House of Representatives
2 December 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3111

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Australian Symphony Orchestras

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 we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of symphony orchestras throughout Australia posed by the LAC and Green reports.

We believe that the Government should not allow the symphony orchestras of Australia to be reduced in any way

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation and growth of our symphony orchestras, thereby ensuring that the quality of life of the people of this country shall be maintained.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard, Mr E. G. Whitlam, Mr Abel, Mr Bradfield, Mr Connolly, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Mr Hurford, Mr Charles Jones and Mr Antony Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. . Extend the freeze on alienation of vacant Crown land in the Northern Territory.
  2. Give urgent consideration to amendments to the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Bill 1976 to give effect to:

    1. The restoration of the role of land councils and the Land Commissioner.
    2. The removal of distinction between ‘needs’ and traditional claims.
    3. The re-introduction of the 1975 Land Rights Bill’s provisions regarding mining.
    4. The withdrawal of power from the Northern Territory Assembly to make laws over sacred sites, permits and entry to pastoral properties.
    5. The control of all roads through Aboriginal land being held by the Aboriginal people themselves.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr E. G. Whitlam, Mr Hurford and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Budget 1976-77

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

That the Budget will increase unemployment to unprecedented and crisis proportions at a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially school-leavers, young workers and apprentices, are without work;

The Budget completes the dismantling of Medibank as a simple, effective universal health insurance scheme, providing basic coverage for the total community;

The Budget, by its heavy cuts in urban and transport programs, will worsen the quality of life available to many Australians;

The Budget will compel state governments to reduce their services and increase charges;

The Budget reduces spending on Aboriginal affairs by 30 per cent and returns expenditure on Aborigines to pre- 1972 days;

The Budget seriously disadvantages migrant groups, most notably in employment and health, and leaves room for concern over the future of ethnic radio;

The Budget, despite the government’s earlier rhetoric about defence threats to Australia, continues to hold the size of the armed services at present levels;

And the Budget, despite all the above, still cannot be expected to reduce Australia’s annual inflation rate below twelve percent;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the 1976 Budget be redrafted to provide for economic recovery within the guide-lines laid down by the Australian Labor Government’s 1975 Budget.

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

Petitions received.

Schools Commission

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

  1. Pass, immediately, the States Grants (Schools) Legislation for the year 1977 as recommended by the Australian Schools Commission in their Report for the Rolling Triennium 1977-79.
  2. In no way alter the present role and administrative functions of the Australian Schools Commission.
  3. Encourage the Australian Schools Commission to develop and implement without restrictions, a philosophy of Educational Funding independent of Government pressures.
  4. Guarantee continuing parent and teacher representation on the Australian Schools Commission through the two recognized national bodies, namely the Australian Council of State School Organizations and the Australian Teachers Federation who represent the vast majority of children in Australia attending Government Schools.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.
  4. d ) That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved third world will increase yet further.
  7. That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uranium mining.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting 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 we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of the independence of the ABC posed by the Green Report.

We believe that the Government should desist from further financial cuts to the organisation and other pressures.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation of all present services provided by an independent ABC.

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

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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition recieved.

Symphony Orchestra in Newcastle

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Hunter Valley Region respectfully showeth:

The lack of a resident professional symphony orchestra in Newcastle and surrounding areas, with consequent denial to the citizens of adequate provision of concerts, opera, ballet, school concerts, teaching of various orchestral instruments and career opportunites for young musicians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to the provision of funds, in association with the N.S.W. State Government, Local Governments and the community of this region, for the establishment and maintenance of the Hunter Symphony Orchestra, consisting initially of 40 players, located in Newcastle and serving the cultural needs of the 500 000 inhabitants of the region, in accordance with the proposal and budget submitted to the Industries Assistance Commission.

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

Petition received.

Fraser Island

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

  1. That we, residents of the Local Authority areas of Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Woocoo sincerely believe the decision of the Australian Government to refuse export licenses for minerals from Fraser Island, thus causing the cessation of mining, was unwarranted, unjust and based on a report compiled from much inconclusive evidence, much of w hich was uncontested due to a legal technicality.
  2. That the adoption of the Fraser Island Environmental Report in full, without proper public or parliamentary debate was a denial of basic democratic justice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to (a) having the Honourable the Prime Minister visit the area concerned as a matter of urgency, to make his personal inspection of Fraser Island with a view to having the Government reverse its decision, (b) have the Honourable the Prime Minister investigate at first hand, both the massive human and economic impacts of his Governments decision.

  1. The appointment of a final assessment committee which will weigh the value of Fraser Island in its unmined state against both the value compensation payable to the numerous parties aggrieved by the Government decision and the value of Fraser Island in a mined and rehabilitated state.

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

Petition received.

page 3113

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3113

QUESTION

USE OF PARLIAMENTARY DINING ROOM

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to you, Mr Speaker. I ask: Are you aware that whilst several honourable members, including myself, were guests of the President of the Senate and yourself as Joint Presidents of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at a dinner in the private dining room in Parliament House in honour of the distinguished delegates from the British Parliament whom we welcomed to the chamber that afternoon, there was being held in another private dining room in Parliament House a party for some Ministers and members of the ‘Class of 66 ‘, at which a birthday cake was produced from which jumped a girl clad in a brief bikini of which the top half was retained only momentarily? I further ask: Is it permissible for honourable members to hold parties of this character in the precincts of the Parliament? What steps do you, Mr Speaker, propose to take to restore the dignity of the national Parliament and bring to book those who have sullied it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have made inquiries as to what occurred in the private dining room. I have been told that there was an occasion during which a person, who apparently was an attractive person, came out of what appeared to be a cake but what in fact was a tea box and that during an entertainment which was being offered she suffered a certain misfortune with the upper part of her clothing. I have read rather lurid reports in the Press this morning stating that people present blanched with horror. No reports have been made to me indicating that they did blanch in horror, but it was reported to me that they were dissatisfied that that sort of entertainment should occur in Parliament House. I agree; it is not the sort of entertainment which should occur in Parliament House. I wish the House to know that if it happens again it is likely to be punishable by transportation for 7 years to the colonies.

page 3113

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Productivity. What are the benefits to national productivity arising from the recent devaluation? How will these benefits affect the man in the street?

Mr MacPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– In recent days there have been many comments about the adverse impact of an across-the-board measure like devaluation. I am very glad that the honourable member has sought to examine some of the positive aspects of this because we are, as we know, renowned as a nation of knockers. Let us look at the positive aspects of devaluation. First of all, for one thing it will arrest some of those board room decisions which were being made to take industry offshore. It will thereby retain jobs in industry. It will also discourage the further outflow of capital which is needed for investment in industry and thereby encourage the creation of jobs in industry. Furthermore, it will enable Australian manufacturers to compete with imports, thereby retaining and in the course of time extending jobs in industry. It will enable Australian manufacturers to export more of their goods, thereby enabling them to invest or expand their plant and employ more people. Unquestionably this measure will be of short and medium term benefit of a considerable extent and in the long term it will greatly improve productivity of industry. It is about time -

Mr Innes:

– Even you do not believe that.

Mr MacPHEE:

– The honourable member for Melbourne is interjecting, joining the team of knockers in this country. Any across-the-board measure of course will discomfort some people.

Mr Bryant:

– Why did you not do it earlier?

Mr MacPHEE:

– The honourable member for Wills asks why it was not done earlier. The point is that it is an across-the-board measure.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. One must accept occasional interjections, but I will not accept a barrage of interjections. I ask honourable members on my left to remain silent.

Mr MacPHEE:

-Probably it is sufficient to say this: It has been commonly said in industry, especially in manufacturing industry in the last few weeks, that it was pointless to talk about long term productivity improvement unless some short term measures were taken to give industry a breathing space in which to make investments and create the employment opportunities to which I have referred. It is commonly said that if you are sitting in a crocodile infested swamp and being bitten by the crocodiles it is a bit difficult to recognise that your principal task ought to be to drain the swamp. This measure has helped to drain the swamp and the task is now in front of industry. The restraints and constraints necessary on all of us must be carried out. This measure will be of great benefit to long term productivity improvement and medium term employment.

page 3114

QUESTION

FRASER MINISTRY

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can he deny that he is planning a re-organisation of the Ministry which will include the dismissal of some Ministers, the appointment of replacements and a re-allocation of portfolios? If not, when does he intend to make his announcement?

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

-The honourable gentleman really ought to join a circus; the trouble is that he is already part of a circus. When the Leader of the Opposition was on this side of the House he was always sacking people, changing people’s positions and undermining people. This Government operates as a team. It is a first class team in the service of Australia. It will remain that way. It is a team intact. Every member of the team is serving with great distinction.

page 3114

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. It concerns economic policy, with special reference to the Treasurer’s reendorsement of his policies on money supply as set out at page 37 of his Budget Speech. Has the Treasurer given consideration to the possibility that in formulating his policy he may have paid too much attention to the Procrustes principle? Does he recall that Procrustes was an amiable Greek who had a somewhat arbitrary iron bed. When travellers were tall like, for example, the Prime Minister- he would cut off their feet to make them fit the bed. If they were somewhat on the short side- like, for example, the honourable member for Shortland- he would stretch their necks until they fitted the bed exactly. Would the Treasurer be inclined to modify his present policy which endeavours to fit the Australian economy to an arbitrary money supply and instead see whether he might not do better to try to fit the money supply to the Australian economy?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

-When the honourable gentleman refers to the stretching of necks, I am impelled to say that I think of an honourable gentleman in this House. I am sure the honourable gentleman will take no offence at that statement, he being the sort of robust individual that he is. As far as monetary policy is concerned, I think the activities and actions of the Government since it was elected to office will reflect the fact that the monetary policy has been subject to flexible adjustment as circumstances have changed during that period. As far as the future is concerned, the Government has made it perfectly clear that monetary policy will be a measured adjustment to circumstances as they develop but that the position on monetary policy will be firm. I have said to the House previously-I repeat it-that the Government’s monetary policy is such that it will provide adequate capacity to underwrite economic recovery but not at the same time to be accommodating to inflation. That is a very important point of the post-devaluation package, because the monetary policy in part, with other arms of policy, is designed to offset the inflationary effects of the decision to devalue.

page 3114

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I draw his attention to his statement in Hobart on 28 October in which he called the first of the 16 findings and recommendations of the Fox report the major recommendations. Since those recommendations and the second findings or recommendations appear to be the main basis upon which the Government has decided to proceed with uranium exports and subsequent uranium development, does he still consider the first recommendations in the Fox report to be the major recommendations? Has he or other Ministers sought or obtained the advice of any of the commissioners to clarify those points or any other points of uncertainty about the Fox report? If so, what was the nature of that advice?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

-The Government’s position on the mining and export of uranium is perfectly clear. It is spelt out in detail in my statement of 1 1 November which appears in Hansard. The Prime Minister has made further statements on the matter indicating that the Government’s policy will be made clear only after we have received the second report.

