to use its available powers to bring about a substantial reduction of interest rates in Australia.

Further, this House expresses the opinion that the powers in the hands of the Government are quite adequate to achieve this purpose without any undesirable repercussions, if only the Government would exercise them resolutely and prudently.

Works Program

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

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

That this House is of the opinion that, at the forthcoming conference with the Premiers, in June 1976, the Commonwealth should advocate a massive increase in public loan programs in order to absorb into useful works the surplus of l abour, plant and materials which is at present lying wasted and unused throughout Australia.

Further, that this House urges the Government to exercise its undoubted power to see that finance is made available for the expanded works program without either reducing the resources available to private enterprise or increasing interest rates.

Further, that this House rejects the delusion that the speedier restoration of health to the Australian economy would necessarily have an adverse effect on inflation and, on the contrary, holds to the view that the continuance of the low grade depression which characterised the administration of the preceding Labor Government does in fact expose Australia to unnecessary social and financial stress and, in the long run, contributes to the maintenance of inflation.

page 3030

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3030

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND TREATIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Is he aware that the Queensland Treaties Commission Act allows, in the staffing of the Treaties Commission established by the Act, the Queensland Government to set up its own foreign service? Those are the words of the Act. In view of his very proper assertion of this Parliament’s sole authority under the Constitution to conduct matters of foreign affairs, I ask: Has he investigated, or will he have investigated, the constitutionality of this State Act?

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

-This is a matter that no doubt is of interest to the Leader of the Opposition as a lawyer. I am not sure what practical application it might have.

page 3031

QUESTION

SOVIET UNION REACTION TO FOREIGN POLICY STATEMENT

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Government had any reports of Soviet Union reaction to his foreign policy statement? If so, will he inform the House what that reaction is?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– A cable has come from our Ambassador in Moscow which would seem to indicate, as I thought, a very warm discussion in a friendly sense between him and a very senior Soviet official. At the end of the discussion a request was repeated for the Deputy Prime Minister to visit Moscow to open the Australian Trade Fair on 19 July. The Deputy Prime Minister will be acceding to chat request.

page 3031

QUESTION

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL GROUP ON INDONESIA

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the InterGovernmental Group on Indonesia is meeting in Amsterdam on 9 and 10 June? If so, will the Prime Minister outline the Australian Government’s attitude to this meeting? Is he aware of the Indonesian call for extra aid funding in this coming year, which is due partly to the millions being spent on Indonesia’s invasion? Bearing in mind the continued Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the blatant ignoring of United Nations calls for a withdrawal, is the Australian Government considering making its views on East Timor known at the meeting of the InterGovernmental Group on Indonesia? Further, is the Australian Government prepared to urge members of the IGGI to withhold assistance to Indonesia until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented?

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

-The meeting is to be held, as I understand it, on the dates mentioned by the honourable member in his question. I recall receiving information from overseas and local bodies of Amnesty International relating to this matter, and being asked whether Australia would raise the question of East Timor at the meeting of IGGI- the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia. I do not believe that is the appropriate forum. We have made our stand in the appropriate forum, the very one that was mentioned in passing by the honourable member in his question, namely, the United Nations. That is where the action must commence and where it should be seen through to conclusion in relation to Timor. But IGGI, essentially an economic group -

Mr Uren:

– There are other forums.

Mr PEACOCK:

-There are other forums. There are plenty of forums. I remind the honourable member that there was a very real forum in which this matter could have been raised when he was in government, not just at the United Nations General Assembly but at the Committee of Twenty-Four, which is the committee on decolonisation, when it met in July of 1975. The honourable gentleman said that there are other forums. That is the most appropriate forum of all, and it was one the previous Government did not utilise at all. We do not believe that IGGI is the appropriate forum. So far as the aid programs to Indonesia are concerned, we have indicated our approach- I have said it time and again- in relation to keeping our relationship in perspective while taking a stand on Timor on principle. That remains the Governments policy.

page 3031

QUESTION

CANNING FRUIT INDUSTRY

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is to the Minister for Primary Industry. The canning fruit industry has welcomed the Minister’s announcement that the tree-pull scheme will be extended to the end of December and the means test eased so that the chronic over-supply situation caused by the rapidly disappearing United Kingdom market can be rectified. However, is the Minister aware that there is alarm over the contradiction between this announcement and the actions of reconstruction officials who are basing their proposals on the availability of using only the $lm remaining from the old scheme and adhering to the assessment criteria which are now either out of date or counter-productive? Will the Minister indicate whether more money will be made available if the $lm is used as that amount will not be sufficient to solve the problems -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is arguing his question. I ask him to put the request for information forthwith.

Mr LLOYD:

-Yes, I shall conclude. Will the Minister indicate whether more money will be made available if the $lm is used as that amount will not be sufficient to solve the problems of the fresh and canning fruit industries?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is arguing.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– Two primary industries have suffered more than any other as a result of British entry into the European Economic Community and changed market demand. The first, the diary industry, has been the subject of debate and consideration in this House and is of course very much under consideration around dairy farms in Australia at present. The other is the fruit industry. The significant part of the fruit industry that is under pressure is the canning fruit industry, to which the honourable gentleman’s question is particularly directed. However, the entry of Britain into the EEC has changed market opportunities and seriously prejudiced returns for fresh fruit, pome fruit and canned fruit. Of course, equally, returns have been prejudiced because of increasing costs. Every housewife who seeks to buy a can of fruit in the supermarket will testify to the degree to which prices continue to rise. As a result housewives turn to alternative products and the demand, even domestically, does not rise as much as it might.

Before 1972 the Liberal-Country Party Government provided $4.6m for tree-pull to try to alleviate the over-production in the industry. Up to 30 July this year $3.5m of that $4.6m originally allocated by our Government will have been spent. There is today still $l.lm available, therefore, for tree-pull purposes. It is very hard to assess accurately the amount of money needed to equate the costs of providing the extended tree-pull assistance that has been provided by the Commonwealth Government. But our objective is to try to give to the producers within the industry the opportunity to pull their trees so that there might be a better relationship between market demand and production. We believe that the doubling of the means test figure gives producers an opportunity to get a benefit, to get their trees out of the ground, to get some return for land that would otherwise be well and truly overcapitalised, and to enable them to move into some other enterprise or occupation.

We believe that the money is not the criterion; rather that the means is available for fruit growers to get out of the industry, to help themselves and to help the whole of the production set-up. I hope therefore that individual fruit growers will make application to the various State reconstruction authorities and take advantage of the scheme. The question of the necessity for providing further money does not arise at the present time, but if it should arise, and when it does arise, it will be given consideration.

page 3032

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AID

Mr UREN:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are all forms of overseas aid, apart from aid to Papua New Guinea, to decline in real terms in the coming financial year? Will it be about 0.5 per cent of the gross national product? Is the Minister aware that it would be the lowest level of Australian aid since 1963-64?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I do not believe it serves any purpose to exclude Papua New Guinea from aid programs. If the honourable member is not aware of it, Papua New Guinea is an independent country, and it is quite legitimate- it always has been- for Australian governments to include aid to Papua New Guinea, unless you are a colonialist, in their aid programs.

Mr Uren:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not exclude Papua New Guinea. I said that -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The simplest way to resolve this matter is for the question to be repeated. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr UREN:

– I ask: Are all forms of overseas aid, apart from the aid to Papua New Guinea, to decline in real terms in the coming financial year? I am saying clearly to the Minister, if he does not understand it, that the fact is that all aid will drop; the total aid will also drop, and that the amount will be 0.5 per cent of the gross national product. Is the Minister aware that that would be the lowest level of Australian aid since 1963-64?

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am sorry that I used the world ‘exclude’ instead of the term ‘apart from’. It seems to me that the meaning is much the same. There is a 14 per cent increase in money terms in our aid programs for the forthcoming financial year. The honourable member asked about the percentage of aid of the gross national product. At this moment it is impossible, of course, even for Treasury officers to predict with any accuracy what the gross national product will be during the next financial year. The honourable member asked finally whether that is the lowest amount of aid since 1 963-64. All I can say with some accuracy is that in the last few years- calendar years, which is the accepted international basis of comparison- the lowest amount of aid was given in 1973 when, as I recall, we had a Labor Government; and it was then 0.44 per cent. True it is that even that was 0.11 per cent above the average for most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. But the aid given by the previous Government in its first year, in calendar year terms, was the lowest, and its aid, in terms of percentage of the gross national product, was reduced in the last Budget from 0.56 per cent to 0.52 per cent.

page 3032

QUESTION

Q ANT AS AIRWAYS LTD: APPOINTMENT TO BOARD

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that a person recently appointed to the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd has close associations with one of the Government parties? Is the Government embarking on a program of jobs for the boys, which was so abhorrent in the previous Labor Administration?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-I do not know what the political affiliations are of any of the people who have recently been appointed to the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd. I do know that one or other of them at different times supported one or other of the coalition parties, but I would not know whether they are members of those parties. These things need to be seen in proper perspective. If it were to be said that nobody who is a member of a political party can take a job for which he is eminently fitted because he is a member of a political party, that surely is taking a very peculiar situation in relation to the important tasks that need to be undertaken. It would certainly mean, for example, that Mr Egerton, who is on various boards, ought not to have been appointed to those boards, when that in fact was something which was supported by the present Government when it was in Opposition. Because of his qualities, Mr Egerton is eminently suited to occupy the positions he holds and his membership of the Labor Party does not disqualify him from that. There is all the difference in the world between a one-off appointment to a board, or say, as Administrator of the Northern Territory -

Mr Young:

– A High Commissioner to London.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Or as High Commissioner in London or Ambassador to Washington or whatever. There is all the difference in the world between that kind of appointment and one which involves appointing people from one’s personal staff as heads of departments- permanent appointments in the government service which politicises the Public Service. In that particular respect the Public Service Board has been instructed to draw up strict rules that will be embodied in the Public Service Act and which will prevent that kind of thing occurring in the future.

I would also say that there are a number of jobs where someone with political experience can undertake the task a good deal better than someone without that experience. The recent appointment to the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory is a case in point. We have a situation where the Territory is moving towards statehood and someone who understands closely political sensitivities in both the Northern Territory and Canberra will certainly assist the smooth passage of the Northern Territory to statehood. There is a view within the Public Service Board itself that some of these appointments are best filled by people with such qualities. Honourable gentlemen can be assured that this Government will introduce legislation to make quite sure that the Public Service cannot be politicised as it was politicised under the previous Administration, with jobs for the boys. This is out of bounds and will remain so in future.

page 3033

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Were all Aboriginal communities telegrammed by the present Attorney-General during the last election campaign with an unqualified assurance that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would not cut expenditure on Aboriginal affairs? Has this promise been broken by the reduction in Aboriginal expenditure of some $7m and are further cuts contemplated, possibly as high as 25 per cent? Will this aggravate the very serious unemployment position among Aboriginal people, which is running at 50 per cent, and otherwise set the clock back on Aboriginal advancement?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Attorney-General did send out a telegram during the election campaign. The honourable member referred to so-called cuts. Let me make it quite plain that what this Government is about is to see that whatever money is spent on Aboriginal affairs goes to the right place, to the right people, and with the greatest measure of financial efficiency. Regrettably in the past under the Administration of which the honourable member who asked the question and his predecessors were a part, that was not always the case. As I have gone around Australia so many Aboriginal people have made the point to me that the money has not been getting to them at the grass roots level. So a measure of this Government’s administration will be the extent to which it can reverse that pattern. The Government knows full well that if the Aboriginal people are to overcome their past disadvantage they have to get real value for money that is spent on them. That will be the objective of this Government.

page 3033

QUESTION

STEAMING COAL PROJECT AT BLAIR ATHOL

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for National Resources aware of a statement by Mr Madigan, the Chairman of Blair Athol Coal Pty Ltd, that the company has shelved plans for development of a steaming coal project at Blair Athol in Queensland? Does the Minister accept the reasons given by Mr Madigan for this decision to put aside plans for a $500m project?

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

-I am aware of the statement made by Mr Madigan, the chairman of the Blair Athol company, and I have read his reasons for it. His reasons vary, to a degree, as between newspaper reports. The one report I have seen that is completely accurate is that published in the Australian Financial Review. Other newspapers seem to put a great deal of emphasis on the Government s equity guidelines or rules. Mr Madigan gave 3 principal reasons why this great steaming coal deposit cannot be developed at the moment. They were, firstly, that the Japanese market had not developed as the company might have expected, secondly, that the existing tax laws had made it difficult for the company to be able to provide the necessary infrastructure, which will be enormous on this project; and, thirdly, that the coal export levy introduced by the Labor Government had eliminated the competitive margin that the company had over other countries and created uncertainties in the minds of potential customers.

Those were the 3 main reasons, although he added that even if the market improved and the tax levy obstacles were removed there would still be grave difficulties because of the Government’s equity rules. He went on to say that the company would look to the Commonwealth Government to be understanding and to use the flexibility that is provided in this area to ensure that if the prospects for development do firm up the guidelines will not become a hindrance to the development. I think that is the important part. I have had discussions with Mr Madigan and other members of his board and have explained that we could well understand the difficulties in the case of this project in getting sufficient Australian capital. Whilst I could not give him a firm reply because no definite request has been made to the Government for submission to the Foreign Investment Review Board, I pointed out that we would be very considerate and no doubt the project might be able to proceed with a very low level of Australian equity. It is quite wrong for this to be highlighted by some people as being a reason for this project not going ahead.

As far as the existing tax laws are concerned, an Industries Assistance Commission report is being prepared for presentation to the Government. The draft report has been made public and we are waiting on the final report. I hope that changes in this area can make it more attractive to mining companies. As far as the coal export levy is concerned, I have already announced to the House that I have asked my Department to prepare a report so that it can be considered along with other Government expenditures and forms of revenue when we are considering these matters in about a month’s time. As far as the equity guidelines are concerned, our policy is to see big projects such as this go ahead. If there is a need for flexibility, flexibility will be applied.

page 3034

QUESTION

CATTLE IMPORTS

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Has he further information about the location and condition of the cattle imported from New Zealand by a celebrated theatrical entrepreneur about which I asked him on Thursday of last week? In particular, will he urge this entrepreneur in future not to use short range aircraft which require landing at Noumea but to use longer range aircraft such as those available to Qantas Airways Ltd, of which the entrepreneur has been appointed a director?

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

– The entrepreneur to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred was only one of a number of stud breeders who chartered an aircraft through Dalgety Australia Ltd under the new arrangement that applies between Australia and New Zealand with respect to bringing cattle, sheep and pigs into Australia by air. This new regulation came into force in March. The chartered aircraft was making its third flight. It was diverted to Tahiti.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Tahiti?

Mr HUNT:

-I am sure it was Tahiti. We understand that the aircraft was sprayed there for insects and other problems. But when the aircraft arrived at the international airport in Sydney, the quarantine officials were not satisfied, because there were not appropriate certificates with the consignment. The cattle were left on board the aircraft for 4 hours until certification came through from the New Zealand authorities. Nonetheless, the quarantine officials were not completely satisfied that the cattle should be removed from quarantine. They designated the Sydney showground as a quarantine station because the Abbotsford quarantine station happened to be full. So the entrepreneur’s cattle served their quarantine period. They remained at the showground long after they needed to. We understand that one other stud breeder, however, entered the showground and removed his animal- a heifer- without authority. I am now having investigations made to see whether the person in question should be prosecuted. But the entrepreneur did the right and proper thing.

page 3035

QUESTION

NURSING HOME PATIENTS

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– The Minister for Health will recall that several weeks ago I pointed out to him that many nursing home patients were in serious financial difficulties. I ask: Is it a fact that in 1972 the previous Liberal-Country Party Government introduced a generous scheme of support so as to bring nursing home care within the means of patients and leave them something over for their personal needs? Was this scheme wrecked by the Labor Government? Has the Minister been able to do anything to reduce the hardship suffered by many nursing home patients, particularly pensioners?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his interest in this matter. For some considerable time he has been very concerned about the problems of nursing homes and the patients in those nursing homes. I must say that the Government is concerned with the current inflationary problems that have caused difficulties to nursing homes. I shall be arranging a conference with the voluntary organisations in the middle of June. The Government has decided to set up a committee of inquiry to look into the whole area of care for the sick aged. I am pleased to be able to announce to the honourable member for Isaacs and indeed to the House that amendments to the National Health Act come into force today. The patients in nursing homes, particularly those in nursing homes that benefit from deficit financing arrangements will be able to retain, not the $4 a week that the Labor Party brought about for its own personal spending, but $5 a week.

Mr Cohen:

– Ha, ha! They will be able to go for a world trip now.

Mr HUNT:

– It is part of a continuing progress towards restoring the equity that they were given in 1972 by the former Liberal-Country Party Government. The honourable member for Robertson, with his red tie, laughs. He was party to a decision that reduced the amount that a patient could hold from $6 to $4 in spite of inflation. Where was his compassion and where was his concern for the dignity and independence of the pensioners in nursing homes? We have increased the amount for personal spending by 25 per cent. We will not rest until we restore the amount to what it was in real terms when we went out of office in 1 972.

page 3035

QUESTION

SCHOOLS EXPENDITURE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the statement that he made regarding the sum of $5 10m being available to schools, representing a 2 per cent growth in real terms over 1976. 1 draw his attention to the fact that Senator Carrick said it was $508m. Will the Minister confirm that the proposed 2 per cent growth for education expenditure on schools in 1 977 takes no account of a 1.6 per cent growth in enrolments and thus schools throughout Australia can expect only a 0.4 per cent growth in funds?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– Clearly, I would need to ascertain what has been said by my colleague in the Senate to provide the honourable gentleman with the information that, quite properly, he is seeking. I repeat that in the field of education, as I mentioned in my economic statement, there will be a real increase, not simply across the board, but in each of the areas in which the Government seeks to concentrate the expenditure of education funds. As I recall what was said at the time, there was in fact a real increase of 2 per cent for universities, a real increase of 5 per cent for colleges, a real increasee of 2 per cent for schools, and I think the real increase in the technical education area was 7.5 per cent. Having regard to the Government’s commitment in the anti-inflationary war to reduce the rate of growth of government expenditure, what we have foreshadowed as a clear commitment for the forthcoming financial year gives credibility to what the Government has been saying for a considerable period of time, that is, that we rate education as a very high national priority. The Government can take considerable credit for what I have foreshadowed as being our utter and complete commitment to further real increases in this vital area in the year ahead.

page 3035

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr WENTWORTH:

-My question is directed to the Treasurer and refers to the last Treasury statement of monthly transactions for the first 10 months of this financial year. I would ask one of the attendants to take a copy of it down to the Treasurer so he can refresh his mind before answering my question in regard to it.

Mr Speaker:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will continue asking his question. I will not have question time held up while the Treasurer examines the statement.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Sir. Is the Treasurer aware that at the time of the preparation of the last Labor Budget a Treasury submission was made to Cabinet which said that in that Budget $4.7 billion worth of capital works was to be included as part of the so-called deficit. Is this figure of $4.7 billion roughly in accord with the $4.8 billion which was shown in the subsequently published Budget papers. If he will refresh his mind by looking at the -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question forthwith and not refer to the document. If he does not ask his question I will rule him out of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-What amount of addition to liquid funds of the banking or monetary system was made during the first 10 months of this financial year as a result of Commonwealth Government transactions? Would this be set out in detail in the Treasury return for April last?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I am a little tired this morning, and it is not the best day to be answering questions from the honourable member for Mackellar. It is a matter of record that the honourable gentleman and I have some differences about matters of economic policy. I have heard it asserted that the honourable gentleman, for quite proper and no doubt responsible reasons of his own, is a believer in the general proposition that the deficit is a myth. I invite the honourable gentleman to have further discussions with me about that. It might be possible soon to have a dinner at his expense because if I could be persuaded of the overall validity of the proposition which he is seeking to prosecute in this House and in other places, perhaps I would not be as tired as I feel this morning after a very late night involving a matter of great international significance with 2 of my colleagues who sit behind me. That is a matter which I cannot clarify for the House. I am not even sure that I remember at this stage the questions asked of me. Mr Speaker, it is the last day of the sitting. I think the House would understand.

Mr SPEAKER:

-So long as the Treasurer does not ask the questioner to repeat the question.

Mr LYNCH:

– I certainly do not intend to do that. It might cause me as much anguish as it caused the House. The honourable gentleman was really querying the deficit estimates which have been brought down. I do not recall the particular Treasury Paper to which he drew attention. I simply reflect for the House again that when the Government came into office in December of last year the deficit was $4.7 billion and heading, if the Labor Party had continued in office, to a figure which would well have exceeded $5 billion. I think that is a conservative figure. A Labor Party Administration would have panicked in relation to the functioning of the economy then, and the deficit would have gone to $6 billion.

I think the honourable gentleman was seeking assistance in relation to financing transactions. I do not think the House ought to regard this question as a Dorothy Dix question. It certainly is not. For the first 10 months of 1975-76 the total of the financing transactions, which I was querying myself with Treasury only a matter of a few days ago because of my direct interest in this matter as Treasurer, as the honourable gentleman would understand, to 30 April was $4.3 billion. That is made up of net proceeds of Australian savings bonds and special bonds of $1,1 16m, net changes in the Treasury notes on issue of $ 1,096m- that was a net decrease- and net proceeds of other loans raised in Australia, $ 1 .56m. I think the honourable gentleman ought to be very much aware of the next figure, which is borrowings from the Reserve Bank- that is to say, through the issue of Treasury bills- of $ 1 .4m.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– That is the concept of using the money printing press.

Mr LYNCH:

– The Prime Minister reminds me that that is the concept of using the money printing press. Although that is a very high figure and we are concerned about it, it is obviously a figure which will be subject to a fall as tax payments come in and there is a turnabout in Budget and overall deficit figures. There is the use of cash balances, $696m, and other financing transactions in this country, $676m. It is an extremely fascinating area, and I wish I could have spoken a little longer.

page 3036

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AID

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Foreign Minister a question following the answer he gave to my deputy about the amount of expenditure on overseas aid. Is it a fact that while the amount of $400m which he has now announced for the next financial year may represent an increase of 14 per cent on the amount of $35 lm which he announced last January as the expenditure for the present financial year, it represents only an increase of 5.7 per cent on the amount of $378m which the Hayden Budget allocated for the present financial year?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– The amount represents a 14 per cent increase in money terms on expenditure this year compared with the estimates for the forthcoming financial year. That is what is relevant. I find great difficulty comprehending why the honourable gentleman excluded the figures for Papua New Guinea, unless it was to make a point. We must recognise that the previous Government was the first government to reduce aid to Papua New Guinea. It did so at a most sensitive period for the Papua New Guinea

Government and for relations between the 2 countries. The arrangements we worked out for Papua New Guinea, which we have always maintained we must have -

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, not only -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this a point of order?

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. Not only is the Minister’s answer inaccurate, it is irrelevant. I have asked about the expenditure on overseas aid and about the percentage. It ought to be possible to give a clear answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he chooses provided his answer is relevant. I have listened to so much of the answer as he has given and I think it is relevant.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I repeat that it is a 14 per cent increase in money terms for the forthcoming financial year. Honourable members will realise that whilst that is the allocation we make now we will have to examine also replenishment funds for international bodies such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association. This cannot be dealt with until later in the calendar year because those bodies will not be meeting and putting their minds to their budgetary problems for next year until then. We make our pledges later in the year. That will be over and above the $400m that has been covered in the present Estimates. I am not prepared to answer questions on aid which are supplementary to questions referring to aid to Papua New Guinea and put that country aside as though it is not important. That is why I was reminding the Leader of the Opposition that we have constantly stated, not subsequent to any election but before and during elections, that in relation to aid programs Papua New Guinea would have first call on our funds. These are similar to the words you used to use yourself and yet, whilst in government, you reduced -

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We did not. Every year there was an increase.

Mr PEACOCK:

– You increased aid in money terms but you reduced the aid program overall. In fact, you reduced the aspirations of the Papua New Guinea Government at a most sensitive period. As I said, you shattered those aspirations shortly prior to independence being reached.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman insists on answering the Leader of the Opposition directly. That is partly inspired by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition continually interjects and renders the matter into an argument. I emphasise that I will not permit, and the Standing Orders do not allow me to permit, this cross-fire because it could lead to events in which persons lose their temper and do not do the standing of the Parliament any good. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to direct his answer through the Chair.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am grateful for your aid, Mr Speaker. I conclude by saying that Papua New Guinea’s Finance Minister, Mr Julius Chan, indicated at the last meeting of the Asian Development Bank that the way in which Australia administered her aid program, particularly in regard to Papua New Guinea, should be an example to the rest of the world.

page 3037

QUESTION

NURSING HOME FEES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that private nursing homes can increase the fees charged only with the approval of his Department? Is it a fact that approved fees are rising due to increases in wages and other operating costs? Are these increases matched by a commensurate increase in nursing home benefits? Will the Minister consider indexing these benefits at a level which would leave patients in a majority of these homes with adequate personal spending money?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I can only repeat to the honourable member for Sturt that the Government is mindful of the very serious problems that confront nursing homes in Australia and also of the difficulties that are being experienced by pensioners within those nursing homes because of the great gap in money terms between the benefits payable and the fees being charged by the nursing homes that their relatives and friends are having to bridge. It is true that we have maintained a control on the fees being charged by nursing homes. We will be meeting with the nursing home associations and the private hospital associations in June in a one-day seminar to have a look at the total problem. In due course the Government will be undertaking a thorough review of the whole problem of nursing homes, the care of the aged and the care of the sick aged in Australia, to see whether we can overcome some of the difficulties to which the honourable member has referred affecting not just the nursing home proprietors but also the people who are in those homes and their relatives.

page 3038

QUESTION

OLD SYDNEY TOWN

Mr COHEN:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question that is supplementary to the one I asked him during the first week of the parliamentary session this year. Has his Government or the Department finally decided whether it will honour the commitment that the Liberal Party made to Old Sydney Town prior to the last election?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As I indicated to the honourable member for Robertson when he asked me that question in the first week of this session, that matter is within the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his Department. The matter is still under consideration by the Government, but a decision is expected in the fairly near future.

page 3038

AUSTRALIA COUNCIL

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present financial statements of the Australia Council for the period 30 March to 30 June 1975.

page 3038

WHEAT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the protocols for the third extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 197 1 .

page 3038

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the resolution for the extension of the 1 973 International Sugar Agreement.

page 3038

TOBACCO

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965-1973, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Tobacco Board for the calendar year 1975.

page 3038

SUGAR

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

-For the information of honourable members I present an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland concerning variations to the Sugar Agreement 1975.

page 3038

NORFOLK ISLAND

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 3038

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads entitled ‘National Highway Linking Sydney and Brisbane (Newcastle Area)’. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 3038

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegation to the fourth session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in New York from 15 March 1976 to 7 May 1976.

page 3038

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

For the information of honourable members I present details of special Royal Australian Air Force flights for the period 9 February 1976 to 31 May .1976. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of this document have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 3038

INQUIRY INTO POVERTY

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

For the information of honourable members I present the third main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty entitled ‘Social/Medical Aspects of Poverty in Australia’, together with a statement by the Minister for Social Security relating to that report. Due to the limited number of copies available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 3038

AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

-Pursuant to section 9 ( 1 ) of the Education Research Act 1970, 1 present the annual reports of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education for 1973- 74 and 1974-75.

page 3039

ABORIGINAL SECONDARY GRANTS SCHEME

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report tided ‘Access to Education- an Evaluation of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme’ together with a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) relating to that report.

page 3039

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the National Committee on Social Science Teaching Research and Development Grants for 1973-74 and 1974- 75 administered under the Education Research Act 1970.

page 3039

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION) ACT 1974

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974, 1 present a statement relating to financial assistance granted to the States in respect of that Act in the financial year 1974-75.

page 3039

COMMONWEALTH AND NATIONAL FITNESS ACT

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · LP

Pursuant to section 6 of the Commonwealth National Fitness Act 1941, I present a report on the activities carried out under that Act for the year 1974-75.

page 3039

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I seek to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. I think no doubt through an innocent lapse of memory the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in reply to a question addressed to him in the House this morning implied that I was not eager to discuss the subject matter with him. As a matter of fact, I had asked for an appointment earlier on and he was going to notify me, but he has not done so. I will gladly accept and even pay for his dinner in order that I may explain to him further the facts of life about the deficit.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My understanding was that there had been no want of invitations from the honourable member. I did not understand the honourable member to have been misrepresented by the answer of the Treasurer. However, the position has been made clear.

page 3039

VISITS BY NUCLEAR POWERED WARSHIPS

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement concerning visits by nuclear powered warships.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-First I would like to table 2 documents. One is a letter from the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr MacKellar), which indicates that having consulted the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) he has exempted the question of visits of nuclear powered warships from further consideration under the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection Act; also there is a statement of the summary of reasons.

I wish to inform the House that my Government has decided to allow the resumption of visits to Australian ports by nuclear powered warships. This decision has been made after a long and careful examination of many aspects associated with the subject. In furtherance of the objective of ensuring that matters affecting the environment are fully examined and taken into account, the Government has given very careful consideration to a classified draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Department of Defence. However, in the opinion of the Government it would be contrary to the interests of Australia for this document to be made available publicly. Nevertheless, in order that maximum possible information, consistent with the interests of Australia be made available to the public, a document titled ‘Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia’ dated May 1976 is attached to this statement. I table that document.

The House will be aware that there have been a number of visits in the past by United States nuclear powered warships. In the interests of our national security, the Australian Government attaches great importance to the presence in this area, under the ANZUS alliance, of the United

States Navy, which is increasingly converting to nuclear powered warships. With well over 100 naval reactors in operation, United States nuclear powered warships have visited over 30 countries and 85 foreign ports. Our decision follows consultations with the United States Government on safety procedures and legal indemnity. In the latter connection, the United States Congress in December 1974 enacted a Law- Public Law 93-513- pursuant to which, as was made clear by the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, the United States accepts absolute liability for any nuclear damage which might result from a nuclear incident involving the reactor of a United States warship.

The Government is taking these decisions on the basis of international experience with nuclear powered warships and in light of the assessments in the unclassified environmental document which I am tabling. The Government accepts the expert advice that the risk of an incident resulting in a release of radio-activity is extremely low and the hazard to human health and the environment is remote. All necessary control and safety measures will be implemented at the berths to be used. Those matters are dealt with in detail in the document ‘Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia’. I would also point to the remarkable safety record of United States nuclear powered ships. There is further compelling reason why action is required in this matter. About a third of the United States Navy is nuclear powered. We have a military alliance with the United States through the ANZUS Treaty. Under Article II of that Treaty, we have undertaken to act separately and jointly to maintain and develop our individual and collective capacity. Unless nuclear powered ships are able to use Australian ports, there will be no prospects of Australia remaining an adequate and reliable ANZUS partner. That is not a statement from any American source- it is a statement of this Government.

The ANZUS Treaty requires co-operation with the United States. At the very least, that would require that the United States be able to replenish her ships and that we should provide such support as we are able, not only in peacetime circumstances as a good ally, but also in any emergency that may arise in the future. The vital character of our alliance with the United States and with ANZUS requires this action to be taken. In reaching a decision on the resumption of visits, the Government has had the benefit of a very wide range of expert advice. Defence and Australian Atomic Energy Commission scientists have participated in the examinations and relevant matters have received consideration by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. Appropriate arrangements concerning environmental safeguards will be applied in consultation with state governments by a group of officials led by officials of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. Such arrangements will be undertaken, as necessary, before visits take place. I present the following paper:

Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships, Ministerial StateStatement June 1976.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am taking the opportunity to make a statement at this stage because there would be very few honourable members who at this notice would be able to take part in any discussion on this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) tabled a document- as you were careful to point out to him, not for the first time, Mr Speaker, he did not need leave to table a document- of in this case over 30 pages titled ‘Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia’. I was given a copy of it about an hour and a half ago. I must confess that I have not been able to read through it. Of course other honourable members have not even had a copy of it, so it cannot really be expected that we could discuss this matter in the House today and there will not be another opportunity until 17 August at the earliest. But at this stage there are at least a few points which should be made. The first is that the ban on nuclear powered warships coming to Australia was imposed in, I think, 1972- it might have been 1 97 1 -by the McMahon Government.

Mr Sinclair:
Mr McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It was not imposed. I made that clear in the House. You have a very husky voice. I did not impose any ban but I said I could not get any information from the Defence Department. I said that in the House.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I may have a husky voice for this week; the right honourable gentleman has had a squeaky one for as long as I can remember.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not being unparliamentary in saying that but it does not do anything for the purpose of debate and I ask him to cease that sort of reference.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was not a particularly brilliant interjection by the right honourable gentleman referring to my voice. The leaders of all the parties in the House have had this affliction in the last couple of weeks and I myself am not immune from such human frailties. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) interjected to confirm that a ban was imposed- that was the term I used- in 1971 by the McMahon Government. That Government properly did not wish nuclear powered warships to come to Australia at that time. There were 2 reasons, as I recollect. I looked at these matters as Prime Minister and as Foreign Minister, and for a while as Environment Minister, on 2 grounds. The first was that at that time the country- in this case Britain- which wanted to send nuclear powered warships to Australia did not accept absolute liability for any mishaps which might occur as a result of those visits. Secondly, the environmental aspects, both Commonwealth and State, had not yet been investigated. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the absolute liability requirement has been met by the United States of America and that objection no longer applies.

Before I proceed I should make it plain that there is regrettably in the public mind a great deal of confusion about nuclear ships. There is a difference between nuclear armed ships and nuclear powered ships. Nuclear armed shipspresumably only nuclear armed naval shipshave come to Australia for very many years. They have come from several powers. Successive governments have accepted that naval ships these days are quite likely to be nuclear armed. It is impossible to expect the navies of other countries to specify for public consumption which of their ships are nuclear armed and which are not so that any country which is host to those ships may require that only those which are non nuclear armed can come to the ports. If that information and that requirement are imposed it becomes a matter of public knowledge which of the ships in any particular navy are nuclear armed and which may not be.

The other matter which has to be acknowledged is that ships which are nuclear powered are becoming more and more numerous. There are not only nuclear powered warships; there are also nuclear powered merchant ships. The principles which we apply to nuclear powered allied warships will inevitably apply to nuclear powered merchant ships under any flag or to nuclear powered warships of countries with which we have no alliance. As far as entry of nuclear powered warships or nuclear powered merchant ships is concerned, the question of alliance or no alliance does not arise. The only questions which arise are the questions of absolute liability being accepted by the nation whose flag the ship carries and that there should be appropriate environmental safeguards available in Australia in the unlikely event, although obviously the catastrophic event, of some mishap occurring because of that visit.

The matter about which I have misgivings arises from the degree of consultation with the States. I was given a photostat copy of the proposed statement by the Prime Minister. It extended over 2 pages. There was apparently a third page which made reference to consultations with the States. I do not know whether that third page was composed after I was given the first and second pages or whether by inadvertence I was not given the third page. Nevertheless, I wish to make this point: Towards the end of last year the position had arisen in consultation between the Department of Defence and the Department of Environment where my Government was about to make an approach to the governments of New South Wales and Western Australia, to consult them about the environmental aspects of nuclear powered ships- in this case nuclear powered allied warships- visiting their ports. This is of great importance to the States. It is of great importance to the population of some very large cities.

Australia, of course, was settled by warships arriving in ports. Australia’s principal centres of population are still clustered around ports. Australia’s largest city, Sydney, is also Australia’s largest naval base. Another very considerable centre of population, the Perth metropolitan area, is the centre of other naval activity. Naval ships constantly use Fremantle harbour and they, to a certain extent, use, and to a greater extent, will use Cockburn Sound. Accordingly it is very important that the State governments should be involved in the question of environment in this case. The prevention is obviously better than cure. But the question of cure in the case of a nuclear explosion does concern some very important State activities. Obviously hospitals, transport, and public buildings in general can all be under immense pressure if anything goes wrong as regards nuclear explosions.

In these circumstances we regard it as very important indeed that New South Wales and Western Australia should be consulted about this aspect. That point had been put by me to the American and British authorities both in Australia and in Washington and London. The question of absolute liability had been solved. The question of environment was not one that the Australian Government could solve in isolation. I, of course, do not assert- it would be most uncharacteristic of me to assert- that the Australian Government did not have constitutional authority in matters of the environment arising out of defence or trade with other countries. Accordingly I do not doubt for one minute that this Parliament could make laws and the Australian Government could make administrative arrangements safeguarding the Australian population from the effects of mishaps in nuclear powered warships or nuclear powered merchant ships.

We could cover the field, but we have never tried to do so. At this stage there are no arrangements whatever. The Sydney and the Perth hospitals, for instance, have made no additional arrangements and have no preparations under way to deal with the unlikely but the catastrophic effects of any mishap to a nuclear powered warship in Australia’s two largest naval ports. There are other considerable ports which, of course, are remote from large centres of population. Port Stephens and Jervis Bay would be such. Nevertheless, Sydney and Fremantle, Botany Bay and Cockburn Sound are very clearly adjacent to or in the midst of very large centres of population.