page 3114

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I address my question to the Treasurer. What action has been taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia over the past few days in setting the interest rates of government securities following the Treasurer’s announcement last Sunday night?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– As I announced in the Press statement of 28 November, issue yields on treasury notes were increased by 0.5 per cent as from the commencement of business on 29 November. This brought the yield on 13-week notes to 8.981 per cent and on 26-week notes to 9.230 per cent. As then foreshadowed, adjustments have taken place also in market yields on bonds. For short term securities the increase has been approximately 0.5 per cent. For example, the yield on November 1978 bonds has increased from about 9.4 per cent on 26 November to about 9.9 per cent on 1 December. Increases of lesser magnitude have taken place in yields on medium and long term bonds. At 10 years the increase has been from 10 per cent to _ about 10.4 per cent. The yields on the longer se- *curities have risen from 10.2 per cent to almost 10.5 per cent. With these changes the adjustments foreshadowed in Sunday night’s Press release have in fact been completed. I might say that the adjustments in private interest rates have been measured, are appropriate to the movements in Government security yields and are largely confined to short term securities.

page 3115

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of his grazing interests, what will he make out of devaluation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-One of the characteristics of members of the Opposition is that they always want to personalise politics and not to debate policies. It is a characteristic that is one of the things that will keep them where they are.

page 3115

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: RADIO PROGRAM AM

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Did the Minister hear the lead item this morning on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM which referred to the alleged deepening gloom over devaluation? Is it an acceptable standard of reporting and broadcasting by the ABC to base reports such as this on unnamed people who ‘. . . are at the very top in Australia’s business, banking, economic and industrial circles and who were not willing to be identified for fear that the authority of their positions would further endanger the present tenuous state of the economy’?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, I did hear the lead story on AM this morning. Quite frankly, I was disgusted because I thought that it was a pretty poor standard of journalism. Here we had someone using the national airwaves to put forward unsourced and unsubstantiated statements. I find this action extraordinary. We need only pick up any newspaper or listen to radio and television day after day to read and to hear what is said by prominent Australians who are engaged, as the person concerned said today, in ‘banking, economic and industrial circles’ at the annual meetings of their companies or at public engagements. We encourage them to say quite clearly what they believe on economic issues. Yet this young gentleman this morning claims that he could not find one person to put a name to the information that he saw fit to put over the Australian Broadcasting Commission network.

Mr Hurford:

– They have been talking down the economy. That is what you have been accusing me of doing.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is helpful for the Australian community to hear the voices of the wreckers, that is, to hear the interjections that are being made by the people who wrecked the economy over 3 years.

Mr Hayden:

– Do not be so modest. It was all done by Phil himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will remain silent. The Minister will direct his reply through the Chair.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It was obviously utter nonsense. It may have been a figment of his imagination. I suggest to members of Parliament and to the Australian community that they utterly disregard this obviously scurrilous reporting. The facts of life, of course, are quite different from what was stated this morning. The economic strategy of this Government, as announced by the Prime Minister and particularly the Treasurer, has been consistent. The decision to devalue was part of that consistent strategy. Of course honourable members opposite do not like this strategy because it suits them to use every opportunity to talk down the economy. They continue to use every opportunity. I finally say, Mr Speaker, that despite the fact that the young reporter misused the program AM this morning and despite what the Opposition says the strategy is consistent. We are winning the battle against inflation. The decision on devaluation will add to the growth and stability of the Australian economy.

page 3115

QUESTION

BUREAU OF ROADS

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport, relates to his recent announcement that the Bureau of Roads is to be amalgamated with the Bureau of Transport Economics. Did the Minister give an undertaking last August to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and to the Australian Public Service Association that they would be kept informed about developments associated with the amalgamation of the Bureau? If so, what action has he taken to honour this undertaking? Were the associations given, as promised by the

Public Service Board, the opportunity to comment on proposals concerning the amalgamation? Is he aware of the serious concern of officers of the Bureau of Roads as to their future? Finally, will the Minister give these officers, whom he has so often praised, an undertaking that they will not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of the Bureau of Roads being absorbed into the Department of Transport?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

-I cannot recall giving a specific undertaking to members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in relation to this matter. I do recall giving an undertaking to the staff of the Bureau of Roads that any submission they made to me would be taken into careful consideration. Indeed, that was what ensued. The staff of the Bureau of Roads made a submission to me on this matter. The propositions which it pu’ forward to me were considered and taken into account in the amalgamation. I can give the honourable member and the staff of the Bureau of Roads an assurance that the position of members of the staff is protected. I can give the country at large an assurance, as I have done on a number of occasions, that the functions and operations which were performed by the Bureau of Roads will continue. The Bureau of Roads has been the source of a great deal of important advice to a number of governments over a number of years. That advice will still continue to be sought. There is no need, in my view, for any cause for alarm by the staff of the Bureau of Roads in this matter. Having read all the advice which has come to me about the proposed amalgamation, I am quite convinced that the new merged or amalgamated body will be a much better advising body to the Government and to those people to whom it is giving advice than occurred previously.

page 3116

QUESTION

ALLEGED ILLEGAL PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of allegations that a major fraud involving illegal payments of unemployment benefits extending over 12 months and involving an officer of his Department in Sydney has been uncovered? What action is he taking in respect of this matter.

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-Yes, I am aware ofthe matter to which the honourable gentleman refers. My Department in Sydney has been investigating aspects of the payment of unemployment benefits with which it is concerned. As a result of those investigations the Commonwealth Police were asked to make further inquiries. As a consequence of those inquiries charges have been laid against an officer of my Department in Sydney, and the police are continuing their inquiries. My Department has already taken action in Sydney to reconcile the records kept by the Department of Social Security involving the issuing of unemployment benefit cheques with the records kept by the Commonwealth Employment Service. I have asked my Department to investigate as a matter of urgency what other checks and safeguards may be needed to be introduced in this matter.

page 3116

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen reports that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is once again to infiltrate and spy upon trade unions m Australia. Will he assure the House that those reports of such an obnoxious practice are without foundation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I can only assure the House that the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, who was appointed by my predecessor, as the honourable gentleman would know, will carry out the functions of the Act scrupulously.

page 3116

QUESTION

COWS’ MILK SUBSTITUTES

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister referred to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee questions concerning the desirability of restoring to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme numbers of products? In view of my representations and those of other honourable members, were cows’ milk substitutes referred to the Committee, and what has been the outcome of the Committee ‘s deliberations?

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

-It is true that the honourable member for Parramatta, the honourable member for Hughes and a number of other honourable members from both sides of the House made representations to me as a consequence of my accepting the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to reduce the age eligibility from 6 years to 18 months for the availability of cow’s milk substitutes. That recommendation was made last year. Because of the representations that I have received from the honourable member and from other honourable members in the Parliament I referred the matter back to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for its reconsideration. The Committee acknowledged that there was a need for cow’s milk substitutes for some children who are allergic to cow’s milk. The

Committee recognised also that there was a considerable amount of abuse in the usage of these substitutes. As a consequence of this the usage rate was centred principally in several centres or regions within the city of Sydney. The Committee made further inquiries, discussed the matter with physicians, pediatricians and others and recommended that the age limit be increased from 18 months to 2 years. I have now approved that recommendation and it will become effective as from 1 April 1977.

page 3117

QUESTION

URANIUM: FOX REPORT

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

– I ask the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development a question concerning correspondence between him or other Ministers and Mr Justice Fox. The honourable gentleman will remember that 2 days ago the Minister who represents him in the Senate was asked a question without notice about a report that the Ranger inquiry commissioners had written to the Minister criticising the Government for its interpretation of the first report and that the Minister who represents him had said in reply:

I am instructed that the Minister has indicated that such a letter has not come into his hands, nor has his office or Department been able to locate such a letter. That is my instruction.

The honourable gentleman would also know that yesterday, during question time in the Senate, the Minister who represents him said in a personal explanation:

The Minister has in fact received a number of letters from Mr Justice Fox. One of them was concerned with the interpretation that has been placed on the Commission’s first report.

I therefore ask the Minister now whether he wil table the correspondence between Mr Justice Fox and himself or at least the letter which his representative describes as being concerned with the interpretation that is placed upon the Commission’s first report. I also ask the Minister who gave the instruction to -

Mr King:

– What else do you want?

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

– I should have thought that the public would want to know what was in this letter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will continue with his question.

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

-Mr Speaker, I also ask the Minister Who gave the instruction to the Minister who represents him in the Senate which was quoted by his representative there 2 days ago?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– The Leader of the Opposition is obviously trying to make an issue of the question of private correspondence that I have had with Mr Justice Fox. I assure the House that there is absolutely nothing mysterious or nefarious about this issue. Let me make it clear, first of all, that it is true that my colleague in the other place received instructions that were incorrect. When this came to my notice- I think late on Tuesday night- I telephoned my colleague and told him that those instructions were incorrect.

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

– Where did they come from?

Mr NEWMAN:

– The instructions were issued from my office and I take full responsibility for the incorrect instructions that were issued. That is the simple basis of the matter and it should be taken no further. It is true that I have had private correspondence with Mr Justice Fox. The matter has been satisfactorily resolved between Mr Justice Fox and myself. I will consider the question of tabling the correspondence.

page 3117

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: MEAT EXPORTS

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the devaluation of the Australian dollar and the valuable benefits accruing to depressed primary industries throughout the country. I ask the Minister: Has he seen a media report which states:

Devaluation should make Australian meat more competitive and easier to sell on overseas markets but there is no way that Australian exporters can increase prices.

Is this assertion that prices cannot be increased totally inaccurate? What is the true position in relation to meat exports?

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

– A number of commodities are sold in different currencies. Meat in some markets is sold in United States dollars, in some markets in Japanese yen and in other markets in Australian dollars at whatever the current exchange rate might be. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has assessed the gross benefit for the meat industry. There will be a gain to the beef industry of $49m in the remaining 7 months of this financial year. As to sheep meat there will be a gain of $ 16m. There will be a gain of $9m for other meats. Against that, of course, there will be some offsets in relation to freight charges and, perhaps, some other inputs with regard to the handling, processing and packaging of the product. However, it is totally wrong to suggest that the prices received by Australian exporters and hence by Australian producers will not benefit as a result of the change in Australian currency values announced by the Treasurer the other night. It is true that the meat industry may not be able to increase its prices in other currencies but because of the change in relative values of the Australian dollar there will be a benefitand a significant benefit- flowing through to Australian producers and exporters who handle those exports. It is that aspect of the change in currency value that brings a very real net benefit to the hard pressed beef producers about whom the honourable gentleman is, I know, so greatly concerned.

page 3118

QUESTION

RAID ON COMMUNES

Mr INNES:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I ask: How many officers of his Department were involved in the raid on Children of God communes on the night of 29 November? How many prohibited immigrants were arrested in the raids? What was the cost of the exercise? How many communes were raided and in what States and Territories did the raids take place? Did the raids on the communes on 29 November take place with the Minister’s full knowledge and approval? Were members of the Press present at any of the raids? Was the prime purpose of the raids to harass and gather information about the Children of God? Will the Minister agree that the raids constitute a blatant violation of civil rights?

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

– Acting upon information which came to my Department, visits were made to communes which were occupied by people who described themselves as ‘The Children of God ‘. The communes are present in each of the States and the Territories. I am not sure of the actual number of communes which exist at present. I understand that no prohibited migrants were apprehended during the visits. Investigations were made into the present status of some people in the communes. They were found to hold valid visitor visas. The Department receives information from a number of sources in relation to people who are alleged to be prohibited migrants and it has a duty to investigate those claims. This was one such investigation. I do not believe that any civil liberties were infringed in any sense. I am not aware of any newspaper men being present except for a report I received that in one particular instance- I think it was at a commune in Western Australia- one newspaper man was present. I do not think I have anything to add to that.

Mr Innes:

– How many officers were involved?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I am not sure of the number of officers involved and I have not received any estimate of the cost.

page 3118

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: EFFECT ON TASMANIAN INDUSTRIES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr Martyr:

– Is it about apples?

Mr GOODLUCK:

– In answer to my very good friend from Swan, it is. Is the Minister aware that the decision to devalue the Australian dollar has been applauded by the Chairman of the Tasmanian State Fruit Board, by all sections ofthe Tasmanian fruit industry and, incidentally, by the Premier of Tasmania? Can the Minister indicate whether reports that this important Tasmanian industry will once again be able to compete on previously uncertain markets and, in fact, could live again, providing new opportunities and stability to a State that is crying out for positive assistance and initiative, are correct?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– As one of my colleagues sitting behind me said, apart from a change of Government in Tasmania probably no greater contribution could be made to the well-being of the people of Tasmania than the recent devaluation. Nearly every sector of the Tasmanian economy has suffered because of the extent to which it has depended upon export markets. The fruit industry, with which the honourable gentleman is particularly concerned, is one for which the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has assessed the gross benefit across Australia at about $900,000. A significant percentage of that, of course, will flow to Tasmania, which is by far the largest fruit exporting State in Australia. I believe that across the whole picture of the rural industry, by the time the gains in the dairy industry, the beef industry and the fruit industry are taken into consideration, the benefit to Tasmania could well be in excess of $2m. The interesting aspect of the decision is that not only is it supported by those mentioned by the honourable member for Franklin, but the trade union movement also is explaining to its members that this particular move is going to bring very substantial benefits. I believe that as a result of this decision, with a change of Government, in Tasmania, it could well be that not only the fruit industry but indeed Tasmania as a whole will live again.

page 3118

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Mr BRYANT:

– I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Is it a fact that he has now taken the final steps to silence the voice of the people of East Timor completely by confiscating the radio of, and prosecuting, anybody listening to or attempting to communicate with those people? Would this action be in line with the spirit of the recent decision of the United Nations to condemn the aggression of Indonesia in Timor? Why is he supporting Indonesian aggression when the world body in fact condemns it? Is not this a pretty poor recompense for the assistance given by the people of East Timor when Australian troops there were attempting to use radio communications with this country? Is it a fact that Australians who were listening and who were able to react assisted our people there to overcome aggression in that country? Why does the Minister not act in the spirit of those times instead of accepting Indonesian aggression as a fait accompli?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-If the honourable member wants to ask a question on foreign policy, I suggest that he should ask it of the Foreign Minister. My responsibility is to administer the relevant Act. If people use radios for receiving or transmitting messages illegally, I will take the appropriate action. I do not care whether the offence takes place in Darwin or anywhere else. It is very interesting that a lot of concern is expressed on this matter. The Department is proceeding continuously against a number of people. We have cases right throughout Australia. The honourable member is therefore selecting one decision and trying to make something out of it. I do not care whether an offence takes place in Darwin or any other part of Australia. If information comes to the Department or to me that people are illegally using radio equipment, the law will proceed.

page 3119

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN VICTORIA

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-Can the Prime Minister say when local government authorities in Victoria can expect to receive payment of the general revenue assistance grants which will flow to them as a result of the passage of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I know that the Treasurer was making arrangements for the funds to be paid to the States immediately on the passage and proclamation of the Bill. I therefore expect that local government will receive payment very shortly indeed. As the honourable gentleman would know, some thought that payments should be spread over a considerable period on a monthly or quarterly basis. Because of representations from local government and because of the Government’s concern and understanding for the position of local government, we have made it quite plain that the funds will be made available as one lump sum payment to all local governments. I expect those payments to be made virtually forthwith. In future years the payments will be made virtually as soon as this Parliament is advised of the division of funds among the local governing bodies. In this year there were some additional delays because the legislation had to be passed through the Parliament.

page 3119

QUESTION

MR SPEAKER: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to you, Mr Speaker, refers to your action in writing a series of articles in the Melbourne Herald under the column heading of ‘Billy Mackie’, the latest of which was published last Tuesday and is headed ‘Confrontation: Why the Government must win over the Unions’. The articles feature a photo of you in Speaker’s wig and describe your position in this Parliament. Is such action by you contrary to the conventional role of Speakers in Parliaments that adhere to the Westminster system in that in your capacity as Speaker you are publicly advocating contentious political views? If so, will you explain to the House why you are departing from that convention? If you believe the writing of such articles to be not incompatible with your role as Speaker, will you at least consider vacating the Chair whenever matters are before the House in regard to which you as Speaker, have publicly expressed your views?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do write-I enjoy the writing, I must say- on social issues. I regard the question of unions in our society as one upon which persons ought to have a view and, if they do have a view, they ought to express it. That I did. I recommend the reading of the article to all honourable members and I thank the honourable member for Gellibrand for drawing attention to it.

As to the convention, I am sure the honourable gentleman is thinking of the convention of the United Kingdom; certainly, he could not be thinking of the convention in Australia. While I may believe that the convention of the United Kingdom is a preferable one, it does not exist in Australia. Unfortunately a Presiding Officer in Australia must have 2 identities. One identity is that of being elected to the Parliament for the political party for which he stands. If I am to be re-elected to this Parliament, it will be as a Liberal and I will be contested by the honourable gentleman’s Party. Therefore, it is not possible for me to withdraw totally from the political scene. If the honourable member for Gellibrand were prepared to institute discussion about changing the practice in Australia- it applies not only in this Parliament but also the State Parliaments- I would readily engage in those consultations. I think it would be in the interests of the Parliament, if the United Kingdom convention were adopted but in fact it has not been adopted.

Mr Hayden:

– What about your appearance in the Industrial Court?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Oxley interjects about my law practice and I may as well deal with that question now. I am a person occupying a position in this Parliament, having been elected to it by members of the House. I have no executive or policy formation function. I have been a member of this Parliament for enough years to know that if a person is to have independence he ought to be prepared to pursue his own career to the extent which is consistent with the full discharge of his duties. I do maintain my own chambers. I intend to continue to maintain those chambers.

Mr Hayden:

– Why do you need a Press secretary as Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not have a Press secretary and I do not intend to allow a discussion to be held on this matter by way of interjection. If the honourable gentleman wishes to make any comment I will allow him to move any substantive motion he chooses.

page 3120

QUESTION

LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition would be wise to listen to my question. I refer the Attorney-General to the answer he gave yesterday about documents relating to the Lockheed aircraft matter. I ask him whether in fact there was a remark made in the course of his answer that it would not wash in Japan. I ask: In view of the seriousness of the original allegations in this matter whether he, his Department, the Solicitor-General or any other person connected with his Department has been involved in a whitewash of this matter or whether we have now had a full and complete disclosure of the very important matters concerned with the original allegations?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I thank the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to refer again to this matter. When I was answering the question yesterday about this matter I did hear sotto voce something by the Leader of the Opposition but it was not until I received the greens that I discovered what it was that he had said. It was crossed out in the greens, but he did say: ‘It would not wash in Japan’. Had I heard that comment at the time I would have said something about it because to me that suggests that the

Solicitor-General, an officer of my Department, and I were engaged in some whitewash in this matter. I want to assure the House that if there is one thing that has to remain independent, it is the Law Officer’s function in this House. It should not be tarnished in any way whatsoever. The documents to which I referred yesterday represented all the material that had come before what I understand is the Church committee and had been sent on to the Department of Justice in the United States of America. Those documents have been looked at since by myself, the Solicitor-General and a senior officer of my Department.

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

– What was the earliest document?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– As the honourable gentleman well knows the agreement under which this information is provided says that all such information made available by the parties pursuant to these procedures and all correspondence between the parties relating to such information and to the implementation of these procedures shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed to third parties or to government agencies having no law enforcement responsibilities. I have no intention of revealing to this House the contents of those documents. I want to make it clear that those documents represent all the material that was before the Church committee. The Minister for Transport made a statement in this House in May last. He had gone through a series of files relating to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity while he was Prime Minister of this country and while I was Solicitor-General to have this matter investigated.

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

– Church had not reported then. What was the earliest document?

Mr ELLICOTT:

-So far as I know and so far as he knows no such attempt was made. What has happened here is that the Leader of the Opposition is going back to his colours, in the way that he cannot resist. He cannot resist the temptation to use his tongue to destroy other people, innocent people. In this case there is not a taint against the late Senator Paltridge or his family or against any other Minister of the Crown or anybody. Why don ‘t you give up?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

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

– It would not wash in Italy, the Netherlands or Japan.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call upon the Leader of the Opposition not to interject in that fashion. He knows that it is provocative and unnecessary.

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

– So was the misleading reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent.

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

-How far back did the documents go?

Mr Nixon:

– When you were Prime Minister-

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

-Church had not reported.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Transport and the Leader of the Opposition will stop this crossfire of interjections to each other.

Mr Nixon:

– He is not even decent.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Transport will remain silent.

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

– You are covering up.

Mr Nixon:

– I take a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition just made the allegation that I am covering up. In May this year I went through the files of the Department of Transport- right through the files-

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. On what basis is the Minister speaking?

Mr Nixon:

– I want a withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am hearing a point of order and the honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat.

Mr Nixon:

– I want a withdrawal of those words used by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Keating:

– Tell me on what basis he is speaking.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat.

Mr Nixon:

– I would like a withdrawal of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not know which words you want withdrawn because there was a crossfire between you and the Leader of the Op- position which I could not hear. I asked both honourable gentlemen to cease interjecting.

Mr Nixon:

– Well, I will repeat them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I could not hear what was said during the crossfire between the 2 honourable gentlemen. In such circumstances, if insults are offered across the chamber I cannot deal with them. If a matter is pursued in that fashion it will not appear in Hansard. I have not heard it. I do not have the opportunity of calling for the withdrawal of something which I have not heard and which may not appear in Hansard.

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Speaker, I am sure that Hansard will have recorded the words used by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that I was being a party to a cover up. I want a withdrawal of those words by the Leader of the Opposition, please.

Mr Morris:

– Speaking to the point of order raised by the Minister for Transport; when this matter was raised in May and after an official request had been made in writing to the Government to produce the documents, the Minister refused -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland will resume his seat. What he is saying is not relevant to the issue raised. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he used the words about which the Minister for Transport complains.

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

-Mr Speaker, I replied to his interjection. When he disobeyed you I disobeyed you and responded. I said that he had covered up. I do not want to disrupt the proceedings of the House. I will withdraw the remark. However, I would point out that the AttorneyGeneral was very provocative in his misleading reply. There are no documents that he has been given going back to the relevant period.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The withdrawal will be unqualified. In the interests of the House I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw unqualifiedly.

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

-In those interests, Sir, I withdraw.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to a point of order. In yesterday’s ‘greens’ of the parliamentary debates, following a comment by the Attorney-General, there appeared this interjection by the Leader of the Opposition: ‘It would not wash in Japan’. Those words have been deleted from Hansard. I would ask on what basis they have been deleted. They were deleted in the green copy. I have not checked elsewhere.