The misgivings I express about the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter arise from the fact that it does seem to have been precipitate. No arrangements have yet been made with any of the States, still less with the two principal States concerned. In those circumstances I believe that the statement was unhelpful and precipitate. I am not cavilling at the fact that such matters must be confidential. I do not believe that we must assume that the State Governments do not have officers who can keep a confidence. I do not believe that we should assert that this Parliament has members who cannot keep a confidence. This matter could have been referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence where confidentiality is required. As I understand it and as far as I know, no attempt has been made to involve that Committee. There is also a House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Conservation; it is not required to keep confidences. There is a Senate Committee similarly named; it is not required to keep confidences. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it has been a helpful exercise on the last sitting day of the Parliament to announce a decision on the basis of a document of which I have a copy, of which very few other honourable members in the House have a copy, which no parliamentary committee has had the opportunity of discussing, and which the States that inevitably are involved have not had the opportunity of discussing either.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, I have been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has stated as he did on another occasion I prohibited the use of Cockburn Sound and Jervis Bay by visiting warships from other countries, particularly those from the United States and from the United Kingdom. The truth is that I never prohibited the use of those 2 ports by either nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships. Inquiries had been made during the last 6 months of my tenure of office as Prime Minister as to whether such ships could use those 2 ports. I asked the Foreign Office and the Permanent Head of my Department, the Prime Minister’s Department, to inform me of the position. I was informed by both sources that there was a difference of opinion within the defence machine itself, and that in those circumstances it would be unwise to give approval until the Defence Committee had made up its mind what the best decision would be. In what manner the security, environmental safety and matters of that nature could be effectively protected. That is the only advice I received. And I conveyed the decision that no action should be taken until we ascertained the facts.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

page 3042

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3042

COURT PROCEEDINGS: DOCUMENTS

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

That, in response to the petition of Danny Sankey presented to the House on 25 February 1976, this House grants leave-

. to the Petitioner and his legal representatives to inspect the documents tabled in this House during the course of its proceedings which took place between 2.55 p.m. and 10.09 p.m. on 9 July 1975.

to the Petitioner and his legal representatives to issue and serve a subpoena for the production of the said documents in the proceedings commenced by the Petitioner in the Queanbeyan Court on or about 20 November 1975, and

to an appropriate officer of the House to attend at the hearings of the said proceedings and to produce the said documents.

This motion arises from a petition which was tabled in the Parliament by the AttorneyGeneral, (Mr Ellicott) on 25 February 1975 on behalf of one Danny Sankey of 1 8 Village Lower Road, Vaucluse, in the State of New South Wales. The character of the petition is in accord with the practice which has applied in this and other parliaments. I draw the attention of the House to page 85 of the eighteenth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice which reads:

The rights of the House are emphasised by the resolution of session 1818 which directs that no clerk or officer of the House, or shorthand writer employed to take minutes of evidence before the House, or any committee thereof, shall give evidence elsewhere in respect of any proceedings or examination had at the bar, or before any committee of the House, without the special leave of the House.

If I may interpolate for just a moment, that particular part of the instruction is, of course, picked up within the motion which stands in my name. The quotation continues:

Parties to a suit who desire to produce such evidence, or any other documents in the custody of officers of the House, accordingly petition the House, praying that the proper officer may attend and produce it . . . and the term ‘proper officer’ includes an official shorthand writer .. . The motion for leave may be moved without previous notice . . . During the recess, however, it has been the practice for the Speaker, in order to prevent delays in the administration of justice, to allow the production of minutes of evidence and other documents, on the application of the parties to a private suit. But should the suit involve any question of privilege, especially the privilege of a witness, or should the production of the document appear, on other grounds, to be a subject for the discretion of the House itself, he will decline to grant the required authority. During a dissolution the Clerk of the House sanctions the production of documents, following the principle adopted by the Speaker.

I quoted that in full, Mr Speaker, because I think it is important that a distinction be drawn between the Hansard or other tanscript of statements made in the Parliament and the production of the documents themselves.

If honourable members like to look at standing order 320 of our Standing Orders they will see the following:

All papers and documents presented to the House shall be considered public. Papers not ordered to be printed may be inspected at the offices of the House at any time by Members, and, with permission of the Speaker, by other persons, and copies thereof or extracts therefrom may be made.

In fact, we all know that documents produced in this place are available for publication by the media and others. It is true that they are essentially public property. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of this petition it is felt that there is some obligation to make available publicly documents that are tabled in the chamber. In so recommending to the House, I think that clear emphasis needs to be laid on the fact that in no way can the privileges that apply to the Parliament be waived as a result of this resolution. There is privilege that attaches to the documents of the House in the same manner as there is privilege that attaches to statements made in this chamber. Any privilege that lies cannot be waived by virtue of a motion which is purely for the production of the documents themselves.

There is another matter which I think is important, and that is that the character and nature of the documents themselves have no greater validity, or indeed less validity, than they have at the moment of tabling. They stand on their own merits and have no greater authenticity simply because they are produced and tabled in this chamber and by resolution of this Parliament are made available elsewhere. As to the character of the case, matters outside this House are no concern of the House. It is, of course, a matter for those who seek the production of documents by petition to take the initiative and to ask the chamber for them. In this case the petition has been laid. We believe it to be the responsibility of the Parliament to answer that petition. The motion that I have moved is in accordance with that request.

As I say, in no way does the Government or the Parliament waive the privilege that pertains to the Parliament. The documents have no greater status or authenticity than they did at the time of tabling; but, they having been tabled, it is the opinion of the Government that they should be made available in that form. Therefore, having taken account of the procedures and practices of the House of Commons, which seem to be far more extensive than those of this chamber, and having taken advice and looked at other precedents in Australia, I have moved the motion in this form. It will be noted that it also involves granting the necessary leave to officers, if so requested, to appear to authenticate the fact that the documents have been so tabled in the Parliament. The form of the motion which I have moved picks up the fact that in the petition there is also a request that the documents might be inspected. This also has been referred to in the motion. I therefore commend the motion in this form to this chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Debate interrupted.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Speaker, could I have your guidance? I want to raise a matter of privilege. I know that such a matter has to be raised immediately. I am wondering when that can be done, without interfering with the right of my Leader to speak on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the matter of privilege unrelated to this motion?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It is related to this motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Then I think the honourable gentleman ought to raise the matter forthwith.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– On the question of privilege, I want to draw your attention, as Speaker, to the petition dated 17 February which was presented on 25 February. I make the point that there has been over 3 months delay in dealing with the petition. What the petition requests is a matter of record in the Parliament. The petition requests firstly that there may be an inspection of documents tabled and, secondly, that there be leave for a subpoena for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings. I will stop at that point, Mr Speaker. You will note that the motion proposes something altogether different. Firstly, it talks about the issue of a subpoena for the production of documents, not the evidence of the proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Not the record?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is correct. Secondly, the motion suggests that the documents be produced in a court in Queanbeyan or in respect of proceedings arising from those proceedings in Queanbeyan, whereas the original petition suggests that they be produced in Queanbeyan only. Thirdly, it is suggested that an officer of the House be able to produce the said documents. You will notice that the petition suggests that officers of the House- all those persons who took the official record- give evidence. What I am putting to you, Mr Speaker, on the question of privilege is, firstly, that the notice of motion is not in accord with the petition. Secondly, I put it to you that if it were in accord with the petition- you may wish to interrupt me here, Mr Speaker- it could not be complied with. If you will allow me to continue from this point, I shall do so on this basis: If the House said that the documents could be produced they could not be produced because of the matter of privilege. I am not talking about the official record; I am talking about the documents.

To that extent, I would like you, Mr Speaker, to examine the decision in Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith, as reported commencing at page 378 of 1972 I All England Law Reports. It is a relatively recent decision, Mr Speaker. You will notice that it was held that what was said or done in Parliament in the course of proceedings could not be examined outside Parliament. I want to emphasise that point of examination. Accordingly, you will note that in support of that decision the court referred to previous decisions. I do not want to delay you much further, Mr Speaker; but I draw your attention to the references to the decisions which are contained at page 380 of 1972 I All England Law Reports. I draw your attention to the comment made by His Honour when he said:

The Attorney-General says that the privilege goes further and that what is said or done in the House in the course of any proceedings there cannot be examined outside Parliament for the purpose of supporting a cause of action, even though the cause of action itself arises out of something done outside the House.

I submit that, according to precedent, according to privilege, it would be quite improper for the House now to say that it would be in order for those documents to be produced elsewhere. I am emphasising the documents themselves. In other words, the privilege of any member of the House cannot be serviced by resolution of the House.

In support of that I refer to the decision in ex parte Wason, a conspiracy case referred to in 1869 in Law Reports 4 Queens Bench, where it was said by His Honour:

I am clearly of opinion that we ought not to allow it to be doubted for a moment that the motives or intentions of members of either House cannot be inquired into by criminal proceedings with respect to anything they may do or say in the House.

It is acknowledged in that decision that by petition and by leave of the House the official records can be produced- not to be examined, but as evidence of the fact that they did in fact exist on that day. I submit that this petition is based on that false premise- not only do the petitioner and his legal representatives wish to examine the records but they also wish to examine the people associated with the records. To that extent I say that it is a breach of privilege. In support of that argument I say this: In the JohnsonSmith case the Attorney-General said that the use of Hansard must stop at the examination of the Hansard and that counsel was not entitled to comment on what had been said in Hansard or to ask the jury to draw any inferences from it. That was the limitation of that particular decision which, it is suggested here, could be a precedent. In other words, what I am saying is that if we were to allow even the official transcript of what happened on that day to be produced there could not be any examination of what the transcript itself disclosed in relation to documents that were produced.

So, in summary, I am saying, firstly that the motion is not in accord with the petition. Secondly, I am saying- waiving that for the purpose of the second argument- that if it were in accord with the petition the documents themselves could not be produced because that would be a breach of the privilege of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to refer to the question of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Leader of the House.

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

- Mr Speaker, the argument just presented by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) with respect to the motion I moved and the question of privilege supports very much my motion in the form in which I have submitted it. Indeed, the argument he presented, arguing his first point, is the reason for the difference between the form of the petition and the motion submitted to the House. The first part of the petition relating to the inspection of the documents he does not canvass; however, he does canvass the extent to which the documents should be produced. I see the documents as being quite distinct from the Hansard record of proceedings on that day. It is for that reason that the motion does not advert to the Hansard record of proceedings but refers only to the documents tabled in the chamber. I suggest that those documents retain the privilege which the honourable member asserted and therefore the form of the motion is totally in accordance with the maintenance of privilege and the presentation of documents in accord with the intent and practice of this place.

With respect to his second question and the presence of an officer of the House to attend at the hearing, I refer to May’s Parliamentary Practice and the fact that it is necessary before any officer of this Parliament is allowed to appear outside it that leave be given by the Parliament for that purpose. The purpose of this motion is only to allow an officer to testify to the existence of the documents and of their tabling in the House. There is no question, in any way, that he can be cross-examined or can give evidence pertaining to the proceedings of the Parliament, for this motion does not relate to the proceedings of the Parliament other than to the degree to which it relates to the tabling of the documents. For that reason I suggest that on the question of privilege no prima facie case has been established, and the form of motion has been completely endorsed by the argument presented by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I rise on the privilege point. I suggest there is a misconception in what the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, first of all in relation to the petition. Of course, although I presented the petition honourable members will understand that I presented it because Mr Sankey is a constituent of mine and I did not present it in my role as Attorney-General. I am speaking now in my role as Attorney-General and remaining distant from that petition, as I must.

The first point in relation to the form of the motion, I would submit, is not correct. The House surely must have the power to consider the petition and consider what portion of what is sought it is open to the House to grant. All that the notice of motion seeks to do is to grant such part as the House might deem proper in relation to this petition. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has made it quite clear that Hansard itself ought to be ruled out completely and should not be produced for the purpose of these proceedings. That is quite proper. However, it does leave the question of documents.

On the question of privilege itself, it seemed to me, when listening to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, that he was thinking that by acceding to this motion the House in some way was waiving its privilege; that is to say, waiving that very important privilege that what is said or done in Parliament shall not be made the subject of proceedings in any court. I would simply say to the House that that does not follow at all and, of course, the Leader of the House made that quite clear in what he said. In other words, the question of parliamentary privilege would be taken into account by the court itself. It is the court that breaches the parliamentary privilege by allowing action to be taken on something that is said or done in Parliament. Thus, if these documents were produced and a court allowed some action to be taken or done in relation to the production of those documents in this House on 9 July, that would be a breach of privilege.

Obviously there are some cases, and the Scientology case is one of them in which what is said or done in Parliament is relevant to the administration of justice. I am not turning my remarks to this particular case, but if I may go to the case of an action for defamation which has a defence of a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings, clearly enough in such a case it would be appropriate to produce in court the Hansard record for the purpose of establishing what was said in Parliament m order to determine whether the report in the Press, the alleged defamatory report, was a fair and accurate report of what was said in Parliament. To produce the Hansard in such a case would not be an infringement of privilege because Parliament has always recognised that it will not impede the administration of justice.

For Parliament to claim privilege in relation to such a matter of evidence would be, quite clearly, to impede the administration of justice, as it would mean that a party who had an adequate defence under the law would not be able to establish it unless he first established what was said in Parliament. That only illustrates that in a case such as this, by granting this notice of motion, you are not waiving the parliamentary privilege at all. That privilege still remains. It is still there for the court to take into account. I suggest, with very great respect, that what the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has said does misconceive the nature and the effect of the motion before the House.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I intend to speak on only one aspect of this matter. I do not want to go over the history of it because it is well enough known to the House. I want to look at the words in the notice of motion or the intention to move a notice of motion which were used by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the right honourable gentleman is setting out to speak to the substance of the motion. At present I am hearing the issue of privilege.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– No, I want to speak on the substance of the matter.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott).

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed with his personal explanation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The AttorneyGeneral suggested that I was implying that there would be an objection to the production of Hansard. In fact I made no such comment. I virtually agreed with that. For the purpose of explanation, I drew a distinction between what the petition requested, the official records, as against what the motion requested, the production of documents.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I disagree with the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen)- that is, I reject the issue of privilege. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith put the matter on 2 grounds. One was that the notice of motion by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) is not in accord with the petition. That is apparent; it is not in accord with the petition. However, I believe that the Parliament could not allow itself to be put in the position that it could only accede to a request in a petition if it fulfilled the request in the petition precisely. The Parliament must remain in control of its own actions and the Parliament can determine how much of a petition it will agree with; alternatively, it can reject the petition entirely or accept the petition entirely. Therefore I cannot accept that ground of the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith.

The second part of the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Kingsford Smith was that were the documents to be produced in a court and there in a court examined, then the fact of the examination of the documents in the court would amount to a breach of privilege. I understand entirely what the honourable gentleman is getting at. What he is saying is that if there is a risk of a court examining the documents and by that examination of the documents the court would be in breach of the privilege of the Parliament, we should not assist the process by releasing the documents to go to the court in the first place. That is basically the way in which the honourable gentleman puts the arguments. I must reject that. There is no reason I should assume that any court would be unaware of the long line of authority in relation to this privilege of the Parliament. I have every confidence that whatever court it went before would observe the parliamentary privilege and not breach it. I have the safeguard of course that if the court did breach the privilege it could be corrected on an appeal. Therefore I do not accept the issue of privilege raised by the honourable member for Kingsford Smith. The Leader of the Opposition has the call to the issue of substance.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I was, in fact, rising to order. I put it to you that you should rule the motion out of order. Before I put that, clearly I do not want to give any impression at all that these documents could not or should not be produced in a court if the court is correctly dealing with a matter to which those documents relate. In fact most of the documents were produced by me in the House. I obviously intended them to be public knowledge. I do not want to give any impression that I do not wish them to be known to the public or to be available to any persons who have a legal right to have access to them.

The point upon which I rise to order is not one that I could have taken if this motion had come on within a week or a couple of weeks after the petition was lodged with the House. It is a point which I must take now.

When the proceedings were due to come on before the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions, if this motion had been moved then, I would not in any way have resisted the House voting on it or voting for it. Since then, however, the matters have been taken out of the hands of the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions. They may never go back to that court. Proceedings have been taken to say 2 things: Firstly, that the matters which are alleged in the proceedings in the Queanbeyan Court, even if established, do not amount to any breach of the law; and, secondly, that those matters, even if it were established that they do amount to a breach of the law are not matters which should come before a court so located. I need say no more than this: The persons concerned and the events alleged in no case reside or occurred in the Queanbeyan Petty Sessions district. The events would have occurred in Canberra or Sydney. The persons concerned reside in Canberra or Sydney or Wollongong. Accordingly, even if the events amount to any breach of the law by the persons concerned, it would not be a matter which could come before the Queanbeyan Court.

The other point is that even if the facts alleged are established, they amount to no breach of the law. This matter is now before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. It could not have come before that court without permission of a Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Leave was sought and obtained from Mr Justice Lee of that Court for the matter to come before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal has set the matter down for 15 June. It would certainly seem premature and, I would put it, it would be improper for this House to say that the documents can be produced either in Queanbeyan or in any proceedings flowing from Queanbeyan when in fact the Court of Appeal may say either that the proceedings cannot proceed at Queanbeyan or that the proceedings cannot proceed at all. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that this House should not in any way presume to act in such a way as to express a view or to pre-empt a view on such matters.

Mr Speaker:

– That is basically the question of sub judice that you are putting?

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, precisely, Sir. In those circumstances I would believe that at least the proper course is for you to say that the matter cannot come before the House until the Court of Appeal has given its decision. Quite obviously if the Court of Appeal says that the proceedings cannot proceed then this motion would not go ahead. The Court of Appeal might say that the proceedings cannot proceed in the place or in the form which was contemplated at the time that the petition came before the House. In that event, it might be conceded on all sides that the matter could not go ahead in the House. Sir, at least, the matter is premature. I would go further and say that you should rule it out of order. There is nothing to prevent this motion, as I apprehend it, coming before the House after the Court of Appeal of New South Wales has handed down its judgment if that court then says the matter should proceed in Queanbeyan or elsewhere. Certainly, as I said earlier, I would not in any way be disposed to resist and I do not want to give any impression that I would be resisting these documents, which were mostly tabled by me, being made available to the public, including judges or those who appear before them. But, Sir, the whole of this matter which we are discussing now may prove completely abortive. If the Court of Appeal says that these proceedings are null and void then we shall have wasted our time in discussing this matter. In those circumstances, Sir, I suggest that you should not only rule that the matter should be deferred until the next day of sitting, but that you should rule that it should not properly come before this House at all at this time.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I wish to refer to the second part of the motion and that is, that this House in no way is interfering with the state of the proceedings in that it would be necessary for the petitioner and his legal representatives, under clause 2 of the motion, to issue and serve a subpoena, if it were appropriate, within whatever stage of the proceedings they might reach. For that reason I suggest that the status of the proceedings outside this House is not a matter for this House. It is not specifically a matter relating to whether this motion is in accord with our Standing Orders. Rather the motion is in this form to make available the documents if at an appropriate stage of those proceedings the necessary steps were to be taken to make them so available. This House cannot and should not intervene in the proceedings, nor are we taking any initiative to do so. For that reason I do not believe the question of sub judice is relevant to the form of the motion as it is submitted to the Parliament.

Mr Ellicott:

– Let me clear up one point. The Leader of the Opposition can correct me if what I say is incorrect, out I believe it to be correct. The proceedings in the court at Queanbeyan were adjourned until 7 June, and following the handing down of a judgment by a magistrate a writ of prohibition was taken out in relation to those proceedings which was returnable in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It came before a single justice and he decided that it should be referred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. I say that to you, Mr Speaker, only to indicate that the proceedings in Queanbeyan are still on foot. The writ of prohibition, the prerogative writ, is designed in effect to have these proceedings declared null and void; but the proceedings are still there and until the Court of Appeal hands down its judgment, or perhaps the High Court or the Privy Council hands down its judgment, these proceedings are still there. They would be adjourned pending the decision of a court on appeal.

Looking at the notice of motion, one would apprehend that it would not be practicable for any party to the Queenbeyan proceedings to have an effective subpoena until the determination of the appeal; but the notice of motion, as the Leader of the House has put it, is not an interference in the proceedings themselves. I would respectfully submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this is not a matter in which the sub judice rule applies, but the motion simply allows justice to be done if the event occurs between now and, say, 17 August, 24 August or whenever the Parliament resumes. It allows justice to be done to the extent it could be done by the issue of a subpoena should the Court of Appeal or some ultimate court of appeal hand down its judgment in the meantime in a way which would enable the proceedings at Queanbeyan to continue. If they were quashed under the writ of prohibition there would be no point in the subpoena; the motion would have no effect.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to speak on the matters raised by the Leader of the House and the Attorney-General and on the matters of fact. I do not recollect the date to which the matter before the court of Queanbeyan has been adjourned, but I do not believe it is material. Again I do not recollect the date, but a justice of the Supreme Court in New South Wales said the matter could or should go to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard an application, which was in no way contested, that the matter should be given an expedited hearing. The Court of Appeal, with the Chief Justice presiding, set the hearing down for IS June. Surely at least this must apply: The House should not be engaged in debating purely hypothetical matters. The Court of Appeal may say that the matters in Queanbeyan can proceed. In that case the House can pass this motion. The Court of Appeal may say that they cannot proceed. I put it that the House should not be asked to decide matters which may never arise.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has anticipated words I was about to use; that is, that this debate may be merely a hypothetical discussion about a motion when we do not know, until we hear what the Court of Appeal or any subsequent court says, whether effect will be given to it. But I am concerned to see that the parties to the court proceedings are not prejudiced in the hearing before the court. That is the whole essence of the sub judice rule; that we not permit anything to occur in this House which will be to the prejudice of litigants before a court. For that reason my attitude towards the sub judice rule is not to interpret the sub judice rule in such a way as to stifle discussion in the national Parliament on issues of national importance. I have so ruled on earlier occasions. That is only the opposite side of the coin to what is involved here. If I believed that in any way the discussion of this motion or the passage of the motion would prejudice the parties before the court, then I would rule the matter sub judice and refuse to allow the motion to go on; but there is a long line of authority from the courts which indicates that the courts and judges of the courts do not regard themselves as such delicate flowers that they are likely to be prejudiced in their decisions by a debate that goes on in this House. I am quite sure that is true, especially in the case of a court of appeal or, if the matter were to go beyond that, the High Court. I do not think those justices would regard themselves as having been influenced by the debate that may occur here.

Therefore I cannot rule the matter sub judice. Because I cannot rule it sub judice I cannot prevent the motion from going ahead or prevent discussion about it. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that it should be deferred to the next day of sitting to await the court’s decision. That may or may not have been a good course to take, but it is not one which I can order. What is obvious to me is that the purpose of the motion is that, if a decision is made after the hearing on 1 5 June and the proceedings in Queanbeyan spring up again, the authority will have been given by this House to produce the documents. Whether the purpose could have been as well served by leaving the matter until August is a matter for argument but certainly not a matter in which I as Speaker can intervene and require that course to be taken.

Because the matter is not sub judice and because it is not contrary to the Standing Orders I rule that the notice of motion may proceed. The Leader of the House has talked to the substance of the motion. There has been discussion on the privilege issue and the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I now propose to call someone from the Opposition side to speak to the substance of the motion.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did I understand you to rule that it is in order for the motion to proceed because it accepts in part some of the requests of the petition? I make this point again: The petition did not request the production of documents; the motion does.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The petition requested the production of the proceedings of the House, as I remember the wording, and the documents are part of the proceedings of the House, and as such the House can decide not to fulfil the whole of the petition but some part of it. I am reminded by the ever watchful and present Clerk that part of the prayer in the petition is:

Grant leave to your petitioner and his legal representatives to issue and serve a subponena for the production of the relevant official records of the aforesaid proceedings of this House which took place between 2.55 p.m. and 10.9 p.m. on 9 July 1 97S and of the relevant documents tabled therein;

In fact, the petition calls for the production of the documents. Even if it had not I would have ruled the motion in order, having regard to the petition for the production of the proceedings. I return to the substance of the motion. Is there any speaker on the Opposition side who wishes to be called?

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition is not opposing the motion. Mr Speaker, I ask you to instruct the officer of the House who is required to present the documents that no questions other man the question relating to whether they are the documents will be able to be put to or answered by that officer. I ask you to make that clear from the chair. I am aware of the legal position. That should be by direction of the House. That is all I want to raise.

Mr SPEAKER:

-As I understand it, the honourable member for Corio has said 2 things. Firstly, the Opposition does not oppose the motion. Secondly, he has asked me whether or not the terms of the motion are such as to preclude the officer who produces the documents, should that eventuality arise, being questioned about any matter other than the mere production of the documents. That is not part of the terms of the motion. I do not think there is any need to amend the motion to include that suggestion because I would be surprised if the officer producing the documents would be prepared to answer a question. I would be surprised if the presiding judge or magistrate, whoever it might be, would allow such a question to be put. If the question were put the officer would be quite entitled to say: ‘I refuse to answer’. If it were pressed, then there would be a breach of privilege. I expect the court would not risk a breach of privilege

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It may well be that the statement by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) disposes of this matter. That is, that the Opposition agrees that there will be no objection to the motion or the various provisions contained in it. I want to speak on this matter that I think is of enormous public and national importance. It goes right to the heart of parliamentary privilege and the extent to which that privilege goes. I think the historical background was well set out by you, Mr Speaker, in your statement of 8 April in relation to privilege in connection with the notice of motion by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). With deference to you. Sir, I believe that ruling which applied the Standing Orders was a brilliant explanation and interpretation of the Standing Orders. It is on that ruling that I base the contribution which I want to make today.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am deeply indebted to the right honourable gentleman for paying tribute to me in that way. Notwithstanding the tribute, I must hold the right honourable gentleman to relevance to the motion.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I know the need for relevance. That is why I am proceeding to deal with this matter. I first state the very general principle as to the nature and extent of any particular privilege claimed by Parliament. I refer to the report of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons in 1947. It states: . . . the underlying test in all cases being, whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament. Mot only has Parliament no legal right to extend its privileges beyond those which satisfy this test, but your Committee feel that any attempt so to do would be contrary to the interest both of Parliament and the public.

It is know that an information was lodged in the Queanbeyan Supreme Court by Mr Sankey. It was based upon section 86 of the Crimes Act and section 18 which permits, unless there was a contrary intention, any person to institute proceedings for the commitment for trial any person in respect of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth. Section 86 states that any attempt to undermine the Constitution is to be considered a criminal offence. Therefore the question which arises is whether privilege applies in a case such as this. Was it necessary to put this motion which relates to a criminal offence before the house? I refer to an article published in The Parliamentarian of 1970, under the name of Sir Barnett Cocks, Clerk of the House of Commons. He quoted from Erskine May and later explained the interpretation given by Lord Shawcross who, as honourable member will know, was a very well informed and highly respected law officer of the Crown when a member of the House of Commons. Lord Shawcross said:

The underlying test in all cases being, whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament.

The article in The Parliamentarian went on to say:

The privilege of freedom from arrest, it will be noted, is confined to civil cases . . .

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must rule that the motion does not raise an issue of privilege. The matter before the House raises a question as to whether or not this House will permit the serving of a subpoena and the production of documents by an officer of the House. It does not raise an issue of privilege.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I understand that the motion is as to whether the documents should be produced. I say that there is no basis on which production can be refused. One can justify a refusal only if it is associated with a noncriminal case. This is why I wanted to put a point of view to you, Mr Speaker. In criminal cases there is no power in this House to refuse to produce documents wanted in a criminal court. It has never been refused in the United Kingdom. That is the point I wanted to make. I believe it is proper and consistent with the dignity and status of Parliament that an application be made to the House for the production of documents and the carrying out of other procedures set out in the motion by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair). That is what I wanted to prove. I think the documents which I have quoted ought to establish that proposition to your satisfaction, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will allow the right honourable gentleman to proceed with his explanation. His standing in the House and his long service are such that I would not want to interrupt him unnecessarily, but I ask him to confine himself to the relevance of the motion.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will confine myself to making only 2 quotations, in deference to your wishes. I quote from the article:

The privilege of freedom from arrest, it will be noted, is confined to civil cases (a rarity under the law today) and does not entitle a Member to evade the criminal law.

An article in Parliamentary Privilege in Australia by Enid Campbell, at pages 60 and 61, states:

Where a member of Parliament is accused of a criminal offence, it has never been suggested that his status as a member places him in any different a position as regards the law of arrest or trial from that of an ordinary citizen.

I content myself by stating that those 2 quotations reflect completely what I believe ought to be the practice in this House. I do not make any suggestion as to whether or not there is any proof of guilt. I merely state that if an application is made to a court and an order is given putting people on trial for a criminal offence, at least we should not prejudice the hearing but give the applicant every opportunity to present his case effectively before the courts without hindrance from this House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3050

CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS) BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1973, was signed by Australia in December 1974. The Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill and the 2 associated extradition amendment Bills will enable Australia to ratify and implement the Convention, which requires that the intentional commission of murders, kidnappings and other acts of violence against diplomats and other persons entitled to special protection under international law be made serious offences under national law. As required by the Convention, the protection is extended by the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill to Heads of State and Foreign Ministers in foreign states.

The Convention was adopted by the United Nations following consideration in 1972 and 1973 of proposals aimed at combating terrorism around the world and particularly terrorism against diplomats. Attorney-General Bowen spoke for Australia in the United Nations in 1972 in support of a convention against terrorism. The Convention is not yet in force but the United Kingdom and the United States of America have also signed it and have announced their intentions to implement it and ratify it. For many years nations have accepted an obligation to protect diplomatic representatives; these obligations were formalised in conventions adopted in Vienna in 1963. More recent events have shown the need, which the present Convention seeks to meet, to develop and make more effective these obligations. The convention follows in many respects the 1970 convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Aircraft and the 3 Bills likewise follow the general pattern of the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, the Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 and the amendments made to the extradition Acts in 1972 and 1973 to implement those conventions.

Clause 8 of the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill implements the obligation that Australia will accept under article 2 of the Convention to make the intentional commission of the offences described in that article crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. As required by the Convention, jurisdiction will be given to Australian courts to deal with these offences, not only when committed in Australian territory, but also when the alleged offender is an Australian citizen or the offence is committed against an Australian internationally protected person overseas. Jurisdiction will also be given to Australian courts when an alleged offender is found in Australia. The intention is that the provisions of the Act dealing with offences in Australia shall be operative on royal assent. However, the provisions concerning offences committed outside Australia will not be operative until the Convention enters into force for Australia.

The remaining provisions of the Bill providing for taking suspected offenders into custody, the prosecution of offenders and the proof of various evidentiary matters implement the obligations that Australia will assume under the Convention. These provisions follow, broadly speaking, the legislation dealing with the hijacking and protection of aircraft to which I have previously referred. The definition of ‘internationally protected person’ in the Convention includes all persons who, under international law, are entitled to special protection from attacks. Lengthy and detailed provisions would be required to describe fully the classes of persons who would come within that description and accordingly provision has been made in clause 17 for the making of regulations specifying these classes of persons.

With the object that offenders against internationally protected persons be punished, the Convention seeks to ensure that the crimes referred to in the Convention are extraditable under existing extradition treaties and to facilitate the extradition in appropriate cases of alleged offenders. Accordingly, the 2 associated extradition amendment Bills make the new offences extradition crimes for the purposes of Australian legislation. The object of the Convention would largely be defeated if the exclusion provided generally under the extradition Acts in relation to offences of a political character were applicable to the new offences and the 2 extradition Bills therefore provide that the new offences should not be taken to be offences of a political character.

However, honourable members can be assured that the essential safeguards provided under Australian extradition legislation will not be affected by these amendments. Not only must the Attorney-General be satisfied as to the general propriety of the request for extradition before an extradition may proceed but also sufficient evidence must be placed before an Australian magistrate to justify the trial of the alleged offender. Further, both Acts forbid extradition where there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged offender might be prejudiced at his trial in the foreign state by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Observance of the requirements of the Act can be enforced by a superior court in Australia. With the passage of these 3 Bills, Australia will be able to play its part in the international endeavours to better protect internationally protected persons against terrorist acts of violence. I commend the Bills to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 3051

EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill presented by Mr Ellicott and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

This Bill was covered in my second reading speech on the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill 1976,

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 3052

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

This Bill was covered in my second reading speech on the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill 1976.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 3052

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I rise in this debate to forward the proposition explained by the then Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr MacKellar) and the previous speakers from the Government side and to rebut some of the spurious arguments advanced by members of the Opposition. I say this quite advisedly, because an analysis of the speeches of Opposition members will show that they pay hpservice to what we believe is the great Australian hope, that is, home ownership. I quote from the speech of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), wherein he stated:

We have always considered it to be a gimmick which does not in any way solve the housing problems in the long term.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) referred to our plan to make housing available to rural dwellers. He stated:

It is probably a good thing to do but it is certainly not a priority thing to do.

He also said:

For what it is worth that is a commendable thing. I suppose it is of infinitesimal consequence.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) said in his speech last evening:

The homes savings grant is a poor manner in which to promote home ownership.

I think that an analysis of those speeches of members of the Opposition will make known to the Australian people the undeniable fact that the Opposition is pledged not to allow Australian families and their children to own their own homes. On the other hand, of course, the Government will make attainable that great Australian dream- your own home on your own land. In a few short months our Government has introduced sanity to this area in a situation which, for the last 3 years, has been developed by emotional assumptions and shallow thinking. I say that and I have good factual information with which to back it up.

Recently it was announced that private housing approvals, which are regarded as an early indicator of economic trends, showed a strong 1 3 per cent increase in April of this year after seasonal adjustments. The figure of 12 800 approvals was the highest monthly figure since May 1974, and it was achieved notwithstanding a steady reduction in available finance. Indicative of the shortage of finance is the fact that savings bank deposits in the March quarter were down by 6.2 per cent and building society deposits were down by 3.4 per cent. Obviously the Government’s initiatives in the economic field and its great desire to pump funds into homes savings have had results. I hope that the Government ‘s efforts are contagious and that the various building authorities and building societies will continue to advance funds. It is interesting to note that the lending societies’ figures for April this year were up about 44 per cent on last year’s.

Obviously there have been great side benefits for home ownership as a result of the election on 13 December last year. The confidence that has been inspired in Australian families has resulted in positive action. Some of the side effects of a good housing policy can overcome the problem of unemployment. This Government’s policies in that regard are leading to the creation of more jobs and a reduction in the number of people unemployed. I believe that if government finances are to be used to the best possible advantage it is necessary for governments, both Commonwealth and State, to adopt a forward planning approach to housing. Unless the various associated industries- hardware, timber, roofing materials and associated iron products- know what are the Government’s plans for the future we could reach a situation in which we were not making the best use of our available resources, manpower and factory output. All of those associated industries depend significantly on government policies, aims and objectives. I make an appeal to the various leaders of the governments to come together when they are renegotiating their housing agreements and give private industry some plans for the future, preferably over a relatively long period- say, 5 years- so that the industries associated with housing can gear up and do their very best to cushion the effects of the rapid increases in costs.

We find that, following the 6.4 per cent national wage increase and increases in the costs of materials, the cost of articles used in the house building industry increased by 0.8 per cent in January, 0.7 per cent in February and 1.6 per cent in March. The total increase from March 1975 to March 1976 was the staggering figure of 12.3 per cent. Obviously, parallel with the Government’s objectives m the housing field is the great necessity for Government activity to overcome the problem of inflation. The figures have already been given by speakers from our side of the House and from the Opposition as to how much costs in the housing field have increased over the last 12 months. We must contain costs, so that young people, elderly people and anyone desirous of purchasing permanent accommodation can do so. This will take a united effort.

The Government is obviously very keen about making finance available for the housing sector. In April this year it lowered the statutory reserve deposits by 2 per cent. It cut the interest rate on Australian Savings Bonds from 10.5 per cent for series 1 to 9.2 per cent for series 3. The Government has shown that it is determined to avoid credit squeeze conditions. It is appropriate to remark on certain statements made by members of the Opposition last evening about interest rates. The Government has reduced interest rates overall by 1 per cent. I want to comment on one or 2 of the matters contained in this piece of legislation. The housing interest tax deductibility has been retained. The Government is honouring a pre-election pledge. The deductibility will be allowed for the first 5 years. This is consistent with the Government’s aims and policies to give help during those early difficult years when family commitments are probably high and when job payment is relatively low in comparison with what may be anticipated in the future. People face many problems in launching themselves in life. The Government’s action to retain the tax deductibility scheme for the first 5 years after the purchase of a home is highly commendable.

It is a cardinal principle, in any housing scheme designed to attract people to own their own homes, to make the deposit available. That is the core of the homes savings grant scheme, as

I see it. People are encouraged to put their money into savings bank accounts, building society accounts or, if they want a hedge against inflation, into a piece of land. This money is then available to them as a deposit to purchase their own homes. If the Government does not encourage them to save they will not have access to a deposit. This move is probably one of the most progressive and far-reaching programs ever offered by a Federal Government to people wanting to own their own homes. I refer to the combination of tax deductibility and the homes savings grant scheme.

Additionally, it has been agreed to remove one of the great anomalies under the present scheme and to provide for no limit on value. Far too many people were disappointed and inconvenienced by the fact that, due to the huge increases in land values, building costs and the costs of labour, the total cost of the home exceeded the statutory limit. Even at this late stage once again I make a special appeal to the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) to see whether it is possible to make retrospective payments to people who built their homes and, on account of” inflation, exceeded the $22,500, even by the sum of $400 or $500. This would remove some of the great hardship on people who have saved over a great number of years and have then found that due to inflation they were unable to take advantage of the previous LiberalCountry Parties’ policy objectives in this matter.

I applaud the announcement in the Bill that people purchasing a home through a housing commission or State authority will be eligible to claim the grant. That is a positive approach and it is indicative of the fact that the Government wants every avenue to be explored to encourage people to build their own homes. In the final analysis, these things all add up to social equity and economic sense. It is also good to note that the Government has introduced this scheme sooner than it promised. Often today we find that governments all over the world, not only in Australia, have a tendency to put things off. I think that this Government deserves the sincere gratitude of us all for implementing this scheme long before it promised to do so. We are honouring a promise and we are honouring it long before it was intended to be carried out.

It was interesting to note that one of my colleagues, either the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) in his excellent contribution last evening or the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who we all know has a great personal interest in housing, stated that the people of Australia should be reminded of the Labor Party’s priority review report. The honourable member for Reid said last night that the Opposition believed in home ownership, but the report it commissioned indicated quite openly on many pages that it should be the policy to have included an imputed rent on home ownership. We on the Government side will not bear that at all. We completely reject that as a proposition, but it is interesting to note the change in attitude of the Labor Party now that it realises that one of the reasons it was beaten on 13 December was the fact that it did not give enough emphasis and encouragement to Australian people to own their own homes. No wonder the Australian people now believe that Australia is once again a land of opportunity in which we can all plan ahead with confidence and with optimism.