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

-They have not been deleted. They are in Hansard.

Mr Sinclair:

– If they are in Hansard I have no worries. They had been deleted in the green copy.

page 3121

CONSUMER EDUCATION

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘Consumer Education’ which has been prepared and furnished to me by the Trade

Practices Commission, pursuant to a direction which I gave the Commission under section 29 of the Trade Practices Act earlier this year. The report will be studied by the Government. It will be of great assistance in formulating consumer education policy.

page 3122

DARWIN DISASTER WELFARE COUNCIL

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

For the information of honourable members I present the final report of the Darwin Disaster Welfare Council dated March 1976, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Social Security relating to that report. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and in the Parliamentary Library.

page 3122

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the first reports of the Local Government Grants Commissions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, together with related statistical information in respect of Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. In addition, I present the text of a statement by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs relating to these documents. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of these documents have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and in the Parliamentary Library.

page 3122

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE FORCE

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 3122

METRIC CONVERSION BOARD

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the Metric Conversion Act 1970 I present the annual report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ended 30 June 1976, together with a statement by the Minister for Science relating to that report.

page 3122

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (ROYALTIES) BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3122

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to-

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

page 3122

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

The Parliament -Taiwanese Fishing Vessels- Currency Devaluation: Housing and Manufacturing Industries- Government’s Economic Policy -Australian Embassy in Paris: Statement by Member- Australian Defence-Housing Estate: Advertising- Housing for Rental- Migrant Resource Centres

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Last Tuesday night while Government members were still reeling and rolling from the economic blows, reversals and abandonment of policies by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), Government back benchers were having a sordid party in the private dining room of Parliament House. It was a 10-year birthday party for those who were elected in 1966. The party reached its climax when a giant birthday cake was wheeled in and out jumped a girl clad in a bikini, the upper half of which was soon doffed. One wonders whether this event could be viewed as the Government’s only successful attempt to stimulate the private sector since it came to office 12 months ago. Great latitude is given to members in respect of the guests they sponsor in the galleries, the chamber and the dining room. Never, however, would any member, least of all those with 10 years experience in the Parliament, presume to sponsor a girl in a bikini as a guest in the gallery or in the dining room.

Mr Armitage:

– Are these the bare facts?

Mr JAMES:

-These are the bare facts. A cake is not acceptable cover. Members’ guests are supposed to enter the dining room openly. This guest was smuggled into the room in a cake. Guests are supposed to be decently clad. A cake is not an adequate covering.

I am somewhat disappointed, Mr Speakerand I anticipate that thousands of Australians will be- at your good self not taking a more serious view. I have already been consulted by 2 Government backbenchers who expressed their disapproval at what happened at this strip tease party in Parliament House on Tuesday night. Whilst the President of the Senate and Mr Speaker were entertaining, with myself, a visiting British Parliamentary delegation under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in one private dining room, a strip tease party was being held by Government members in another.

The Australian public has the right to expect a much higher standard of behaviour from its Federal parliamentarians. You, Mr Speaker, I feel sure, have the duty to maintain that standard of conduct by the leaders of this nation. Only this week the Government was responsible for the largest devaluation of the Australian currency since the great Depression. It seems that Government supporters are content to see devalued not only the Australian currency but also the standing of Australian womanhood. The revolution that saw the creation of the great nation and republic of the United States of America was sparked by a tea party at Boston over 200 years ago. Perhaps ‘Don’s tea party’ of 1976 will be remembered as the event that hastened the creation of Australia as a republic.

The economy is in ruins. The Government is in disarray. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. No doubt the Treasurer who, I suspect, attended this august gathering last night in his endeavours to see that all sections of the community receive a fair slice of the national cake, will ensure that no deserving groups will be exposed to rip-offs and strip-offs by members of the Liberal Party.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to speak today on the subject of Taiwanese fishing vessels operating in Australian waters. Before doing so I shall make brief mentionand it deserves nothing more than that- of the remarks of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). As one who was present at the function on Tuesday evening, having seen the responsible way in which members on this side of the chamber responded when we were surprised by certain events, I say that the speech of the honourable member does him no credit. He has a reputation in this place as being the muck raker and the bucket tipper every time the Australian Labor Party has to dredge someone up to do the dirty work. He continues to fulfil his role well; I wish him well in the future.

I express concern at the growth in the number of Taiwanese fishing vessels that have been apprehended in Australian waters in recent years. In 1972 4 vessels were apprehended. Two were apprehended in 1973 and a further 2 in 1974. In 1975 there was a massive increase when 25 vessels were apprehended. In the current year to 23 August 1976, 14 vessels had been apprehended. With respect to penalties in 1975 1 1 vessels were forfeited and fines ranging from $50 to $500 were imposed. All the forfeited vessels were sold back to the former Taiwanese owners for amounts ranging from $785 to $12,600. In 1976, twelve of the 14 vessels apprehended were forfeited. Fines have ranged from $50 to $ 1,000. All of the forfeited vessels have been sold back to the former Taiwanese owners for amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000.

There has been a tremendous increase in the number of Taiwanese fishing vessels encroaching upon the shores of this land. I believe that these fishermen have done considerable damage, particularly to clams in the Great Barrier Reef. The long-line fishermen and the clam searchers are all inflicting damage which will not be easily repaired on this nation’s marine life which will need hundreds upon hundreds of years to recover.

This Government, as was the case with the previous Australian Government, under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), has sought through the Law of the Sea Conference to ensure that Australia has a widened economic and resources zone of some 200 miles to ensure that we can adequately police our waters and, more importantly, protect our resources. There are 2 conventions which are presently in force. They are the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The first Convention accords to each country sovereignty subject to a right of innocent passage for foreign shipping over a belt of sea adjacent to its coast but the width is not specified. The second Convention accords sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting natural resources to each country over a continental shelf to a depth of 200 metres or to where the superjacent waters admit of the exploitation of natural resources. I believe that a majority of the countries taking part in the Law of the Sea Conference are seeking to extend the previous 12-mile territorial sea limit to a 200-mile wide economic zone. They also support the establishment of an international agency to explore and exploit the international seabed area for the benefit of mankind, with benefits from its activities to go in part to undeveloped countries.

I believe that over the years we have given sufficient warning to Taiwanese fishermen. I was in Taiwan in 1969, 1970 and 1971. On each occasion I was there I impressed upon the

Government of that country that there was one thing that was happening that was not attracting friends in this country, namely, the continual exploitation by its fishermen of the waters of Australia without regard to the damage that is done in the search for food. I do not suggest for one moment that the less fortunate or developing countries should be pushed back into their own areas. But I believe that the Taiwanese have been warned. They have been told. But regrettably they continue to ignore the wishes of this country. There is little that we can do to stop them from coming close to our country. But, certainly when they are caught, we can take action.

I suggest a measure which may well be effective in our attempt to stop this fishing. The trade figures for 1975-76 indicate that Australia exported to Taiwain products to the value of $114m and imported from Taiwan products to the value of $ 134m. The balance of trade is well and truly on the side of Taiwan. I believe that as on our Barrier Reef one million clams a year are being slaughtered by the Taiwanese fishermen the Australian Government has to go to the Taiwanese Government and say: ‘You have been warned. We are deadly serious on this matter. If your fishermen continue to plunder what belongs to us we will have to consider stopping trade with you as a form of protest. ‘ I cannot understand why the Taiwanese Government cannot make a greater effort to inform its fishermen that to go into the near waters of Australia will be extremely embarrassing. I did not enjoy delivering this address against Taiwan. I believe that the previous Government made a grave error and sold out our position to mainland China when it simply agreed to recognise China and to dismiss the presence of Taiwan. But that is history. Today we deal with the plunder of our clams and our marine life. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the suggestion that there be a threat of the cessation of trade with Taiwan unless it commences to respect what rightfully belongs to us.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-My comments in this debate regard the housing industry. Most comment on the recent devaluation has been about its general economic implications and on the recent distribution of wealth which that implies. Most critics say that it will boost inflation, worsen the real income situation of pensioners and others on fixed incomes, and move resources from labour intensive manufacturing industries to the capital intensive mining sector. That is redistribution from the weak to the strong, from Australian manufacturing to foreign-owned mining companies. Most critics say that the currency speculators who caused the run on the balance of payments which caused devaluation, are also the chief gainers. Most critics say that the Government had open to it other options which would have contained price rises and promoted economic growth. But such options would not have rewarded the rich and penalised the weak. On all this there is agreement.

Today I shall make my grievance about the effect of devaluation on housing; that is, on the housing industry, on home buyers and on home builders. Devaluation will affect housing in 3 ways. Firstly, it will lead to general price rises. These will reduce the real incomes of wage earners, leaving them with less to spend on housing. Secondly, it will distort the capital market by making investment in mining more profitable than previously. Investors will be reluctant to put their funds into housing. They will prefer getrichquick returns from mineral speculation to the steady but sure returns from housing investment. Thirdly, it will lead to rises in housing prices. This is partly due to the increases in the cost of imported housing materials, but mainly to the general cost pressures to which a new inflationary spiral will lead. If this were the total situation it would be bad enough. But it is the secondary effects of the devaluation which are most worrying.

Cynical speculators have taken nearly $900m out of the country recently in the hope of large capital gains. They will now repatriate it, perhaps over the next 3 to 6 months. They have made a huge 17½ per cent profit from their speculations so they will bring back more Australian dollars than they took out. The money supply growth that this will cause will exceed a billion dollars. Growth in money supply will be even greater if devaluation leads to the long term capital inflow which is the Government’s aim. The implications for domestic liquidity are worrying. Already this financial year money supply has exceeded the target growth rate of about 12 per cent. It has already grown by almost 16 per cent. I do not want to over-emphasise money supply targets, but the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) seems to think that they are central. If he is to stay on target he will have to cut back the money supply drastically for the remainder of this financial year.

The Treasurer foreshadowed this cutback in his Press statement of last Sunday in which he promised a very tight June quarter. When speculators bring their funds back- very likely in the same quarter- the Government can be expected to begin a program of tight money and high interest rates. The Treasurer hinted at this last Sunday and I am sure he meant it. The Government’s policies have come unstuck and its recent decisions have been increasingly ad hoc. The only consistent theme is that the Government is anti-worker, anti-manufacturing and antiAustralian. It favours the strong and the foreign. It rewards the speculator. But at least in the monetary area it seems determined to achieve its set target of 12 per cent money supply growth. I think the Government has only 2 options if this is its aim. Firstly, it could neutralise the effect of the increase in liquidity by operating exclusively in the banking system. Secondly, it could try to sop up the increased liquidity, partly by borrowing from the public- possibly along the lines of the ill-fated Australian savings bond of earlier this year- and partly by restricting bank lending. Either option hurts home buyers.

In the first case, new bank lending is frozen by a combination of calling up bank deposits, that is, by increasing special reserve deposits or by forcing banks to take up more Government bonds and increasing the LGS ratio. At present the banks provide about 50 per cent of all housing finance. Such a policy would virtually prevent new lending by the banks for housing and would deny finance to many intending home buyers. It would also force up interest rates. This would lead to a situation where many prospective home buyers could no longer afford housing. It would also increase the repayments of existing mortgage holders. The more likely Government policy would be to try to sop up the extra liquidity by a combination of some restraints on the banking system combined with an attempt to induce individual savers to buy government bonds instead of depositing with savings banks or other financial institutions such as building societies. This would have the effect of diverting funds from the banks and building societies and so limiting their ability to lend for housing.

This would also force up the general level of interest rates. This would happen because, in order to induce people to take up government bonds, the Government would have to offer attractive interest rates. I think that a rate rise of at least 2 per cent can be expected. It means at least a 16 per cent increase in monthly repayments on an average housing loan. For example, it means that a person on an average income will be required to pay almost 27 per cent of his income on housing repayments, as against 23 per cent now if he had borrowed $20,000 repayable over 25 years. If he borrows $25,000 his repayments will rise by 30 per cent to 34 per cent of his income. If interest rates rise by 1 per cent mortage payments will increase by $ 1 4 a month on a 20,000 loan and $18 a month on a $25,000 loan. I expect the rate to rise by at least 2 per cent over the next year. This means monthly increases of at least $28 and $36 respectively.

The effects of this devaluation will price housing out of the reach of the average worker. Also it wil dry up the supply of housing funds as a result of the Government’s attempts to contain the growth in money supply as speculators cash in their gains. The situation for the average home buyer will be worse if the Government’s threats to reduce real incomes by a penal wage policy succeed. People on average incomes cannot afford to pay more than 25 per cent of their income on housing. Under this scheme they will have to pay much more than that. If this devaluation causes prices to rise, the supply of finance to dry up, interest rates to rise and real incomes to fall, what will be the result? Workers will not be able to afford housing. Even if they could, they would not be able to obtain finance. The end result is disaster for intending home buyers, deprivation for existing owners and unemployment for those who work in the industry.

The currency speculators have a lot to answer for. This Government is betraying its responsibilities to protect the interests of the ordinary Australians, both those seeking a home and those already committed to heavy repayments. I believe that the Government’s policy will have enormous consequences for this country, for the home building and construction industry. That industry is one in which there should be growth and development in the next decade.

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

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I am pleased to be able to follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) in this debate because he and I have adjoining electorates and I dare say we are both interested in the consequences of devaluation in our own communities. I was surprised that he suggested that the manufacturing industry would not be assisted as a result of the Government’s decision. He would know as I do that in the electorates which we serve there are large numbers of manufacturing industries that have suffered extensively as a result of export competition in this country. Those industries have put off large numbers of their employees. He would know as I do that those people are without employment. Our areas generally exhibit the worst unemployment in the

State of New South Wales. The efforts of this Government will help to correct that situation.

The reasons for the decision were that with excessive wage costs our currency had become over-valued, our manufacturing industries could not compete and therefore they had to make savings. They made those savings by discharging employees. The fact is that a devaluation, provided the unions are prepared to co-operate in achieving wage restraint, will result in more work for companies manufacturing for the Australian market.

Mr Armitage:

– In other words, you want the workers to pay for it.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-The people who are without jobs, like the people in my electorate and like the people in the electorate of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), will be able to find jobs in the manufacturing industry in this country as a result of the decision that has been taken. To suggest that manufacturing industry will not be helped as a result of that decision is quite specious. In fact I would suggest that, by criticising the decision that has been taken, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is jeopardising the employment possibilities of many people in the area that they know best- in the manufacturing industry in this country. He would know, when he spoke briefly about the money supply, that the guru of monetarist theories, Milton Friedman, was reported in the Australian today as saying:

I think that Mr Fraser has set about not only correcting the course of Australia’s economic future- and present- but setting realistic guidelines which one can see achieving stability and confidence. I would say, from my understanding, that Australia is very well regarded internationally because now- and this is comparatively rare among Western nations at the moment- it appears to be pursuing a mature and steady course.

To suggest that monetarists would be displeased with the decisions that have been taken is stretching our credibility too far.

Today I want to speak in this grievance debate about the sabotage of this Government’s economic policy by the New South Wales Labor Government. Honourable members would know that the Premier of New South Wales produced proposals for a change in the Commonwealth Government’s economic policy entitled ‘A Special Economic Recovery Program ‘ of 1 976. If honourable members take the time to read that paper they will see there a number of significant statements. I propose to go through them. The Premier recognises something that I have known for some time. In point 1 of his paper he says:

New South Wales has the highest unemployment rate of all mainland States.

In point 2 he says:

New South Wales has the largest number of unemployed, representing 44 per cent of the Australian total.

He says in point 4:

New South Wales has been experiencing a slower rate of new capital investment in many areas than has been the case in other States.

Those comments are significant. I have taken out the unemployment figures for New South Wales for the time since the Labor Government came into office in that State. Only in the last quarter did the figures in that State fall. In Victoria over the same period the number of unemployed fell each month. Let me read the figures. In June the New South Wales figures were up by 5796 and down in Victoria by 325. In July they were up in New South Wales by 4870 and down in Victoria by 1250. In August they were up 1000 in New South Wales and down by 2471 in Victoria. In September they were up by 602 in New South Wales and down in Victoria by 1812. These are significant figures. At the time when unemployment in New South Wales was increasing Victoria was managing to decrease the number of unemployed. The Premier of New South Wales suggests certain reasons for this situation. He says:

One of the causes of the particularly severe unemployment in New South Wales is the high content of heavy industry in the State’s traditional pattern of manufacturing. Superimposed on this has been an extraordinary coincidence of acute recession in both segments of the building and construction industry-the dwelling and the non-dwelling sections- for reasons which are largely different as between the two. The resulting unemployment is State-wide affecting non-urban areas as well as the industrial centres. It has a high content of young people and female office workers, as well as of unskilled and semi-skilled males.

They are not the reasons for the economic decline in New South Wales in comparison with the situation in Victoria. Why could the Premier not have been more realistic? The basic reasons are these: There is in New South Wales a spectre of nationalisation, a socialist government in office determined to undermine the morale and confidence of the business community.

What does the Premier want to do? He says first of all that he wants to take over the race clubs because they are full of vested interests, as he calls them. He says that he wants to take over the Australian Gas Light Company Ltd and puts certain reasons for that. Why would peoplehave confidence in New South Wales when they know that the Government proposes to pursue policies of that nature? I draw the attention of honourable members to an article that appeared in the

Sydney Sun on Wednesday, 27 October. It contains a picture of Mr Wran under the heading Do Not Leave Us Plea by Wran. New South Wales Jobs Going South’. Mr Wran knows that as a result of the policies that he has pursued manufacturers have a lack of confidence in him and they do not want to be in New South Wales. If they can move out of that State, they will. They will go to other States where they will find a more attractive environment. Mr Wran wonders why the construction industry is in trouble. I can tell him. The reason is that the statements of his colleagues have created the spectre of rent control. Who would want to construct home units in New South Wales with the possibility of a nil return, as was the case under the former Labor Administration when rent control was retained for so long?

The honourable member for Chifley sent me an article recently about the lack of car sales in New South Wales. Last week an article appeared in the business and finance section of the Australian. It points out very clearly that New South Wales holds back the car boom. The figures in Victoria and other States are quite satisfactory but the figures in New South Wales are down. Honourable members must ask themselves why this has been the case. It is because New South Wales has unique conditions which it has introduced before any other State in relation to emission control. Why would manufacturers find that their market is falling in New South Wales when they are holding it in other States? The other significant reason is that the New South Wales Government has set about to bash the car retailers in New South Wales with the sort of legislation that it has advanced to deal with shyster operators, as it tends to call them. This legislation is far more expressive, far stronger and harsher than legislation adopted in other States. These are the reasons for the decline in car sales in New South Wales.

Finally, in the area of wage control, Mr Wran uses a blackmail technique. He says that wage control is essential and then attempts to blackmail the Federal Government into giving him additional funds with the promise of offering wage control to the Federal Government. His is a disastrous economic package. It does him no credit.

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

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I wish to grieve about the activities of the honourable member for Phillip, Mr Birney. I refer particularly to an article in yesterday’s Sydney Sun under the heading ‘Fee For Our “Paris Palace”. $2.2m to Architect’. Mr Birney raised this matter during the adjournment debate on Tuesday night. The House always knows when he is to have a major story in the Sydney Press because he always speaks in the adjournment debate late at night and reads a prepared script from a mini lectern which he brings into the House and places before him just like in a high school debate. In fact, he is typical of an amateurish oncer. Joe Riordan, who lost the seat of Phillip at the last election and who will regain it at the next election, is fully aware of that. Mr Birney ‘s wife is a journalist with the Sydney Press and it is well known that she uses her position to obtain publicity for her husband and to have her stories printed. Surely this is a case of collusion for their own private interests.

Mr Uren:

– Who is that?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I refer to the wife of the honourable member for Phillip. For example, I refer to the story about the Russian submarine which turned out to be a whale. She had heard the story but she did not have any proof. So she got her husband to use the ‘coward’s castle’ of parliamentary privilege so that her story could be printed and her husband could have publicity without a writ for defamation being issued. Without a doubt, if that story had been related outside this Parliament, a writ would have been issued.

On Tuesday night they used the coward’s castle once again to blacken the name of Australia’s most distinguished architect. I quote the Sun which states:

Mr Seidler is Australia’s best known contemporary architect and has won dozens of awards for his designs both at home and abroad.

Without a doubt, he is Australia’s most famous, best known and most respected contemporary architect. I will state a few facts concerning this incorrect allegation against Mr Harry Seidler. The brief for a building in Paris for our Embassy was prepared by an interdepartmental committee in 1969 on the direction of the Gorton Government- not, as suggested by Mr Birney, by the Whitlam Government. Approval to purchase the land was given by the McMahon Government in 1 972. It cost $ 1 8m. Of that $ 1 8m the cost of the land was $7.4m. It was a good buy, by the way, because at the present rate of inflation in France, which is less than it has been for some years, the land would now be worth at least $14m. The architect was commissioned by the Whitlam Government. As I said, he is Australia ‘s most distinguished architect. The article in the Sun states:

He designed the Australia Square tower and the MLC complex in Martin Place.

Mr Uren:

– And the Trade Group Buildings here in Canberra.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That is correct. He is presently lecturing at Harvard University in America where he is serving a 4-month appointment as visiting Professor of Architecture. It should also be remembered that Paris is among the top five of our diplomatic posts, and, in fact, contains 3 Missions in one. For example, the building will house the Australian Embassy to France, which is a permanent member of the Security Council and a major world power. It will also house the Australian Mission to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the Australian Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, a most prestigious branch of the United Nations. As I said, it will be 3 Missions in one.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It will also house the ECMT- the European Conference of Ministers of Transport

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I stand corrected by the honourable member for Newcastle. Further, the building replaces rented accommodation for offices and residential accommodation which costs approximately $ 1 m per annum. These costs are rising steadily and, therefore, it is not a bad deal for Australia. Mr Birney said that over $2.Sm would go ‘straight into Seidler’s pocket’. I challenge Mr Birney to say this outside the House. If he does so he can be assured that he will cop a writ. In fact, he needs to do his homework better. If he had done so, he would have found out -

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Where is he?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I do not know where he is. I made sure he was to be advised that I intended to raise this matter. If he had done his homework he would have found out that the fee of 1 1 per cent, which Mr Birney has libellously declared -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Chifley that he should not refer to the honourable member for Phillip by name.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member had done his homework better he would have discovered that the fee of 1 1 per cent, which he has libellously declared goes into Mr Seidler’s pocket is, in fact, for the payment of fees of a host of consultant firms involved in the construction of the building. These firms are mechanical engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, insurance assessors, etc. In fact, Mr Seidler’s own firm received only 3 per cent of the fee of 1 1 per cent. Consultants of French origin received 6 per cent ofthe fees.