We are all concerned about high cost factors and quite obviously governments have a responsibility in association with private industry to engage in research to reduce costs in certain areas. In this respect one thing that can be done is to rationalise council building codes. The building code in one area is different from that in another area. If we are to have an increasing emphasis on prefabrication construction it is necessary to rationalise council building codes. Another thing that can be done is to permit the use of quick construction methods which allow a greater use of non-tradesmen labour to overcome the problem of unemployed people who have no great technical or trade skills. If buildings can be prefabricated a person without trade skills can be engaged to erect them.

I want to agree with the honourable member for Reid who talked last night about the need to reduce land costs. That is obviously a good idea and I support him. I share his views on it. We as a government can help in this regard by doing such things as a national re-appraisal of zoning requirements and an initial tidying up of land developments, and probably the setting aside or areas of land, either regional or metropolitan which can be used later on for housing and purchased while the prices are relatively low. Housing cannot be divorced from economic policy. It is part and parcel of it. We have a great glut in housing. It is estimated that at the present time the Australian housing industry should be pulsating at the rate of roughly 140 000 to 150 000 homes a year. There is a great lag to be overcome. I believe that these initiatives, these incentives will go a long way to overcoming that time lag.

I know that there are other matters to be debated in this chamber today. It does give us in the Country Party a great deal of pride to be associated with this legislation. It is legislation which will bring to many, many Australians great personal pleasure and personal satisfaction because they will be fulfilling their needs of home ownership. It is a great ideal. We fully subscribe to it.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I do not want to detain the House. I am aroused by the statement made by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) who said we have an obligation to aid private industry in development. I do not know exactly what he means by that, but on the front page of last Wednesday’s Sydney Sun an article headed ‘Millions From State Super Funds “Cheap Loans Charge” ‘ reads:

The State Superannuation Fund has lent millions of dollars to private developers at lower interest rates than could come from investing in Government loans.

I was anxious to ask the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) a question this morning. I intended to ask: Has he seen Press reports to the effect that large sums of money were lent during the tenure of office of the previous New South Wales Government by the New South Wales Superannuation Fund to private developers at low interest rates? Did he note that an important beneficiary of these loans was Parkes Developments Pty Ltd? What steps will be taken to obtain the passports of the controllers of Parkes Developments so as to avoid a repetition of the problems experienced in bringing the Bartons to justice?

Mr Newman:

– I raise a point of order. We have let the honourable member have some time, but this is surely totally irrelevant to the Bill that we are now talking about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Hunter that we are at present on the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill. I allowed the honourable member time to proceed, perhaps in anticipation that he was going to mention that certain loan money should be directed towards the homes savings grant scheme and the building of homes. I am afraid I must uphold the point of order which has been taken. What the honourable member has said so far has no relevance to the Bill that the House is discussing at this point in time.

Mr JAMES:

– I was going to link it up but the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Newman) interrupted. I did not think any honourable member would object if low interest loans had been made available for the building of houses but when it comes to using money obtained from superannuation funds at low interest rates- which is what Parkes Developments has been doing- to spend on rented office space, that is something that every decent member of Parliament should abhor along with the wickedness or the frailties of the previous New South Wales Government. If I am out of order now, I would think that the honourable member for Darling Downs also would have been out of order because the matter is akin to the subject matter before the House insofar as money was made available by the New South Wales Government to private developers to construct office buildings when it should have been used to build low cost homes for people which are so urgently needed. That was my purpose in mentioning this matter, but I was not able to link it up because of the objection taken by the Minister. However, having mentioned the question that I had intended to ask the Attorney-General, if it is your desire, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say that I am still out of order I am prepared to abide by your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member has taken a long time to give an illustration to the House and to come to the actual subject matter. I do feel that at this time the honourable member has made his point.

Mr JAMES:

– All right. It is apparently your wish, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not proceed with the submission that low cost money should have been made available for the construction of homes instead of being made available to the likes of Mainline and Parkes Developments which had been given special privileges by the previous New South Wales Government. Having made the point that I have made I am prepared to discontinue and to resume my remarks during some appropriate debate at a later time in this Parliament.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I shall take very few moments. What I have to say can be said at this stage rather than at the Committee stage for the reason that I do not desire to delay the passage of this Bill at that stage. The first point is one which has concerned the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), and the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Newman) might consider it. In terms of the present scheme, that is the present reduced scheme that is operating now, will the Minister consider very sincerely and very earnestly the practical fact that the limit on the value of a home for which the grant is available ought to be raised? It is becoming a nonsense, particularly in New South Wales. New

South Wales deserves some special help in respect of housing. That State has been hit very severely, in terms of the monetary policy, over the last number of months and Queensland has been hit to a significantly less extent. Some attempt ought be made to try to alleviate the problems in New South Wales and, on a much wider aspect, to raising the value of the home to make the grant meaningful. An amount of $22,500 -

Mr Bourchier:

-For a house and land.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– An amount of $22,500 for a house and land is just not an appropriate amount even under the reduced scheme. The other point I want to make relates to clause 6 of the Bill which concerns credit unions. As I understand it clause 6 removes the restrictions which were previously applied in respect of savings in credit unions for the purpose of housing. I am referring to the restrictions in terms of the amount of activity of the credit unions, the interest rate at which they made their loans available and so on. Does clause 6 mean that the loans which are available from credit unions and which they consummate themselves without other embargoes or conditions will apply for the purpose of the home savings grant? I ask this because it is an important question. One of the most quickly growing sectors of the Australian finance industry has been credit unions. I say that having regard to New South Wales. Assistance will be required in New South Wales, and to a lesser extent Queensland, for some time ahead. I notice that a new publication brought out by the Commonwealth Statistician last month dealing with credit unions’ assets, liabilities, income and expenditure, reference number 5.59, states that during 1974-75 an amount of $537m was involved in loans from credit unions. The loans from credit unions in New South Wales to members represented well over 50 per cent of the Australian total. Therefore, if the restrictions on savings from credit unions are to be removed completely, that would act as a disproportionate stimulus to New South Wales, which is a large credit union State.

I ask the Minister for Repatriation a question: Do all those loans from credit unions mentioned in the statistical bulletin to which I have referred, without other restriction as to interests rates and to the proportion of activity of credit union loans for housing etc., qualify, or could they all qualify, were they applied by a member of a credit union for housing purposes or were the savings on which the loans were made applied to housing purposes? I think it is an important question. This approach could be an important way in which the disproportionate squeeze effects on some States of Australia could be significantly alleviated. I end by saying that I am delighted to see that credit unions are to be included in the scheme. I am delighted to see that their activity in this area will enable more savings to be accumulated for housing purposes. I request the Minister to answer the question I posed.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · LP

-In reply- I want to say a few words to answer some questions that have been raised and to answer some of the criticisms that have been made by the Opposition. Firstly, I shall deal with the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) ranged far and wide in his speech on this Bill and touched on many things which will eventually apply to the Homes Savings Grant Bill which we will be bringing in later on. But some of the generalities which he mentioned have to be answered. He quite rightly pointed to the problem in the housing industry, particularly in residential housing, which now exists. I feel that he exaggerated the situation somewhat. The fact is that in all States with the exception of New South Wales as the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) pointed out, all the indications are that there is a strong upsurge in residential building. I am informed that in Western Australia in the last couple of months we have had a situation getting very close to the boom period of 1973. But in New South Wales we have a problem, and I can assure honourable members that the Government is monitoring the situation in New South Wales very carefully.

It is fair to point out some of the problems in New South Wales, at least in 2 aspects. Firstly, everybody readily recognises the problem in New South Wales is the high cost of land, the high cost of housing construction and the high interest rates. Let us sheet the blame home to where it belongs. The position is the result of the last 3 years of irresponsible government, particularly the financial administration of the last Government. As the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) is in the chamber, I point out that one of the problems in New South Wales with the housing industry was that there was a sharp downturn in public housing expenditure brought about directly by the Hayden Budget of last year.

Mr Hayden:

-Oh, cut it out. You do not believe that or say it when you are talking to me privately.

Mr NEWMAN:

– Even privately I would make that assertion and make it very strongly. The

Deputy Leader of the Opposition also spoke about the problem of the repayment gap. We believe that this home savings Bill will help to eliminate that gap. That is what it is all about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is either trying purposely to mislead us or does not understand the scheme. He said in his speech that he felt that the scheme was a gimmick and went on to assert that money under the scheme would not be available until 1979. Of course this is quite wrong. When the old scheme that now exists stops in 1977 and the new scheme picks up, most of the $750 grant that is available to a home purchaser now will be available to those who can prove the necessary qualifications for savings as from January 1977. The grant will not be $750 but it will be $667, which is pretty close to the mark. So much for that assertion.

I should like to make a point about the Government’s attitude to deferred mortgage repayments. We have foreshadowed our attitude on this in our policy statements. However, we believe that, in introducing a system of deferred mortgage payments through the private sector rather than the public institutions, we would be making a real contribution. Currently we are having active discussions with private lending institutions and I am hopeful that there will be some extension of this form of lending in the future.

I shall now deal with some of the more specific points that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made. One of them was that he did not think it was fair that by introducing this scheme, one aspect of which is allowing people to build on rural land, we would be giving them adequate protection legally. I have this to say about that point: It would be wrong for the Commonwealth to get into this area which rightly belongs to the States and their legislation. But secondly and more importantly most of the farmers- in fact I would say just about all the farmers I know- are pretty canny people when it comes to spending money. I do not believe they would build a house without making sure that they and their investments would be adequately protected. In any case, under State legislation there are plenty of ways in which they could assure their interests, such as leases and other agreements. Therefore, I do not think there is much of a point in that argument. Secondly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the assertion that the whole basis of the homes savings grant scheme contradicts the monetary policy of the Government because it encourages people to save rather than spend. Again he conveniently ignores the fact that this is saving with a purpose. The purpose is, at the end of the saving, to buy a home. I cannot think of a better motive in encouraging people to save. Would he have them encouraged to spend it on fripperies? I think not The scheme is a very good incentive and it has very real long term objectives.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said that he believed that the scheme was an election gimmick, designed to trap a small number of voters who might be encouraged to use it, going right back to the days of Sir Robert Menzies. Of course, that is seen to be a completely fallacious argument when one looks at the number of people who have made use of this scheme since 1963. I am told that 350 000 grants have been made available to people who wished to make use of the scheme. That is hardly an election gimmick. A more important point to which I would like to refer is, I am afraid, the misrepresentations by -

Mr Hayden:

– How much longer?

Mr NEWMAN:

– Not very much longer; be patient. When talking about the brochure that deals with the new homes savings grant scheme, the honourable member for Hughes tried to make the point that authorising legislation would be necessary before the Government could issue such a pamphlet. That is a dreadfully misleading statement. In saying that, the honourable member for Hughes conveniently did not go on to point out that this brochure, which carries on the front page the words ‘Details of the Commonwealth Government’s proposals for a new home savings grant scheme’, has inside a very clear notation that the new scheme cannot come into operation until authorising legislation has been passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. They are the main points with which I wish to deal among those raised by the Opposition in the rather specious case that it has put up during the last 24 hours.

I turn now to the points raised by honourable members on the Government side of the House. First of all, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) asked whether the scheme could be made retrospective. I think it would be unfair of me not to make the position clear. It would not be on to do that. I am afraid that the Government could not entertain such a proposition. The honourable member for Lilley raised 2 points. He pointed out, quite rightly, that the present limitation on the value of a house, of $22,500 is not high enough and he asked whether it could be abolished now. Unfortunately again I have to say frankly that it is not on to do that. The fiscal problems presently facing the Government would not allow it. Unfortunately we will have to wait until next year, when the limitation will be abolished. Then the honourable member for Lilley asked about the problem with regard to credit unions. Under the current scheme only savings with approved credit unions are acceptable. In order to obtain approval a credit union must lend 20 per cent of its loans for housing purposes. There is no restriction on interest rates. For people who buy houses after 1 April 1 976, savings with any credit union will be acceptable. Loans made by credit unions have nothing to do with the grant. The amendment will enable some people to obtain a slightly larger grant; nothing more. I thank those honourable members who have contributed to the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3057

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND (DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS TO PENSIONERS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Killen

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Distribution of Surplus to Pensioners) Bill 1976 provides for certain procedures to distribute a surplus in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. Because of the very straightforward procedural nature of the Bill, I frankly cannot see any reason for any debate. We support what is being done.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– I, too, regard the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Distribution of Surplus to Pensioners) Bill 1976 as a machinery measure, and my comments will be very brief. I commend the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and the Government on their prompt action in dealing with this matter of the distribution of the surplus funds under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. It is a matter with which the previous Labor Administration could have dealt, should have dealt, but neglected to deal. It could have cleared up this situation at any time during its term of office, but it chose not to do so. It is not as though the money involved is government money; it is money which belongs to the contributors under the Act. For 3 years we waited for action on this matter; for 3 years I pressed for the distribution of this surplus. I think that the previous Government’s failure to ensure that these contributions were refunded was a further indication of its indifference to the Services and to the men in the Services.

Mr Jacobi:

– We did more for them than you ever did.

Mr BONNETT:

-No, you did not. The fact that the compound interest component of the accumulated amount will be included in the amount available for distribution will, I am sure, indicate to the personnel of the Services, both retired and still serving, that this Government does concern itself with matters affecting the defence Services. I again commend the Minister and the Government for introducing this measure so speedily. I trust that the Bill will have a swift passage through both Houses.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I join with previous speakers in the debate in supporting the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Distribution of Surplus to Pensioners) Bill 1976. 1 indicate, as they have indicated, that it is a very simple, straightforward measure. In fact, it gives authority to pay the surplus funds to those who are entitled to a share of the surplus contributions to a compulsory superannuation fund between July 1964 and September 1972. The total amount involved is $6,337,000.

I take this opportunity to say that no man in this Parliament has contributed more in kind to the introduction of this Bill than has the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), who preceded me in the debate. Indeed, I believe that all ex-servicemen throughout Australia who know of the activities of and the contribution by the honourable member for Herbert, in relation to not only this matter but also other matters concerning ex-servicemen, would join with me in saying a very big thank-you to him. After all, he understands the situation and the problems of ex-servicemen, and he certainly has stayed with them right through to the bitter end, often for many years. It was the honourable member who, way back in 1972, commenced negotiations to have this procedure implemented. It was only because of a change of government in late 1972 that he did not succeed on that occasion. But the strange thing is that we have had to wait for more than 3 years for the decision to be made and for the Bill to be brought before the House.

I disagree with my Opposition colleagues when they say that they have done more for exservicemen than has the present Government. This is a typical illustration of something that they did not do during the 3 years they were in government. One must conclude by asking the simple question: Why? Maybe it was because of their attitude that they could keep this $6m in Consolidated Revenue in order to improve the appearance of the deficit that they had at the time. I join with other speakers in the debate in commending the Government, firstly, for introducing the Bill and, secondly, for ensuring that it was introduced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Bill 1976.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Amendment Bill 1 976.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1 976.

Superannuation Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 976.

Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1976.

Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1976.

Health Insurance Levy Bill 1976.

Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 976. Income Tax (Rates) Bill 1976. Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1976.

page 3058

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1976.

Northern Territory (Administration) Amendment Bill 1976.

Supply Bill (No. 1)1976-77. Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77.

page 3059

CRIMES (AIRCRAFT) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Ellicott

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This Bill seeks to amend the Crimes (Aircraft) Act. Part II of the Act relates to offences that have been committed on board aircraft engaged in certain flights. Part III refers to crimes affecting aircraft. Part IV relates to proceedings and jurisdiction. The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) referred to section 18 which is part of Part III, which makes it an offence for a person to carry or place dangerous goods on an aircraft, to deliver them to another person to be placed on an aircraft or have them in his possession on an aircraft. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 7 years. Thereby it becomes an indictable offence because of the nature of the imprisonment, the indictable offence being applicable because of section 42 of the Acts Interpretation Act which provides for offences punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 6 months to be indictable unless the contrary intention appears.

Part IV provides that the consent of the Attorney-General is needed for all prosecutions although arrests may be made and charges may be laid without such consent. Section 22 of the Act confers jurisdiction on State and Territory courts. The proposal alters the existing procedural law relating to offences against section 18 and inserts a new section- proposed new 22a which provides that offences that are indictable offences can be dealt with in a certain manner which is deemed to be in a summary manner. Sub-section (2) of proposed new section 22a permits a person who pleads guilty at committal proceedings to be committed to a higher court to be dealt with otherwise than on indictment if the law in the State or Territory where he is charged makes such provision. There are State and Territory laws that permit that practice. This is, in effect, a summary conviction in the lower court with only the sentence being dealt with by the higher court. As such it is not covered by the existing law in section 22 of the Act which applies relevant State and Territory laws relating to committal for trials but does not refer to committal for sentence. I am advised that in some States specific provision is made for the person to alter his plea in the higher court and the matter either to be dealt with as if he had been committed for trial or returned to the lower court for the continuation of the committal proceedings. It may be that in all States the accused is not finally bound by his plea of guilty at committal proceedings, but this is not certain.

Sub-sections (3) and (4) of proposed new section 22a provide that where both the prosecution and the defence agree and where the magistrate thinks it appropriate the lower court may deal with the matter summarily. In such a case reduced penalties will apply with a fine of $ 1 ,000 or imprisonment for one year or both as the maximum penalty rather than a maximum period of imprisonment of 7 years if the matter is heard on indictment. This procedure applies regardless of the local ordinance in the State or Territory. Where the person is charged under proposed new sub-section (2) honourable members will note that this provision refers to a committal to a higher court; where it is under proposed new sub-section (3) it refers to the summary jurisdiction being dealt with in accordance with proposed new sub-section (4).

In his second reading speech on the Bill the Attorney-General stated that the need for the new law arose out of cases arising under section 18 where dangerous goods were found in the luggage of a person who had not obtained permission to carry them. Where the offence did not warrant a jury trial it should be dealt with summarily, but persons committing more serious offences under the section, where there was a chance of the maximum penalty being imposed, would still be prosecuted on indictment. It appears that these comments of the AttorneyGeneral apply more to the second new procedure made possible by the new section- that is the summary trial of offences with reduced maximum penalties- than they do to the first new procedure allowing committal for sentence. In cases where a higher court imposes a sentence there are no limitations on the maximum penalties which may be imposed so that the new procedure may apply to very serious offences under section 18 as well as to less serious offences.

It seems sensible to provide that minor offences should be dealt with by lower courts and that in such cases lesser penalties should apply. There is a problem, however, that the accused person might be induced to forgo the protection of a jury trial to avoid the possibility of higher penalties. In that regard I rely on the good sense and fairness of the Attorney-General who made the point that the consent of the AttorneyGeneral would be required in any prosecution and, further, that the consent of both the prosecutor and the defendant will be required before the summary procedure is adopted. The Opposition has no objection to the Bill.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-It was a great pleasure to hear the comments on this legislation of two eminent lawyers, namely the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Ellicott) who represents the seat of Wentworth, and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). Of course, both of these honourable gentlemen are my immediate neighbours in the federal electorate of Phillip, the Attorney-General to the north and the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith to the south. But be that as it may, I regard the Bill before us as a most useful piece of legislation. In particular I refer to proposed new section 22a sub-section (2). The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith drew attention to that part of the legislation which contains provision for a plea after committal for sentence. Of course, New South Wales for many years has had complementary legislation in the form of section 5 1a of the Justices Act. Prior to that section coming into force the situation was that where someone decided to plead guilty in an indictable matter the witnesses had to be called and the evidence had to be presented to the magistrate and in due course the accused was committed for trial before a judge and jury. Therefore, where the accused in fact wanted to plead guilty this procedure still had to be gone through. Of course, section 51a was invoked and the situation was that no witnesses were called. Statements of the brief and of the evidence were prepared and handed up to the magistrate and if he thought on the face of this that he should accept the plea he would and commit the accused for sentence, without, as I have said, the necessity of running through the totality of the evidence. As I said, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith referred to the continuation of the plea and I would hope that the Attorney-General might give some thought to that situation.

It is often found, under section 5 1a of the Justices Act, that prior to pleading guilty at criminal court, at quarter sessions or wherever it might be, a situation has emerged which might be fortunate for the accused. I refer to such things as witnesses no longer wishing to testify, witnesses having died or having gone overseas; or there could be other witnesses who could speak as to his innocence. The accused then has the right, without being queried by the presiding judge, to change his plea to one of not guilty and those proceedings are remitted back to the magistrate and continued on the basis of a plea of not guilty. I hope that the Attorney-General will give some thought to incorporating at a later stage that particular provision which is a great safeguard to an accused person.

I am dealing with section 18 of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act and it may be relevant at this stage to read to the Parliament the nature of that section. It says:

  1. 1 ) Subject to this section, a person shall not-

    1. carry or place dangerous goods on board an aircraft to which this Part applies;
    2. deliver dangerous goods to a person for the purpose of their being placed on board such an aircraft; or
    3. have dangerous goods in his possession on such an aircraft.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

In a proper case, and here I am referring to proposed new section 22a (3) in this Bill, a magistrate, with the consent of the defendant and the prosecution, can proceed to deal with the matter there and then. The operative words, as I see the situation, in that proposed sub-section are ‘ may ‘, which obviously vests in the magistrate an absolute discretion whether to commit or not, and ‘if it is proper to do so’.

As the Attorney-General mentioned in his second reading speech, there are numerous examples where it would not be proper to commit for trial, such as the placing on board an aircraft for legitimate reasons of a case or some container containing a rifle to be used on a hunting expedition, without any malice aforethought and without any improper motives. It is apparent that in such cases it would be a great waste of time and public expense as well as worry to an accused to send him for trial or for plea before a judge. It would be a waste if the magistrate did not have power finally to dispose of the matter. No doubt the magistrate, prior to embarking on that course, would direct those questions to himself and ascertain whether it was proper, in the terms of that particular sub-section, to take into consideration the type of goods in question which were the subject of the charge and the reasons for their being placed on the aircraft. After that type of deliberation he could then come to a decision about dealing with the matter. I can envisage other cases involving dangerous goods that would not be subject to his discretion; in other words, because of the horrendous nature of the matter he would think that it was a proper case to go before a judge and jury, or a judge for sentence.

If honourable members will bear with me, I remember some few years ago I appeared in the case of the Queen v. Macari. That was the case of the now legendary Mr Brown who placed an explosive article on board an aircraft for the purpose of extorting some $500,000 from Qantas Airways Ltd.

Mr James:

– He got it too.

Mr BIRNEY:

-He got it and he held on to it for a little time.

Mr James:

– He has still got some of it salted away.

Mr BIRNEY:

-No, the honourable member for Hunter is wrong again. If my memory serves me right almost all of it was recovered, apart from a few dollars here and there that everyone is trying to track down. I remember there was a police investigation but the fact of the matter is that that money was recovered almost in toto.

Mr James:

– If you got none of it, I do not know how he paid his fee.

Mr BIRNEY:

– I understand he had a rich uncle somewhere. I am pleased I did not send him a bill because he is still in prison.

Mr James:

– By the way, he is up at Maitland.

Mr BIRNEY:

-He is up at Maitland. We are getting sidetracked. That would be one illustration of a case when a magistrate certainly would exercise his discretion not to deal with it himself and would send the matter to trial. This Bill is to be commended. As I said earlier, it is a most useful piece of legislation and certainly will reduce the cumbersome and time consuming procedures heretofore adopted.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I must admit I had never taken a deep interest in this legislation until a short time ago. I was pleased to hear, and I agree with in part, some of the submissions put by a former eminent criminal counsel, and one who was fairly well respected by all quarters of the community, the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney). I do not suggest for one moment that part of the legal fee when he appeared for Mr Brown was paid out of the $500,000 Qantas Airways Ltd robbery. He never had that kind of reputation. I agree with the honourable member’s appeal to the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) to give consideration to implementing what is commonly regarded by the honourable member for Phillip and people of my type as the intention of section 5lA of the Justices Act of New South Wales. That section of the Act expedites committal proceedings without witnesses having to be dragged from different corners of the State or even from overseas. I regret that that provision is not available for similar procedures, particularly in connection with this Crimes (Aircraft) Act, because in cases involving this legislation it is more likely that the witnesses would not be local and would have to come from interstate to attend committal proceedings. No doubt the Attorney-General will consider implementing this at the appropriate time. As the honourable member for Phillip pointed out, the statements of evidence are prepared and handed to the magistrate. If the defendant wishes to plead guilty the statements go forward as if they were evidence typed by a deposition clerk, as was done under the old proceedings.

I speak personally when I say that I think the penalty in this case, a maximum of 7 years imprisonment, is not harsh enough. Probably the honourable member for Phillip would not agree with me because he may have to go back to the criminal Bar to continue his profession after the next election, and I do not say that to him offensively.

Mr Bourchier:

– You are not going back to the police force, are you?

Mr JAMES:

-I do not think that is likely. If the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) goes up to the Hunter electorate he will find it a bit difficult. I do not think that 7 years imprisonment is long enough. Actually, today, under the present system, whatever the maximum sentence is, if an accused person or offender receives the maximum sentence he only serves about half of it, sometimes one-third of it, before being released on parole. I would like to see this Parliament, and Australia, set an example to people who are inclined to commit serious crimes on aircraft. This Parliament should give a lesson to the world.

I am going to go a lot further. I might astonish all members of the Parliament when I say that a 7-year sentence is not long enough. The person gets out in 2 or 3 years on parole. I should like to see a provision made whereby the AttorneyGeneral has to set when a person is to be paroled. The Attorney-General would be answerable to this Parliament; he would be answerable to the people of Australia. He would have to be more careful than a few sentimentalists on a parole board or some judges not answerable to the public and not answerable to Parliament who recommend parole in 18 months when the maximum sentence for a serious crime is 7 years. This is happening every day. Aircraft crime is stunning people throughout the world. It will become more prevalent throughout the world and in this country. We should lead off, not wait until it becomes more prevalent and then say that we will increase the maximum sentence. We should strike out and do so now.

I raise another point. I do not want to try to astonish anyone, but I have seen cases where big money is involved and juries that obviously have been tampered with. I have said this before in this Parliament. In the not too distant future I want to see the situation whereby a majority of ten out of twelve jurors can return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. It should not have to be a unanimous decision. One juror may hang out through evil influence or even sectarianism as referred to in Clarence Darrow’s books, and as referred to by Quentin Reynolds in his book Court Room which no doubt the AttorneyGeneral and other lawyers in the place have read. With regard to sectarianism, one of the jurors may happen to be of a certain faith and the accused in the dock is of a certain faith and a juror may stick out for a certain verdict and abort the trial. Either there has to be a retrial or the Attorney-General does not file a second indictment.

In my view these are things that should have been looked at a long time ago. The AttorneyGeneral and the honourable member for Phillip might even concede me this: These things have been looked at by the mother country in connection with criminal law reform. The Home Secretary in the House of Commons is looking at these things. There is no longer an insistence on a unanimous decision by jurors. I would be happy if the amendment went further than this and said that in connection with a crime on an aircraft where the penalty is 7 years or more a majority decision of ten in a jury of twelve shall be accepted. The Attorney-General looks at his watch. I have the message. It is said that when you are boring and your opponent looks at his watch it is time to consider winding up, but when he shakes it and puts it up to hear whether it is still going, you are positive you should sit down.

However, I wish to raise another matter. It relates to a recidivist criminal perpetrating a serious crime on an aircraft. When we used to ask a villainous criminal lawyer what was going to be bis defence at a trial, he always used to say, off the record: ‘I will hear what you say in the low court and I will cut my cloth to suit’. In the criminal courts in England in recent years there have been only 42 per cent of convictions for serious crimes. It has the English law enforcement authorities worried. My point is that I should like to see the Attorney-General if not now, then at some future date giving serious consideration to the proposal that an accused person in a magistrates court, after the Crown evidence is given, should have to give some indication of his defence which he will tender at the superior court sitting. I think that would only be fair and in the interest of Australia as a whole and would deter the recidivist criminals from becoming involved in serious crimes on aircraft. Those are my submissions.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

– I briefly join this debate on the Bill designed to amend the Crimes (Aircraft) Act. This Bui clearly is one that demonstrates a practical and reasonable approach to a problem that has concerned our legislators. We have been involved in a situation where from time to time we have been required to use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. The offences that are listed as relating to this type of crime are such that many innocent people or unthinking people could be involved in a contravention of the Act. The Act, as it stands, requires the processes of the law to be placed before a judge and a jury. This often contributes to a somewhat farcical situation. The Act, as it currently stands, establishes an offence as having been a contravention of the Act by carrying or placing dangerous goods on an aircraft, of delivering dangerous goods to a person for the purposes of being placed on an aircraft, etc., etc.

No doubt many honourable members who are in the habit of travelling on aircraft fairly fre- quently will have observed instances where in e letter of the law, these particular provisions may have been contravened. It is not necessary to give effect to some measure that could damage an aircraft structurally to place it in great peril. There is ample scope for a deranged passenger or a passenger with malicious intent to imperil the aircraft just as if he had placed in luggage some explosive charge which would perhaps achieve a more dramatic and immediate result. Indeed, since travelling economy class, as is the fashion of parliamentarians today, I have become acutely aware of some of the potentially lethal articles that are carried on aircraft. I feel that the aircraft- certainly the passengers- are constantly under threat from anything from did.geridoos to French umbrellas which, in the hands of a person deranged or with malicious intent, could imperil the welfare of the aircraft. The safety of the aircraft is in the hands of the pilot in command. If any device, no matter how humble in its domestic character could be used for purposes other than that for which it was designed, the aircraft could certainly be at grave risk. These amendments will ensure that the circumstances of the contravention will not necessarily automatically come within the ambit of the statutes as previously existing in the Crimes Aircraft Act of 1963-73.

One attraction of the Bill is that it ensures that an accused person will retain his right to insist on a trial by his peers for any offence against this Act. The consent of the Attorney-General will be required for any prosecution instituted for an offence against this Act. This will ensure that there is adequate control of proceedings arising out of any infringement of the Act’s provisions. There are many situations that could bring the provisions of this Act to bear. It should not be construed as a retreat from those very stringent safety precautions that are applied to travel by the various airlines of this country and throughout the world.

The accident record and the safety element in travelling by regular public transport in this country are matters of considerable renown. This Bill certainly does not suggest that we are retreating from that very important consideration of the wellbeing of people who travel by aircraft. I can imagine a no more horrendous crime than that perpetrated by a person who deliberately puts at risk the lives of innocent travellers by some devious plan to bring about the misadventure of an aircraft. The Bill is a very practical approach to a problem. I am sure that any thinking member would find little occasion on which to differ on the thrust of the Bill. I must confess that I have a great deal of sensitivity in response to the suggestion of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) that the sentence attached to a crime under the Act- 7 years- seems to be quite inadequate in terms of the horrendous nature of the crimes that people are inclined to perpetrate from time to time. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth) AttorneyGeneral) (2.39)- The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) raised a point with which the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) agreed, that I should look at the principal Act with a view to making sure that all the provisions of the State law relating to the taking of a plea of guilty were incorporated.

The honourable member for Hunter was referring to section 5 1a of the Justices Act. Certainly I will take that into account. I had thought that the section we are inserting in the Act did incorporate it, because it will be recalled that it says: . . . may be dealt with in accordance with that law. ‘That law’ would include all the provisions of that law and would include, one would hope, section 51a; but I will have a closer look at it. I had thought it did incorporate it. If I come to the view that it does not, we can take it into account in any future amendment of the Act.

The honourable member for Hunter referred to the term of imprisonment. I refer him to sections 14 and 15. They deal with what might be called the more horrendous criminal acts in relation to aircraft. Section 14 states:

A person shall not by an Act or thing capable of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft to which this Part applies with intent to prejudice that safe operation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for fourteen years.

Section 1 8 provides for imprisonment for 7 years. It was put in the Act in 1 963. This type of offence has become much more prevalent since 1963. It is a matter I am quite happy to look at. The honourable member mentioned parole. I would only say to him- I am sure he knows this- that as Attorney-General I am the parole officer for all Commonwealth prisoners. That is the role of the Attorney-General. I have to make all recommendations to the Governor-General on the paroling of Commonwealth prisoners, including Territory prisoners.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3063

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Staley

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I support the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill. Chiefly, it removes a grave salary injustice suffered by the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. At the moment he is in the embarrassing position of being paid considerably less than some of his principal technical officers. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is an extremely efficient body which provides an excellent and very consistent electricity supply to the people of Canberra at reasonable tariffs. It is quite unfair that the Chairman should suffer a salary injustice.

According to the second reading speech of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) this Bill will amend the Act in 3 areas. Firstly, it replaces all references to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council with references to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. This is a purely legalistic amendment, since so far the Assembly has no greater formal powers than the previous Advisory Council had. Judging by the progress that is being made in this direction by the Government it will be some time before the Assembly gets any substantial powers. Secondly, the opportunity is taken by the existence of this Bill to update the language of the principal Act, bringing it into line with current drafting practice. Thirdly and most importantly, as I have mentioned, the Bill amends the provisions of the principal Act dealing with the remuneration and allowances of members of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority.

As I have said, under existing legislation the remuneration of the Chairman or his temporary replacement is determined by the GovernorGeneral while other members nave their attendance fees determined by the Minister. This method of remuneration has led to senior staff such as the top engineers employed by the Authority being better paid than the Chiarman purely because of the failure to review the Chairman’s salary. It has become the general practice for the salaries and fees of people in positions similar to the ACTEA Chairman and members to be set in the same manner as those of members of Parliament. These officers are placed in a similar position of deprivation as members of Parliament, particularly back benchers, because of the failure of the Remuneration Tribunal to update salaries. Other officers in a similar position are the Australian Captial Territory Fire Commissioner, the Chairman and members of the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission, and Chairman and members of the Interim Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education Authority. They are all placed in this rather unenviable position. This amendment will bring the principal Act into line with current legislative practice.

Considering the vulnerability of the Australian Capital Territory to shortages and interruptions to deliveries of fuel and electricity, this Bill will have presented an excellent opportunity for the Government to introduce an energy and fuel authority for the Territory. The Electricity Authority could be expanded to become the A.C.T. fuel authority. This was suggested by a former very enlightened Minister for the Capital Territory, the honourable member for Wills (Mr

Bryant). If the Australian Labor Party Government had not been interrupted and obstructed in the way it was we well may have had an A.C.T. fuel authority by now. It would have responsibility for the distribution of electricity, petroleum products and forms of fuel other than petrol. All of these are required for heating by all sections of the community, that is, public, private, commercial and industrial.

There are 2 very good reasons why such an authority should be established. The first is that at present the A.C.T. relies totally on imported fuel, and in the past supplies have been subject to the vagaries of the supplier, the delivering companies, or industrial action by unions involved in the production or delivery of these fuels. The fuels authority would be required to establish storage facilities for both liquid and solid fuels so that the community could withstand any delivery problems for up to 3 months. As this stock of fuel would be for community services its cost should be provided for by the community. At the same time the authority could be allowed to trade in fuel in the market place to help defray costs for holding large stocks of fuel and to remove any possibility of fuel degradation while allowing the stocks to be totally idle rather than being continually moved into and out of storage. The second function of such a fuel authority could be to derive, promote and co-ordinate rational and efficient fuel usage within the Australian Capital Territory. At present the major fuels used for non-transport consumption are electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel oil, heating oil, furnace oil, wood and a limited amount of both brown and black coal. Electricity and petroleum products account for 90 per cent of the total fuel consumed in the Territory.

Future energy demand patterns and the most suitable forms of fuel to meet these demands have to be examined and some form of policy formulated, firstly, to reduce the impact of increases in fuel prices, particularly for petroleum products, and secondly, to guarantee supplies of economic alternative fuels as the future supplies of indigenous crude oil run down and the country as a whole becomes more reliant on imported crude oil. Of course the importance of both these requirements depends on the growth rate and the growth pattern of the A.C.T. The present Government with its financial constraints has reduced the Public Service growth rate, but the A.C.T. has grown to the point where it tends to be self-generating to an extent with a demand for growth in light industry, service industry, which could cause a shift in energy usage. Under existing structures of the A.C.T., the Electricity Authority undertakes forward projections for electricity demand, but these forecasts tend to be in isolation from or competition with other fuel sources rather than coordinated with forecasts of future demand for other fuels.

As the cost of petroleum products increases the A.C.T. will become more reliant on the supply of electricity from New South Wales. At present about 30 per cent of its requirements come from that source. The capacity of the New South Wales system is more than adequate to meet the demands of the Territory for a considerable time. Because of the scale of its operations, capital costs of increased supply are lower to the individual user than would be the case for any power plant construction in the A.C.T. Further, through the participation in the New South Wales inter-connected grid the Australian Capital Territory has a higher level of reliability of supply than would exist if it were isolated to its own scheme and the Snowy Mountains hydroelectricity scheme.

Although it would be very uneconomic for the fuel authority to undertake its own electricity generation, one of the authority’s functions would be to examine means of reducing the demand for electricity. On the surface, 2 options seem applicable to reducing the future electricity demand. They are, of course, natural gas and solar energy. Unfortunately, natural gas reserves are not situated near the Australian Capital Territory, and it would appear that a spur line from the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline is now unlikely to be built. This failure to connect the Australian Capital Territory to the main gas grid is regrettable, because at this time studies have shown that the connection of the Australian Capital Territory, with gas reticulation in a typical Australian Capital Territory new town, is a viable economic proposition. At present the reserves of gas in the Cooper Basin are inadequate to meet the projected demand of Sydney and Adelaide, let alone the Australian Capital Territory. If reserves are doubled in the near future there may still be a possibility of piping natural gas to Canberra.