Is it any wonder that people are saying today that not only does the honourable member for Phillip not know the difference between a submarine and a whale but also that he does not even know which government made decisionswhether it was the Gorton Government, the McMahon Government or the Whitlam Government. He thought that his attack on Tuesday night was upon Australia’s most distinguished architect and upon the Whitlam Government, but he also attacked the Gorton Government and the McMahon Government. In view of this, is it any wonder that people are now saying: ‘It is Joe Riordan to win in 1978’? I want to make a challenge in addition to challenging the honourable member for Phillip to make these allegations against Australia s greatest architect outside this House and to take his chance of copping a writ for defamation. I also call upon the Sydney Sun newspaper, the honourable member for Phillip and his wife to ensure that this reply given today to these libellous accusations against one of Australia’s greatest people are printed fully in the Sydney Sun.

Mr THOMSON:
Leichhardt

– Because of the fiasco of the interrupted debate on the White Paper on defence last Thursday, I have decided to speak in this grievance debate. This may be my only opportunity to speak on this matter and I shall make only a very short speech. I am appalled at the very low priority given to the vital subject of the security of the nation. I strongly support the White Paper on defence and congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) on it. It provides a valuable guide to discussion and debate and it deserved a much better fate in this chamber. It is the most comprehensive document on defence presented to this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he might be able to say exactly the same thing without referring to the White Paper. This would make the task of the Chair a little easier.

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP

-I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Inevitably, some questions on defence are left unanswered. After over 30 years of wide and varied experience in the defence forces, I am very well aware of the immense complexity of the issues and of how little any one man can know and understand unless he is engaged full dme in this field. I wish to confine myself to 2 major issues: Firstly, national aims and objectives and, secondly, the provision of an effective deterrent to armed attack on the nation. Because of the vital importance of the security of the nation and the immense cost of effective defence, it is of the first importance that the national aims and objectives should be clearly and simply stated. All those concerned with the defence of the nation are facing a fundamentally new, challenging and exciting task. Now for the first time we as a nation have a firmly stated and accepted responsibility for the defence of our whole continent. It takes time to change national attitudes. Perhaps it is too soon to have achieved a complete reassessment of our aims and objectives based on our new responsibility to defend ourselves.

Major questions of approach and philosophy have to be decided. Until these are decided we cannot get the right answers on the shape and size of our defence forces or on the most effective level of technology and the related problems of logistics and local defence production. Our national strategic objectives should be a combination of military, political and economic factors, preferably compatible but often conflicting. For example, in 1965 and 1966 Australian servicemen were fighting Indonesians in East Malaysia during confrontation. At the same time we maintained diplomatic relations with Indonesia and continued to give aid. As one involved in that small operation, I believe that was a realistic and practical decision.

We must now take a hard and realistic look at our present situation. We cannot always in the future depend upon the protection of a great power. In differing sets of circumstances we may find that the interests of our major allies and our interests are not the same. The key to our defence policy remains the strength of our alliance with the United States and the ANZUS treaty. Yet this alliance, however strong it may be, must not lull us into a false sense of security. We cannot rely upon treaties alone to protect us. John Hobbs, the 1 8th century philosopher, said: Covenants without swords are but words’. Australia has far too few swords to back its covenants. Our swords are blunt. We do not have sufficient capacity to sharpen our own swords or to make new ones.

It is imperative that we should have an independent defence against potential threats which might arise in our area or neighbourhood.

These threats may not necessarily be identified as potential threats to the United States. Most of our neighbours are not potential enemies of the United States but in some circumstances we could be in conflict with them. If we accept that in some circumstances the United States may not always be willing or able to support us, we must be capable of conducting an independent military defence and of possessing a credible, independent military deterrent.

Our first priority is to provide forces for the most effective independent defence of Australia, its islands and its seas, within our capacity to do so. Our second priority is for a defence readiness in situations where we would have the support of a great power. The defence of Australia requires very different forces from those required for our old posture of forward defence. Our position is unique and requires unique solutions. These new priorities must make us question the whole structure of our forces and their support from within our own resources. The very high cost of modern defence equipment makes a clear definition of national strategic aims and objectives very important indeed. Without clearly stated aims there will always be the temptation to purchase better and more expensive equipment to replace dated and aging equipment. This tendency is known as the ‘replacement syndrome’. It may well be valid that we do need more of the same equipment but this is not necessarily so.

We live in a very uncertain and rapidly changing part of the world. This calls for very sound contingency planning by the Services. The shape, size and the equipment of the defence forces must be able to cope with quite unexpected contingencies at short notice. These may start as small-scale operations which could escalate rapidly. I have considerable respect for the procedures within the Department of Defence which evaluate policies and requirements and which advise the Government. I wish to make one point about defence planning. In the organisation chart of the policy divisions of Defence Central I note there are very few senior military planners and large numbers of senior civilians. There seems to be an imbalance, which is reflected in parts of recent statements. This could lead to inadequate military input into defence policies and planning.

Unless national aims and objectives are clearly stated by the Government these defence planners will operate without adequate guidance. There is perhaps a temptation to give undue weight to the ‘replacement syndrome’ and to the desire to maintain the state of the art in a wide range of capabilities which may not be relevant to the national aims. It may be that all the decisions made are the best possible in the circumstances.

However, there will always be a difficult argument in favour of a few technologically advanced and very expensive pieces of equipment against the counter argument that our independent defence capacity would be best served by having a large number of cheaper, less sophisticated pieces of equipment. I hope my few points on the need for clear national aims and objectives will help to kindle debate and interest in this major issue, both inside and outside this chamber.

I wish now to deal with my second major point; our ability to deter any threat. We have a unique situation. It is fashionable to compare Australia with Sweden and Switzerland. This comparison is not relevant. Our strategic circumstances could not be more different. We are a great island continent and an enemy can reach our shores only by air or over or under the sea. Therefore, our most important national strategic objective should be the capacity to deter or to defer the mounting of major operations against Australia. The priority should be against the higher levels of threat. The best way to achieve this military objective would be to cause a would-be aggressor to face the problem of mounting a large-scale tri-Service operation by air and by sea. Provided Australia has adequate air and sea surveillance capacity such an invasion force would be very vulnerable to attack far from our shores. This situation emphasises the importance of the Navy and the Air Force. But it does not mean for a moment that the importance of the Army as part of the deterrent force should be under-rated.

The capacity and structure of the Army will determine the quality and quantity of men and material an aggressor would have to deliver and sustain in Australia in a conventional military operation. We can and must acquire the capacity to cause a potential aggressor to mount a disproportionate response in terms of money, time and material. If we possess a credible deterrent there are few powers which have the capacity to threaten us. It must be made just too difficult. This strengthens our position in foreign negotiations, and makes it much less likely that we will be forced into political and diplomatic actions which are not in the national interest. I have not mentioned the most important part of our defence forces- the men and women of the Services. I conclude with this quotation:

Nothing has’ ever been made until the soldier has made safe the field where the building shall be built: And the soldier is the scaffolding until it has been built, and the soldier gets no reward but honour.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I am very conscious of the effects on the electorate that I represent of the economic mismanagement of this Government. My electorate, while it contains substantial industrial and commercial areas, is predominantly a working class dormitory area.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– And well represented, too.

Dr JENKINS:

-I thank the honourable member for suggesting it is well represented. What is causing me increasing alarm, as the electorate is such a working class area and as there is such a high number of young people about to leave school, are the reports that are reaching me and shocking me from voluntary organisations in the area and from the individuals who call at my office in the electorate stressing the hopelessness of school leavers in obtaining employment. The editorial in this morning’s Melbourne Age which, as I intended to raise this matter today, I noted, is significant for it sheets home a lot of the blame where it lies. It reads:

The Federal Government has scarcely begun to recognise the extent of youth unemployment now, let alone take measures to cope with the long-term structural problems. There is still afeeeling within the Government that as only 22 per cent of the total unemployed are family breadwinners, unemployment is not so serious as it seems; besides, it is a useful discipline to enforce wage restraint in the -fight against inflation. Other Western countries, by contrast, have pursued much more active policies to reduce unemployment by job creation schemes, emergency employment by public agencies, subsidies to employers to take on jobless young people, and large-scale manpower training schemes.

All we get from this Government are programs such as the community youth support scheme which will give young people a bit of pocket money for fares if they go and do community service work. The editorial reminded me of an article which appeared in Newsweek, the overseas magazine, about 6 weeks ago which emphasised the point that Malcolm Fraser, the Prime Minister, at the last election made dole bludgers a key issue. That article stated that at that time:

  1. . many of Australia’s newspapers ran sensational stories about young and healthy ‘dole dollies’ who collect numerous welfare cheques under a variety of assumed names and pool the proceeds to live in splendour along Australia’s gold coast or used their dole money to maintain comfortable existences as surf bums.

The article continued:

Under close examination, some of the sensational newspaper stories have turned out to be more than a little exaggerated.

I suggest that the records of detection of such illegal obtaining of benefits confirms this attitude. The allegation was a political catchcry by desperate men who claimed to be economic managers but who could prove not much of what they said. In fact, they could not manage a public toilet properly. The article goes on:

There are some politicians, even in Fraser ‘s coalition, who fear that the fusillade against the dole bludgers will spark an electoral backlash against the Government- and will also hurt people who really have been victimised by Australia’s economic problems. Many young Australians, for instance, find few jobs open to them upon graduation from school.

Let me follow up that point by reading a letter written by a father who called to see me the other day. The letter outlines one of the many human problems that is occurring because of this Government’s mismanagement. The letter reads:

I wish to bring to your notice an anomaly which I believe exists concerning my son Peter . . . and which no doubt will concern many other school leavers of 1976.

Peter is 1 7 years old and has been attending Preston Technical College doing 5th form, in 1976. The Trade courses for the three terms were, Plumbing 1st term, Electrical 2nd term, and Carpentry and Joinery 3rd term.

He has had his heart set on doing Carpentry and Joinery for some years and it is his wish to be apprenticed to the trade. He is not returning to college next year 1977, and he finished his classes on the 5th November returning on the 10th to do his Science exam.

My wife and myself, since March 1976 up until the present time have been to many builders, joinery works and the like trying to have him apprenticed, but with no luck.

He has applied to the Railways Department, Telecom Australia, MMBW and the Victorian Construction Company, but up to date no progress. Peter is registered with the apprenticeship commission.

Last Friday 19th November he registered with the CES for work if possible as apprentice carpentry and joinery. On Monday 22nd he filled in a green form for Social Service, he was told to bring it back to CES at 8.45 a.m. Friday, 26th November, which he did, then he was told that he had to get a clearance letter from Preston Tech College, to the effect that he had finished all of his exams, and that he was not going back to College next year (1977), the Vice Principal told Peter that he could not give him any such letter and told him to go back to the CES.