Solar energy for domestic use and for low heat for commercial use is another proposition. Not only is it technically feasible, but if approached on a sufficient scale it is economically viable. As the co-ordinator of energy use, the fuel authority could request that all major office blocks in the Australian Capital Territory derive their hot water and room heating from solar heaters and have electric or oil units to supplement the system. Another area in which the fuel authority could aid the implementation of solar heaters is government housing, by requesting the contractors to install solar units which met the authority’s specifications. All these are real possibilities which in the present situation should be investigated. Although Western Australia already has a Fuel and Power Commission, the introduction of a progressive fuel authority in the Australian Capital Territory, which demonstrated that co-ordinated and planned energy consumption was practical, could act as a model for other parts of Australia, particularly eastern Australia. It would ensure that an imbalance was not developed by the overutilisation of electricity in competition with alternative sources of energy and that there was a more rational approach to matching the demand for energy with the finite resources available in Australia.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– I support the Bill. I support many of the remarks made by my Canberra colleague, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), who has given us an interesting talk on some positive and possible future fuel uses in the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill is predominantly a machinery measure. It brings the salary situation of senior officers of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority into line with that of comparable officers elsewhere. As the honourable member for Fraser has pointed out, the Bill does this on an equitable basis. I take the opportunity to commend the Authority for the fine work it is doing in Canberra at this time and to point out that in this fair national capital electricity is one of the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy. The Authority was set up in 1963 to serve the national capital, and has done so very well. Its costs of production, using about 75 per cent Snowy Mountains scheme electricity- the balance is picked up from the New South Wales grid- is very efficient. The efficiency of this body is well known. A measure of the efficiency of public utilities in Canberra is often seen in our schools, where over the last several years essential maintenance work has fallen a little behind and this has been a bone of contention with many school teachers. I am pleased to say that, whereas some maintenance work has been slow, on the whole the maintenance work done by the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority has been done quickly and efficiently. 1 commend the amendments contained in this Bill.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Teritory · Chisholm · LP

-in reply- I thank the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) for their constructive remarks. The honourable member for Fraser referred to a fuel policy. His remarks were not entirely related to the Bill. Nevertheless, they were interesting comments. Comments such as those made by both honourable members are being considered by the Government at the moment in its general consideration of a fuel policy for the Australian Capital Territory. I thank both honourable members for their constructive, helpful and accurate remarks about the work of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. I thank the honourable member for Fraser for his remarks about the Chairman of the Authority.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3066

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill presented by Mr Malcolm Fraser, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I move:

This is a Bill to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act. As honourable members know, the Government has repeatedly declared its support for the objectives of the Heritage Commission. We are committed to the protection of the national estate. With the co-operation and goodwill of other spheres of government and the community, we are determined to ensure that the principles set out in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate are honoured.

The amendments to the Heritage Commission Act set out in the Bill are designed to improve its effectiveness. They will establish it now as an efficient and meaningful advisory body, within the framework of government, providing top level advice on action to protect the national estate. At the same time, the amendments show the Government’s desire to ensure that its priority objective of responsibility and restraint in economic management is reflected in the procedures and working arrangements adopted by the Commission.

When the Government assumed office in December it began a detailed and thorough review of the economy and of the administrative arrangements established for the carrying out of existing policies and programs. One of these policies was the national estate, where the Act for the Australian Heritage Commission had established a body at the national level to advise the Government on the preservation of the national estate. Honourable members will know that the Bill for the Heritage Commission was supported in both Houses and that the Act received royal assent in June 1975. However, only the Chairman of the Commission had been appointed at the time when the Government took office in December.

The Act in its present form provides that the Commission shall be constituted by a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 19 part-time commissioners. We believe that such a large number is unnecessary and that the functions of the Commission can be carried out more effectively by a Chairman and 6 part-time members. In addition to reducing the number of commissioners, the Bill provides that up to 2 members of the Commission may be Permanent Heads of departments, or chairman of authorities, instead of the existing provision for up to 6 public servants. The needs of the Commission for specialised advice can be met by section 45 of the Act, so amended as proposed in the Bill, which enables the Commission to appoint expert committees with the approval of the Minister.

It is intended to remove the specific reference in the Act for the Commission to advise on expenditure and grants of financial assistance. The conservation and improvement of the national estate does not depend solely, or even principally, on the expenditure of vast sums of public moneys. Fundamentally, the responsibility for protecting the national estate is one that rests on the whole community, including governments. Proper attitudes, sound planning, and enlightened decision-making, taking account of all the facts, are the whole basis of responsible environmental protection. With respect to future appropriations for national estate purposes, the Government will of course seek the advice of the Commission. The Commission will be required to give positive and comprehensive advice to the Government on the whole range of ways in which particular elements of the national estate can be protected. As its first task, the Commission will proceed urgently with the preparation of the register of the national estate so that priorities can be examined on a factual and systematic basis, and not piecemeal. Indeed that work has been going on, as honourable members would probably know. The register is an important planning document because it will provide essential information for the Government in making decisions on policies and programs. As soon as the register is well advanced the Government will be in a position to consider all the necessary action for the protection of places recorded in the register, including the question of financial assistance, and in conjunction with State and local governments. We are particularly keen to see that the Commission carries out its functions in full consultation with all appropriate departments and authorities both at the Commonwealth level and at the State level.

Section 8 of the Act will be amended to give effect to this broad consultative role of the Commission. In particular we are providing in the Bill that the Commission consult with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Honourable members will appreciate that a most significant part of the National Estate concerns Aboriginal sites. These raise issues that can be quite complex. The Bill provides that the Commission, in preparing the register, should act in respect of Aboriginal sites only when those sites are protected under State or Territory laws, or in accordance with the direction of the Minister, or on the recommendation of a person or organisation approved by the Minister. For example, in the Northern Territory it could be on the recommendation of the Land Commissioner under legislation that already had been introduced into this House. One of the things we are seeking to avoid is having 2 authorities with separate responsibilities but making recommendations perhaps in relation to the same site and also perhaps coming to different conclusions. That obviously would lead to difficulties which it would be far better to avoid. With respect to Aboriginal areas it is the Land Commissioner in the Northern Territory- I take this as just one example- who should have the authority. This is to ensure the necessary degree of co-ordination and control in this sensitive area of the Australian heritage.

It is proposed to amend section 32 of the Act by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3). This will have the effect of removing an anomaly that arose when the Act was passed last year whereby the Chairman of the Commission who is, of course, a part-time office holder, was vested with the powers of a permanent head under the Public Service Act. I might add that the interim chairman is quite happy with that arrangement. He did not expect to have the powers of a permanent head. The power of the Chairman in relation to the staff of the Commission will be provided for by amendment of the Act and by administrative arrangements. Staff will be provided to service the Commission from departmental resources. The Act provides that the services of officers or employees of the Commonwealth Government may be made available to the Commission and this will be done in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman will have appropriate powers in relation to staff made under this arrangement.

There are a number of other small consequential amendments and some of a machinery nature included in the Bill. The principal amendments, however, are designed to ensure that the Commission is established as an efficient and effective unit of government working within the Government’s overall policies, and with other departments and authorities in order to bring forward policy advice to the Government on the protection of the national estate.

Finally, I wish to inform honourable members of the arrangements made to get the Heritage Commission established at the earliest possible date, and to ensure that effective action is taken to protect the National Estate. Consideration is being given to the appointment of Commissioners and their names will be announced as soon as the necessary procedures are completed. This will certainly be in the relatively near future.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission’s first task is to start work on the register. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in identifying and recording those places that are important to our heritage, and the Government is keen to see that the full resources of the Commission are applied to this task as quickly as possible. The Commission will be assisted, I am sure, by work already done in this field by the National Trust bodies. Although in the current economic circumstances the Government does not propose to include funds in the Budget this year for grants to the States for National Estate purposes, other than for existing commitments, 1 can assure the House that we accept our responsibilities for the protection of the National Estate, in the light of the evidence of urgent need disclosed through the preparation of the register. There have been programs of assistance in past years, that have been most fruitful, and very well received in the States. This is a year now for consolidation and planning, and the Commission will take full advantage of this opportunity to get its operations on to a firm basis for the future.

These arrangements that I have announced show our determination to achieve a responsible balance between conservation of the environment and economic growth. They show also our concern to work with the States and the voluntary bodies, and indeed with the whole community for the improvement of environmental and conservation standards. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 3068

OMBUDSMAN BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
WentworthAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Ombudsman Bill seeks to establish the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman for the purpose of investigating complaints about the administrative actions of officials of government departments, statutory authorities and other official bodies. This Bill will compliment the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, passed by the Parliament last year, and which is to come into operation on 1 July next. That Act provides for appeals against decisions of Ministers and officials in specified cases. The Ombudsman will be empowered to investigate grievances by members of the public about administrative actions of officials and staff of Commonwealth departments, statutory authorities and other government agencies.

This Bill, like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, had its origin in the report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir John Kerr, then Mr Justice Kerr. That Committee did not recommend an ombudsman in the form that would be established by the present Bill, but since that Committee reported in 1971 ombudsmen on the pattern of the New Zealand Ombudsman have been established in5 of the 6 Australian States. They have demonstrated a very great need for the office.

Passage of the present Bill will leave a third aspect of the Kerr Committee’s report still to be implemented. That aspect relates to the review by the courts of acts of administrative officers. This is presently achieved by the ancient and cumbersome prerogrative writs. It is important that, in addition to the provision for investigation by an ombudsman of a complaint or appeal to a tribunal on the merits of a decision, the citizen should have ready access to the courts to ensure that the actions of administrative officials are subject to judicial review. I have instructed my Department to prepare proposals to implement this third aspect of the Ken Committee’s report. When all this legislation is on the statute books the Commonwealth will have one of the most comprehensive and effective systems of administrative review in the world. The present Bill is substantially the same as the Bill that was before the Senate last year and which lapsed on the dissolution of the Parliament. During the passage through this House of the Bill introduced by the Labor Government we secured a number of important amendments, so that the Bill that lapsed was one having the support of both sides of the Parliament.

Mr Speaker, the office of ombudsman is found in many countries of the modern world. The concept of that office as we know it today first emerged in the Scandinavian countries early in the nineteenth century. Other countries, especially those of the common law world, were slow to accept the need for the office. The first was New Zealand in 1962. The United Kingdom followed in 1967. Five of the 6 Australian States have established the office in the last5 years. Six of the Canadian Provinces have ombudsmen.

As a relatively new institution in the common law countries the ombudsman has attracted considerable attention from commentators. There is as a result a fairly widespread understanding of his methods of operation. I should however give an outline of the significance of the contribution that the Commonwealth Ombudsman will make to our policy for an improved system of administrative review.

The ombudsman’s function is to investigate complaints about administrative actions of officials. His concern is principally with the manner or the procedures by which officials have gone about the matter that is the subject of complaint. A complaint to the ombudsman may be directed at a case of delay; or of failure to take sufficient account of certain arguments put by the complainant; or of disregard of a person’s privacy as officials make inquiries or go about their duties. The most appropriate general description is that his work is directed at the correction of cases of maladministration- a term which has been described as including bias, neglect, delay, inattention, incompetence, ineptitude, perfersity, turpitude and arbitrariness. Not every complaint to the ombudsman uncovers a case of maladministration. Reports of ombudsmen in those jurisdictions in which the office is established all show in the great majority of cases that the action taken was correct and that the complaint was unjustified.

Let it not be thought, however, that in those circumstances the Ombudsman is not a necessary institution. If the staff of departments or government authorities are discharging their dudes as expected standards of performance it must follow that the Ombudsman should find against them in only a minority of cases. But the important element is that the citizen who considered that he had a legitimate complaint about official action, or who was doubtful about what was done in his case, has available an external and impartial investigator to inquire into the matter. The strength of the Ombudsman’s work lies in the independence and impartiality of his investigation. His findings after inquiry are expressed in the form of a report together with recommendations for any remedial action that he considers should be taken. Failure to act on a recommendation of the Ombudsman may lead to a report on that situation being tabled in the Parliament. At no stage is the Ombudsman able to change a decision that he thinks should be reviewed. His function is not that of an appeals tribunal but he is able to recommend, with a highly persuasive influence, that a decision he thinks to be unfair or unjust should be varied or reversed.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman provided for in this Bill will be the first Ombudsman to be established in a federal jurisdiction in the world. In a country the size of Australia this aspect presents some problems in that the operations of his office must be carried out in an essentially personal manner. The Government will ensure that proper arrangements are made in the States for the receipt of complaints and interview of complainants. Because the Commonwealth has special responsibilities in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory it is necessary to ensure that the residents of those Territories have access to the Ombudsman also in respect of matters that in the States would be directed to State Ombudsmen. As I will explain later, the Bill provides, in the establishment of 2 offices of Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, for the special needs of those Territories.

I should draw attention to particular provisions of the Ombudsman Bill, for the information of honourable members. A detailed explanation of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members. In the substantive clauses the Ombudsman is empowered to investigate complaints about administrative actions of departments and prescribed authorities. The Bill defines the latter term to the effect that statutory authorities and office holders, officially established bodies and companies controlled by the

Commonwealth can be brought within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The only official bodies specifically excluded are those of a judicial nature and the elected Legislative Assemblies of the Territories. Although a complaint would normally be made to the Ombudsman before he investigates a matter, he may also initiate his own inquiries. He is given a limited discretion not to investigate complaints, on grounds related to, for instance, vexatiousness, lack of interest in a matter complained about, or other rights of appeal to a tribunal or court. Before commencing to investigate, the Ombudsman is required to inform the department or authority concerned, and the responsible Minister, of his intention. The Ombudsman is able to conduct his inquiries in a completely informal and flexible manner, according to his own judgment of needs in particular cases. He may enter premises, inspect files and other records, and obtain relevant information from any person who he thinks may be able to assist. There is provision in the Bill for persons to be put on oath and to give evidence, but it is unlikely that the Ombudsman would need to make frequent use of that power.

The Attorney-General may, under clause 9, give the Ombudsman a certificate that disclosure to the Ombudsman of certain information would be contrary to the public interest, by reason of prejudice to security or defence, or to CommonwealthState relations, or of disclosure of deliberations of Cabinet or of the Northern Territory Executive Council. In such a case the Ombudsman would not be entitled to demand that that information be given to him. Clause 1 4 of the Bill also provides that his access to premises may be restricted where this would prejudice national security or defence. Reports on investigations by the Ombudsman are to be forwarded to the complainant and to the department or authority concerned and to the responsible Minister. The Ombudsman may include recommendations for any remedial action he thinks is necessary. Where there is a failure to take adequate or appropriate action on matters revealed in a report, the Ombudsman may so inform the Prime Minister and the Parliament. The Bill contains provisions recognising the position of the Legislative Assemblies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Annual reports are to be made to the Minister administering the Ombudsman Act for tabling in the Parliament. More frequent reports may be made if the Ombudsman considers that to be desirable. The Legislative Assemblies of the Australian Capital Territory and of the Northern

Territory are to be given reports relating to actions taken under the respective enactments of these Territories.

The Bill provides for the Ombudsman and a deputy ombudsman to be appointed by the Governor-General and to hold office for a period not exceeding seven years. A deputy ombudsman is to be designated to act in relation to either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. A deputy ombudsman is given the powers of the Ombudsman in relation to action taken in the Territory for which he is designated, except the power to make reports to the Parliament. The Ombudsman and the deputies are given security of tenure in office akin to that accorded to judges, so that there is little likelihood of an ombudsman’s independence of operation being influenced by the executive Government.

It is intended that debate on the Bill should be resumed in the Budget sittings. This Bill is introduced now to give honourable members an opportunity to study it. The establishment of a Commonwealth Ombudsman will not only enable members of the public to have their grievances investigated; it will also assist this Parliament in its scrutiny of the administrative processes of government. The only sanction that the Ombudsman has, but it is a very powerful one, is in his power to report to this Parliament where a grievance is not put right to his satisfaction. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 3070

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 25 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Killen:

Defence- Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1976 - and on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure? Before the debate is resumed on this order of the day I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion and those motions contained in Order of the day No. 6, Destroyers for the Royal Australian Navy and future arrangements at Woomera, South Australia, and Order of the Day No. 7, Cadet Training Schemes. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 motions to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 motions? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– It is interesting to note that this is the first debate of its kind on defence since 1972. Apropos of that, I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) for the sense of urgency and responsibility to this nation and its people that he brought to his department when we took office. What courage and tenacity must have been required to rebuild on the wreckage which the previous Government had left-an army with morale at its lowest ebb, a navy whose remaining ships rarely sailed and an almost grounded air force. Who could forget the tragic but humorous content on the notice which appeared at the Amberley Royal Australian Air Force base when the Mirage squadron was out of action: ‘Our inactivity due to Labor pains’? The Minister’s achievements have been many in a short space of time, but the one which has impressed us all is the manner in which he extracted from the Treasury $12, 000m for a 5-year program.

I would like to make a brief comment on the quite wild and surprisingly irresponsible claims made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). I cite his reply to the Defence Minister on 25 May. Referring to the Minister, he said:

He proudly announces equipment purchases as if they were new, as if he were responsible.

Now comes the completely incorrect claim:

Every piece of equipment he mentions was ordered, or its ordering foreshadowed, by Labor.

I will refer to only two of the items mentionedthe Leopard tanks and the Rapier surface-to-air guided missiles. These items were dealt with during my term as Minister for the Army in 1 972. As a matter of fact the Rapier missiles have been under discussion for 1 1 years. I actually drove the Leopard tank myself before a decision was made. At that time the thought of the Australian Labor Party being in power was only a horrible, nightmarish possibility.

In any defence and security assessment we must now accept the concept that forward defence is out and mainland strategy and the immense problems involved is the reality. Military authorities have theorised as to what should be the order of priorities in our mainland defence planning. I would submit that the following could be the most obvious and acceptable: Firstly, surveillance; secondly, the development of forces in the north and north-west and if we are able, without dispersing our forces too much along our northern and western frontiers, Darwin to Fremantle, if you like, and Darwin to the Gulf; third command structure.

Let me briefly look at some of these requirements. In regard to surveillance, we are inclined immediately to think in terms of aircraft patrols and light boat patrols, and so we should. However, the much more effective eyes and ears of our defence must be static new generation systems particularly the sonar systems remotely controlled providing us with constant vigilance. There is now a variety of these and time does not permit me to discuss them, but no doubt they will be referred to by other speakers on the Government side, men highly qualified and experienced such as the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson). An urgent requirement obviously is the second priority I have referred to, that is the development of our forces in the north and north-west. This must be examined in regard to mobility, communications, availability of logistics and again the best use of new generation weapons. I must say right now that the whole concept of future warfare must be based on the reality of unbelievable technical advances made during recent years in the perfecting of such weapons.

Perhaps at this point I could refer to just a few of the items on the space age shopping list. It is said that precision guidance of missiles has reached such perfection that you could wipe out a selected building in Washington or Moscow without breaking a window on Capital Hill or in the Kremlin. Wire guidance, radio command, laser beam riding and terrain contour matching are but some of the fields of experimentation which have produced this perfected precision guidance.

Great technical advances have been made with night vision devices, remotely piloted vehicles, conventional explosive and warhead technology. Let me refer to the horrifying ca- pacity of two of the items under this heading, ne is bomblets. A bomb the size of a person’s fist delivered with the precision previously referred to will sink a $ 1,000m aircraft carrier. The cost of the bomb would be negligible. Another horrible possibility is fuel air explosives. This is a cloud of explosive vapour ignited to wipe out everything beneath it. If all of this were still in the experimental stage I could well be accused of wasting the time of this House and at this moment that would not be appreciated. But let be repeat that these weapons and defence systems are a reality and setting aside the nuclear element they would most certainly be used in the case of wholesale warfare. This now brings me to the most important consideration- logistic replacements. Money and effort could be well wasted if we did not pause to consider new weaponry before placing long and costly orders for weapons that could be quite useless in the new generation strategy. When we ponder on this line of thought, the $ 12,000m defence funding is anything but excessive.

One of the serious consequences of the manner in which the Labor Party when in office downgraded matters of defence was the reaction of the Australian people. In my opinion there was a deliberate and sustained effort by that iniquitous government to establish in the minds of the younger people particularly the suggestion that this country could be under threat was just another example of kicking the communist can. So not only was the security of this country an unpopular matter to contemplate- no one likes to think of war and destruction- but patriotism itself was almost presented as something to be ashamed of. How a country can degenerate under shabby and incapable political leadership ! It is encouraging to note that informed sources, informed observers, now claim that all this has changed, and not since the Vietnam war has there been a greater defence awareness amongst our Australian people. It is the duty of every member of this House to arouse his people to responsible defence and security alertness.

One of the most contemptible actions of the previous Government was the decision to abolish the cadet system. This, I think, was a part of its class hatred philosophy. How its prejudices can expose its sense of unreality! During my term as Minister for the Army the cadets I came in contact with were the sons of solid working class battler-type families. I immediately think of one of the most enthusiastic and efficient cadet groups I knew and this was at the Mount Morgan High School, a small mining community, not the mecca of sons of the idle rich. The amount of interest by the Australian people in the Cadet Corps was clearly in evidence when more than 1000 letters and submissions containing constructive suggestions were received by the Millar Committee. It is well known that the Minister for Defence was most conscious of the necessity to reintroduce the cadet system. He has done so and it is hoped that the cadets will be in business from early September.

The future defence and security of Australia could well depend on our relationship with certain countries and on developments in other potential trouble spots near and not so near to this country. Let me look at a few of them. Relations with Japan have taken a giant step forward since our Party returned to office. Not only trade arrangements, but bonds of friendship were established on an excellent and permanent basis when the Deputy Prime Minister visited Japan last February. He not only conferred with Prime Minister Miki and Trade and Industry Minister, Mr Komoto, but had most cordial discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Miyazawa. Soon the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will visit Japan, and it is interesting to note that this will be his first major overseas visit. So he has clearly indicated, as our Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) who will accompany him has done, that he regards our relations with Japan as of paramount importance. It is not only the immense trade between the 2 nations which has created this unique relationship between Australia and Japan. Ethnically Japan is certainly of the Asian family, but her dramatic westernisation, her progress in production and her capacity to enter into competition and in many cases lead the world in modern technology, has lined her up with countries such as the United States and the Western block European countries which of course include Australia. Yet with all of this, Japan has remained relatively uncommitted in the matter of balanced power on our side of the globe.

In any assessment of Australian foreign relationships and defence there is a growing belief that Papua New Guinea could well become a problem area of worrying proportions. The political situation in this emerging nation is not near as stable as it was when it became independent. The leadership of Prime Minister Michael Somare was unquestioned. The National Party was intact. Bougainville’s Father John Momis was still at least a member of the national Parliament. Now we see the suggestion that the Prime Minister could be challenged. The National Party has been decimated by resignations and John Momis, after a series of semi-resignations, ended speculation about the positions of himself and another Bougainvillean, Raphael Bele, when his official resignation was announced on 29 March.

The situation on Bougainville, where the determination to make the Republic of the North Solomons a reality, is apparently gaining momentum. To speculate on this becoming a reality is to ponder a Papua New Guinea deprived of its only substantial and permanent revenue- the great mines on Bougainville. If this is an inevitability one would hope for the sake of our northern neighbour that it might not occur before other proposed mining ventures are developed to the production stage. Then what could be a volatile situation might well be defused. I could not conclude my comments on Papua New Guinea without pointing out that Australia can take much comfort from the fact that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is our Foreign Minister. He has an experienced understanding of that country and its people. His sincerity of purpose has been appreciated by the leaders and people of Papua New Guinea at all levels.

I turn now to Lebanon. History has shown time and time again that civil war produces a special ferocity, hatred and courage. How tragically evident this is when one looks at the war in Lebanon and examines the record of slaughter and the unbelievable scenes of destruction. Less than 2 years ago this small, friendly country was drawing people from all over the world, not only because of its natural attractions which contrasted the ancient with the ultra modern- the ruins of Ba’albek with downtown Beirut. All of us who have spent time there would confirm that the major attraction was the people themselves. The Lebanese, non-Christian and Christian, had a special brand of friendship, a special warmth in their kindness. All this has changed. More people have been killed in Lebanon, in less than 18 months, than in all recent Israeli-Arab conflicts. And the world looks on, moved to genuine expressions of compassion for the Lebanese people and to conjecture as to the variety of appalling possibilities if the result of this conflict moves in one direction or another, but not inclined to set in motion any influences that might persuade both sides to halt a war that could well accelerate to wholesale genocide.

Let us examine the possibilities. Firstly, the one we all would want is the immediate end to the killing, a sensible, realistic assessment of the pressures that produced the war and a solution that would bring justice to all. Let us look at another possibility, and that is the full-scale entry into Lebanon of Syrian forces. Would this not bring forward the possibility of a large-scale Israeli-Arab war? Of course, the grand and final question is: Can the world afford to look the other way and try to convince itself that this is just another isolated conflict, an internal squabble that must be decided by the Lebanese people themselves? I think not.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

-After viewing the performance of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and studying his statement, I am certain that he is convinced that Napoleon was speaking to him personally when he made his famous statement: ‘Every private carries a general’s baton in his knapsack’. Unless the Minister for

Defence gets his feet back on to the ground, I can see him, dressed in a general’s uniform and with his aide-de-camp, perhaps a batman and a member of the women’s army, all suitably attired, following him in single file down the passageway and into the House. I can see them standing rigidly at attention while he comes to the centre table, puts one arm across his chest and holds his general’s baton in his other hand. In that stance, taken together with the moustache that he wears, he will have a striking resemblance to 2 infamous and defeated defence chiefs of yesteryear. The depth, content and substance of the promised White Paper will need to be far better than this statement, or he will quickly join Napoleon and Hitler. His demise will be organised, manipulated and directed by that arch executioner and double agent, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), in his reply to the Minister’s statement, pointed out the shallowness of the Government’s defence policy. Outside of the promise to allocate more than $ 12,000m for defence purposes over the next 5 years, nothing new appeared. The Minister was unable to give any details of the areas in which the allocations would be spent. As recorded at page 2385 of Hansard of 25 May, he frankly admitted:

The Government’s defence advisers are deeply involved in determining what priorities and what options should be included by the Government within the 5-year defence program with respect to equipment, manpower and facilities in the present state of technology and on the present outlook.

Nowhere in his statement is an immediate new initiative announced. The approvals for equipment which he detailed were already known or in the pipeline before the Labor Government was summarily dismissed from office by a general of a different type. In order to substantiate my statement I shall quote from a speech made by the then Minister for Defence, the Honourable Bill Morrison. When addressing the working session of the Sixtieth National Congress of the Returned Services League in Canberra on 25 October 1975, Mr Morrison said:

The validity of these observations -

That is, about new equipment and criticisms of it- about the lack of sound new equipment decisions in the late sixties and early seventies is clear from the value of new equipment approved and proceeded with for the following years:

In short, in the 3 Budgets for which the Labor Government had been responsible we have allocated more than twice the amount to equipment than the former Government did in its last 5 Budgets.

That statement was made by the then Minister for Defence in the Labor Government, the Honourable Bill Morrison, on 25 October 1975- only a few weeks before the Labor Government was summarily dismissed. The practice that is being adopted by this Government in deciding and announcing how much is to be allocated to pet policies without taking into account the overall budgetary demand is dangerous. I speak from experience. The Government has taken ad hoc, hastily considered decisions on defence, Medibank, taxation, family allowances, depreciation and investment allowances, funeral benefits, legal aid, the cadet scheme, child care and many other things.

The Government’s attitude seems to be to dismantle and destroy as quickly as possible all initiatives introduced by the Labor Government, irrespective of their merit or community demand. But, most seriously of all, the complaint that I can level against these decisions is that they have been taken prior to the overall consideration by the Cabinet of the departmental and statutory bodies’ requirements for 1976-77. The Government is heading for financial disaster while it follows its blind get-even approach towards the Australian Labor Party and its own pet policy approach to certain avenues of government. I warn the Government that the Opposition and the public will be scrutinising closely the spending of the promised $ 12,000m for defence purposes. We expect to get far more than the rhetoric that has been given to us in this statement by the Minister for Defence. 1 turn now to mention briefly the new cadet scheme that was announced recently by the Minister for Defence. In his announcement he stated:

Three factors were important in shaping this new scheme. The first is my belief, and I am sure this is a belief shared by all honourable members, that we have an obligation to do all we can to encourage young people to develop the qualities of leadership, discipline, self-reliance and loyalty which the previous cadet training schemes fostered.

I agree that all members of parliament, all leaders of the community, have an obligation to develop qualities of leadership, discipline, selfreliance and loyalty in our young people; but I doubt that the introduction of the new cadet scheme will achieve those aims in a wide enough section of the community for it to be of any great value. In his statement the Minister declared that the cost of the scheme will be approximately $7.6m. Involved in the operation of the new cadet scheme will be 1 14 regular servicemen and 20 public servants. In all 42 000 young male students will be covered, and a large proportion of those will come from our more affluent private schools. We see how this Government now and other governments of similar political persuasion during the period between 1949 and 1972 have shown lack of consideration of the young girls in our community. The only mention that is made of girls in relation to the new cadet system in the Minister’s statement is this:

Cadet service for girls will be given consideration after the new scheme is properly established and then the Government would welcome submissions on this.

So it will be a considerable time before the Government decides to implement even one scheme so that the qualities which are instilled in our male youths will be available to the female young people of Australia. I predict that this scheme, which is ill conceived and costly, will not be successful. The money expended will be expended wastefully. Not all of the $7.6m allocated will be taken up. The Government’s decision was taken in secret. Submissions were called for. Not one of the submissions received has been placed before the Parliament, and I think it is mentioned in the statement that 1000 submissions were received. However, a public document was presented to the Parliament on 24 July 1974. It was a report on the Army cadet corps which was compiled by a committee of inquiry chaired by Dr T. B. Millar, M.A., Ph.D., Australian National University, Director of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Canberra. The Millar Committee made certain recommendations. The first recommendation is as follows:

That the present Army Cadets system be retained, with modifications, and on a totally voluntary basis during peace time.

The Labor Government, after looking at the report that was presented to this Parliament in July 1974, decided to disband the cadet units. Most of the evidence which can be read in that report forces one to the conclusion that that cadet system was far too costly, inefficient, and unsuccessful. To illustrate my point, let me cite the numbers of cadets involved in the old cadet system. Out of a total of 1940 secondary schools in Australia catering for boys, only 312, or 16 per cent, had school cadet units. The number of boys in the Army cadet system at any one time was about 35 000. The new scheme will cover a maximum or 42 000 Army, Navy and Air Force cadets. Page 3 of the Millar report states:

If the School Cadet system is beneficial-as it is widely claimed to be- it should desirably be available to pupils at all secondary schools.

The new scheme will be available to pupils only in those schools which request it, and the maximum number of pupils who can apply to join the Army cadets is, from memory, 30 000. So there will be a decline of 5000 pupils from the outset in the Army cadet units. Another part of the report shows the value, in military terms, of cadet training. The report states at page 9:

We would estimate that, for all but a few cadets, the level of achievement reached at the end of their Cadet experience is at about the standard reached in 2-3 weeks of full-time training in a Regular Army recruit training system.

Mr Sullivan:

– Military skills.

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We are not going to get much more in the way of military skills out of the new scheme than we got out of the old one. One of the big arguments used in favour of the Army cadet units is their military value. The Millar report states that the Army cadet experience is worth two to three weeks of military training.

Mr Birney:

– On what page is that.

Mr STEWART:

-That is stated in paragraph 3.2 on page 9 of the report. Paragraph 3.12 on page 1 1 of the report states:

It is evident that the military value of Cadets is small and does not of itself justify the present annual allocation of funds and Regular Army manpower - . . . Nevertheless, it is very clear that the funds spent on Cadets could be spent in ways which would add more to Australia’s present defence capacity.

The old scheme was costing about $12m; the new scheme is estimated to cost $7. 6m. The Government, in these days when it is continually crying about economic restraint, is prepared to outlay $7.6m to implement a pet policy without taking into account the value of doing so. I wish I had time to quote from a Youth Say report titled ‘The recreational priorities of Australian young people’ which was submitted to the former Department of Tourism and Recreation following consultation with more than 12 000 young people of Australia. The results of that survey, which went into the heart of the communityyoung people in various socio-economic groups and in various areas- suggest that uniformed groups rate the lowest in relation to the recreational requirements and desires of young people between 12 and 17 years of age. The report indicates that youth workers also say that uniformed groups have the lowest priority.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-The Government is to be congratulated for its decision to reaffirm publicly our policy that it is a fundamental responsibility of the Government to safeguard the integrity and the defence of the State. The previous Government found this proposition difficult to accept. That Government led the Australian people to believe- and it did them a great disservice in so doing- that there was no foreseeable threat for 15 years. I challenge the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart), who has tried to equate the present Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) with some historic figures, to deny- if he has ever bothered to read history- that in no period of human endeavour has it been possible to foretell the threats of the future.

Let us be more specific and look at the record. Honourable members will no doubt be aware of the famous story of the Trojan horse. Did the people of Troy know what was inside that wooden horse outside their walls? They were stupid enough to believe that when the Athenian troops withdrew, the horse was simply a symbol of their desire for peace, when in fact it contained warriors who opened the gates for the invader. Let me cite more recent examples. Who was to foretell that a Napoleon was to rise from the flames of the French Revolution, that a Hitler would rise from the ashes of a Germany brought to its knees following the Great War, the Versailles Treaty and the Great Depression? The evidence is quite clear: We do not know what the future holds. What we do know as a government is that it is our fundamental responsibility to ensure that every possibility is covered in our defence planning, in our strategies. It is a sad fact that in the last 5 years, since previous governments were in power, having, on the advice of the Department of Defence, changed the emphasis from forward defence to that of the defence of Australia and her interests, we still are not in a position to say precisely what are the ramifications of the defence of Australia. The reason is clear. Ever since the 1930s the defence planners have looked at the problems of Australia in relation to the environment in which we live but very little consideration was given to the territorial defence of the continent. We still did not know, for example, what is the strength of our bridges; we did not know which ones could carry tanks and which ones could not. We still do not have airfields except the remnants of those that were built during the Second World War. We still do not have the infrastructure so that we can get our forces which are mainly concentrated on the eastern seaboard over to the west or the north or the north west which obviously are the areas in which we have to consider future defence planning.

The present Government has made it quite clear in its recent statement by the Minister that we are looking at those considerations now. It is indeed a sad fact that over the last 3 years nothing seems to have been achieved at all in that area. On the contrary, defence was given such a low priority by the last Government of compassion and concern- words which it regrettably applied in so many areas of its policy to no avail. The defence structure which is based essentially on the quality of personnel was allowed to run down in terms of morale, equipment, opportunities for training, facilities and so forth, to the extent that during the last 3 years we lost some 13 per cent of our officer corps. That represents in terms of man years something to the order of 20 000 man-years of trained officers. They cannot be picked off trees. They have to be trained and matured and given experience at junior and middle rank and ultimately senior command levels. You cannot achieve those levels of command if you do not have the troops for them to command. From the divisional structure right down to the section of the infantry regiment, there were never over the last 3 years full strengths. Yet the officers are expected to train for eventualities in respect of which the previous Government had not attempted to define.

Today we have to pick up the remnants of our defences and slowly but surely blend them and increase their efficiency to meet the requirements of Australia for at least the next 20 years. That is precisely what we are doing. Our strategic appreciation which is the essence of defence planning must examine the whole range of possible situations. It must concern itself both with an all out war situation which could erupt without Australia being able to do very much about it and also with a much lower level operation involving Australia, our near neighbours or other nations. In fact in fairly simplistic terminology one can say that there are 3 levels of threat which must be considered. At the lowest level there is the simple question of illegal immigration, illegal fishing and so forth. At the present time the Navy might just have the capacity to meet that level. It has little capacity to go above that point. The second level is a situation such as we have seen in relation to Papua New Guinea or Timor where sudden confrontation situations can develop literally overnight. In fact, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Thomson) who has had experience in these matters would not have known in 1963 that by 1965 he would be commanding his troops up in Borneo in a confrontation situation between Indonesia and Malaysia. Certainly no member of this House would have known it either. Nevertheless the facts of history show that the situation deteriorated so fast that before we knew what had happened we were virtually in a confrontation situation ourselves. That example merely goes to show those who do not wish to read their history books that even over the last decade Australia has found itself in two important military encounters- namely Vietnam and Malaysia. Of course, Australia has also been involved in Korea since the Second World War. Therefore it is quite clear that in developing one’s strategic concepts we have to build up a series of plans of the defence of Australia and Australia’s interests which by definition goes beyond the mere seaboards of the Australian coast. It is also worthwhile remembering that in the next few months we will see the results of the law of the sea conference and there is the possibility that Australia will be in charge of a territorial sea almost equal in terms of size to our entire continental land mass. Yet we do not have the capacity in terms of our Navy to defend our national interests. What would we do, for example, if some raider appeared off the coast and attacked oil rigs in Bass Strait or perhaps installations on the north west shelf when we start developing the massive reserves of gas in that area? These will need to be defended and money will have to be spent and men will have to be trained and equipment purchased.

This Parliament and the Australian people might as well start to realise the facts. If we are not praparted to defend our own national interests, if we prefer to leave in this nation a massive vacuum, be sure that the lsssons of history will again be made clear, except that we will be the ones to suffer. Some other power at some stage in the future will simply take from us that which we believe is legally and justifiably ours. You need more than law, you need strength. Certain members of the Opposition in this place and elsewhere who admire Mao Tse-Tung made it quite clear that power does grow from the end of a gun. Quite clearly, therefore, if we are to defend ourselves we must have the power to gain international respect. That can be achieved only by making it clear to all that Australia is a nation that is sovereign not just by law but by its capacity to defend its own national interests wherever those interests may lie.

The Australian Defence Review of 1972 was regrettably the last occasion on which this Parliament was given the opportunity to debate in full the strategic concepts upon which the Australian defence structure was based. In my final concluding remarks I must make the point clear that in an effective defence structure we need to have the full co-operation of the 3 defence Services and, of course, the Department of Defence. I sincerely hope that we will not see cases where I understand it took the Inter Departmental Committee some ten or eleven years to come forward with a report on the Rapier missile. We need a more effective administrative system so that the Government can receive the required information and advice as soon as possible. It is only when the decisions have been made, and the Australian people have had clearly explained to them their role that we can expect to receive the full co-operation of the nation. It is only through trying to develop that level of co-operation that we can effectively as a nation safeguard our national interests and the welfare of our people.

Motion (by Dr Cass) negatived:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I enter this debate with some hesitation because I feel that there is a certain air of madness about it. It is a certain game that we play. We spend billions of dollars a year on it. Of course, one feels it is never in earnest.

Mr Sullivan:

– Except when you get mixed up in it.

Dr CASS:

– I ask honourable members please to listen. I am not at this stage plugging the Labor Party line for the honourable gentlemen who are interrupting. I am about to disagree with some of my colleagues also. I feel that the justification given by us for arming is that we must arm to protect ourselves against ‘them’. But of course ‘they’ use exactly the same arguments to themselves to justify their arming against us. So it goes on in ever increasing little madnesses, if you like. As much as I deplore this approach to life, the feeling that the only way you get anywhere in this world is to be tough enough so that you can belt anyone else down who might threaten you instead of perhaps concentrating more on trying to talk to our would be enemies and recognising that the common humanity that exists between the 2 parties may enable us to get to a position where there is no need to arm to protect ourselves against the other fellow or vice versa. But that is a pious, naive hope on my part, and as would be expected it is greeted with laughter on all sides. So I have to rationalise and accept the fact that we arm ourselves and the other side will arm itself.

At various times hopefully there will be only minor brush fires to cope with because if ever there was a major war in these days of nuclear weapons that would be the end of us all. I think that the military planners are aware of the dangers spelt out in those 2 beautiful films, Dr Strangelove and Fail Safe. The films showed what would happen if something went wrong and nuclear weapons were dropped. If a nuclear war were to occur, I have a sneaking suspicion that we would experience the kind of horrifying scene depicted in Fail Safe. In that film the President of the United States of America was depicted as speaking with the Premier of Russia. They were the 2 warring nations, and the bomb was being dropped on Moscow. The President of America said: ‘Mr Premier, what do I have to do to persuade you it is only an accident?’ The Premier said: ‘Do I have to tell you?’ The President said: ‘No ‘, and he proceeded to order one of his own pilots to drop an atomic bomb on New York in order to prove to the Russians that it was not a deliberate attack but an accident. That is the sort of madness that I think will ensure that we do not ever have a nuclear war.

I do not believe that any military leader on either side would finally push the button for that sort of madness. But we are continuing to arm as though it is a possibility and we are spending billions and billions of dollars on it. We will probably have minor wars and that is what I want to talk about. Again we will have all the beautifully designed popguns of various sorts, tanks and so on with which to protect ourselves, but there is entering into the equation something that is worrying me. It was announced this morning when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that nuclear powered vessels would be entering our harbours.

Mr Martyr:

– Hear, hear!

Dr CASS:

– One honourable member up in the back benches on the Government side says: ‘Hear, hear!’. We are reassured that this is perfectly safe and that the vessels are not going to blow up in our harbours. This may surprise honourable members opposite, but I accept that view. I think that is true. We are assured that there is a minimal prospect of the leakage of radiation and that it is not going to be a real danger to the citizens of Sydney or Perth. I think that is probably true. However, on looking through the document entitled Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia I am tempted to mention a couple of things. For instance, in Part V of that document the authors cover the subject ‘Consideration of Accidents’. There have been some accidents. The United States submarine Thresher sank in 1963 and another United States submarine, the Scorpion, sank in 1968. The authors have a little note after the reference to those sinkings which states:

Sea water and bottom sediment samples taken near both wrecks show no measurable release of radio activity.

For how long, I wonder? For how long will the nuclear material stored in those reactors stay there and remain harmless?

Maybe with skill and care we will not have any more of those sorts of accidents. On page 14 of this report there is the heading ‘Hypothetical Accidents’ and beneath that a sub-heading ‘Reference Accident’. The report then states:

A reactor accident of sufficient severity to cause a hazardous release of radio activity to the environment has an extremely low probability . . .

I think that that is perfectly correct, and a completely honest statement. But the report continues and says that if it does happen there may be a ‘break of the primary coolant circuit and a complete loss of reactor cooling water. This might be followed by a meltdown of the uranium fuel elements, including their cladding, and a release of fission products into the reactor containment’. The report continues:

The radioactive fission products released in this manner would be almost completely confined within the reactor containment and hull of the ship. However, there would also be a build up of pressure within the containment from the high pressure, high temperature reactor cooling water escaping from the ends of the broken pipes and flashing into steam.

So it goes on. It could cause a leakage because of the increased pressure level. So we must avoid accidents.

Forgive me for asking an innocent question. Are these ships ever going to be used in earnest or are they meant to be sailed around to show the flag in the capital cities of the world? As long as all they do is sail around and show the flag in the capital cities of the world I will regretfully accept them. But are we serious? I am not now contemplating a nuclear war; I am contemplating an old fashioned war with ordinary shells. If these nuclear powered vessels take part in such wars and an ordinary old fashioned bomb or an ordinary old fashioned torpedo hits them, blows them apart and sinks them, does what happen come within the category mentioned in the subheading to paragraph 6 which is ‘Collision”? In that paragraph it is stated:

Fission products could also be released into the atmosphere as the result of a high speed collision of sufficient energy to rupture the containment and reactor primary coolant system. This is very unlikely but collisions severe enough to cause this type of damage have occurred in the operation of conventional ships on the high seas.

Exactly, and particularly in war time. In fact I understand that that is the point of the exercise. When you belt hell out of the other side what you aim to do is to sink as many of their ships as you can. You do not do it gently; you do it with as much power as you can to make sure they go to the bottom and no one on that damn ship can do anything about it. Is that not the sort of collision being discussed in this document?

What then? Do we not then have a situation where we are releasing unknown quantities of nuclear material, maybe not immediately but sending it to the bottom in these beautiful reactors that are beautifully safe and marvellously efficient in producing energy when in the right place, in a ship floating on the surface of the water? What happens when the ship is sent to the bottom in this way? In my view we have a very strange situation- a Dr Strangelove effect. There is no doubt about that.

We have these beautiful ships parading around the world and when war comes they will shoot at one another. Of course, if we are better armed than the other side we will sink more of their ships but we will lose some of ours. However we will win the war and that will be marvellous. We will win if you count the number of ships sunk, but what will happen when the level of radioactivity builds up? What is the point of winning the war and committing suicide? Do we know what the end result of it all will be? When all the shouting and the tumulit dies, when all the shells have stopped flying and someone has surrendered, we will then find, dear friends, that we cannot contain the radioactive waste from those beautiful ships we sent to the bottom.

That is what I think about this whole stupid defence debate. I seriously question the validity of this document placed before us and headed Environmental Considerations of Visits of Nuclear Powered Warships to Australia. It is irrelevant to the real world of warfare, if that is what we are talking about. I am not against nuclear powered ships. I am in favour, perhaps, of nuclear powered merchant ships, but that could be another argument. I do not want to enter that at the moment. I have reservations. But let us accept that they are safe and that nuclear powered vessels could get around more cheaply in the long run than oil or coal powered vesselswell, oil powered vessels these days. That is all right. If we are serious about warships and if they are really going to engage in warfare, what then? Where is the final environmental impact statement on warfare conducted by nuclear powered ships? That is the impact statement that the whole world community deserves to be shown.

In my view that one has no right to be labelled ‘Top Secret’. I have a sneaking suspicion it has been written and that it says what I fear it says. That is why it is top secret. Brothers and sisters, if we use these ships in earnest we all commit suicide.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

-The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) is always interesting and frequently provocative but he is not often relevant. What he talked about was irrelevant to the subject we are debating. He was discussing the ministerial statement made this morning about the admission of American nuclear powered ships to our ports. I repeat that that is not the subject before the House at the moment. What we are discussing is Australia’s defence, and at the moment Australia has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear powered ships. Let us get back to what we are really talking about.

This debate is most welcome. It is a great pity that it comes at the tail end of the session when honourable members are keen to get away. Nevertheless it is worth remembering that in the 3 years of Labor rule the Labor Government did not debate defence at all. That was a very good indication of the importance the Labor Party attached to that subject. This will be only the first of several debates on defence. No doubt when the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) brings in his White Paper there will be a wide ranging debate on it, and I hope the House will take full notice of what is said and discussed. No doubt the strategic basis of our defence, our strategy, will be discussed in that White Paper but I would like to make some preliminary remarks, perhaps as a hint or suggestion to the Minister.

We have managed to get rid of some of the rubbish that bedevilled defence strategy during the years of Labor rule, particularly the assumption, the wild and foolish assumption, that in some way there would be no threat for 15 years. The Labor Party tried to get away from that assumption at the end, but that without doubt, for a considerable time, was the basis of its defence policy. I am sure all honourable members agree that that assumption is absolutely absurd. In our history as a nation Australia has been involved in 6 wars and not one of them could have been predicted 15 years before the event. Only one of them, the First World War, could reasonably have been predicted as little as 10 years before the event. If members of the Opposition think I am being unfair I draw their attention to a remark by Mr Curtin, then Leader of the Opposition, in October 1938 when he pointed out that the Munich Pact had reduced the risk of war and

Australia should lessen its defence preparation. The Second World War broke out 10 months later.

It is absurd to think that we can look that far ahead. Any defence policy based on such an assumption is bound to be a bad policy. But that is not the only weakness we have inherited from the Labor Government. I think there is one even more serious. That is the basic concept on which the forces are being developed- the so-called core force concept. As I understand this concept it is that we should prepare our forces- a core force- to meet a massive conventional invasion of Australia by a fully sophisticated enemy, but not using nuclear weapons on the assumption that this core force could be expanded in the time from which the threat becomes apparent to a size large enough to meet the threat. This, I am afraid, embodies 2 profound misconceptions. The first is that it is highly unlikely that we would have sufficient warning to enable us to build up this core force to the necessary size. We must accept that. I am sure it is true. Secondly, the scenario on which this is based- the idea of this massive conventional invasion of Australia- is one with which, if it eventuated, we could not possibly deal on our own. We would have to have a major ally which in practice could only be the United States of America. We could not deal on our own with a threat which an enemy was planning to prepare.

If we base our forces on such unsound assumptions as time warnings which we will not have to meet a threat we cannot meet, our equipment procurement is bound to be seriously distorted. That is what I believe is happening. I am quite certain that our aim in shaping our defence forces should be to do the things we may have to do on our own or, at best, with the support of minor allies. If we shape our forces so that we can do those things should something more serious arise where we have to have the assistance of major allies, our forces will be suitable to assist those major powers. But we should shape our forces to meet the jobs that we may have to do on our own. I suggest these jobs are very obvious. We all accept now that our ultimate aim is to preserve the integrity of this country. But we do not start to defend a country such as Australia on its beaches. That was the strategic doctrine of the late unlamented King Ethelred the Unready.

We have to be prepared to defend this country at a distance. There are several reasons for this. First of all our exclusive economic zone now extends 200 miles outwards. That is a new area nearly as big as the whole of continental Australia but even more importantly, if we look at our strategic requirements, in the archipelago to our north which is the only direction a territorial threat to Australia could come from we must be prepared to assist friendly powers in that area to prevent developments unfavourable to Australia. This should be the central role of our defence forces, not the defence of the mainland of Australia on the mainland but the defence of Australia as far away from it as we possibly can. This may not be possible. We may not have the allies with whom to do it. But if we are threatened with an invasion, the second role of our defence forces must be a deterrent force to make the invasion of Australia an extremely expensive and unprofitable operation.

I do not want to go into particular types of forces needed for this but the most obvious is submarines. Any serious invasion of Australia must come by sea. Submarines are an extremely effective and cost-effective way of preventing such an invasion. If we had an effective force of submarines, an invasion of Australia would be improbable in the highest degree. As I said, I do not wish to deal in detail with the equipment involved partly because of the shortage of time. But I should just like to make 2 or 3 points. The first is that our overriding requirement is for surveillance. We have an enormous coastline. We must know what is going on. It is quite obvious to me that the most economic way of achieving a broad surveillance is by way of geostationary satellite. These are in use in other parts of the world and I think the acquisition of one by Australia is an urgent matter. But that will provide only the raw information; we will still need aircraft and ships to identify particular detections. Nevertheless, without that we are very much in doubt, not only in terms of war, but in terms of such things as fishery protection, drug smuggling and other activities. Proper surveillance of our coastline is a vital and cental defence requirement.

The second point I should like to make is that the submarines I am talking of will certainly have to be nuclear. I am sorry that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) has left the chamber because I wanted to tell him that there are now no new conventional submarines being designed. The Oberon submarines that we have are excellent but they are of an old design now. To get new ones which would last to the year 2000 would be an absurdity. The only new submarines being produced which have the long range which we require are in fact nuclear. I think we have to look very seriously at all future submarines being acquired by the Australian Navy being nuclear powered. I should like to tell a little cautionary tale. When I was a boy there were stories called Strue Peter’s Cautionary Tales and this might be added to them. It is the saga of how defence equipment can go wrong. It is the story of the DDLs-the light destroyer of the Navy. About 1966 the then Chief of Naval Staff decided that new destroyers were required urgently for 2 reasons: Firstly because the existing destroyer building program was running out; and secondly because the way existing destroyers were being used was most cost ineffective. The DDGs were off Vietnam doing a simple bombardment task. Other destroyers were operating in Malaysian waters bailing up fishing boats. This was a ridiculous employment of expensive warships with crews of 300 men.

So the Chief of Naval Staff thought that what he wanted was a fast destroyer with a single gun. By chance a firm called Vosper Thornycroft had produced such a ship for the Persians. The company demonstrated to him a 1200 ton ship of 40 knot speed with one 5-inch gun. This was very attractive. But it was criticised by the naval staff and the engineering staff as having various deficiencies such as the lack of shock mounting which would mean it would come up all standing if a bomb dropped within 500 yards of it. So he said: ‘All right, you design a ship of that type that would overcome these deficiencies’. The company produced a ship of 1600 tons of 40 knots speed with a single 5-inch gun. I was quite a good ship. But it was immediately criticised, quite fairly, I think, by the fleet commander on the grounds that it did not have a helicopter. Each ship with its role of surveillance would have to have a helicopter. That was accepted. Unfortunately, in order to have a 5-ton helicopter on board, the ship’s weight had to be increased by 500 tons. The ship had to be lengthened to reduce its pitching and the deck had to be raised because helicopters do not like salt water. Nevertheless it was quite a good ship. Fortunately the Olympus gas turbines were being uprated in power and the ship’s speed was kept fairly well up. They had a ship of 2300 tons, 38-knot speed, with one 5-inch gun, one helicopter and very good endurance. In my view that is where they should have stopped but they did not stop. Then the people who had been serving on the DDGs in Vietnam came back to the naval staff and they had serviceability problems with the two 5-inch guns in those ships. They said: ‘In order to have one gun that will fire, you must have two’. So in went a second 5-inch gun, up went the tonnage to 3000 tons and down came the speed to 36 knots. Simultaneously the operational research people had been making investigations into the merits of helicopters. They said: ‘If you have 2 helicopters, they will be 3 times as good as one helicopter’. So in went a second helicopter, up went the tonnage to 3500 tons and down came the speed to 35 knots. Next, someone was unkind enough to point out that this was a rather large and very valuable ship but it had no defence against air attack. So out went the 5-inch gun and in went a Tartar missile system and all of the associated radar, up went the tonnage to 4000 tons and down came the speed to 34 knots. Then it was pointed out that the Tartar missile system had a marginal performance against missiles and that the ship had no anti-missile defence. So in went the detection sets, the jammers and the decoy launchers. Up went the tonnage to 4300 tons, and down came the speed to 32 knots. That is where it stopped. It was said: ‘Of course, you cannot possibly use a ship of this complexity with a crew of 250 on such an elementary task as shore bombardment and the interdicting of small craft. This is a major fleet unit’. It was getting away completely from what the whole purpose of the ship was originally.

I do not say this in any criticism of anybody. All the steps were quite logical and sensible on the evidence presented. It is important that, when we produce fighting equipment for roles, we control the tactical environment in which that equipment might have to perform its task. If we do not, the natural processes of the Services wanting the best equipment will mean that every ship, every aircraft and every other bit of military equipment will escalate to the best in the world. Instead of having large numbers of ships and aircraft appropriate to their tasks, we will have a handful of F14s and extremely sophisticated missile destroyers. As a great admiral once said, only numbers can annihilate. A country such as Australia needs numbers above all other things. I mention this because ultimately it means that there must be political control. We must see that our defence preparations are kept in perspective, because if we are to defend this country properly not only must we have quality, which undoubtedly we need, but also we must be geared to the task and we must have numbers. I leave the matter there because of the pressure of time. I welcome this debate because it is a recognition by the Government that defence is the first task of the government of a nation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neil) adjourned.

page 3080

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

-I move:

This Bill will give traditional Aborigines inalienable freehold title to land on reserves in the Northern Territory and provide machinery for them to obtain title to traditional land outside reserves. The coalition Parties’ policy on Aboriginal affairs clearly acknowledges that affinity with the land is fundamental to Aborigines’ sense of identity and recognises the right of Aborigines to obtain title to lands located within the reserves in the Northern Territory. The Bill gives effect to that policy and, further, will provide Aborigines in the Northern Territory with the opportunity to claim and receive title to traditional Aboriginal land outside reserves. The Government believes that this Bill will allow and encourage Aborigines in the Northern Territory to give full expression to the affinity with land that characterised their traditional society and gave a unique quality to their life.

Most of us now appreciate more sensitively than in the past that traditional Aborigines think, feel and act about land according to a plan of life a world apart from ours. Traditional Aborigines associate identifiable groups of people with particular ‘countries’ or tracts of territory in such a way that the link was publicly reputed to express both spiritual and physical communication between living people and their ‘dream time’ ancestors and between the ‘country’ as it now is and the ‘ ancestral ‘ country which had been given its names, its physical features, its founding stocks of food and water, and its owners and possessors by the ancestors themselves. It is believed that ancestors left in each ‘country’ certain vital powers that, used properly by the right people, make that ‘country’ fruitful and ensure a good life for people forever. Everywhere there was a plan of life- a good and satisfying life- based on an identifiable and unmistakable group of people forming a descent group or ‘clan’, living with relation to an identifiable territory publicly recognised as the ‘country’ of the group because of the actions of ancestors who had left in each ‘country’ sacred memorials- the totems and totemic sites of which we hear so much- as proof of entitlement for, and to guide and discipline, their descendants. The depth of appeal that an Aboriginal’s ‘country’ has for him can be gauged by the pictures he may paint, the songs he may sing, the stories he may tell and the dances he may perform. His ‘country’- no matter how stricken a wilderness it may seem to others- is to him a Canaan, from which his spirit came and where he wants his bones to rest. In the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities still wanting to maintain and live by their culture and social forms involving land in the sense I have described will be enabled by this Bill to do so.

Let me refer briefly to the origins of this Bill. In January 1972 the then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon), in a statement on Aboriginal affairs said that his Government ‘understands fully the desire of the Aboriginal people to have their affinity with the land with which they have been associated recognised by law ‘. He said:

We are deeply concerned to enable them … to have some security in their relationship with the land and, in particular, to give continuing Aboriginal groups and communities the opportunity of obtaining an appropriate title under Australian law over lands on reserves which they are interested in to use and develop for economic and social purposes.

This Bill will achieve that aim. In February 1 973, the former Government appointed an Aboriginal Land Rights Commissioner, Mr Justice A. E. Woodward, to inquire into and report on ‘the appropriate means to recognise and establish the traditional rights and interests of the Aborigines in and in relation to land, and to satisfy in other ways the reasonable aspirations of the Aborigines to rights in or in relation to land’ in the Northern Territory. Mr Justice Woodward presented his first report in July of that year and in it recommended that a northern and a central land council be established to consider the preliminary views he set down in that report, and to present to him, with expert legal advice, the views of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory on their land rights. Mr Justice Woodward presented his second and final report in April 1974. One of his principal recommendations was that ‘the Aboriginal people themselves must be fully consulted about all steps proposed to be taken’. In the months that followed, the land councils, in consultation with the communities they represent, considered and criticised the proposals of the Royal Commission and submitted their views to government on the proposals. In essence, although the Commission did not fully endorse the submissions made by the land councils, the Aboriginal people accepted the scheme of land rights proposed by the Commission and urged that legislative effect be given to it as soon as possible.

Honourable members are well aware that a Bill introduced last October lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament. Since my oppointment I have received numerous submissions on the proposed legislation and had many discussions with aborigines and others, including members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and representatives of other interested groups in the Territory, and I have carefully considered their submissions, the recommendations of the Land Rights Commission and the terms of the legislation previously introduced to give effect to those recommendations. This Bill represents the results of careful consideration and many hours of discussion. The intention is, however, that it should be available for public scrutiny, by the Aboriginal people and others in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, before it is debated further in this House. It is not intended that the rights to be established by this legislation should be watered down but that out of public scrutiny and whatever amendments may be required the best practicable instrument for effectuating the Government’s purpose and Aboriginal aspirations will be arrived at. I would welcome constructive comment and suggestions on the content of what is a complex piece of legislation and one of the most important Bills which this Parliament has considered. The Government will take all representations into account in arriving at the Anal form of the legislation.

It is relevant to draw honourable members’ attention to a closely parallel proposal for the recognition of the land and sea rights of the Eskimo people of Canada which is now before the Government of that country. Though some of the Indian people of Canada, as of the United States of America, earlier had some recognition of their rights in land through treaties, the Eskimo people, like the Aborigines of the Northern Territory, have had no legal recognition of their traditional rights in the domestic law of their country. Recently, the Canadian Govern- . ment assisted the Eskimo Brotherhood- much in the way the Australian Government assisted the Northern and Central Land Councils- to prepare, with expert research assistance and legal advice, a proposal for the recognition of their traditional interests in their land and the adjacent seas which are so important for their livelihood. Last October the Brotherhood submitted farreaching proposals which are at present being considered by the Government before negotiations begin on the terms of the claims made by the Eskimo people. The Eskimo proposals, like the scheme encompassed by this Bill, provide for the grant of title in lands now available so that the Eskimo may enjoy the traditional use of what they consider ‘their’ land and do not seek monetary compensation for land that may have been alienated.

Let me explain some of the fundamental aspects of the Bill.

Land Trusts

This Bill provides that the lands described in the Schedule being existing reserves and the Hermannsburg and Santa Teresa missions in Central Australia and the Delissaville area near Darwin will be vested in Aboriginal land trusts, composed entirely of Aborigines living in the area concerned, who will hold title on behalf of the traditional owners and those other Aborigines entitled by Aboriginal tradition to use and occupy those lands. The Government will continue to explore the possibility of the title being held directly by the traditional owners themselves. It is an aim of the Government eventually to achieve this goal but the concept presents considerable legal and practical difficulties. The trusts will be title holding bodies whose actions will be directed by the traditional owners through Land Councils. Moreover, the creation of these, Land Trusts will achieve the primary objective of any Land Trust scheme which is the vesting, under Australian law, of rights corresponding with traditional Aboriginal rights, without risk that the rights conferred are not sufficient to cover traditional Aboriginal rights. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this last mentioned aspect of land rights. It is a fundamental change in social thinking in Australia to recognise that within our community there are some people, the Aborigines, who live by a unique and distinct system of customary law.

Land Councils

The Land Councils will have important functions in relation to Aboriginal land but we are committed to ensure that they act on the advice and with the consent of the traditional owners so that primary control over Aboriginal land lies with the traditional owners. The Land Councils will represent Aboriginal traditional owners in negotiations over land use, over mineral developments, and the many other matters involved in the administration of Aboriginal land. The Land Councils will not, however, be responsible for bringing forward claims for land outside the reserves. Land Councils will be the administrative agents of the traditional owners and their success will depend on the extent to which they reflect Aboriginal opinion and translate Aboriginal wishes into action. It is because Land Councils have this specialist role that the Government considered it would be more appropriate for other Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service to assist in the formulation and presentation of claims for recognition of traditional Aboriginal land.

Land Commissioner

The Bill provides for an Aboriginal Land Commissioner who shall be a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Commissioner will investigate and report on claims to land which lies outside reserves on traditional grounds, being claims in respect of vacant Crown land and/or alienated land. The Bill by clause 47 requires the Land Commissioner to inquire into the likely extent of traditional land claims by Aborigines to alienated Crown land and to report to the Minister, from time to time, the results of his inquiries. By that means an orderly and progressive assessment can be made by the Government of any traditional land claims to alienated areas such as pastoral leases. Applications for land on the basis of need will be dealt with by the ordinary governmental processes involving the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and the Northern Territory. One of the early tasks for the commissioner will be the consideration of the strength of traditional claims to the pastoral leases held by Aboriginal groups- not only the properties of Kildurk and Willowra, which Mr Justice Woodward considered in his report, but the property held by the Gurindji group at Wave Hill, and the several other properties recently bought for Aboriginal communities by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission or now being purchased by the Commission.

This Bill deals with the recognition of traditional land rights and it is proper that the traditional claims of all groups to land outside the reserves should be assessed by the Commissioner and dealt with according to the procedures laid down in the Bill rather than by the arbitrary decision of any government. The Government will be anxious to see the speedy resolution by the Land Commissioner of claims to the 3 properties, Willowra, Kildurk and Wave Hill. To that end I would expect the Land Commissioner, in considering the claims, to take account of the history of the properties and of the views expressed by Mr Justice Woodward.

Mining

Mineral exploration and development will be allowed in Aboriginal land only with the consent of the Aboriginals. This important provision allows a level of protection hitherto unknown over land held by Aborigines and will allow them to consider mining plans carefully before they assent to exploration. Where consent is withheld, the Bill provides for an independent inquiry on the basis of which the Government may determine whether the national interest requires that exploration in mining can proceed. Where Aborigines have agreed to mineral exploration we would expect, as Mr Justice Woodward proposed, that development of any economic discovery made would follow, subject only to agreement on terms and conditions. Land councils will be able to negotiate agreements, including provisions for financial benefit and compensation, in consideration for the giving of consent to mining but will not give that consent unless the traditional owners agree. Where negotiations or terms break down, the Bill provides for an arbitrator to be appointed to determine a fair agreement, as recommended by Mr Justice Woodward. With the added safeguard for Aborigines, miners and government of an independent inquiry in the difficult and delicate area of national interest, the provisions relating to mining on Aboriginal land are in accord with the broad statement of principles outlined by me to representatives of the mining industry last March. I look forward to the co-operation and goodwill of the mining industry in seeing that these provisions work in a fair and practical way.

Royalties

Under the provisions of the Bill Aborigines will continue to receive royalties from mining operations on Aboriginal land. It will be for the Government to determine the proportion of royalty that will be payable to Aborigines in excess of the current rates, fixed by law, should the Government determine that a higher rate of royalty will apply to particular minerals.

Preservation of Existing Rights

Existing rights in land will be fully protected. Land scheduled in the Bill, over which an existing lease has been granted, will become Aboriginal land, with the title being held in abeyance, until the lease expires. This provision protects the rights of those holding leases on Aboriginal land, like the mining companies at Gove and Groote Eylandt and the mission at Hermannsburg, while ensuring that the title can pass into Aboriginal hands when the lease expires or when the holder negotiates its surrender and the issue of a new lease from the Land Trust.

Changes in Bill

The main differences between this Bill and that presented last October by the previous Government are, briefly, that: We have clearly defined the nature of the Aboriginal land rights we are recognising by vesting title in trusts for the benefit of all those Aborigines with traditional rights to use and occupy that land- 1 might add, a fundamental provision strangely missing in the Labor Government’s Bill. The functions and powers of the land councils have been more clearly stated to express the wishes of the Aboriginal people themselves and the predominant position of the traditional owners has been denned. We have provided for an inquiry to be made where Aboriginal consent to mining is withheld and where it may be appropriate in the national interest to over-ride Aboriginal wishes; we have also provided for an arbitrator to be appointed where Aborigines and mining com- panies are unable to reach agreement on terms or mining development; and the Bill gives scope for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to participate in this most important legislative process in particular in relation to the protection of sacred sites, in measures to protect wildlife in Aboriginal lands, in the control of entry into those lands and adjacent waters and in the handling of applications for land to meet the needs of Aborigines in towns and other areas where traditional claims cannot be established.

I have received assurances from the Leader of the Legislative Assembly that the Assembly is fully prepared to co-operate in the introduction of complementary legislation in these areas which accords with the spirit of this Bill. There will be full consultation with the Territory Assembly and between the Assembly and the Aborigines in preparing Territory legislation. I will be starting that consultation next week in Alice Springs and Darwin. It will be my objective to have complementary legislation ready, if that is at all possible, in time to have it passed contemporaneously with the final passage of this Bill in the Budget session of this Parliament.

Some people have watched with interesteven suspicion- the statements which have been made by the Government on its intentions to legislate for land rights. Some have expressed surprise that a Liberal-Country Party government should have made the decision to grant land rights to Aborigines in the Northern Territory. Let there be no more suspicion. Let there be no more surprise, because the Government’s proposals to recognise Aboriginal land rights in legislation is one more expression of the Government’s commitment to liberal and progressive reform. It is the objective of the Government to secure conditions in which all Australians can realise their own goals in life-to find fulfilment in their own way- consistent with the interests of the whole Australian community.

The Australia we, as a Government, look to is one in which there is diversity and choice, because it is in diversity that people can pursue the lives they want in ways that they determine. Securing land rights to Aborigines in the Northern Territory is a significant expression of this objective. It is an objective that will be pursued in a way consonant with the rights of other Australians. I am sure this progressive step will be studied with interest in the States with respect to their land. This Bill is a major step forward for Aborigines in the Northern Territory not only for this generation but also for future generations who will benefit from it. They will have a land base that will be preserved in perpetuity. The introduction of legislation to grant land rights in the Northern Territory is an essential, progressive measure in the social and political history of Australia. It gives me great pleasure to commend to honourable members, a BUI so important to all Australians, so desired by the Aboriginal people of Australia as this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bryant) adjourned.

page 3084

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have been advised of the following nominations of members to be members of the Commonwealth Parliament’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention: The Right Honourable J. M. Fraser, M.P., the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, M.P., the Honourable I. McC. Sinclair, M.P., the Honourable R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P. and Mr I. B. C. Wilson M.P. have been nominated by the Prime Minister and the Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., the Honourable L. F. Bowen, M.P., Mr R. Jacobi, M.P., Mr G. G. D. Scholes, M.P. and Mr A. P. Whitlam, M.P. have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 3084

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1976.

Wool Tax Amendment Bills (Nos 1 to 5) 1976.

Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Termination Bill 1976.

Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill 1976.

Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Bill 1976.

Dairying Industry Research and Promotion (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1976.

page 3084

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 17 August next at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day of meeting.

page 3085

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 3085

ADJOURNMENT

Prime Minister’s Proposed Visit to People’s Republic of China

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I thought I should say a few words about the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the People’s Republic of China because there are rumours floating around the lobbies of Parliament House that the honourable member for

Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is to precede him there apparently to make some arrangements for his welcome. I thought it important that as honourable members understand and know some of the ideas of the honourable member for Mackellar -

Mr Sinclair:

– In view of the arrangements that have been made as to time I move:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.52 p.m. until Tuesday, 17 August at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day of meeting.

page 3086

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

HMAS Kimbla (Question No. 632)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that HMAS Kimbla lost all long distance communications at sea on route to New Zealand on 17 March 1976.
  2. Was it necessary to send aircraft to locate and escort the ship back to Jervis Bay and then to cannibalise parts from other ships to get her back to sea after some days’ delay.
  3. Will he give an assurance that adequate maintenance to naval vessels will not be sacrificed on the grounds of economy and that the lives of personnel and the safety and efficiency of the fleet will not be impaired.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Long distance radio communications were lost while HMAS Kimbla was on passage to New Zealand on 1 7 March 1976 but after temporary repairs were effected, long distance communications were regained on the morning of 1 8 March.
  2. In accordance with established procedures an RAAF aircraft was diverted to make contact with HMAS Kimbla on the afternoon of 17 March, and messages were successfully exchanged between the two units. The aircraft then returned to its previous task. No escort of the ship occurred. An aerial was transferred to HMAS Kimbla from HMAS Supply, but no cannibalisation of equipment took place. Replacement of one aerial could not be effected due to the ban on crane movements resulting from the Painters and Dockers strike. The delay of some days referred to in the question was in fact confined to just over one day while repair work was carried out.
  3. Regular preventative maintenance is carried out and there is no question of lowering maintenance standards such that safety and efficiency are jeopardised.

Aid to Yugoslavia (Question No. 651)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Can he say what are the (a) nature and (b) value of assistance which other governments have given to Yugoslavia following the earthquake of May 1976.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Yugoslav Government has made no appeal for assistance from other countries. However, I understand that the Italian Government has provided some assistance, and the United States has offered aid if it is required.

Nuclear Weapons Storage (Question No. 654)

Dr Richardson:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are nuclear weapons to be stored at HMAS Stirling on Garden Island in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. /ere circulated:
  2. Will ships carrying nuclear weapons be allowed to call at Garden Island.
  3. Will nuclear powered ships be allowed to call at Garden Island.
  4. What possibility exists of nuclear material or waste being accidentally released on Garden Island or in Cockburn Sound.
  5. What would be the likely effect of the accidental release of nuclear material or waste on Garden Island or in Cockburn Sound.
  6. Are there at present any restrictions on the use of any Australian port or naval base by nuclear powered ships of any nation.
  7. Are there at present any restrictions on the use of any Australian port or naval base by nuclear-armed ships of any nation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has no proposal under consideration to store nuclear weapons at Garden Island or elsewhere in Australia. No such proposal has been put to the Government in any form.
  2. None of the nuclear powers reveals whether its ships or aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons at a particular time.
  3. As I have said on a number of occasions, visits by the ships of friendly navies, including nuclear powered warships, would be welcome at HMAS Stirling provided that adequate control and safety precautions were taken.
  4. The risk of an accidental release of radio-active material is extremely slight. Under the normal operating conditions there is no release of nuclear waste into the environment at all. Deliberate release would not be permitted under conditions of entry to Australian ports.
  5. In the improbable event of an accidental release of radio-active material, there would be an insignificant effect on the land or maritime environments. Because of the extremely slight risk of such an accident, hazard to health is only a very remote possibility. This assessment is backed by the substantial history of accident-free operations by U.S. and British nuclear-powered warships for many years.
  6. No such visits will be permitted to any Australian poruntil the Government decides the conditions under which visits can be resumed.
  7. See (2) above.

Departmental Expenditures (Question No. 671)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. By what amounts have the appropriations of each Commonwealth department, authority and corporation been reduced since 1 1 November 1975.
  2. What amounts additional to those contained in the 1975-76 Budget have been authorised for each Commonwealth department, authority and corporation since 1 1 November 1975.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. There have not been any actual reductions in appropriations as made by Parliament since the present Government took office. However, there has been very strict control over expenditure by Commonwealth departments and authorities and expenditures under many appropriations have been restricted to less than the amounts appropriated. For annual appropriations, the resultant savings in 1973-76 expected as at 26 March 1976, as well as expected underex.penditures arising for other reasons (e.g., the unavailability of certain appropriations following the changes in administrative arrangements and lower levels of expenditure following economies in departmental activities), were listed in the Treasury Information Paper ‘Statement of Savings expected in Annual Appropriations’ which I tabled in the Parliament on 28 April 1976. The expected savings detailed in that document totalled approximately $478m.
  2. Appropriation Bills (Nos 3 and 4) 197S-76 tabled on the same day as the document referred to in ( 1 ) contain the only appropriations since 11 November 1975-other than appropriations contained in separate subject legislationthat are proposed for funding expenditures by departments and authorities in the year 1975-76, additional to those provided for in Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 1975-76.

Clyde Cameron College (Question No. 276)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. How will the recurring costs of the Clyde Cameron College be financed.
  2. What tuition and other fees will students be charged who attend.
  3. What will be the length of the course.
  4. How many months of the year will it be operating.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. The College is part of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority and is funded through funds appropriated by Parliament to the Authority.
  2. and (3) The College is in course of construction and will not be operative until the latter part of 1977. The question of fees and the length of the various courses will be a matter for consideration by the Authority before the College opens.
  3. It is envisaged that the Authority will conduct courses at Albury/Wodonga for about nine months of the year. Its facilities will be available on a tariff basis for other purposes when courses are not being conducted and it is expected that unions will consider the College as a venue for conferences and seminars.

Woomera Bureau of Meteorology (Question No. 332)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) With the announced phasing down of operations at the Woomera Rocket Range, is it the intention of the Bureau of Meteorology to reduce or close down the activities of the Bureau at Woomera.
  2. Is it a fact that, apart from a small office at Oodnadatta, Woomera is the only meteorology station between Adelaide and Alice Springs that can provide information on high level winds and temperatures on that air route.
  3. If the Woomera station is to be closed down, will this result in a reduced factor of safety on the Adelaide-Alice Springs and other air routes in that vicinity.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The meteorological office at Woomera was established primarily to provide services for weapon trials conducted by the Weapons Research Establishment. In conformity with the reduced requirements for these services, the Bureau of Meteorology will withdraw its forecasting staff from the Woomera after 30 June 1976. Forecasting services that may be required from time to time during the phasing down period will be provided by the Bureau’s Regional Forecasting Centre at Adelaide.

However, the Bureau intends to maintain a program of meteorological observations at Woomera because of their value for aviation and general forecasting.

  1. Woomera is the only location on the Adelaide-Alice Springs air route, in addition to the terminal points, where high level wind and temperature observations are carried out. Observations of high level winds, but not temperatures, are made at Oodnadatta.
  2. As Woomera meteorological observations will still be available there will be no change in the nature of the information provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for aviation.

Department of Administrative Services: Air Travel Payments (Question No. 349)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been paid by the Department of Administrative Services, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by that Department, for air travel within Australia during the last 2 years.
  2. Will the Minister indicate separately the sum which related to the air travel of Members of Parliament.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1974-75-$ 1,003,449; 1975-76 to 31. 3.76-5880,430.
  2. 1974-75-$l,209,003; 1975-76 to 3 1.3.76- $858,756.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Air Travel Payments (Question No. 361)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

What sum has been paid by his Department, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during the last 2 years.

Mr Mackellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Of the above amounts, payments in respect of fares of officers of the Departments in 1973-74 and 1974-75 were $126,656 and $75,283 respectively.

The balances of $237,147 in 1973-74 and $252,986 in 1 974-75 were in respect of travel for

1 ) The movement of migrants on arrival in Australia to place of destination.