We are now dumfounded as to what to do now, Peter cannot get any Social Services until somebody stops the duckshoving.

Where the blame lies I do not know, but would be thankful if you could find out some facts for me.

That one case illustrates so much of the present problem and indicates the hopelessness of so many young people who are looking for apprenticeships in the community. Neither this Government nor its State counterpart has been able to satisfy the demand. For every apprenticeship vacancy in Victoria there are goodness knows how many applicants. The letter also shows the hopelessness of these young school leavers in looking for jobs and the lack of assistance that is given.

With regard to unemployment benefits for a young man who is willing to work and willing to be apprenticed, my inquiries indicate that the Victorian Department of Education has instructed the principals of its schools that they cannot issue certificates, stating that a youngster will not resume school, until the beginning of the next school year. This means that there is collusion to disguise the extent of the problem, to deny young people benefits and to deny them any encouragement. I believe this factor will become much worse in the next few months. On behalf of so many young people affected in my area and in many other areas, I ask that at least some conscious effort be made on this matter instead of this constant mouthing of political slogans by people who claim to be great economic managers but who have shown themselves completely incompetent by worsening a situation many times in the short space of 1 1 months.

Having said that, I want to briefly deal with another matter. I refer to the Mill Park housing estate which is a T and G Mutual Life Society Ltd project. Advertisements state that the blocks in the development have all services. Many people from the Scullin electorate purchase houses in this area. In fact, 38 per cent of them come from the Reservoir area. The local State member Mr John Cain, the honourable member for Bundoora has drawn to my attention that, despite the claim that all services are available, there are no mail deliveries, there will be no telephones for many months and the so-called transport which is available by train and tram is many miles away. I believe that when the company is advertising services such as mail and telephones it should be responsible for honest advertising.

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-Today I want to concentrate my remarks on what I believe will be one of the gravest problems facing the housing of our people during the next 2 decades. The problem I identify is the lack of rental accommodation available, and the seriousness of the situation should not be underestimated. There has been an alarming fall-off in the numbers of units being constructed for rent in recent times and the reasons for this trend I intend to outline in more detail. Before doing so, though, I want to make it clear to the House that I am of the firm belief that home ownership should be the prime objective.

This Government stands for home ownership and has demonstrated its willingness to fulfil that objective by the reintroduction of the home savings grant scheme as a positive form of encouragement to first time home seekers. The seldom equalled stability of this nation is due in no small way to the large percentage of families who have acquired their own homes.

Home ownership has often been referred to as the ‘great Australian dream’. It is a goal that has been achieved by a high percentage of our families and is a clear indication that Australians place a deal of emphasis on home ownership. The dream of home ownership has become a reality for countless thousands of Australian families. These people have really staked their claim and having done so have developed a greater sense of pride in their person, families, cities and towns, and nation. We as a Government will continue to engender this feeling in bur people by providing incentive and encouragement towards home ownership. Our children and our children’s children will be infinitely better citizens if they are cared for and brought up in the atmosphere of a home that is the property of the family. Although our objectives remain firm, we must not adopt an ostrich approach of burying our heads in the sand for at the present time there are clear indications that it is the desire of more and more single people, young marrieds and elderly and retired peopleto live in rented premises.

Recently a comprehensive study in south-east Queensland titled Moreton Region Growth Strategy Investigations predicted that by the year 2000 the Moreton region would have a population of 1 800 000- an increase of 750 000-and that flat dwellers would rise from the present 12 per cent to an estimated 25 per cent. Last December a report titled Housing for Australia by a task force of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies found that failure of the rental market was one of the most urgent problems facing Australian housing.

Whether we like it or not there is a tendency toward greater mobility of our population and this may be the reason for the drift to voluntary renting. Young people especially have developed a lust for travel both within Australia and overseas and this may well be sapping the capital that was previously being directed towards home ownership.

Involuntary renters are being created by rapidly escalating building costs and high interest rates and the fact that local authority land development and building standard requirements are becoming more stringent. These factors are pushing costs higher and higher and putting home ownership out of reach of more people. The indications clearly show that whether they be voluntary or involuntary, renters are on the increase. Shelter must be provided and the rental accommodation component must be available to meet the demand. Rental accommodation falls into 2 basic categories, namely, public housing which is built and administered by State housing authorities and private housing. Both of these categories can be divided into rental homes and rental units or flats.

In the case of public housing there is an on going need for State authorities to ensure that the maximum benefit is obtained from the capital outlay. There are many instances of families of two and three people occupying 3-bedroom homes long after they could have moved into lesser accommodation, thereby freeing the larger premises for a bigger family. Rents frequently remain at too low a level and act as a disincentive for people whose financial position may have altered to such an extent as to warrant their vacating to make way for a more needy family. In these circumstances if disturbance appears warranted and is contemplated, I recognise the need to view each case on its merits. There will be instances where health, age or other factors may indicate that a particular family should remain undisturbed.

It is in the area of private housing for rental that my main concern lies. The increased demand will be met only if entrepreneurs can obtain a reasonable return on capital invested. At the present time, investors can expect a return in the vicinity of 8 per cent to 9 per cent which is inadequate when compared with returns from rented shops, building societies, bank fixed deposits and so on. Theinvestor may be prepared to accept the lower return if he knows there will be a substantial capital gain. If a large portion of the capital has to be borrowed at current high interest rates then servicing the loan will result in a much reduced capital gain. It is not surprising then to find that private other dwellings, which are principally flats and units for rental, showed a fall in the number of commencements during 1974- 75. In 1972-73 private other dwelling commencements in the private sector totalled 38 629. In 1973-74, this rose to 41 709 dwellings. We saw a fall in 1974-75 to 40 731 dwellings commenced. What is even more distressing is the fact that we had a dramatic fall in commencements in 1975- 76. Only 26 012 commencements occurred in that year.

Now that the problem has been indentified, how best can the difficulties be overcome? Firstly, I believe the Government should set the Indicative Planning Council the task of a more in-depth study of the problem. A maximum of up-to-date data should be available in order that the problem can be accurately assessed and then a plan evolved to ensure that private sector confidence returns to this part of the housing industry. The Australian Institute of Urban Studies is to be commended for its work in this area. It explores the problem in some depth and detail and its December 1975 report on housing for Australia is a document worthy of consideration by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) and his Department. One recommendation of this report deals with specific pro-investment policies and suggests that private investment in rental housing should be encouraged by providing an investment allowance or depreciation allowance for income tax purposes. Until the yield on this sort of investment is improved, entrepreneurs will be lacking.

The position is becoming quite critical and some action must be instigated to alleviate it otherwise thousands of Australians will be without decent shelter. It is well recognised that when supply is low and demand increasing, the consumer pays more. As rental accommodation becomes scarcer, rents will rise and only those who are better placed financially will be able to afford to rent. What then happens to the low income earners- the pensioners and disadvantaged groups? It is obvious they will have nowhere to go. It should be remembered and emphasised that the decline in availability of rental accommodation occurred under the Whitlam Labor Administration. From the figures that I have quoted, it is quite obvious that this decline occurred a little longer than 2 years ago. I trust that that Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and his Department will have a serious look at this matter of the lack of rental accommodation.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to draw again to the attention of the House the question of migrant resource centres. Though the Government is showing some reticence about the fact, as I understand it on 4 November Cabinet made a number of decisions. Firstly, it approved the establishment of 2 experimental migrant resource centres- one in Melbourne to be operated under contract by the Australian Greek Welfare Society, and one in Sydney at a total cost not exceeding $70,000 in the current financial year. Secondly, it agreed that the centres would operate initially for 2 years. Thirdly, it agreed that the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Social Security should draw up a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the Australian Greek Welfare Society setting out the basis of the provision of services by the Society for and on behalf of the Commonwealth.

A similar agreement is to be drawn up to regulate the operation of the Sydney centre. The whole caboodle has to be cleared by the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury and the Attorney-General. I suppose that this could be referred to as a form of legal overkill. For those reasons I would like to direct the attention of the House to what is clearly, in my view, a case of shameless tokenism.

The Government is preparing to indulge in a massive propaganda exercise aimed at but not for the ethnic people in this country. In the light of recent developments I feel confirmed in this opinion. The Government’s public relations exercise becomes very plain if we look at the functions which the migrant resources centres will be expected to provide. They will be expected to provide a multi-lingual reference and information point for migrants, particularly in respect of services provided by Commonwealth, State and local government intrumentalities, and a range of resources which would be accessible to social workers and welfare officers working with migrants, to ethnic community leaders, welfare administrators, teachers and students interested in migrant problems, and so on. They will be expected to provide facilities for use by migrant organisations such as for meetings and duplication of information material. They will be expected to encourage and co-ordinate voluntary action by groups and individuals to assist in the successful integration of migrants and to help overcome the problems of individuals. They will provide a range of reference and information material in English and in the foreign languages most used locally. They will be expected to draw attention to the particular problems of ethnic communities and individual migrants requiring Government action.

This is a pretty formidable table of functions. The people who staff these centres will need to be sociologists, archivists, ombudsmen, social workers, psychologists, librarians, lobbyists, receptionists and super-administrators, all rolled into one, and multi-lingual into the bargain. Such people do not grow on trees. They would need to be paid handsomely and ideally, if the centres are to carry out these functions with any effectiveness at all, a number of people, each with some of the various skills, should be taken on.

Yet what is the Government providing for this great venture? It is providing $70,000, a paltry sum indeed. That will barely cover the cost of accommodation and the salary of one or perhaps two, at a pinch, full-time officers in each centre. There will be nothing left for incidental office expenditure or for the day to day expenses which a centre with such grandiose aims as I have just listed will inevitably incur.

Another point which ought to be made is this: What about other ethnic communities? The cynical electorally oriented tokenism which this represents is to be deplored. The Government has come up with a good idea, but why will it not act on it now? Why will it not provide the wherewithal necessary to enable the centres to carry out the laudable functions allotted to them? I know times are bad and that the Government has a particular economic strategy which it pigheadedly sticks to despite the evidence that it is totally inappropriate. But this is no excuse for tokenism. If the Government is not fair dinkum it should say so. It will not fool the ethnic people with its empty gesture in any case, no matter how loudly it beats its chest when the announcement is eventually made in the sweet bye and bye. Only when the Government decides to establish migrant resource centres that will cover the whole range of issues to which I have referred and which will cope with the problems of ethnic communities generally in this country and put the centres on a proper footing will it have any claim on the goodwill of the migrant people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3134

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I ask leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. My attention was drawn a few moments ago to an article which appeared this morning in the Melbourne Sun. I will read the offending passage. It refers to a meeting ofthe Government Parties and States:

Only the rebel N.S.W. Liberal M.P., Mr Wentworth, openly opposed the devaluation decision at the joint party meeting.