Travel by members of the Committee and Expert Panels of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications.

Travel by Members of the Immigration Advisory, Planning and Publicity Councils.

Travel within Australia associated with the deportation of illegal migrants.

Redeployment of Public Servants (Question No. 409)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) During the current redeployment of Public Service staff in order to meet the simultaneous requirements of departmental reorganisation and reduced staff ceilings, is it the practice of the Public Service Board to give first priority to surplus and unattached officers in filling departmental vacancies which would normally be filled by promotion or advertisement.
  2. If so, how many such vacancies have been filled by (a) surplus and (b) unattached officers in (i) the Department of the Treasury, (ii) the Department of Foreign Affairs and (iii) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Public Service Board has the power, to be used as necessary, to place surplus officers in such positions elsewhere in the Service as the officer is competent to fill.

In its management of the present redeployment exercise, the Board has been monitoring actions to fill positions in departments by way of recruitment and promotion. It is the practice to consider the claims of surplus staff for vacant positions, having regard to their competence for the job in question. In the case of equal competence, the surplus officer would be given preference.

With the co-operation of departments the Board has been able to redeploy significant numbers of surplus staff before it has become necessary to uke formal action to make them unattached. The Board’s activities in this regard are continuing.

  1. (a) Of the surplus staff redeployed to date, the following numbers have been placed in the departments referred to in the question:

    1. Department of the Treasury-Central Staff-4; Australian Taxation Office-16; Australian Bureau of Statistics 19; Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office- 13
    1. Department of Foreign Affairs-3

    2. Department of the Prime Minister and CabinetCentral Staff-Nil; Public Service Boaid-3; AuditorGeneral’s Office-2.

Melbourne Metropolitan Railways (Question No. 415)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What sum has the Australian Government paid to date for-

    1. the two additional railway tracks and associated works between South Kensington and Footscray,
    2. the third railway track and additional platforms between Caulfield and Mordialloc,
    3. the additional railway track and two additional stations between Sunshine and Deer Park West, and
    4. the second railway track and platform alterations between Macleod and Greensborough.

  2. What is the estimated date of completion in each case.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) $3.07m

    1. $2.72m
    2. $ 1.27m
    3. $0.14m

  2. Estimated dates of completion as supplied by the Victorian Railways Board

    1. September 1976
    2. June 1977
    3. July 1976
    4. Not expected to be completed before the end of 1978.

Department of Administrative Services (Question No. 528)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does the Department of Administrative Services have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Street:
LP

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

Would the honourable member please refer to the reply by the Treasurer to House of Representatives Question No. 526 which appears on page 2525 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 26 May 1976.

Department of Transport: Expenditure Commitments (Question No. 532)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1 977-78 does his Department have.

    1. ) On what date was each commitment made.
    2. What sum is involved in each commitment
    3. For what purpose is each commitment.
    4. 5 ) To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The preparation of a reply to the honourable member’s question requires a great deal of research into Departmental records and investigation of progress on expenditure programs. My Department’s administrative resources are already taxed to the limit and it does not have the capacity to undertake such a major task. I cannot justifiably divert the attentions of these staff away from existing workloads nor redeploy staff from other essential areas to extract and collate the detailed information sought by the honourable member.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Expenditure Commitments (Question No. 540)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. 3 ) What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

  1. to (5) The preparation of a reply to the honourable member’s question would involve the collection of detailed information from a diversity of records and sources. Such a task would require a major commitment of staff resources within the Public Service and I do not think that I would be justified in authorising the time and expense which would be involved extracting and collating the detailed information requested by the honourable member.

Townsville Airport (Question No. 574)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What stage has been reached in redeveloping the Townsville Airport to international standards.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Bureau of Transport Economics was asked to evaluate proposals to develop Townsville Airport to international standard.

I am informed that the Bureau’s Report should be available in about two month ‘s time.

Department of Social Security (Question No. 597)

Mr Macphee:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are employed by the Department of Social Security or by agencies responsible to the Minister or her Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to that Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does the Department of Social Security or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by the Department of Social Security or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does the Department of Social Security or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance for the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Department of Social Security employs the equivalent of 5 persons on duties associated with staff recruitment. The current amount of salary payable in respect of these recruitment duties is estimated to be $59,000 p.a.
  2. The Department of Social Security does not engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff
  3. Nil.
  4. The Department of Social Security utilises from time to time the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service to recruit Labourers, Hospital Assistants, Medical Orderlies, Cooks, Nursing Sisters, Tradesmen, Watchmen, Clerks (short-term relief), Clerical Assistants (short-term relief). No charge is made by the Commonwealth Employmem Service.

Department of Health: Employment (Question No. 600)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum had been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) There is currently a total of 21 persons, located as follows, who are engaged full-time on duties associated with the recruitment of staff:

  2. Department of Health-U

    1. ii) Capital Territory Health Commission-8
    2. Health Insurance Commission- 1
    3. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories- 1

Current annual salaries payable amount to $203,443.

  1. ) On occasions, private employment agencies have been engaged by the Department of Health to assist in the recruitment of urgently needed relief medical and nursing staff for employment in the Northern Territory. Limited use had also been made of such agencies by the Health Insurance Commission. The other authorities are not utilising private employment agencies for recruitment of staff.

  2. Costs for the financial year 1974-75 amounted to:

    1. i) Department of Heal th-$ 100
    1. Health Insurance Commission- $1,045.61.
  3. Limited assistance is sought by the Department of Health from the Commonwealth Employment Service mainly in relation to recruitment of semi-skilled manual workers in the Northern Territory. Use is also made of the services available by the authorities listed in (1) as necessary, for recruitment of manual workers, keyboard and lower level clerical staff. No charges have been made in respect of the services provided.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Employment (Question No. 601)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 2 persons are engaged on recruitment, appointment and selection of staff including routine processing functions at a cost of $22 ,031 p.a.
  2. Nil.
  3. Nil.
  4. Nil.

Department of Administrative Services: Purchase of Real Property (Question No. 609)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Under what circumstances may the Department of Administrative Services purchase real property.
  2. If the Department of Administrative Services is not the sole purchaser of government real property, to what extent does that Department act as an overseer in respect of purchases of real property by other Departments.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Administrative Services purchases real property under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955-1973 for any purpose for which the Parliament has power to make laws.
  2. The Department is the sole purchaser of real property for use by Commonwealth Government departments.

Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 620)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Since the production of influenza virus vaccine by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories began, how many doses annually have been (a) produced and (b) exported.
  2. To what countries or regions throughout the world is the vaccine currently exported.
  3. Is it the practice to give priority to export orders over local orders; if not, what method is used to determine the proportion supplied in each category.
  4. How long does it take to produce each batch.
  5. What is the maximum number of doses that can be produced in one batch with the present facilities.
  6. When was production of the 1976 vaccine commenced.
  7. In respect of the 1976 production how many (a) batches and (b) number of doses in each batch have failed, to date.
  8. What is the production target figure in doses for 1976 and what percentage of this has been achieved to date for ( a ) export and (b) Australian use.
  9. Is current production all being supplied for distribution through accredited drug wholesalers in the States; if not, what other outlets are being used and what percentage is supplied through drug wholesalers compared with other outlets.
  10. Of the total 1976 production to date for Australian use, how many doses have been distributed to each State and what was the determining factor in apportioning such amounts.
  11. Since production began, what has been the (a) annual value of turnover of the vaccine and (b) value of turnover expressed as a percentage of the total Commonwealth Serum Laboratories turnover.
  12. 12) Is Australia the only world producer of this style of vaccine or do other producers engage in the export of their vaccines.
  13. In view of the non-returnable condition placed on firm orders and bearing in mind that some doctors may not vaccinate after a certain date if stocks of vaccine are unavailable, will recently received and pending receipt stock be returnable or capable of cancellation.
  14. 14) What measures are proposed for future years to eliminate the recurrence of the current shortage of supply situation which has prevailed almost every year since production began.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Production of influenza virus vaccine by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories commenced in 1948. The information available indicates that average annual production since then has been 1 000 000 doses within a range from 300 000 to S 000 000 doses. Average annual export has been about 5 per cent of the total doses produced.

In addition approximately $ 1,000,000 worth of bulk vaccine has been sold to export markets over the past S years, but this was produced when the plant was not required for local production.

  1. No vaccine has been sent overseas this year except for a small quantity to New Zealand.
  2. No. Export orders are taken up after the local need is met.
  3. Each batch requires a mininum of 10 weeks from the innoculation of the eggs to the completion of all tests on the final dispensed product.
  4. 5 ) The maximum number of doses that can be produced in one batch depends on the yields which vary from strain to strain. The present average output is approximately 1 IS 000 doses per batch.
  5. Production for the 1976 vaccine commenced in September 197S. However, due to a strain change, the effective production of A/Victoria vaccine did not commence until January 1976.
  6. There have been no failures of batches or doses within batches to date in respect of the 1976 production.
  7. The target production for Australian use in 1976 is 2 million doses. Approximately two-thirds of this target had been distributed by 2 1 May and the remainder was in progressive stages of production.
  8. The vaccine is distributed through wholesalers and is also sold direct to hospitals and Government Departments. Approximately 85 per cent of the vaccine is distributed through wholesalers.
  9. The total distribution in each State as at 2 1 May was:

The determining factor has been the number of orders outstanding at the time of distribution of each batch.

  1. 1 1 ) the average annual turnover of the vaccine for the past five years is $650,000 while the average total turnover of CSL for the same period is $12,700,000. The percentage of influenza virus vaccine of total sales is approximately 5 percent.
  2. Australia is not the only world producer of this style of vaccine. Other producers overseas engage in export when they are able to meet regulatory requirements of importing countries and when they have a surplus above their local needs.
  3. Orders may be cancelled prior to delivery to wholesalers but returns are not accepted.
  4. 1 4) To help eliminate the recurrence of the current shortage of supply situation a new and enlarged influenza vaccine maufacturing facility is under way and should be completed in 1976-77. This should enable CSL to increase throughput more readily in the event of unforeseen strain change and abnormal demand.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Question No. 621)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In respect of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, where are its outlets or distribution points operating in Australia.
  2. What are (a) the staff numbers and (b) the operating costs of each.
  3. What activities are pursued and duties performed by officers in (a) capital cities and (b) other provincial city outlets.
  4. Is it possible for the operations or part of the operations of some or all of the provincial city outlets to be handled alternatively by wholesale druggists; if so, has consideration been given to closure of some of these outlets or at least to some rationalisation of their operations.
  5. Are all stocks of serums and vaccines, etc., held at provincial distribution outlets also stocked by wholesale druggists; if not, which ones are held exclusively by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories outlets and would it be possible for these to be stocked by wholesale druggists.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) In addition to its Head Office at Parkville, Melbourne, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have branch offices in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. Distribution is also carried out by the Commonwealth Department of Health Laboratories at Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Lismore but these centres are staffed solely by officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health.
  2. Details of the total number of CSL staff involved in the administration, sales and distribution of products and the current year’s costs are as follows:

  3. (a) Officers employed in capital city branches are involved in branch administration, distribution of products and selling activities.

    1. Although no distribution is carried out by CSL in provincial cities, there are 10 representatives based in provincial cities throughout Australia.
  4. and (5) These questions are not applicable as no distribution is carried out by CSL in provincial cities.

Agreement with West Germany (Question No. 633)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What ate the factors responsible for delaying the concluding of a reciprocal agreement on social security with West Germany.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Examination of proposals for conclusion of an agreement has not yet been completed.

Childhood Services Programs (Question No. 669)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say whether the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission is considering making a grant to the in-service Advisory Committee of the Victorian Institute of Early Childhood Development.
  2. If so, will the Minister give top priority to urging speedy approval of the grant as the Institute receives no Government assistance for its in-service courses and the money is needed urgently.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission has already considered an application from the Victorian Institute of Early Childhood Development for financial assistance for the Institute’s in-service training courses.

On 26 March 1976 1 advised the Principal of the Institute that regrettably no financial support could be given for inservice training courses conducted by the Institute during 1975-76 because other requests for financial assistance were regarded as ratine higher priority for the limited funds available under the Childhood Services Program. As the Institute’s application was within the scope of the Childhood Services Program, the Principal was also advised that she could, if she wished, re-apply for financial assistance in 1976-77 and that such an application would be considered in the light of the funds available in that financial year.

Agreement with West Germany (Question No. 681)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did German and Australian negotiators meet in Bonn on 26 and 27 May 1975 to discuss a German-Australian Agreement on social security.
  2. Has the Australian Government replied in writing to the German proposals.
  3. Is it a fact that many Australian citizens formerly of German nationality have been greatly disadvantaged because of the present position where Germans lose their entitlement to their contributory social security system when opting for Australian citizenship.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Exploratory discussions took place in Bonn in May last year.
  2. No- the matters discussed are still under examination.
  3. To the extent that some people are not receiving pensions from the Federal Republic of Germany because they have taken Australian citizenship, they could be said to be disadvantaged.

Queensland Government Aircraft (Question No. 683)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what days and at what times did the Queensland Government aircraft (a) arrive at and (b) depart from Canberra airport during May 1 976.
  2. What passengers did it carry.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Records held by the Department of Transport show that aircraft Beech 200 VH-SGT registered to Secretary, Premier’s Department, Queensland Government, arrived at Canberra Airport at 7 p.m. on Saturday, 8 May 1 976 and departed from Canberra Airport at 6.08 a.m. on Sunday, 9 May 1976.
  2. The names of passengers carried were not shown on the flight plan, only the name of the pilot in command, Captain B. Young.

DC 9 Aircraft Engines (Question No. 705)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have Ansett Airlines applied for an extension of the time allowed between each compulsory removal and overhaul of DC 9 aircraft engines.
  2. If so, what action has the Government taken in respect of the application and what was the Government’s decision.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes. On 4 February 1974, Ansett Airlines applied for an extension of the time allowed between overhaul of DC9 aircraft engines (Pratt and Whitney JT8D) from the existing 12 000 cycles to 15 000 cycles. There was no proposal to change the compulsory removal time at 7 200 cycles where in the engine is returned to the workshop for inspection, rectification and subjected to test cell calibration. The definition of an engine cycle is engine start up before a flight until engine shut down at the completion of that flight. In the case of the DC9 operations the average duration of a cycle is approximately 1 flying hour.
  2. The Government approved the application made by Ansett Airlines and a programme was introduced to escalate the engine to 15 000 cycles and is contingent upon a Departmental airworthiness inspection of two engines, one from a Boeing 727 aircraft and the other from a Douglas DC9 aircraft at the 15 000 cycle period, before final confirmation is given.

DC9 Aircraft Engines (Question No. 706)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many hours does the Department of Transport allow a DC9 aircraft engine to accumulate before the engine must be removed for overhaul.
  2. What were the hours allowed between each compulsory removal and overhaul of engines when DC9 aircraft were first introduced into service in Australia.
  3. If there is no limit on DC9 engine hours, what criteria, if any, is used in determining when an engine should be removed.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In respect to Ansett Airlines DC9 aircraft Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines, the Department has approved an overhaul period of 12 000 cycles with qualified extension to 15 000 cycles.
  2. When DC9 aircraft were first introduced into service with Ansett Airlines an overhaul period of 4000 hours was observed.
  3. There is a specified limit.

DC9 Aircraft Engines (Question No. 707)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

With reference to an engine failure experienced by an Ansett Airlines DC9 Aircraft during takeoff at Cairns on 2 May 1976:

How many hours had the failed engine accumulated since installation in the aircraft;

When was the engine installed and

Was the engine failure due to metal fatigue.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The simple answer to the question is 296 cycles, however the engine had completed 16 825 cycles since new and 4 741 cycles since overhaul.
  2. 17 March 1976.
  3. Yes. A second stage compressor blade failed due to fatigue cracks in the blade retention lugs.

National Compensation (Question No. 712)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who discussed rehabilitation and compensation schemes in Melbourne on 10 May 1976.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States and (c) the Territories.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) On 10 May 1976 I met in Canberra with State Ministers to have exploratory discussions regarding the future of National compensation. The State Ministers present were:

Victoria-The Honourable V. O. Dickie, M.L.C., Chief Secretary.

Queensland- The Honourable Sir Gordon Chalk, M.L.A., Deputy Premier and Treasurer.

South Australia- The Honourable G. T. Virgo, M.L.A., Minister of Transport and Minister of Local Government, acting Minister of Labor and Industry.

Western Australia- The Honourable W. C. Grayden, M.L.A., Minister for Labor and Industry, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Immigration.

Tasmania- The Honourable N. L. C. Batt, M.H.A., Minister for Education. (The Honourable D. A. Lowe, M.H.A., Chief Secretary, had been nominated by the Premier but was unable to attend). (New South Wales was represented by Mr R. M.Porter, General Manager of the Government Insurance Office of N.S.W.)

  1. There were no specific requests made for legislative or administrative action by the Commonwealth, the States or the Territories. The meeting agreed to the formation of a Commonwealth/State Officers’ Steering Committee to examine and develop options for a Commonwealth/State compensation program for the consideration of a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers at a later stage.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 713)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who discussed the Australian Assistance Plan in Darwin on 21 May 1976.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the States and (c) the Territories.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Honourable A. E. Adermann, M.P.- Minister for the Northern Territory; the Honourable A. A. Staley, M.P.Minister for the Captal Territory; Senator the Honourable M. G. C. Guilfoyle- Minister for Social Security; the Honourable R. I. Viner, M.P.-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; the Honourable R. Payne, M.P.-Minister of Community Welfare, South Australia; the Honourable B. Dixon, M.P.-Minister for Social Welfare and Youth, Sport and Recreation, Victoria; the Honourable J. Herbert, M.L.A.- Minister for Community Welfare Services, Queensland; the Honourable D. J. Baldock, M.H.A.- Minister for Housing and Social Welfare, Tasmania; the Honourable N. E. Baxter, M.P.-Minister for Community Welfare, Western Australia; the Honourable R. F. Jackson, M.P.-Minister for Youth and Community Services, New South Wales; the Honourable R. J. Walker, M.P.-Minister for Social Welfare, New Zealand.
  2. (a) At the Conference of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers in Darwin on 21 May 1976 I outlined the Commonwealth Government’s decision on the Australian Assistance Plan as follows: ‘In the light of our consideration of all that has been done to evaluate the Plan, we believe that it is a worthwhile experiment in social planning and local action in determining welfare priorities. There is clearly much value in this son of action.

In the context of our belief in the Federal system, we are convinced that this type of program is a totally appropriate one for administering and funding at the State and local government level.

We therefore believe that State Governments should make their own decisions as to whether the Australian Assistance Plan is to continue in their States in the present form or in some modified form.

We recognise that it would be unreasonable to seek an immediate response from Ministers today as to what State Governments wish to do following our decision.

State Governments may need time to work out with their local government authorities the form of any future involvement with the Australian Assistance Plan they may decide on.

To enable arrangements to be worked out between State and local governments in a considered way, the Commonwealth Government will continue to fund, at the present grant levels, all 37 funded Regional Councils for Social Development and their staffs for a maximum period of 12 months from 1 July 1976. This will involve the maximum Commonwealth commitment of $3m for that year.

The Commonwealth Government does not propose to make funds available for new community welfare projects but commitments on projects already approved, but not totally funded, will be met. My officers estimate that the Commonwealth Government’s commitment for these projects is approximately $2m.

Where State Governments propose a continuance of Regional Councils for Social Development we would propose that steps should be taken as early as possible to begin the transfer to State Governments of the administrative functions now carried out by the Commonwealth. This should greatly facilitate the orderly transfer of Australian Assistance Plan activities before the end of the period of Commonwealth funding which will extend up to a maximum of 12 months from 1 July 1976.

Beyond this, the Commonwealth does not propose further funding for the Australian Assistance Plan either for community welfare projects or for administration or development.

It will, however, co-operate totally in any transitional administrative arrangements that would aid the smooth transfer from Commonwealth to State administration.

The Prime Minister will be writing to Premiers conveying the decision outlined ‘.

  1. (b) The majority of State Ministers, while agreeing that the AAP should be a State responsibility, wanted the Commonwealth Government to continue the funding of the AAP. However, in view of the intention of the Prime Minister to convey the Commonwealth’s decision by letter to the Premiers, a detailed response from the State Governments concerning future legislative or administrative action on the AAP is not yet available.

    1. No requests or suggestions were made at the Conference by the Territories for legislative or administrative action.

Tariff Arrangements (Question No. 742)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

What procedures exist to prevent the re-exporting of goods made in advanced countries through underdeveloped countries under tariff arrangements for underdeveloped countries.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

A general requirement in respect of imports of goods entitled to tariff preferences as being the produce or manufacture of developing countries is that, in addition to the normal declaration as to the correctness of the invoice, the exporter must make a special declaration on the face of the invoice to the effect that:

the final process of manufacture of the goods for which special rates are claimed has been performed in the country concerned; and

not less than one half of the factory or works cost of the goods is represented by the value of labour or materials, or of labour and materials of the specified country or countries and Australia.

An additional safeguard applies in relation to goods which are imported from developing countries at special preferential rates under quota arrangements applying only to certain goods from particular countries. Before being granted a quota, Australian importers are obliged to submit to the Bureau of Customs firm evidence that goods to be imported are covered by a confirmed order placed with a supplier in the developing country.

Routine examination of invoices at the time of importation is supported by random physical examination of the goods themselves and by selective in-depth examination of documents on an ‘ after the event ‘basis.

North Australian Railways (Question No. 753)

Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In view of the placing in ‘ mothballs ‘ of the North Aus- .tralian Railway will he advise what is the future of the employees who are mostly Territorians and who would suffer hardship by being transferred interstate.
  2. What is the future of the NAR bearing in mind the constant possibility of flooding and washaways on the highway in the wet season and the uneven performance of freights conveyed by sea.
  3. Is it a fact that during the wet season the NAR is often the only means of carrying supplies to towns as far south from Darwin as Larrimah and the closing of the railway could leave them short of essential goods during this time.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australian National Railways will do all possible to find alternative employment for employees displaced from the NAR either in the Territory or on other parts of the ANR system.
  2. and (3) The condition of the Stuart Highway between Larrimah and Darwin is the responsibility of the Minister for the Northern Territory. However, I understand that the main problem with the highway is at Newcastle Creek, south of

Larrimah. Between Larrimah and Darwin occasional interruptions do occur but for only short periods and the railway is also subject to similar breaks. Action is being taken to upgrade the highway.

Smoking on Aircraft (Question No. 766)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

In connection with his advice to me of a recent survey by Qantas, the result of which will be an increase in the nonsmoking seats to about SO per cent of the total economy and 40 per cent in first class, will he inform me of the reaction of the domestic airlines to this Qantas decision.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The domestic airlines are currently investigating the matter and are considering the provision of an additional row of seats in the economy section for non-smokers. As far as the first class area is concerned, I understand there are consistent complaints from smokers that there is insufficient provision for them.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 760)

MrFitzPatrick asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

1 ) Can Australian Government social security benefits be paid into savings accounts at banks which have offered this facility.

If so, which banks make this service available.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited

The Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia The Savings Bank of Adelaide The Savings Bank of Tasmania, and The Launceston Bank for Savings

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 619)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was (a) the annual cost to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme since the year 1970-71 of the relatively low cost laxative preparations recently removed from the list of pensioner benefits and (b) these figures expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
  2. What was (a) the annual cost to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme since the year 1970-71 of the relatively low cost compound vitamin preparations recently removed from the list of pensioner benefits and (b) these figures expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
  3. What were the principal reasons for the recent removal of the relatively low cost drug pentaerythritol tetranitrate from the list of general pharmaceutical benefit items.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

(2)

  1. Pentaerythritol tetranitrate was removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list because the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended, on therapeuticgrounds, that it be deleted. Pentaerythritol tetranitrate is one of a number of coronary vasodilator preparations which have been used for many years in an attempt to minimise the severity of attacks of angina pectoris. These preparations are much less effective than newer drugs and their retention could not be justified in view of their low therapeutic value and diminishing usage. Depending on the patient’s condition, a number of alternative drugs are available us benefits.

Levels of Protection and Employment (Question No. 78)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

What are (a) the current levels of tariff protection available to, (b) the gross subsidy equivalents which these levels of protection represent, and (c) the numbers of persons employed in, the following industries: (a) rolling, drawing, and extruding of non-ferrous basic metals, (b) furniture, including mattresses, (c) refrigerators and other household electrical appliances, (d) clothing and (e) transport equipment (motor vehicles and parts).

Mr Howard: The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The levels of tariff protection afforded the nominated industries by the ad valorem rates of duty in the customs tariff are:

The range of duties cited for the clothing industry does not include any specific duties which of course vary in incidence according to the unit value of the goods concerned and it could be outside the quoted range.

  1. The most recent data available on Gross Subsidy Equivalent appears in Table 3.4.1 of the Industries Assistance Commission’s 1973-74 Annual Report. The data relates to the year 1969-70 and therefore does not take into account any tariff changes made since 30 June 1 970.
  2. The latest available data on employment in the industries concerned, is given in Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Reference 12.23 ‘Manufacturing Establishments: Summary of Operations by Industry Class 1973-74’ (November 1975). The figures for the specific industries concerned are:

It should be noted that the industry classification coverage used in Part (a) may not directly accord with the coverage used in Parts (b) and (c) as the customs tariff classification relates to products and the employment data relate to establishments which have been classified to industries on the basis of their primary activities.

Grain and Meat (Question No. 127)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was Australia’s attitude to the counter proposals of the European Economic Community and the United States on international grain stabilisation proposals at the GATT cereals sub-group meeting on 28 January 1976.
  2. What proposals has Australia put to the meat, tropical products and dairy sub-groups which met in February 1976.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Grains Sub-group of the GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations first met in May 1975 and has held five meetings to date. Its work is concerned with the reduction of barriers to world grain trade, the removal and/or relaxation of export measures which distort world trade, the problems of market instability and the need for special treatment for developing countries.

During the course of discussions, the EEC has emphasised the stabilisation aspects of the Sub-group’s objectives, suggesting that solutions to problems should be sought through an effective international commodity agreement containing maximum and minimum prices and stock-holding provisions.

The United States has been pressing for liberalisation of government measures affecting trade. Its attitude is that liberalisation will ensure greater stability in the market and that a grains reserve system would provide adequate food security. The United States had made clear that it is strongly opposed to any proposals for an International Wheat Agreement of the traditional type.

Australia’s overall objective in the deliberations of the MTN Grains Sub-group (and also in the International Wheat Council) on the problems of world trade in grains has been to secure arrangements which would provide satisfactory assurances of adequate supplies at prices which are equitable to consumers and sufficiently remunerative to producers. In the MTN Grains Sub-group, Australia has consistently expressed the view that liberalisation and stabilisation are both important and interrelated. Australia has attempted to have both aspects dealt with in a proper perspective.

In the light of experience with the operation of past wheat agreements and other commodity arrangements, Australia has, in particular, sought clarification of certain aspects of the EEC proposal, especially as it relates to minimum and maximum prices. At the same time, we have expressed the view that any reserve stock mechanism must be incorporated into an overall approach which provides effective safeguards to normal commercial trade. In addition, Australia has argued that negotiations will need to cover all forms of government intervention which tend to distort the market, including export credit facilities and food aid (particularly where this is used as a market development measure) as well as frontier measures such as export subsidies and import levies.

Further progress in the MTN Grains Sub-group depends largely on the willingness of the United States and the EEC to reappraise their overall attitudes to the MTN and their objectives in an international grains agreement with a view to finding some common ground. In this regard, it is relevant and encouraging that the activities of the International Wheat Council have now been directed to further technical examination of the implications and practicability of various proposals which have already been made in the course of preparatory work or arising from past negotiations.

  1. In the Dairy Sub-group Australia has proposed three basic objectives for the current series of discussions which began in June 1975. Broadly, these are to seek improved and more secure access to export markets, the containment of export subsidies and credit selling by exporting countries and the improvement of international arrangements to help reduce recurrent price fluctuations in world markets. Australia has also suggested that the Sub-group explore the scope for the establishment of an International Dairy Council, for example, along the lines of the International Wheat Council, to assist in attaining these objectives.

Australia has argued strongly within the present series of MTN discussions, as well as bilaterally, for increased liberalisation of import trade barriers and domestic dairy support and export regimes, especially by the EEC, Japan, Canada and the United States whose dairy policies collectively have been a major factor in the present crisis in the world dairy market. For example, Australia has requested that the United States review its quotas on imports of dairy products in terms of its commitments under GATT, relating to restrictions on imports of farm products. Within the MTN (and separately, in recent bilateral discussions), Japan has been urged to liberalise its import barriers to provide a more realistic level of access for imported dairy products.

Particular attention has also been drawn to the disruptive effects on world dairy markets of the EEC’s domestic dairy support arrangements, import policies and export subsidisation practices and to the relevance, in this regard, of the MTN objective of trade liberalisation.

Australia will continue to pursue these objectives at future meetings of the MTN Dairy Sub-group. However, we must be prepared to recognise that progress will be difficult, due partly to the entrenched nature of domestic policies in many countries and partly to disagreement between the two main participants in the negotiations-the United States and the EC. The success of the negotiations will depend in large degree on the attitudes adopted by them.

The MTN Meat Sub-group first met in June 1975 and has held three meetings to date. Australia’s principal objectives in the negotiations in this forum is to bring about an overall reduction in the barriers to international trade in meat.

In particular we are seeking to achieve:

  1. tariff reductions in line with any general tariff negotiating approach which might be adopted in nonagricultural products;
  2. reductions in non-tariff measures, such as variable import levies, quantitative restrictions and export subsidies;
  3. negotiation of less restrictive systems of safeguards in importing countries.

At an early stage of the proceedings, Australia circulated a paper dealing with the causes and effects of instability in the world beef trade which illustrated that, as a result of the restrictive import policies of some of the world’s major importers, Australia and other major exporting countries have been forced to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of adjustment to changes in world market circumstances.

We have pointed out that the maintenance of artificially high domestic support and related import barriers, especially in the EEC and Japan, has prevented access to lower priced beef from traditional exporting countries, has had a negative effect on consumption and brought about a reduction in the level of world trade.

To establish a proper basis of fact on which negotiations can be based, the first three meetings of the Meat Sub-group concentrated on an analysis of the specific characteristics, structure and problems of the world meat trade, including the direct and indirect impact of trade barriers and trade distorting practices. The Sub-group has also undertaken a country by country examination of trade barriers.

During these discussions, Australia has suggested that stabilisation of the EEC market should not require such complete insulation from market forces as is provided by their present domestic and external support system, and has sought from the EEC advice of areas in which liberalisation of the present restrictive regime could be achieved.

Similarly, the Australian delegation has sought from other major importers (notably the United States and Japan) advice on their willingness to reduce their existing barriers to imports of meat.

Regrettably, there has so far been little evidence of any willingness on the pan of importing countries to enter into meaningful negotiations on these matters.

Progress at future meetings of the MTN meat sub-group will depend on the willingness of major importing countries to identify the elements of their existing support and import mechanisms on which they are prepared to enter into negotiations aimed at liberalising world trade.

The Tropical Products Group was established in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations to ensure that some special and priority treatment would be given to the needs of developing countries during the course of the negotiations. It was agreed by the Group early in 1975 that such treatment could - best be achieved by a procedure in which developing countries themselves would submit to developed countries requests for concessions on tropical products of trade interest. This was initially to be done in May 1975 or as soon as possible thereafter. The developed countries were to reciprocate by giving detailed consideration to the requests made and, where possible, make offers of concessions by 1 March 1976.

Australia accordingly received requests for concessions from 27 developing countries on over 250 products and, together with most other developed countries, was able to table its offers in Geneva by the due date. Discussions are now proceeding on a confidential basis between participants concerning the offers. I expect to make a statement in relation to Australia’s position with regard to the outcome of these negotiations after the discussions have been concluded.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 639)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee are without (a) an electorate office and ( b ) a secretary.
  2. Does the Committee have any secretariat; if so, what are the details.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. All National Aboriginal Consultative Committee members are entitled to employ an electoral secretary and to have an electoral office and associated furniture and equipment. Not all members have taken up these entitlements and some operate from the premises of existing Aboriginal community organisations or from their own homes. Others have declined offers of office space.

    1. The following members do not have an electoral office:
  1. The following members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee do not employ a secretary under the arrangements approved by the previous Government:
  1. The Secretariat needs of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee are provided for within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Notice of Marriage (Question No. 515)

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was notice of the marriage of John Robert Kerr and Anne Robson which took place in New South Wales on 29 April 197S given to the authorized celebrant in accordance with section 42 of the Marriage Act and filed with the Registrar in accordance with section SO of the Act.
  2. Did both parties sign the notice.
  3. 3 ) What was the date of the notice.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the Honourable Member’s question is as follows:

The question seeks personal information which is not usually made available to members of the public. I do not consider that this practice should be departed from in this case.

Department of National Resources: Expenditure (Question No. 524)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. 3 ) What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– In answer to the honourable member’s question I refer him to the Treasurer’s reply to Question No. 526 on 26 May 1976 (Hansard page 2525 ).

Department of the Northern Territory: Expenditure (Question No. 542)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. 5 ) To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s reply to Question No. 526, Hansard, page 2525 of 26 May 1976.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Expenditure (Question No. 543)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. 3 ) What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s answer to Question No. 526 which appeared in Hansard on 26 May 1976, page 2525.

Department of the Capital Territory: Expenditure (Question No. 547)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s reply to Question on Notice No. 526 which appeared in Hansard on 26 May 1976 (page 2525).

Petrochemical Industry at Redcliffs (Question No. 568)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What steps have been taken to re-activate proposals for the establishment of a petrochemical industry at Redcliffs in South Australia?

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

In February of this year I had discussions with the South Australian Minister for Mines and Energy, the Honourable Hugh Hudson, M.H.A., on the options available for the rational development of the Cooper Basin hydrocarbon resource. The Redcliffs petrochemical works is one of the available options.

This is primarily a State matter and I understand the State Government has held discussions with the Cooper Basin producers and other interested parties concerning the reactivation of the proposal to build a petrochemical industry at Redcliffs. A decision to proceed with this or one of the other options cannot be long delayed and preliminary feasibility studies are currently being conducted. I believe the State Government is seeking, before the end of this year, a clear indication from the parties involved if there is any likelihood of the Redcliffs proposal proceeding.

Repatriation Benefits (Question No. 575)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

What wouild be the individual and total costs involved in implementing the following requests submitted for consideration by the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association of Australia.

The special rate pension be increased to conformity with and not below the Commonwealth minimum wage;

The means test limit of $838 be increased to $2,000 for married men and from $410 to $1,000 for single men;

The wife’s allowance be increased from $8.10 to $16.20 per fortnight;

The funeral benefit be raised from $100 to $250 and paid to the next of kin of all totally and permanently incapacitated persons irrespective of marital status and irrespective of the cause of death; and

The clothing allowance be raised by 100 per cent for the lower rate from $1.10 to $2.20 per fortnight and for the higher rate from $ 1 .60 to $3.20 per fortnight.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. $ 1 3,578,000 additional a year.
  2. It would require a vast amount of work in the study of individual records to make even a rough estimate of easing the means test in this way. It is hoped that the answers given to the other parts of the question put by the honourable member will suffice.
  3. $ 17,067,000 additional a year.
  4. The Repatriation $100 funeral benefit is paid in respect of deaths of totally and permanently incapacitated persons irrespective of marital status and irrespective of the cause of death; the T. & P.I. Association know this. It is assumed therefore that the honourable members question relates to increasing the funeral benefit to $250 for all eligible categories This would cost $1,320,000 additional a year.
  5. $82,600 additional a year.

The total additional cost of the proposals would be $32,047,600 a year plus the cost of easing the means test as proposed in item (b).

Department of National Resources: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 586)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Department

    1. 1 ) 4 officers: Salaries $40,008
    2. Nil.
    3. Nil.
    4. The services of the Commonwealth Employment Service are used as required when recruiting staff from outside the Australian Public Service. No payment is made.

  2. B) Australian Atomic Energy Commission

    1. 1 ) 2 officers: Salaries $ 1 9,936
    2. Nil.
    3. Nil.
    4. When requested, CES send registered persons for interviews for base grade vacancies. No payment is made.

  3. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority

    1. 1 ) 1 officer- No charge to the Commonwealth.
    2. Nil.
    3. Nil.
    4. CES is the first source of enquiry in recruiting wages employees. No payment is made.
  4. River Murray Commission (l)(2)(3)and(4) Nil.

  5. Joint Coal Board (l)(2)and(3) Nil.

    1. CES is used for junior staff vacancies. No payment is made.

  6. Pipline Authority

    1. Nil.
    2. (i) 3 private employment agencies to supply casual short term staff,

    1. 2 private employment agencies to assist in recruiting staff.

    2. (i) $922 to agencies in (2) (i) (ii) $3,247 to agencies in (2) (ii)
    3. Nil.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 595)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him and his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department and any such agency in engaging private employment agencies m the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Six persons are engaged full-time on the recruitment of staff for the Department of Foreign Affairs, including the Australian Development Assistance Agency. Their total salaries per annum are $68,5 19.
  2. Nil.
  3. Nil.
  4. Nil.

Department of the Capital Territory: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 608)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

In regard to other authorities and agencies responsible to the Minister, the proportion of time spent by staff on the recruitment function is negligible.

  1. The A.C.T. Electricity Authority is the only agency responsible to the Minister that has engaged a private employment agency to assist in recruitment of staff. During the past two years the Authority has engaged a private employment agency on two (2) occasions only.
  2. The total cost to the A.C.T. Electricity Authority of using private agencies on these two occasions was $841.
  3. No moneys have been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service by any of the agencies responsible to the Minister for any assistance provided.

The Commonwealth Employment Service is used when appropriate. Otherwise recruitment is done by advertising in the National newspapers and Government Gazette. The A.C.T. Electricity Authority utilise the Commonwealth Employment Service for the recruitment of around 20 per cent of its professional, clerical and industrial staff.

The A.C.T. Police distribute Recruitment Brochures through the Commonwealth Employment Service who in turn refer any interested persons to the Police Recruitment Officer.

Aboriginal Embassy (Question No. 637)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Has any financial assistance been offered by the Government towards the cost of maintenance, administration or purchase of the Aboriginal Embassy; if so, what are the details.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Financial assistance has been neither sought from nor offered by the Government.

Aid for Italian Earthquake Relief (Question No. 650)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Can he say what are the (a) nature and (b) value of assistance which other Governments have given to Italy following the earthquake of May 1 976.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Assistance to Italy following the earthquake on 7 May 1976 has taken the form of material assistance in the form of equipment, foodstuffs, drugs and personnel and financial assistance.
  2. The Italian Government has advised that as of 18 May the following assistance had been offered by foreign governments:

Australia: $250,000 from the Federal Government and $45,000 from State Governments.

Austria: $87,000, 1625 tents, 2000 mattresses, 2000 pillows, 10 000 sheets, kitchens for 2000 people, 12 water purifiers, 12 watertankers, 5 heavy logistic support vehicles.

Belgium: 35 electric generators, 25 000 meal units, medical material.

Canada: $824,000, a military corps specialised in clearing operations and medical assistance as well as 300 men with various equipment, ambulances, helicopters, etc.

European Community: $57,000, 150 000 tonnes of powdered milk.

Denmark: Tents and beds for 400 people.

France: Two teams of ‘securite civile’ with appropriate equipment, one team of firemen specialised in salvaging and clearing operations, one mobile medical unit, one team of ‘corps mondiale de secours’ with 500 kilos of medicine and 100 blankets.

Britain: $143,500, 90 tents, 360 campbeds, 1000 blankets, unspecified quantities of anti-biotics and water purifiers.

Japan: $10,700.

Greece: 1 30 tents, two tonnes of raisins. Israel: 16 tents, 160 beds, 320 blankets. Yugoslavia: $133,000.

Norway: 250 prefabricated houses of 25 square metres each.

Netherlands: 154 tents, 1900 camp beds.

Pakistan: 200 tents, $16,000 worth of medicine, two tons of rice.

Federal Republic of Germany: $936,000, 1765 tents, 1500 mattresses, 5250 blankets, a battalion of sappers with 1 1 vehicles, one military group, with water purifying plants.

German Democratic Republic: 50 10 blankets.

San Marino: $19,000.

United States: $20,292,000 for reconstruction, 1500 tents, 6 helicopters, $40,600 worth of field rations, $5,700 worth of stretcher material.

Sweden: $18 1,600.

Switzerland: 260 tents, a water purifier, eighteen tons of powdered milk, 485 sets of kitchen utensils.

U.N.D.R.O.: 300 tents to a value of $20,300.

Further assistance has been provided by a number of national branches of the Red Cross and by other voluntary organisations.

South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone (Question No. 700)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

Did the Government reverse the previous Government’s policy of favouring a nuclear-free zone; if so, does this mean that its primary defence consideration is to safeguard United States interests in the Pacific region.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The question of a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone was considered at length by the Prime Minister and the Heads of

Governments of other South Pacific nations at the recent meeting of the South Pacific Forum held in Rotorua on 8-9 March. The Record of the Meeting reported the discussion in the following terms: ‘The members of the Forum agreed that in carrying forward their consultations under the resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 1 1 December 1975, endorsing the idea of a nuclearweaponfree zone in the South Pacific, their objectives would be to advance the cause of general disarmament and to seek the cessation of nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. In taking such action they would respect the principle of the freedom of navigation of the high seas. They agreed that in developing the concept embodied in the General Assembly resolution along these lines there would be no incompatibility with existing security arrangements. ‘

Minister for National Resources (Question No. 764)

Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what date and at what place did the Premier of Queensland and Mr Wiley Fancher make their visit to him.
  2. Had he ever spoken to Mr Fancher by telephone before this visit; if so, when.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) On 8 January 1 976 at my office in Murwillumbah.
  2. As I have already publicly stated, Mr Fancher telephoned me on numerous occasions in the second half of 1975. 1 have no record of the calls so I cannot give specificdates.

Pensioners: Hospital Treatment (Question No. 65)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he explain the criteria to be used in the waiver of charges for pensioner patients admitted to Canberra hospitals under private practitioners as stated in part (4) of the answer to question No. 3071 (Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 1711).
  2. Has any alteration been made to this procedure since August 1975.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No specific criteria are laid down but where, after examining a pensioner’s assets, income and liabilities, it is apparent that payment of hospital charges would cause a pensioner financial hardship the hospitals recommend to the Commissioner that hospital charges be remitted.
  2. No.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Election Coverage (Question No. 324)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. How many of the ABC’s staff were employed at the national tally room to receive the results of the last election.
  2. How many were brought to Canberra from interstate.
  3. What was the total cost of travel and accommodation allowances paid to them.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) 1 02 members of the ABC ‘s staff, comprising television and radio technicians, production staff, make-up personnel, journalists, news readers, typists, clerks, teleprinter operators and computer operators, were employed at the National Tally Room.
  3. $6,000.

Mr Richard Cobden (Question No. 507)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What position does Mr Richard Cobden hold at the Australian National Gallery.
  2. What are the duties of the position as stated in the duty statement for the position.
  3. What qualifications were stated as necessary for the position when it was advertised.
  4. What qualifications relevant to the position does Mr Cobden hold.
Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Richard Cobden was appointed to a position of Technical Assistant Grade I with the Australian National Gallery.

  2. 2 ) The duties of that position are:

    1. Receive, inspect and handle all works of art on paper.
    2. Supervise the mounting, framing and crating of works of art for exhibition.
    3. Supervise the mounting, framing and packing of works of art.
    4. Handle, inspect material, prepare bases, and supervise assembly and installation of exhibitions.
  3. In line with the normal practice of not advertising specific positions in base grade classifications such as Technical Assistant Grade I, the position to which Mr Cobden was appointed was not advertised.
  4. Mr Cobden holds no formal tertiary qualifications but was previously employed as a Gallery Assistant in David Jones Art Gallery, Sydney, one of Australia’s leading commercial art galleries. He trained and gained experience relevant to the duties of his present position under Mr Robert Haines, Director of the David Jones Gallery, and formerly assistant Director, National Gallery of Victoria, and Director, Queensland An Gallery.

Lockheed Electra Aircraft Purchase (Question No. 520)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When did he first see the letter which I sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 31 March 1976 concerning the purchase of Lockheed Electra aircraft during the period when Senator Paltridge was Minister for Civil Aviation.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned it to me on 1 April 1976.

Quarantine: Departmental Inquiry (Question No. 559)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the answer to question No. 1027 [Hansard, 3 October 1974, page 2272) in which the former Minister for Health advised that the Departmental Committee which inquired into quarantine in Western Australia in March 1974 did not report any Quarantine deficiencies (a) at ports in the north west or Western Australia, (b) at aerodromes in the north west of Western Australia, (c) at Kwinana and (d) in the examination of overseas mail arriving in Western Australia.
  2. Is it a fact that the answer was misleading because in paragraph 3 of the Committee’s report it was stated that the Director-General instructed officers on 12 March 1974 to review the quarantine operations at Perth and Fremantle; if so, can he say whether the Minister was aware of this.
  3. Can he say whether the answer was prepared by Departmental officers; if so, by whom and what positions do they now hold.
  4. What steps has he taken to ensure that information and implications contained in answers to questions on quarantine matters will be factual and not misleading.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed that the answers were factual.
  3. I am informed that, in accordance with normal procedure, the draft reply was the outcome of advice obtained from a number of departmental officers at various levels in the Department.
  4. I have no reason to believe that the Department does not exercise great care in the preparation of any advice to its Minister.

Age Pension Eligibility (Question No. 612)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a person who has been resident in Australia for over 10 years and who has continued to pay Australian income tax after leaving Australia is required to return and remain here for a period of 12 months in order to be eligible to receive an age pension overseas even though all other criteria for eligibility for such pension have been satisfied.
  2. 2 ) If so, what are the reasons underlying this policy.
  3. Does strict implementation of this rule often create hardship.
  4. Is the Minister prepared to investigate the application of this policy, and, in particular, consider relaxing the present policy by having regard to the period of residence in Australia prior to an applicant for an age pension becoming a resident elsewhere.
  5. Do certain circumstances exist under which a pension may be granted to a person who has been an Australian resident but is now resident elsewhere.
  6. If so, (a) what are the circumstances, (b) what rules govern the level of pension which may then be payable, (c) is the faa that the applicant for a pension has been paying Australian income tax while overseas taken into account in deciding whether to grant a pension to a person residing overseas, (d) is a distinction made between Australian citizens and residents and (e) if so, what distinction is made.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) A claimant who has been continuously resident in Australia for not less than 10 years at any time does not need to satisfy any further specific residence test in order to qualify for age pension in Australia.

There is the additional qualification, however, that the claimant be residing in, and physically present in, Australia on (he date on which the claim for pension is lodged.

If a person who formerly lived in Australia returns to this country and is granted a pension, the pension is not payable overseas if the pensioner leaves Australia within 12 months after the date he last arrived in the country.

The purpose of the last mentioned provision is to deter people who ordinarily reside abroad from returning temporarily to Australia in anticipation of qualifying for payment of a pension overseas.

As with any provision which adversely affects an applicant, circumstances could be envisaged in which hardship could result from its application. Relief may be offered where a person’s reason for leaving or wishing to leave Australia before the expiration of the 12 months arose from circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time the person returned to Australia.

  1. This involves a matter of Government policy which will be considered when this matter is next being reviewed.
  2. Yes.
  3. (a) Since March 1974 it has ben possible to grant and pay Australian age, invalid and widows’ pensions to people overseas. The special conditions applying are briefly that: a claimant is in special need of financial assistance; a claimant ceased to live in Australia before 8 May 1 973; in the case of a claimant for age pension the applicant lived 30 years in Australia and left the country after reaching 60 years of age in the case of a man or 55 in the case of a woman. The 30 years’ residence test does not apply to people claiming invalid or widow’s pension respectively who became permanently incapacitated for work, or widows, in Australia.

The ordinary conditions for grant of pensions, other than that of being resident in Australia, must also be satisfied.

  1. The Australian pension rate is regarded as an appropriate maximum level of assistance; the maximum pension rate applicable to a person is reduced by direct deduction from that rate of any income and the value of assets in excess of$400.
  2. No.
  3. and (e) No distinction is made between Australian citizens and non-citizens.

Marriage Celebrants (Question No. 634)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many marriage celebrants have been appointed in each State and Territory.
  2. How many marriages have been performed by each celebrant since appointment.
  3. What is the criteria used to determine suitability of appointees.
  4. What information is available regarding the level of fees charged by celebrants.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The following table sets out the number of private persons authorized as civil marriage celebrants by the Attorney-General in each State and Territory, together with dates of appointment and the number of marriages recorded as having been solemnized by each celebrant up to 3 1 March 1976. 1 should emphasis that the records do not include marriages solemnized in 1973 and the figures are based on monthly returns supplied by the celebrants themselves. Figures for individual celebrants are not readily available from Registrar’s records.

I have assumed that the Honourable Member’s question does not refer to religious celebrants or State officials.

  1. Persons wishing to be considered for authorisation as civil marriage celebrants must demonstrate capability, responsibility and general personal suitability. They must be capable of understanding the relevant provisions of the Marriage Act and of explaining them to others. They must be able to attend to the documentation associated with the marriage and its subsequent registration. They are also expected to nave a pleasant, outgoing personality inducing confidence in dealing with groups of people.

In selecting people for authorisation, the emphasis is placed on providing suitable celebrants in convenient locations to meet reasonable community needs. Celebrants are expected to be readily accessible to the public and to be available to solemnise marriages at all reasonable times and places.

  1. Standard fees for all civil marriage celebrants are prescribed in the Fifth Schedule to the Regulations made under the Marriage Act 1961-1973.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 646)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that social security benefits are not adjusted in accordance with movements in the consumer price index whereas pensions are so adjusted.
  2. If so, what is the reason for this policy.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The basic rates of social security pensions and benefits are adjusted in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. These pensions and benefits include: age, invalid and widow’s pensions, supporting mother’s benefit, unemployment and sickness benefit, special benefit, sheltered employment allowances and service pensions.

Mothers and guardians allowance and additional pensions for children have not been adjusted by movements in the consumer price index. However, the new rates of family allowances recently awarded by the Government will be of great assistance to pensioners and beneficiaries with children.

  1. In accordance with the practice adopted by the previous Government in the 1975-76 Budget, the rate of unemployment and sickness benefit payable to single persons under 18 years of age was not increased by the movements in the consumer price index when the last increases in pensions and benefits were granted. The question of the appropriate method of adjusting social security pensions, benefits and allowances will be considered by the Income Security Review as part of the review of the income security system as a whole.

Rhodesian Migrants (Question No. 655)

Dr Richardson:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government recognise Rhodesian passports.
  2. Does his Department currently accept Rhodesian migrants if the applicants fall within the accepted occupational categories, or have reasonable compassionate grounds.
  3. In the light of the present unstable situation in Southern Africa and the likelihood that the days of the white minority regime in Rhodesia are numbered, will he consider accepting Rhodesian migrants now, irrespective of whether they meet the current standards.
  4. If so, when will this policy be announced.
  5. If not, will he further consider this proposal when, and if, total war breaks out in Rhodesia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1) In accordance with a resolution of 29 May 1968 of the United Nations Security Council, the Government is obligated to prevent the entry, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport.
  2. Subject to observance of the restriction on Southern Rhodesian passport holders, Rhodesian applicants seeking entry to Australia may be considered on their merits within the scope of normal migration policy. (3), (4) and (5) The Government is not proposing at this stage to alter migrant entry policy in respect of its application to Southern Rhodesians. Consideration of any future action would depend on the nature of developments.

Telecom Australia: Capital Works Program (Question No. 660)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the capital works program for Telecom Australia for the year 1975-76 expected to be 1 per cent higher in constant price terms than that for the year 1974-75 which is considerably lower than the long term average of 5.5. per cent.
  2. Does Telecom Australia explain the low projection by saying that better utilization of existing telephone exchange equipment will take place.
  3. Will the 1 per cent growth rate be turned into a negative real growth rate due to the substantially reduced school leaver recruitment into apprenticeships at the beginning of 1976 while the absolute operative staff level as at 30 June 1976 is to be reduced by 1250 compared with the figure as at 1 July 1975.
  4. Will the problem of obtaining the desired growth be further compounded by the $1 1 million cut-back in Government advances for capital works.
  5. Is the reduction in the number of apprenticeships in the telecommunications industry granted to school leavers consistent with the Government s stated objective during the last election campaign of providing increased employment opportunities for school leavers.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The 1 per cent increase referred to was forecast by Telecom Australia in the document ‘Service and Business Outlook 1975-76’ which was published in August last year. Telecom Australia has advised that the engineering construction program is now expected to be slightly lower, in constant price terms, than for the year 1 974-75.
  2. Telecom Australia indicated in the document ‘Service and Business Outlook 1975-76’ that a major factor in containing growth in 1975-76 was a planned program to increase plant utilization, particularly of existing exchange equipment.
  3. 3 ) Telecom Australia has spent a good deal of effort in organising its staff resources with the objective of minimising the effects of reduced staff ceilings. In particular, it has endeavoured to ensure that the maintenance of existing services and the connection of new services are safeguarded. As mentioned in (1) above, the engineering construction program is expected to be slightly slower, in constant price terms, than for 1974-75.
  4. No. The reduction in borrowings was achieved by a combination of savings, deferral of building expenditure and reduced expenditure on the purchase of new motor vehicles. The reduction will not affect Telecom Australia’s ability to provide service to its customers.
  5. It was necessary for Telecom Australia to reduce the intake of apprentices in 1 976 to meet the Goverment’s desire to limit staff growth in the public sector.

Australian Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 661)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Does the Telecommunications Act 1975 provide that the Australian Telecommunications Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for telecommunications services.
  2. Can the Commission achieve this objective despite the cut-back in its financial allocation of $1 lm and the target of a staff reduction of 1250 persons imposed upon it for the year 1975-76.
  3. Is it expected that the Commission will be able to achieve the necessary growth in output of 7 per cent needed to meet the community demand despite the reductions imposed upon it for the year 1 975-76.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Telecom Australia has spent a good deal of effort in organising its staff resources with the objective of minimising the effects of reduced staff ceilings. In particular it has endeavoured to ensure that the maintenance of existing services and the connection of new services are safeguarded.
  3. Yes.

Telephones (Question No. 662)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the publication Service and Business Outlook of Telecom Australia for the year 1975- 76 which was published in August 1975 and which predicted a growth of 4 per cent in telephone services, S per cent in local calls and 10.5 per cent in trunk line calls.
  2. If so, are these growth rates still obtainable having regard to the overall decline of 1250 in staff numbers of Telecom Australia and a budgetary cut-back of $1 lm in the year 1975-76.
  3. Having regard to these difficulties, will Telecom Australia be able to meet the needs of the business community and the private subscribers for the remainder of the year 1975-76 and for the year 1976-77.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Telecom Australia expects a growth of 4.8 per cent in telephone services, 5 per cent in local calls and 8 to 8.5 per cent in trunk line calls.
  3. The Commission has advised that it expects to be able to meet reasonable needs for the remainder of the year. The Commission’s budget and targets have yet to be finalised for

1976- 77.

Education: Federal Expenditure in Batman (Question No. 665)

Mr Garrick:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the total sum that has been spent by Federal Governments on schools in the Electoral Division of Batman since 1973.
  2. Of this sum, what is the total federal expenditure on (a) private secondary schools, (b) private primary schools, (c) State secondary schools, (d) State primary schools, and (e) Catholic schools.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Funds for non-Government schools in the electorate of Batman are made available under programs administered by the Department of Education and the Schools Commission.

    1. Programs Administered by the Department of Education

Funds administered by the Department of Education were made available under the following acts:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1 97 1 .

States Grants ( Independent Schools) Act 1 969- 1 972.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1 97 1 .

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73.

Payments made under these acts are set out in reports which were tabled in the House of Representatives on the dates listed below.

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971: 8 December 1971; 26 October 1972; 12 December 1973; 28 October 1975; 5 May 1976.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1 969- 1 972: 19 August 1971; 31 August 1972; 14 March 1974; 5 December 1974.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1 97 1 : 5 May 1971; 16 May 1972; 29 March 1973; 24 July 1974; 29 May 1975.

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73: 12 November 1974.

  1. Programs administered by the Schools Commission

Funds administered by the Schools Commission are made available on a calendar year basis commencing in 1 974.

Payments for 1974 are set out in the document ‘Report: Financial assistance granted to each State in 1974 (under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74’ which was tabled in the Senate on 1 October 1975.

Funds for 1975 and 1976 (to date) are set out below.

Australia Post (Question No. 676)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

Are Government services which are provided on an agency basis through the Postal Commission paid for at a rate which enables the Commission to recoup the full cost of providing such services, including maintenance and depreciation on post office buildings.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Yes. Australia Post recovers the full cost of providing Government services on an agency basis. Rates cover the direct and indirect costs involved including depreciation and accommodation charges.

Education: Expenditure (Question No. 685)

Mr Garrick:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the school population of the Electoral Division ofBatman.
  2. What was the actual per capita expenditure from federal sources on this population in the last 3 years.
  3. What was the actual per capita expenditure on school children in the Electoral Divisions of Kooyong and Higgins in the same period.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. My Department does not have information on the school population in the Electoral Division ofBatman. However the honourable member might refer to my answer to Question No. 720 (Hansard2.6.76page 2913).
  2. Expenditure on non-government schools in the Batman electorate was outlined in my reply to Question No. 665. Expenditure on Government schools is not available to me.
  3. Expenditure on non-government schools for 1975 and 1976 to date in the electoral divisions of Kooyong and Higgins is not readily available. I shall arrange for details to be forwarded to the honourable member.

Australian Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 699)

Mr Short:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Is the present pricing policy of the Australian Telecommunications Commission based entirely on a principle of the user pays.
  2. If so, are all individual prices determined on this basis, or does the principle relate to the overall financial return to the Commission.
  3. Is strict adherence to the principle compatible with the Commission’s duty, as outlined in Section 6 ( 1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975, to perform its functions in such a manner as will best serve the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for telecommunications services.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) This principle of ‘user pays’ applies in general but there are certain major services such as public telegrams, coin telephones and telephone services in certain country districts which do not meet that criterion. The Telecommunications Act 1975 requires Telecom Australia to meet all expenditure, and provision for expenditure, of the Commission properly chargeable to revenue and to provide not less than 50 per cent of its capital requirements from internal sources. Not all individual services do meet these broad financial objectives because Telecom is mindful of its obligations under Section 6 ( 1 ) of the Act.

Overseas Loans (Question No. 703)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

At the meeting in Melbourne on 2 November 1 975, who mentioned the name of Wiley Fancher to the Premier of Queensland as a person who was understood to have information in connection with rumours that Ministers of the Labor Government had been involved in improper dealings in relation to overseas loans (Hansard, 6 May 1976, page 2053).

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

Mr Anthony and Mr Lynch.

Report on Libraries: Consultations with States (Question No. 709)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have consultations taken place with any State governments on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries which was appointed by his predecessor on 11 March 197S and which presented its report on 27 February 1976.
  2. If so, what have been the date, form and outcome of the consultations.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Copies of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries are being sent to State Governments with an invitation for those Governments to provide the Commonwealth with any comments they wish to make on the Report. The Commonwealth Government will, of course, continue to consult with the States on the implications of the Report.

Sales Tax: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 738)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are there any restrictions on sales tax free purchases of motor vehicles by State Governments.
  2. Can high cost imported vehicles be purchased tax free by a State Government and resold with low usage at a considerable profit.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Freedom from sales tax on motor vehicles purchased by State Governments is restricted to vehicles that are for the official use of the State Governments and not for sale.
  2. There are no restrictions on the types of vehicles that may be purchased free of sales tax by State Governments but there are restrictions on their disposal. Vehicles that have been purchased free of sales tax may not be disposed of within two years of the date of purchase unless they have completed at least 40 000 kilometers of running.

Meat Inspection (Question No. 780)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated additional annual cost to Australia of the dual meat inspection system.
  2. Who actually pays this additional charge.
  3. What progress has been made with the elimination of the dual system.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. As stated in the answer to question number 70 Hansard, 4 March 1976, page 619) some extra costs are incurred in the States where dual or joint meat inspection services operate but it is not possible to specify the savings that might be possible if there were a single authority responsible for meat inspection.
  2. Some savings in Commonwealth and State expenditures would result if further rationalisation of meat inspection services took place. It would be possible to determine where the benefit of any cost savings as between producers, consumers and governments would go only when all the relevant factors could be carefully assessed at any particular time.
  3. The Administrative Review Committee has examined and reported on meat inspection services in Australia. The report is being considered by the States and the Commonwealth.

Department of Transport: Budget (Question No. 58)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the detailed composition of the $ 1 3 m cut in his Department’s Budget referred to in his press release of 4 February 1976.
  2. How many current employees will be retrenched as a result of this cut.
  3. What action does he propose to provide alternative employment for the employees affected.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Details of the cash savings in the Department Budget for 1975-76 are as follows:
  1. None.
  2. As no employees will be retrenched no action is required.

Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 199)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) As a result of the Fraser Government decision to force the Australian Broadcasting Commission to reduce expenditure by $8.4m during the current financial year, what programs appearing on (a) ABC television and (b) ABC radio have been discontinued.
  2. What planned radio and television programs were discontinued by the ABC.
  3. What was the on-air time of each program in pans ( I ) and (2).
  4. How many ABC employees have been (a) dismissed and (b) instructed to work shorter hours.
  5. What equipment has the ABC had to delay purchasing, and at what cost, for (a) each item of equipment and (b) in (i) penalties and (ii) expected penalties incurred as a result of delayed purchases of equipment.
  6. What equipment, and at what value, has the ABC purchased but been prevented from installing or utilising.
Mr E L Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) Television-

Nationwide-¼ hour weekly

State of the Nation-½ hour weekly (during Parliamentary session)

One five minute evening television News bulletin in Sydney and Melbourne. However, one additional late evening News bulletin has been programmed in Sydney on Saturdays

Saturday afternoon sports coverage on television has been curtailed in differing degrees in all States, according to existing contracts for live coverage of sporting events

  1. Radio-

Star Artist- 1 5 minutes weekly

Piano and Me- 15 minutes weekly

Room to Move (recorded music with compere)- 2 hours weekly. Evening repeat of Blue Hills-¼ hour 4 days per week

Tempo of the Times- 1 hour per fortnight

One outer metropolitan News bulletin in five states (Monday to Friday)

My Kind of Music- 1½ hours weekly, now replaced by a similar program presentation by a staff announcer

Kevin Johnson- Natural Friends and Music-½ hour weekly.

  1. Television- six single plays- 1 hour each

Radio- Rural Youth Competition- 48 minutes

Choral Competition- 5 hours

Programs to be recorded by Sydney Show

Band- 1 hour weekly

Programs to be recorded by Adelaide Singers-½ hour weekly.

  1. See(l)and(2).

  2. (a) Services have been terminated of 185 people, made up of part-time employees, and people engaged on short-term contracts and short-term temporary engagements.

    1. Staff have been instructed not to exceed normal working hours, except in special circumstances.

  3. (a) The ABC has deferred purchasing many hundreds of single items of equipment within categories such as lighting, telecine, audio control desks, loudspeakers, video distribution, vision control, television cameras, vision monitors, video recorders, microwave links, and so on to reduce expenditure by $2,664,000 in this financial year.

    1. (i) Nil. (ii) Additional payments arising out of deferments are estimated at $88,070.
  4. The ABC has not purchased any equipment that cannot be installed or utilised. There is a backlog of installation work arising from the termination of certain installation contracts and a reduction in ABC staff effort.

Christmas Island (Question No. 377)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What proportion of rock phosphate shipped from Christmas Island to Australia has been carried by Australian vessels in each of the last three financial years.
  2. What proportion is expected to be carried by Australian vessels in the financial years 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  3. Is there any substance in the claim made before the Industries Assistance Commission that the increased freight rates resulting from carriage of rock phosphate by Australian ships has raised the domestic price of superphosphate within Australia by $1.35 per tonne; if not what is the estimated increase in the Australian price of superphosphate resulting from the increased Australian participation in the shipping of rock phosphate from Christmas Island.
  4. Has he examined the question of reinstating the Exemption of the Christmas Island-Australian trade from the coasting provisions of the Navigation Act; if so what were the results of this examination; if not, will he examine the situation.

Mr Nixon: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l) 1972- 73-5.15 percent 1973- 74-1 1.64 per cent 1974- 75-35.03 percent

  1. Based on shipments to date during the current fiscal year and expected Australian requirements for Christmas Island phosphate rock during 1976-77; the expected percentages are: 1975- 1976-64.29 percent 1976- 77-100.00 percent
  2. The claim that the domestic price of superphosphate has risen by $ 1.35 per tonne because of the withdrawal of the exemption of the Christmas Island trade from the Coasting Trade Provisions of the Navigation Act, was made by the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council. The basis on which the estimate was calculated is not known.

The British Phosphate Commissioners estimate that on programmed tonnages and fleet operations, the withdrawal of the exemption will result in the average cost of shipping all phosphate rock imports into Australia increasing by $1.73 per tonne in 1975-76 and $2.60 per tonne in 1976-77. This represents an increase of approximately $1.07 and $1.60 per tonne respectively on the cost of superphosphate.

  1. No. I do not think it would be practicable to reverse now the decision taken by the former Government in 1973, and exempt trade between Christmas Island and Australia from the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act. To do so would mean that the three licensed vessels which now operate in that trade and which are Australian manned could be replaced with foreign manned vessels. I have received no representations from the British Phosphate Commission to reinstate the exemption.

Spiders: Genusloxosceles (Question No. 382)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in The Age of 22 March 1976 that spiders of genus loxosceles have been discovered in Australia.
  2. If so, are these spiders indigenous to Australia.
  3. If they are not indigenous, (a) where are they generally found, (b) where have they been located in Australia, (c) how did they get to Australia, (d) what action has been taken by the Australian Government since their discovery and (e) what deficiencies exist in the quarantine regulations, or in the enforcement of these regulations, to permit the entry of these spiders into Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. I understand these spiders are not indigenous to Australia.

(3)

  1. The venomous spider genus Loxosceles is widely distributed in the temperate and tropical zones of the world.
  2. b ) Loxosceles spiders have been found in both Adelaide and Sydney. However as only one male was recorded in Sydney the establishment of this species there is not confirmed. On the other hand, in Adelaide both male and female spiders have been recorded.
  3. It is not known how or when these spiders got into Australia.
  4. None of which I am aware
  5. There is no deficiency in the existing quarantine legislation. Importation of such spiders is prohibited under Quarantine Proclamation 76a unless conditions and restrictions specified in that proclamation are complied with. These requirements are rigorously enforced. Through its inspection and treatment activities, the Australian Quarantine Service takes all practical measures to avoid the unintentional entry of such pests.

Airstrip at Coonawarra (Question No. 424)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is there an airstrip at Coonawarra, South Australia.
  2. If so, what aircraft utilised the airstrip during the months of January, February and March 1976.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Known aircraft utilising the private airstrip at Coonawarra were:

Other private flights may have taken place outside the hours of operation of the responsible Mt Gambier flight service unit.

Bindook Road Beacon (Question No. 460)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that the Australian Government placed an order with Oberon Shire Council to build a road to Bindook Road Beacon near Yerranderie
  2. If so, was the cost of the road borne by the Australian Government.
  3. Was part of this road built on private property, owned by the contractor who constructed the road.
  4. Can he say whether the contractor charges $5 for each motor car that goes over the road to enter Yerranderie
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes. This situation has only recently been brought to my Department’s notice and is being investigated. Commonwealth vehicles are excepted.

Department of Administrative Services (Question No. 590)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1) How many persons are employed by the Department of Administrative Services or by agencies responsible to the Minister or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to that Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does the Department of Administrative Services or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by the Department of Administrative Services or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-757
  4. To what extent does the Department of Administrative Services or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The equivalent of sixteen staff are engaged in the Department of Administrative Services and associated agencies in a staff recruiting capacity. The estimated total cost of salaries for this staff for the current financial year is $161,268.
  2. The former Department of the Special Minister of State engaged private employment agencies to undertake recruiting activities on only two occasions during the past three years.
  3. There was no payment to private employment agencies during the 1 974-75 financial year.
  4. The Commonwealth Employment Service is requested to recruit exempt staff in cases where the approval of the Public Service Inspector is not necessary, e.g., exempt storemen, gardeners, etc. No charge is made for this service.

Department of Administrative Services (Question No. 610)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Department of Administrative Services conducting a review of Government purchasing procedures.
  2. Is Commonwealth departmental purchasing being centralised in the Department of Administrative Services.
  3. i If so, on what basis, if any, does the Department of Administrative Services allow other departments to do their own purchasing and to what extent does that Department act as an overseer in respect of that purchasing.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Office of the Purchasing Commission within the Department of Administrative Services has commenced a review of purchasing policies and procedures.
  2. The Department of Administrative Services is already responsible for arranging for the purchase of a wide range of goods and services required by other Departments. The Government has, however, made no decision as to the extent to which departmental purchasing might be centralised in that Department and will not do so until it considers the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement chaired by Sir Walter Scott and of other relevant inquiries such as that currently being conducted by Sir Henry Bland.
  3. See (1) and (2) above.

Pension Rate (Question No. 618)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the approximate weekly cost to the Commonwealth Government to maintain a person in receipt of the standard rate pension, giving a breakdown of the major component costs excluding administration.
  2. What is the approximate weekly cost per person for the administration of (a) the Pensioner Section of the Department of Social Security and (b) all other fringe benefits available to pensioners from the Commonwealth or Commonwealth Statutory Commissions.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) On the assumption that information is required on the average rate of pension payable to an age pensioner, the latest details for a single age pensioner are set out below:

  1. The cost of administration during 1974-75 of:

    1. That Section of the Department of Social Security dealing with Pensions has been estimated at approximately $23. 6m. This is estimated to involve a weekly cost per pensioner of approximately 3 1 cents.
    2. The information sought by the honourable member in relation to fringe benefits is not available from the records of the Department of Social Security.

Immigration from Cyprus (Question No. 652)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

How many persons have been nominated for entry to Australia from Cyprus in each of the last 8 quarters.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Prior to June 1975 nominations were classified by nationality and not by country of residence of the nominee.

Table I shows the number of Cypriot nationals wherever resident included in nominations forwarded overseas for processing.

Table 2 shows the number of persons resident in Cyprus in nominations forwarded overseas for processing.

Lebanese Immigration (Question No. 653)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

How many persons have been nominated for entry to Australia from Lebanon in each of the last four quarters.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Prior to June 1975 nominations were classified by nationality and not by country of residence of the nominee.

Table I provides the number or Lebanese nationals wherever resident included in nominations dispatched overseas for processing.

Table 2 provides the number of persons resident in Lebanon included in nominations dispatched for overseas processing.

United Nations Peace-Keeping Force (Question No. 667)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 April 1976 that RAAF helicopters may be sent to the Middle East as part of the United Nations peace-keeping force and that they may be used for search and rescue operations in the Sinai.
  2. If so, is this the intention of the Government and, as there are no civilians in the desert, who is it intended to rescue.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has announced that the Government’s offer to provide four RAAF helicopters, together with crew and maintenance staff, to assist the United Nations Emergency Force in its peacekeeping operations in the Middle East has been accepted by the U.N. The offer is in response to a request by the Secretary-General earlier this year.

Discussions have now begun with the United Nations Secretariat on when the contingent will join the UNEF.

Use of Avalon Airfield (Question No. 674)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Other than the Government Aircraft Factory and the Department of Defence who is authorised to use the facilities of the Avalon airfield.
  2. Under what circumstances are private aircraft entitled to use the airfield facilities.
  3. Who is entitled to authorise use of the facilities by persons or authorities other than the Government Aircraft Factory, the Department of Defence and commercial airlines.
Mr Howard:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) Authority has been given for the use of Avalon airfield facilities by the three major Australian civil airlines (QANTAS, TAA and ANSETT) for jet and turbo-prop training purposes, and occasional approval has been given to other operators for such purposes. Authority has also been given for aircraft of over 5700 kg all-up weight to operate from Avalon on domestic charier Mights, subject to specific approval on each occasion. Other aircraft may be authorised to use the facilities in exceptional circumstances. Department of Transport aircraft also use the facilities.

    1. Private aircraft are not entitled to use the airfield, which is part of the Government Aircraft Factories provided basically for test and development flying of defence aircraft and aircraft developed or built by the Factories. However, if in connection with the business of the Government Aircraft Factories or in connection with approved civil airline training operations, or if in the opinion of the responsible officer the proposed use is justified to meet an unforeseeable or special need and is convenient in relation to the official operations of the airfield, the use of the facilities may be authorised.
    2. The officer in charge of the Avalon airfield (the Area Manager, Government Aircraft Factories, Avalon) is entitled to authorise the use of the facilities. Whenever necessary he will seek direction from higher authority; the ultimate authority is myself, as the Minister administering the Supply and Development Act under which the airfield is established. Flight plans as required under the Air Navigation Regulations must be submitted to the appropriate operations authorities of the Department of Transport.

Department of Transport: Budget (Question No. 682)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 58, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 25 February 1976.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The answer to question No. 58 was lodged with the House of Representatives Table Office on 4 June 1 976.

Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries (Question No. 710)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries find that (a) 82 per cent of the population of all States but only 44 percent of Queensland’s population is served by free municipal libraries, (b) 41 percent of Queensland ‘s population but only 1 1 per cent of the population of all States has to depend on subscription libraries and (c) 15 per cent of Queensland’s population but only 7 per cent of the population of all States has no access to public libraries.
  2. Has consideration been given to the committee’s recommendation that a special allocation of funds be provided to Queensland to facilitate the replacement of subscription libraries by free public libraries.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Committee’s report, which is a comprehensive one dealing with the whole subject of public libraries in Australia, is at present under consideration.

Aged Persons Accommodation (Question No. 714)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. I ) Docs the Government’s $225m, 3-year program to subsidise aged persons accommodation represent a growth or decline in real terms over similar expenditure in the 1975-7(1 Budget.

    1. 2 ) What i.s the amount of the growth or decline.
Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

  1. I ) The Government’s program, for expenditure of $225m over a 3 year period, represents a growth over similar expenditure provided for in the 1975-76 Budget. It compares even more favourably with the 3 years to 30 June 1976, during which expenditure will be $ 137m.

    1. 2 ) The amount of the growth in respect of the two 3 year period;, would be $88m.

Aged Persons Accommodation (Question No. 7 IS)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that subsidies for the building of aged persons’ accommodation will be cut from $70m in the year 1975-76 to $45m in 1976-77.
  2. If so, how does the Government intend to eliminate the current backlog of applications from organisations seeking subsidies as announced by the Treasurer in his recent statement to the Parliament.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It is proposed that an amount of $45m be made available for aged person’s accommodation during 1976-77. It must be recognised, however, that grants considerably in excess of that amount will be approved during the same twelve months period.
  2. 2 ) Payment of a grant is usually made over a period of 1 8 months to 2 years. The heaviest expenditure will therefore be incurred during the second and third years of the program, as additional grants are approved, and during those two years the Government’s objective is to provide a further $180m. This will substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the backlog of claims.

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act (Question No. 716)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

When will legislation be introduced to amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to reduce grants from a $4 for $ I basis to a $2 for $ I basis.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Government’s new funding program can be implemented under the existing provisions of the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act and it is therefore not proposed to introduce any amending legislation.

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act (Question No. 717)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Why has no announcement been made by the Government of its intention to reduce grants under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act from a $4 for $1 basis to a $2 for $1 basis.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

An announcement has been made of the Government’s new program for funding accommodation for the aged. A detailed statement was issued by the Minister for Social Security on 20 May 1976. The Minister explained that $225m would be made available under a 3 year program commencing I July 1976 and that this would lead to the construction of additional accommodation for 15 000 aged persons. The Minister also announced that subsidy limits would be increased from $9,360 to $10,200 for single units of accommodation, thus increasing the value of grants to organisations.