This is completely untrue. I have not opposed the devaluation decision, either there or elsewhere. In point of fact I not only supported it but also for some months I have been suggesting it. Apparently the confusion arises because I did oppose certain of the decisions which were taken following the devaluation decision. I still am opposed to some of those decisions. I am glad to say that some of them already have been ameliorated and for that, at least, I can take, I hope, some credit.

page 3134

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Interim Report

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-I present the interim report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on its inquiry into the Lebanon crisis.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the report?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BEAZLEY:

– In May this year the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence decided to investigate the significance of the Lebanon crisis. The Lebanon crisis- a civil warhas an international outreach because the Middle East is a region of ideological, religious and strategic concern to great powers, to the Jewish communities throughout the world and to Arab peoples and governments. There is a natural concern among Australia’s Lebanese community. The Committee has taken voluminous evidence and held informal discussions with people who have first hand knowledge of the Lebanon crisis. A comprehensive report to the Parliament will be presented during the Autumn session covering all aspects of our terms of reference. In the meantime the Committee has found it necessary to make an interim report on what are mainly the humanitarian aspects ofthe crisis. Lebanon needs help. This interim report comes at a time when the possibilities for helping victims ofthe civil conflict in Lebanon are better than they have been over the last 18 months because the latest cease fire seems to be holding well, notwithstanding that frequent failures of previous efforts at armistice have dashed hopes for peace and sanity.

The traditional ‘national pact’ between fairly equally balanced communities of Christians, Muslims and Druzes has disintegrated. Under the impact of 18 months of violence, vendetta and retribution, Lebanon’s consensus has broken down. Factionalism, fears of genocide, and economic and social status disparities will make the reconciliation process very difficult. It is probable that disinterested care for the people of Lebanon by powers like Australia could neal a situation aggravated by powers which fish in troubled waters with the ultimate aim of territorial expansion or ideological influence.

The human tragedy and devastation resulting from the Lebanon crisis is so immense that they create claims of great moral weight on other nations to take action to alleviate suffering. The number of dead may be as high as 60 000 with a further 200 000 wounded. These are casualties in a population of 3 million. Compare these figures with the 46 000 United States servicemen killed in Vietnam over 12 years and the disastrous impact of the war on a small state like Lebanon can be realised.

Possibly a third of Lebanon’s 3 million people have fled the country and there are many more homeless, wounded, sick and destitute within Lebanon. The Lebanese people are critically in need of assistance but aid programs have faced deliberate obstruction, corruption and immense physical difficulties including the chronic state of insecurity due to indiscriminate killing, and the complete breakdown of Lebanon’s economy, communications, and service infrastructures.

A necessary condition for the healing process in Lebanon is the cessation of all outside interference in a country which for many years has managed to live a much more prosperous existence than the non-oil producing Arab states. This outside intervention is initially and tragically attributable to the Palestinians. They came to Lebanon as refugees but have since adopted a disruptive role in Lebanon’s internal affairs. Their interference in Lebanese politics, possibly at foreign behest and certainly with foreign support, constitutes abuse of Lebanese hospitality. Syria, Iraq, Libya and several other countries have intervened. Syria’s intervention has been overt. Iraq’s and Libya’s intervention has been mainly through influence on the Palestinians, propaganda of intransigence, as well as money and ‘volunteers’. Lebanon’s Government may benefit from Syrian intervention, whatever Syria’s motives. Iraq and Libya have tended to frustrate a solution to the Lebanon crisis.

The existence of a recognised government authority in Lebanon, however disintegrated and impotent that Government’s administrative structure may be, has contributed to a great reluctance by Australia as well as many other nations, to raise this issue of the tragedy of Lebanon, including foreign intervention in Lebanon, in international forums, such as the United Nations. This is despite the fact that there has been a clear breach of the United Nation’s Charter, and despite a manifest threat to peace in the Middle East. This is not simply due to the apparent futility of taking such matters to the United Nations, but also in deference to the fact that world discussion and United Nations action would not be welcomed by some Arab states. Aid for the Lebanese people has been totally inadequate. This is in part because of an atmosphere of deceit surrounding the crisis. Leaders of the various participants, including those Arab states actively involved, want the United Nations to keep out. Therefore appeals for aid are minimal and people in flight have not been declared refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The United Nations definition of what constitutes a refugee clearly applies to many uprooted from Lebanon and within Lebanon.

The Committee does not believe that Australia has so far been particularly generous in the unhappy predicament of the Lebanese people. In the 9 months ending 30 September 1976 only 1835 Lebanese arrived in Australia. They were mostly close relatives of Australian resident Lebanese. We have sent no medical teams there, despite the fact that the International Red Cross has had only 16 doctors and nurses in Lebanon. The lack of adequate reaction by the International Committee of the Red Cross is one of the most depressing aspects of the crisis. There may be reasons for this, but the contrast with previous International Red Cross actions seems marked. The Committee has carefully considered the prospect of helping more Lebanese refugees into Australia and has made a number of recommendations in this regard. It has been particularly concerned that there should be a compassionate, effective and clear-cut refugee policy in Australia. The Committee believes that there will continue to be refugee situations in years to come and that Australia needs to develop an enlightened policy which would command the support of all political parties and the assent of enlightened opinion.

In its consideration of the likely impact upon Australia of an increased number of Lebanese migrants, the Committee looked for any signs that the destructive factionalism of the Lebanon situation and the antagonism rampant in the Middle East generally were reflected to any extent in Australia- particularly in the media used by ethnic communities. The Committee was particularly concerned at the allegations against 1 Melbourne radio stations- 3CR and 3ZZ. It would appear that at times these stations have been guilty of incitement to hatred and gross misrepresentation without always granting an opportunity for reply. Although the Committee has received some evidence in this regard its work was hampered by an apparent lack of monitoring of both the English broadcasts of 3CR and the Arabic broadcasts of 3ZZ. The Committee has recommended that the proposed Australian Broadcasting Tribunal hold an inquiry into both ethnic and community access radio stations and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission take an active interest in the selection of qualified and responsible organising committees for ethnic radio stations. While the Committee does not wish to curtail the right of normal ‘ free speech it condemns the use of radio stations or ethnic newspapers and periodicals for creating hostility and inciting race, religious and ideological hatred between communities in this country. Australia should welcome refugees but not the importation of their quarrels. The Committee appreciates that when such incitement to conflict and contempt occurs it is invariably generated by a faction not representative of the ethnic community as a whole.

The Committee has made 18 recommendations in its report. Many of these require urgent action such as: The sending of medical teams to Lebanon; government support for appeals by the International Red Cross and the World Food and Agricultural Organisations for urgent relief to Lebanon; the efficient and humane handling of applications from genuine refugees; the establishment of a diplomatic post including a migration team in Syria. Syria has enhanced its national influence, through its intervention in Lebanon, and has the bulk of Lebanese refugees within its borders and has increased in diplomatic significance. The Soviet Union sent its top leaders there recently. Australia is unrepresented.

Before the Committee reports again to the Parliament on this reference early next year, the Committee hopes that significant progress will have been made towards the implementation of the recommendations in its interim report. They seem to be recommendations of logic and goodwill. I take this opportunity of thanking the large number of very good witnesses who have made this report possible.

Mr Wentworth:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask the honourable member for Fremantle whether it is proposed to give the House an opportunity to discuss this report after we have had an opportunity to read and consider some of the weighty matters that seem to be contained in it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-It is not a matter on which the honourable member for Fremantle may make a decision.

Mr Sinclair:

– Perhaps I could assist by moving that the House take note of the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The motion would have to be moved by leave. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

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

– I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Mr MacKELLAR (Warringah-Minister for

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) (12.58)- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– No. I am responding to the motion.

Mr Innes:

– I take a point of order. The statement was made by the honourable member for Fremantle. The Leader of the House moved that the House take note of the report. Surely the call then is for this side of the House. I would like your ruling on the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In fact the honourable member for Melbourne is correct. I rule that the call is for the Opposition side of the House. I apologise to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for having called him.

Mr Sinclair:

– May I speak to that point of order. The normal procedure is that, leave having been given for a statement to be made by a member on one side of the House, a member on the other side of the House responds. To accommodate members of this place I moved that the House take note of the report. That in no way intrudes into the debate. The call is now for this side of the House, as the honourable member for Fremantle made the statement. The purpose of my procedural motion is only to facilitate subsequent debate. My comments in no way relate to the statement. The substance of the matter is that this side of the House now has the call, I would suggest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have conferred with the Clerk, to whose wisdom I bow. He has explained to me that the call is clearly on the Opposition side. If an Opposition member moves that the debate be now adjourned, clearly the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs could ask for leave to make a statement. I call the honourable member for Melbourne.

Motion (by Mr Innes) agreed to:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr MacKellar:

– May I seek leave to make a statement in response to the statement by the honourable member for Fremantle?

Mr Innes:

– I take a point of order. If time is allowed for the Minister to make a statement to the House on the report, will equal time be given to me as the Opposition spokesman on this matter?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not a matter for the Chair to decide, that is a matter for the Leader of the House to decide. I call the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I note that it is after 1 o’clock. Does the Minister intend to speak for long? Should the sitting be suspended or should we continue?

Mr MacKellar:

– In all the circumstances, I think it would be wise if the sitting were suspended until after lunch.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 3137

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Customs Tariff (Coal) Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1976. Asian Development Fund Bill 1976. Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill 1976. (Quorum formed.)

page 3137

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– I seek leave to make a very brief statement in relation to Lebanese migration.

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

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

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) introduced the interim report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which he is chairing, in relation to the Lebanese situation. I would like to respond very briefly because there was some element of criticism of the Government’s activities in relation to the situation.

From memory the interim report brought down by the honourable member mentioned the numbers of approvals given this year up until the end of September. Obviously the report does not give a completely up to date picture of what has happened. I inform the House that the figures for the period from 1 April 1975 to 26 November 1976- this is the period for which the latest figures are available- show that at least 5307 approvals were given in that time. The number of arrivals up until 3 1 October this year was 3662. The number of arrivals between July and October of this year was 1766. That number exceeds the total number of arrivals for 1975 and for the financial year 1975-76. I believe that these up-to-date figures show that the Government has responded to the situation in the Lebanon. I believe that they give a more up to date interpretation of events.

The other matter that I would like to mention very briefly relates to the refugee policy which I have stated a number of times. I believe that the formulation of a refugee policy is of great significance. I agree with the honourable member for Fremantle in relation to this and as such I have instructed the Australian Population and Immigration Council to include a chapter on refugees in its Green Paper. The Green Paper is in the final drafting stage and will be presented to the Parliament at the first opportunity in the new sittings next year.

Mr Jacobi:

– I seek leave to make a very brief comment on what the Minister has said.

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Jacobi:

– Well, the statements that the Minister has made are quite incorrect. In fairness to the Committee -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Sinclair:

– There will be a debate on it.

Mr Uren:

– That is not the point. The honourable member wants to make a brief statement. If he is not allowed to do so we will ask for a division.

Mr Jacobi:

– I am a member of the subcommittee. I would like to respond to what the Minister has said.

Mr Sinclair:

– There will be a debate on the tabling of the report.

Mr Uren:

– We will divide on it.

Mr Sinclair:

– Righto. That will not be unusual. Honourable members opposite will be here till Christmas if they wish.

Mr Uren:

-i seek the tolerance of the House. I am asking the Leader of the House to hear the honourable member. If he does not do so we will divide. The time wasted in a division could be used by the honourable member.

Mr Jacobi:

– You need not do that.

Mr Uren:

– Well, I am going to divide.

Mr Jacobi:

– No, I would prefer not to have a division on this issue. I merely want one minute in which to make a statement.

Mr Sinclair:

– I will give it to him if he wants it. But I ask him to be very brief.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-As