Aged Persons Accommodation (Question No. 718)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Is the Government-announced program to eliminate the current backlog of applications from organisations seeking subsidies for the building of aged persons’ accommodation to be achieved by discouraging applications by reducing grants from a $4 for $ I basis to a $2 for $ I basis.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Far from being discouraged, organisations will be encouraged to seek subsidy assistance to provide additional accommodation for the aged. Whereas the subsidy limit for a single unit of accommodation was previously $9,360, the limit under the new funding program has been raised to $10,200. A situation has been reached where organisations received only about 6 1 per cent of the cost of building a unit of accommodation under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. Under the new $225m 3 year program organisations can expect to receive 66% per cent of unit costs and this improvement will be maintained by quarterly reviews of subsidy limits.

Imports of Saddlery and other Harness Makers’ Goods (Question No. 724)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

In view of the 500 per cent increase in imports in saddlery and other harness makers’ goods of all materials in the last 5 years as indicated in his answer to my question No. 477 (Hansard, 19 May 1976, page 2251) has he received any requests for a reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority by the industry.

Mr Howard:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The only request for increased protection has been that received from one of a number of firms manufacturing trotting and pacing boots. This request is at present receiving the attention of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Lebanese Immigrants (Question No. 732)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

How many persons have arrived from Lebanon in each of the last 4 quarters.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The number of settlers who have arrived from Lebanon in each of (he last 4 quarters is as follows:

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

How many persons have arrived from Cyprus in each of the las: 8 quarters?

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the $3,439,000 funds allocated to the Jindalee radar project is for work to be performed by private Australian industrial organisations.
  2. ) Has any of the high technology research work for this project been performed by private Australian industrial organisations: if not, why not.
  3. If some of the research work for this project has been performed by private Australian industrial organisations, what was the (a) nature and (b) value of the work performed.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 5911.000.
  2. ) No. Jindalee is in the exploratory stage and costs have been kept down by borrowing special electronic equipment from the United States. If early tests are successful, participation by industry in later stages will be encouraged.
  3. Not applicable.

Purchase of Motor Vehicles (Question No. 739)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What restrictions apply to the purchase of motor vehicles by local and semi-Government bodies.
  2. Do any minimum usage requirements apply u> these purchases.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The purchase of motor vehicles free of sales tax by local and semi-government bodies that arc untitled to exemption from sales tax is restricted to vehicles that are fur the use of those bodies and not for sale.
  2. Vehicles that have been purchased free of sales tax by local and semi-government bodies may not be disposed of within two years of the date of purchase unless they have completed at least 40 000 kilometres of running.

Medibank Levy (Question No. 740)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the estimated loss to revenue as a result of the rejection by the Senate of the Bill to impose a Medibank levy.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Bills to impose a health insurance levy were rejected by the Senate on 1 1 December The levy provided for by those Bills was to have commenced to apply during the 1975-76 financial year.

It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the revenue that would have been raised had the Bills not been rejected. This is because fundamental changes made to the personal income tax system as a consequence of proposals in the 1 975-76 Budget altered in significant respects the income tax provisions in association with which the rejected levy had been designed to operate.

Commonwealth Cars (Question No. 741)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What motor vehicles were purchased for use in the Commonwealth ear pool in each of the last 1(1 years.
  2. What was the purchase price for each type of vehicle purchased.
  3. At what average period of time and mileage were these vehicles disposed of.
  4. What was the sale price of undamaged vehicles sold in each of these years.
Mr Street:
LP

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

As records of this sort are not normally retained beyond six (6) years, the information requested prior to 1970-71 is not readily available. Accordingly the following answers to the question are provided for the past six (6) years only. The information covers large, medium and small sedans and station sedans purchased by the now Transport and Storage Division of my Department for use in the car pools.

(0-_

  1. The sale and replacement policy for sedan cars and station sedans is as follows:

    1. 1970-71. 1971-72 and 1172-73:
    2. Large sedans: ‘After 3 years service life and 70 000 miles’.

    1. ii ) Medium and small sedans and station sedans: ‘After 4 years of service life”.

    2. 1973-74, 1 974-75 and 1975-76:
    3. Large, medium and small sedans: ‘After 2 years of service life ‘.

  2. It is impracticable to separate damaged from undamaged vehicles and these, which are a very small percentage, are included in the total.

Ministerial Travel (Question No. 757)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide details of the accounting process used in determining that the full cost of the Prime

Minister’s 4 day visit to Malaysia and Singapore accompanied by 3 other persons was $895 and that the 6 day visit to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia by the Minister for Foreign Affairs cost $62.

  1. Do all amounts shown against Ministers’ travel expenses include travel and accommodation charges or estimates of these where no actual charges are made.
  2. Do figures based on different criteria constitute a re reasonable basis for comparison.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Rates of overseas travelling allowance for Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition, etc., are determined from time to time by the Prime Minister. They are paid in advance (when requested) by the Department of Administrative Services.

After returning from an overseas visit, the travelling allowance advance is acquitted by submitting to the Department a detailed statement of expenditure incurred and any unspent moneys arc repaid to the Department.

The costs of $895 and $62 relating to the visits of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs respectively include only the amounts actually brought to account in the Department’s ledgers in Australia by 30 April 1976. There would have been other expenditure incurred by overseas posts but which had not been brought to account in Australia: there would also have been further amounts incurred overseas, the accounts for which had not been received by the overseas post: there would be supplementary amounts payable or amounts of travelling allowance to be repaid to the Department when an advance is acquitted.

As at 3 1 May 1976 the expenditure brought to account in Australia stood at $944 for the Prime Minister and $586 for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is normally several months before final expenditure figures for any given visit are available.

Amounts shown against Ministers’ travel expenses do not include estimates of travel charges where the journey is undertaken by VIP aircraft nor do they include estimates of accommodation costs where guest status was accorded by the host government.

The figures quoted represent the actual cost to the public purse which has been met by the Department of Administrative Services at any given time.

Road Diversion (Question No. 758)

Mr Beazley:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the proposal to alter the flow of traffic using the West Coast Highway in the Cottesloe-Swanbourne area of Perth.
  2. If so. can he say whether there are proposals to (a) divert traffic by the construction of a new road through land presently occupied by the Army, or (b) to relocate persons whose homes will be demolished if traffic is diverted through Servetus Street.
  3. Have approaches been made by the Western Australian Government seeking the release of lands in Swanbourne for either the relocation of people affected by land resumptions, or alternatively for the diversion of the road through Army land.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, I have received representations from residents of the Cottesloe-Swanbourne area concerning the Western Australian Government’s proposal to develop the West Coast Highway.

  2. The Western Australian Government Environment Protection Authority’s consultants have recently completed a ten-month study on four options for developing the West Coast Highway in the Cottesloe-Swanbourne area. Two of the options considered by the consultants were:

    1. Construction of a road through Army occupied land; and
    2. widening of Servetus Street by acquisition and demolition of existing houses on one side of the street.
  3. The Western Australian Government has not made an approach seeking release of Army-occupied land for either construction of the proposed highway or for relocation of the people affected by the land acquisition.

Community Nurses (Question No. 761)

Mr FitzPatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the provision of 2 community nurses at Narromine. New South Wales, made under any scheme administered by his Department.
  2. If so, what financial support has been made available.
  3. 3 ) What are the terms of the support.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the Community Health Program administered by my Department, Commonwealth funds have been made available to the Health Commission of New South Wales to assist in the appointment of a community nurse and a community nurse aide to be based at Narromine. I understand that these appointments have not yet been made.

I am informed that, when appointed, the nurse and aide will provide services in the Timbrevongie Shire, including the towns of Narromine, Nevertire and Trangie.

  1. Commonwealth assistance made available under the Community Health Program for this service was $10,380 in 1975-76.
  2. The usual level of Commonwealth assistance under the Community Health Program applies to this service, namely, 75 per cent of capital costs and 90 per cent of operating costs. The balances of 25 per cent of capital costs and 10 per cent of operating costs are to be met by the Health Commission of New South Wales.

Australian Visitors to Southern Rhodesia (Question No. 771)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In which countries through which visitors to and from Southern Rhodesia ordinarily travel does Australia have missions.
  2. Which of these missions maintain a record of visits by official or important visitors from Australia.
  3. ) Do any of their records show travel by any members of the present ministry to or from Southern Rhodesia; if so. by which Ministers and on what dates.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Detailed information about travel to and from Southern Rhodesia, including which routes travellers ordinarily use, is no doubt available within Southern Rhodesia itself but is not available to the Australian Government. Travellers may enter Southern Rhodesia by land from a number of countries. Available information on regular air services indicates, however, that there are only a few points of departure for air travellers to Southern Rhodesia including principally from South Africa. Australia has a diplomatic mission in South Africa.
  2. and (3) See sections (2) and (3) of my reply to the honourable member’s question No. 416.

Answers to Questions (Question No. 788)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When may I expect an answer to question No. 682 which asks for an answer to question No. 58 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 25 February.
  2. When may I expect an answer to question Nos 407 and 424, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 27 April.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The answer to question No. 682 was lodged with the House of Representatives Tabic Office on 4 June 1 976.
  2. The answer to question No. 407 was lodged with the House of Representatives Table Office on 2 June 1976. You may expect an answer to question No. 424 shortly.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 808)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has any ( a ) financial or ( b ) other assistance under the Australian Assistance Plan been received by (i) Australian Red Cross Society, (ii) Catholic Family Welfare Bureau (Victoria), (iii) Salvation Army, (iv) The Childrens Protection Society (Victoria ) and (v) International Social Service.
  2. If so, will the Minister provide full details of the assistance provided during the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and from 1 July 1975 to date.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I ) (a) Financial assistance under the Australian Assistance Plan
  1. 2 ) See answer to question ( I ).

Cocos Islands (Question No. 812)

Mr Yates:
HOLT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister supply a statement of the authority granted to Mr Clunies Ross to manage the Cocos Islands.
  2. ) Who granted this authority.
  3. What is the proposed timetable for independence for the Cocos Islands.
  4. What authority does Australia have in the Cocos Islands.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Except for 148 hectares of land on West Island bought by Australia in 195 1, the land of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands above high water mark has been owned by the Clunies Ross family since 1886 when it was granted to an ancestor of the present Mr Clunies Ross by Queen Victoria. Mr Clunies Ross does not manage the Islands but he does operate a copra plantation on his property.
  2. See(l).
  3. The Australian Government has not established a timetable for independence for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It is currently reviewing its policy regarding the future of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
  4. The Cocos Islands have been an Australian nonselfgoverning Territory since 23 November 1955 when their transfer from Britain was accepted by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955.

Aboriginal/Police Relations (Question No. 170)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Has he made any progress towards the appointment of a Royal Commission into Aboriginal/Police relations in the Northern Territory, plans for which his predecessor had brought to an advanced stage prior to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

I have decided not to proceed with a Royal Commission in respect of Aboriginal/Police relations in the Northern Territory. 1 refer the honourable member to my ministerial statement, on the tabling of the report of the Laverton Royal Commission on 5 May, in which I mention action already in train or being considered in respect of Aboriginal/Police relations in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia.

Flight Paths (Question No. 268)

Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the existing flight paths for take-off and landing at Sydney Airport.
  2. In the event of a parallel North-South runway being built 1000 feet east of the existing 16/34 runway, as recommended by the Second Sydney Airport Committee, what would be the take-off and landing flight paths for this new runway.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

*( I ) Diagram I shows the flight paths most commonly used by airline aircraft at present, within a distance of about 8 km from the airport. Some additional paths, used comparatively infrequently, which are taken by some arriving domestic airline and light general aviation aircraft, are excluded in the interests of clarity. Arrows shown whether the path is used for arrival, departure or both. The use of individual flight paths varies with aircraft type, place of origin or destination, and time of day.

2 ) Studies are continuing on what might be done to maintain an adequate air transport capacity at Sydney. No decision will be taken on whether to build a parallel runway, on what length it would be if built, or on the utilisation or closure of the east-west runway in such a circumstance, until all aspects have been reviewed. It is difficult, therefore, to provide a specific answer to this part of the honourable member’s question. ‘However, in an endeavour to be helpful Diagram 2 is provided. Based on current thinking it shows the flight paths which are likely to be adopted if an equal-length parallel runway were to be constructed, and if the east-west runway were to be removed or limited in use. In this type of airport layout, one runway would probably be used for departures, and the other for arrivals, operating in the same direction of traffic flow. The main direction of traffic flow would be as shown but there would be some traffic flow in the alternative south to north direction when a northerly wind component of -sufficient strength forced a change. For clarity this limited south to north flow is not shown. It would not be practicable for flights to depart over and arrive over Botany Bay at the same time, except during very lightly-trafficked night hours.

If a shorter runway were to be constructed parallel to the present north-south runway, the longer runway would need to be used by some departing aircraft, and some variations in flight paths depicted could result. If the east-west runway were to be retained, its use would probably be restricted to those aircraft unable to use the north-south runways in periods of high crosswind: flight paths for the east-west runway would probably be as for the present layout.

Copies of the diagrams referred to in this answer may be obtained from the House of Representatives. Table Office. Room L 1 1 0. Parliament House, Canberra.

Development of Albury-Wodonga (Question No. 395)

Mr Uren:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact, as reported in the Canberra Times on 26 March 1976, that the Government is withholding approval which has been sought by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for major contracts to proceed, when those contracts form pan of the approved program for 1975-76 and when the State representatives on the Ministerial Council have given their approval.
  2. If so, will he explain the basis on which the Government is dishonouring the financial agreement which was entered into by the caretaker Prime Minister and the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales.
  3. Did the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs state on 17 March 1976 that the Government has honoured all its commitments to provide financial assistance for programs agreed to with the States for the 1975-76 financial year, and that this applies to Albury-Wodonga.
  4. If so, what is the reason for making this statement when the Government has failed to approve contracts for works agreed to with the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, and included in the 1975-76 program which was approved by the caretaker Minister for Urban and Regional Development.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. to (4) The Treasurer announced in his Ministerial Statement on the economy on 20 May 1976 that an interdepartmental committee has been established to review all major urban and regional development programs, including the growth centres program, and to make recommendations to the Government on the nature and extent of future Commonwealth involvement in these areas.

The Acting Minister for Environment. Housing and Community Development has announced that outstanding legal commitments for 1976-77 in Albury-Wodonga will be met fully. I have informed the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria that no new contracts requiring Commonwealth funds will be entered into pending the outcome of the abovementioned review.

The Government has taken this step to avoid extensive carry-over commitments for 1976-77 which would unduly restrict the Government in its efforts to restrain public expenditure in the national economic interest.

Australian Banknotes (Question No. 410)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will the words “Commonwealth of Australia’ reappear on Australian banknotes.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The question of the wording on the Australian notes is being reviewed in the context of the use of the terms Commonwealth of Australia’ and ‘Australia’. Should any change in the wording be decided upon this would be announced at the appropriate time.

Descendants of the Kanakas (Question No. 441)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps have been, or are to be taken, to preserve the culture, language, names and identities of the descendants of the Kanakas brought to Australia 1 26 years ago.
  2. Has the Commonwealth Government followed the example of the Queensland Government in officially recognising the descendants of the South Sea Islanders as a distinct ethnic group in the community.
  3. Has the Commonwealth Government extended to these descendants of the Kanakas the same welfare rights given to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the areas of health, education, housing and legal aid.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed that an Interdepartmental Committee chaired by the Department of Social Security is currently studying matters affecting descendants of South Sea Islanders living in Australia. Included in the Study are such considerations as the numbers, distribution and the special needs and problems of South Sea Islanders resident in Australia. Other departments represented on the Committee arc: Prime Minister and Cabinet. Treasury. Aboriginal Affairs and Employment and Industrial Relations as well as the Royal Commission on Human Relations. The Interdepartmental Committee which first met on 17 December 1975, will report its recommendations to the Minister for Social Security.
  2. There has been no official act of recognition. The Government’s policy of consultation with ethnic groups, with the aim of meeting their special needs and offering the maximum opportunity for them to contribute to Australian society in general, is not dependent on an act of official recognition.
  3. 3 ) South Sea Islanders and their descendants arc eligible for assistance available to the general community.

Switchboard Equipment (Question No. 453)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister (“or Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. I ) Has the National Telecommunications Planning Unit made any recommendation that 1 ele’c/,m Australia should market PABX switching units.

    1. Has it made a recommendation that larger switching equipment should be confined to 2 private manufacturers.
    2. If so, how will these 2 manufacturers be selected, and why has this decision been taken in advance of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on The Electrical and Electronic Industry, Sub-industries B and D.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) Telecom Australia has had some discussions with representatives of the telecommunications industry about possible changes in policy for the supply of small capacity PABX units. Included in these proposals is the possible reduction to 2 in the number of families of PABX units. The intention of the discussions is to explore ways and means of improving the service to customers and the issues concerned would not be affected by the report of the Industries Assistance Commission.

Former Members of Parliament Employed in the Public Service (Question No. 522)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many members of the Parliament who were defeated at the 1972. 1974 and 1975 elections are now employed by the Commonwealth Public Service.

Mr Fraser:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has advised me that of the Members of Parliament defeated at the 1972, 1974 or 1975 elections only one is presently employed as a permanent officer under the Public Service Act.

I am advised by the Public Service Board that information in respect of former Members of Parliament employed in the Public Service as temporary or exempt employees is not centrally recorded. To obtain this information would require a disproportionate amount of time and effort which I am not prepared to authorise.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Commitments (Question No. 529)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1 977-78 does the Department of Environment. Housing and Community Development have.
  2. ) On what date was each commitment made.
  3. 3 ) What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. 5 ) To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) The preparation of a reply to the honourable gentleman’s question would involve the collection of a substantial amount of material from a number of different sources, both from within the Department and elsewhere. To undertake such a task would involve a considerable cost in terms of time and staff resources. I do not feel it justified in the present circumstances to authorise the extraction and collation of the detailed information required by the honourable member.

Mr John Kerr, Q.C.: Law Library (Question No. 562)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Commonwealth of Australia purchase the law library of Mr John Kerr, Q.C., as he then was, before or after his appointment as a Federal Judge.
  2. ) If so, (a) what are the particulars of the purchase, (b) where is the library now and (c) where has it been located from time to time since it was purchased.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that the answer is No.
  2. See answer to ( I).

Pocket Paging System: Parliament House (Question No. 563)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he ascertain from the Presiding Officers what is the name and address of the supplier of the pocket paging system recently installed in Parliament House.
  2. What was the total cost of the system including installation.
  3. 3 ) What was the cost of each of the pocket units issued to members and senators.
  4. How many pocket units were purchased.
  5. What is the expected annual cost of servicing the total system.
Mr Fraser:
LP

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

The Presiding Officers have informed me that-

1 ) Investigations into the acquisition of a personal paging system were initiated by the Joint House Committee in November 1974, and the purchase was approved by that Committee on 16 October 1975. The successful tenderer was Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd of 252 Botany Road. Alexandria. Sydney.

2 ) The estimated installed cost of the system is $53,746.

3 ) The cost of each receiver unit was $ 100.

In the first 7-10 years $300 per annum, and thereafter $1,000 per annum.

Telephone Installations (Question No. 584)

Mr Aldred:
HENTY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that in the Oakleigh and Glenhuntly areas of Melbourne delays in the installation of a telephone service from the date of application are well in excess of 10 weeks and that in some cases a wait of 6 months has been quoted to businesses.
  2. If so. will he investigate these long delays and the claims of Telecom that they are due to a manpower shortage.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) Telecom Australia has advised that the installation of telephone services in the Oakleigh and

Glenhuntly areas of Melbourne is generally satisfactory. Currently the average delay in providing new telephone services is from four to six weeks. There are six applicants in Oakleigh whose services cannot be provided for some months as major cabling work is involved.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 585)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Most departmental recruitment needs are arranged through Public Service Inspectors’ Offices who supply staff in response to departmental requests. ‘Staff recruiting capacity’ has been defined to include staff currently engaged full-time on recruitment, publicity, selection and appointment of staff, i.e. work associated with and including routine processing functions. Other staff are engaged for part of their time on duties connected with staff recruitment but a great deal of additional work would be involved in establishing the amount of time involved and salary costs.

The Public Service Board has 103 officers involved fulltime in a staff recruiting capacity. Their salaries amount to $969,497 per annum. My Department has two officers and the Australia Council has one officer involved full-time in a staff recruiting capacity. Salary costs are $ 1 7,764 per annum and $9,59 1 per annum respectively.

  1. In a small number of situations, usually restricted to specialised key-board areas e.g. Accounting Machinists and Data Processing Operators, the Public Service Board has approved the engagement of staff through private agency channels. This would only occur where Public Service Inspectors’ Offices in conjunction with Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, are unable to provide suitably qualified applicants. Departments requiring the staff would then use the private agency and pay a flat engagement fee.

As far as other authorities responsible to me are concerned, one staff member only was recruited through a private employment agency in the 1 975-76 financial year.

  1. Nil.
  2. Where requirements are beyond the resources available through Public Service Inspectors’ Offices, the Public Service Board may use the Commonwealth Employment Service. This is more so the case in country rather than metropolitan areas. No fee is charged by the Commonwealth Employment Service for this service.

Apart from the Public Service Board, my Department, the Australia Council, and the Film and Television School have made use of the Commonwealth Employment Service. No fees were paid.

Homes Savings Grants (Question No. 627)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If it is the intention of the proposed Homes Savings Grunt Scheme to (a) encourage young couples to save lor a home and (b) provide a stimulus for the home-building industry, would these objectives to better served by utilising available funds for the purpose of providing young couples with interest free loans designed to bridge the deposit gap.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The provision of interest-free loans designed to bridge the deposit gap faced by young couples saving for their first home would alleviate one problem only by aggravating another. Having raised the required deposit, potential homebuyers have then to face the financial commitment of housing loan repayments, which arc usually particularly burdensome during the initial years of the repayment period, when incomes arc typically low and competing claims on income are high. To impose the burden of repaying an additional loan- even an interest-free one-would disadvantage those potential home-buyers who would be operating close to the margin even in the absence of an additional loan repayment commitment. The Home Savings Grant Scheme avoids this problem and may actually ease the repayment burden if it enables a deposit greater than usual to be raised.

Journalists’ Life Assurance Cover (Question No. 643)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission been prevented from providing life assurance for journalists, cine cameramen and other employees engaged in unscheduled or hazardous flying on the grounds that provisions of the Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Act 1963-1973 are regarded as adequate.
  2. Did the Commission previously provide life assurance cover of $18,000 for employees who under an arrangement could take an additional cover of $20.000 at nominal rates: if so, what saving will result from terminating the Commission’s cover.
  3. ) Are ABC journalists and cameramen now declining to use all but scheduled flights on the ground that they arc at a disadvantage with employees covered by the Metropolitan Dailies Award which provides for an assurance cover of $75,000.
  4. Has the ABC news presentation service been adversely affected by this dispute and what processes arc to be invoked to resolve it.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. 2 ) Yes: savings resulting from terminating ABC cover approximate $600 per annum.
  3. Yes.
  4. Filming of some events for inclusion in ABC news bulletins has not been possible. Negotiations to resolve the matter are proceeding.

Manufacturing Industry (Question No. 644)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) It is a fact that the Treasury has refused to allow the publication of those volumes of the green paper on Policies for Development of Manufacturing Industry which contain specific information.
  2. ) If not, has the Treasury given any directive in the matter of such publication.
  3. Does he agree that the availability of such data is essential for the preparation of high quality submissions to aid the Government in the preparation of a white paper on manufacturing industry.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Treasury has taken no steps of the kind to which the honourable member’s question refers. Two of the volumes referred to have now been published and 1 understand that the remaining volume is expected to be published later this month.

Museums and Art Galleries (Question No. 722)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the number and location of the major (a) museums and (b) art galleries in (i) each State and (ii) the Territories.
  2. What is the estimated number of visitors per annum to each (a) museum and (b) art gallery.
  3. What is the annual subsidy paid to each (a) museum and (b) art gallery by (i) each State and (ii) the Australian Governments.
Mr Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l). (2) and (3) Museums and art galleries in the Australian States are the responsibility of State and local governments. Information relating to the number and location of these institutions, visitor numbers and funding arrangements is to be found in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections, ‘Museums in Australia 1975’ tabled in Parliament on 5 November 1975. The Report is available in the Parliamentary Library and a copy is also being sent to the honourable member. However. I would point out that the supply of information in this area is not a Commonwealth responsibility.

The Commonwealth Government operates no general system of annual subsidies for museums and art galleries. The Australia Council does, however, provide some financial assistance for specific projects.

The latest estimate of annual attendance figures, and the financial provisions for 1975-76 for Commonwealth Institutions are: Australian War Memorial. Department of Administrative Services. 662 000. S888.I00: Northern Territory Museum and Art Gallery. Department of the Northern Territory. 20 000. S300.000: Institute of Anatomy. Department of Health. 200 000. S75.500: Australian National Gallery Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (not vet open to visitors). S2.607.339.

Bellbird (Question No. 727)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the television program Bellbird been considered a success.
  2. ) If so, why is its programming being changed to a form that will reduce its popularity.
  3. Is half the cast being sacked.
  4. Is the real reason for the change the jealousy of the Sydney ABC management over the success of a Melbourne produced show.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. ) It is not expected that the change will reduce the popularity of Bellbird.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Family Allowances (Question No. 74S)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In connection with his statement that the withdrawal of taxation rebates from the husband in respect of his dependent children would be approximately balanced by additional children’s allowances to his wife so that the total family income would be virtually unaffected by the contemplated financial package, is it possible that an anomaly could arise where a divorced husband is supporting his dependent children so that the new arrangements, in place of rearranging the family income, would result in a transfer of money from one family to another.
  2. ) If so. is any action contemplated to meet this apparent anomaly.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the new family allowances system, there will be a transfer between persons of immediate command over Budget-provided assistance for the maintenance of children. In the normative case, the transfer will occur within the family but this will not be so in the kind of situation referred to by the honourable member.

The shape of the new scheme reflects its main purpose, to increase substantially the amount of assistance provided in respect of children in low income families. If revenue constraints are to be respected- as they will be by a responsible Government- gainers and losers will emerge whenever substantial changes are made to major welfare programs: it is not practicable for the law to take account of each and every variant in personal or domestic circumstances. The Government carefully considered the social implications of the new scheme and concluded that its advantages far outweighed any disadvantages that might attach to it.

  1. The Government does not have in contemplation action of the kind envisaged by the honourable member.

Telephone Installations (Question No. 778)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the delay in the installation or telephones in the Geelong area increased because of the implementation of staff ceilings.
  2. What is the present average delay in the connection of telephone services to new applicants.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. ) Telecom Australia advises the average delay is a little under two months.

Second Derwent Crossing- Administrative Review Committee (Question No. 786)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Administrative Review Committee (Bland Committee) recommended to the Government that it should not proceed with the construction of the second Derwent River bridge at Hobart in the year 1 976-77.
  2. If so, what were the grounds for the recommendation.
Mr Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) See my answer on 18 May 1976 (Senate Hansard, page 1710)

Medibank Hospital Arrangements (Question No. 817)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what date was Mr Austin Holmes asked to prepare his paper on Medibank hospital arrangements to be discussed with the State Health Ministers on 1 1 June 1 976 (Hansard, 1 June 1976, page 2703).
  2. What are his terms of reference and the names of his colleagues.
  3. Why did the Prime Minister not publicly announce Mr Holmes’ appointment, terms of reference and colleagues for this task as he did on 13 January 1976 for his earlier investigation into Medibank.
Mr Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 28May 1976.
  2. Neither the terms of reference nor the membership of the Medibank Review Committee has been changed from those announced on 13 January 1976.
  3. 3 ) See answer to (2 ).

Geelong: Employment (Question No. 673)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

Has he initiated any detailed study on the long term level of unemployment in the Geelong employment district.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Although I have not initiated such as study, the Geelong employment situation as with other areas in Australia is closely monitored by my Department. As you are no doubt aware however, a detailed study of the unemployment problem in the Geelong area was undertaken in February/March 1975 by the Geelong Growth Centre Planning Group with assistance from the then Department of Labor and Immigration. The report entitled ‘Geelong Strategy- Employment in Geelong’ can be obtained from the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development.

Batman: Unemployment (Question No. 719)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Electoral Division of Batman are unemployed.
  2. 2 ) What proportion of these persons are ( a ) migrants, ( b ) over 50 years of age, (c) under 25 years of age and (d) women.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. I ) Statistics are not collected in a form to provide separate data for the Batman Electorate Division. However the Electoral Division of Batman comprises the Employment Office area of Northcote and parts of the Heidelberg and Collingwood Employment Office areas. At the end of May 1976, the number of persons registered as unemployed at each of these offices were as follows:

    1. Information is not available on the number of those unemployed who are migrants or persons over 50 years of age or under 25 years of age. Statistics are collected for persons under 2 1 years and for women. At the end of May 1976 these were as follows:

Department or Environment, Housing and Community Development: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 591)

Mr Macphee:

asked the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. I ) How many persons are employed by the Department of Environment. Housing and Community Development or by agencies responsible to the Minister or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to that Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.

    1. To what extent does the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
    2. What sum was spent by the Department of Environment. Housing and Community Development or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
    3. 4 ) I’o what extent does the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

Information has been obtained from the Department, who are also responding on behalf of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Heritage Commission; the Australian Housing Corporation; the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation; the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Hostels Limited.

EHCD, ANPWLS, GBRMPA and A Heritage CThree persons whose annual salaries amount to $36,580.

AHC- The Corporation does not have any officers employed full-time on recruitment activities but does have in each State and in Central Office one officer whose nominal duties include this function (total of 7 officers). In view of the fact that the Corporation is and has been reducing the numbers of staff employed progressively since establishment, the costs of the activity are in effect nil.

AWDC-The Corporation does not employ any individual staff member solely on recruitment work. It is one of the functions of the personnel manager and would represent on average, not more than 5 per cent of his time. His present annual salary is $ 1 6,765.

HLIC- None.

CH Ltd-None.

EHCD, ANPWLS. GBRMPA and A Heritage CNever.

AHC- The Corporation has on one occasion used a specialised management consultancy to assist in the recruitment of Senior Financial Executives. No appointments were in fact made as a consequence of the decision to abolish the Corporation. Use is made on occasions of private employment agencies to provide keyboard staff in emergency situations.

AWDC-The Corporation normally advertises and recruits its staff by direct public advertisement. Only on one occasion has it engaged a firm of Management Consultants to facilitate recruitment in a specialist area.

HLIC- HLIC does not engage private employment agencies for the recruitment of permanent and temporary staff. Private agencies are used from time to time to provide casual staff, usually relief typing staff.

CH Ltd- Private employment agencies are sometimes used by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd to recruit casual temporary staff (typists and machine operators) to meet emergency work loads at the Central Office.

EHCD, ANPWLS GBRMPA and A Heritage C-Nil.

AHC- The Corporation was not established until 24 June 1975.

AWDC-The amount paid to the firm was $3,382.52.

HILC-$3,099.07

CH Ltd-$352.

EHCD, ANPWLS. GBRMPA and A Heritage C- Only occasional use is made of the Commonwealth Employment Service and this relates to casual day labour. No payments have been made to the Service for assistance provided to the Department or the Authorities by that agency.

AHC- The Commonwealth Employment Service is used infrequently for the recruitment of unskilled labour or labour requiring the minimum of skills (e.g. Clerical Assistant Grade 1- Typist Grade I). No charges were made for this service.

AWDC- Yes. The Corporation regularly utilises the services of the Commonwealth Employment Service for the recruitment of local staff. No payments have been made to the CES.

HLIC- HLIC always seeks the assistance of the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of permanent and temporary staff. No charges are made for this assistance.

CH Ltd- Commonwealth Hostels Ltd has sought the assistance of the Commonwealth Employment Service when replacement staff have not been immediately available within the hostels, to the extent of approximately eighty staff throughout Australia during the past two years. No charges are made for this assistance.

Gollin and Company Ltd (Question No. 180)

Mr Jones:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What contracts were in force between the Australian Government and Gollin and Company Limited on 1 1 November 1975.
  2. What contracts have been entered into between the Australian Government and Gollin and Company Limited since 1 1 November 1975.
  3. In respect of each such contract, (a) which Minister had responsibility for authorising the granting of the contract to Gollin and Company Limited and (b) what representations on behalf of Gollin and Company Limited, were made by him or persons acting on his instructions.
  4. What approvals, licences, leases, authorisations, clearances or other favourable decisions have been sought by Gollin and Company Limited from Australian Government departments or authorities since 11 November 1975.
  5. 5 ) In respect of such decisions, what representations have been made by him or persons acting on his behalf.
  6. What decision was made on each such application by Gollin and Company Limited.
Mr Fraser:
LP

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

Co-

Public Spending (Question No. 75)

Mr Hamer:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What were the percentage shares in gross national product at factor cost of (a ) total public sector. ( b ) defence spending, (c) transfers to personal sector and ( d ) other public spending for each year from 1938 to 1975 inclusive.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has provided information in two tables because the percentages for the years 1938-39 to 1947- 48 shown in Table 2 arc not comparable with the percentages for the years 1 948-49 to 1 974-75 shown in Tabic I . Table 2 which contains figures based on estimates as published in early National Income and Expenditure Budget Papers also shows percentages for the year 1 948-49 based on the same source. A comparison of the percentages for 1948- 49 as shown in Table 2 with those for 1948-49 as shown in Table I will give an indication of the size of the break in comparability.

The percentages arc in terms of gross domestic product which is very similar to the concept of gross national product used by some other countries. In addition to percentages of gross domestic product at factor cost the tables also show percentages of gross domestic product at market prices because it is more meaningful to relate total public sector outlay to GDP at market prices.

From 1948-49 total public sector outlay has been derived from the Australian National Accounts and consists of ‘total disbursements’ less ‘surplus on current transactions’ (from the General Government Income and Outlay Account) plus ‘total use of funds’ (from the Public Authorities Capital Account). The percentages for defence expenditure relate to defence expenditure on a payment basis.

Beef Cattle (Question No. 181)

Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. ) Have the American National Cattlemen’s Association and the United States Department of Agriculture written to the Australian Government seeking permission to export semen from American beef cattle breeds to Australia: if so. has the Government answered this request.
  2. 2 ) Is it a fact that similar semen from Canada is allowed into Australia.
  3. 3 ) If so, is the reason for the present discrimination due to the existence of the disease of bluetongue in the United States which is highly dangerous to the cattle and sheep population of Australia.
  4. As the movement of stock can easily occur, officially or unofficially, between the United States and Canada, is the differentiation valid.
  5. Do the stringent health requirements needed for the collection and storage of Canadian deep frozen semen exceed regulations governing the collection and storage of the American semen.
  6. Is the American request to export semen to Australia reasonable, in view of the large intake of Australian beef by that country.
  7. ) Will he obtain statistics from the Minister for Overseas Trade to show the position of trade balances between Australia and (a) Canada and (b) the United States of America.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The United States Department of Agriculture and my Department have been in correspondence over a long period concerning veterinary health conditions which would be required to ensure safe importation of cattle semen from the United States. Examination of correspondence on this matter has not revealed a direct approach from the American National Cattlemen’s Association.
  2. Cattle semen was permitted importation from Canada until March of this year, when the Canada Department of Agriculture reported the presence of bluetongue in that country. Australian importation conditions require certification by the Canada Department of Agriculture that bluetongue has not occurred in Canada for a period of 12 months immediately prior to the date of despatch of the semen. As this certificate cannot now be provided the importation of cattle semen from Canada has effectively been suspended.
  3. Since bluetongue is now reported to be present in Canada discrimination no longer exists.
  4. The differentiation which applied between the two countries prior to March 1976 was valid. Clinical bluetongue had not been reported in Canada before that time but the disease exists in a number of areas in the United States. The Canadian authorities maintained a program of continuous monitoring for cattle entering the country from the United States to alert them to the possible introduction of the disease from that source.
  5. Cattle semen is not imported from the United States because of technical difficulties in that country in providing conditions for the collection of the semen which ensure complete protection against subsequent transmission of bluetongue. These technical problems are being resolved. Less stringent conditions applied to Canada than could apply to the U.S.A. whilst the former country was free of bluetongue.
  6. The intake of Australian beef by the U.S.A. has no bearing on quarantine precautions necessarily taken by this country.
  7. The Department of Overseas Trade has advised the following:

Governor-General: Visit to Europe (Question No. 785)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the venue and purpose of the GovernorGeneral’s official engagements overseas on 24, 28 and 29 December 1975, 2, 14, 16 and 23-29 January 1976 and 2 February 1976.
  2. What was the (a) name, (b) designation, (c) salary and (d) allowance paid to each of the 5 officials who accompanied him.
  3. Have costs yet been finalised of (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) car hire and (d) gifts; if so, what were the costs: if not, when is it expected that the costs will be finalised.
  4. Is it a fact that an additional appropriation of $60,000 was sought in the additional estimates towards the payment of accounts related to the trip.
  5. 5 ) Is it also a fact that total costs of the trip as set out in parts 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) will exceed $200,000.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have nothing to add to my answers on 23 March 1976 (Hansard, pages 927-8), 27 April 1976 (Hansard, page 1651 and Senate Hansard, page 1308), 20 May 1 976 ( Hansard, page 2362 ) and 2 June 1 976 ( Hansard, page 2909).
  2. 3 ) to ( 5 ) Costs of the Governor-General ‘s visit are not yet finalised but will be covered in Parliamentary Appropriations in accordance with the normal procedure.

CIA: Operations in Australia (Question No. 787)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What United States multinational companies operating in Australia have admitted to activities overseas associated with the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
  2. ) What action is the Government taking or proposing to take to ensure that those United States multinational companies that carry on activities in Australia and have admitted that they have acted in collaboration with, or as agents for. the United Suites Central Intelligence Agency in other countries, do not impinge on the right of privacy of Australian citizens either in Australia or overseas.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Companies in Australia, both domestic and foreign, are required to operate within the framework of Australian law. I am not aware of any Australian citizen who has brought forward evidence of infringements of the law by companies in the area encompassed by the honourable member’s question.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 June 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760604_reps_30_hor99/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant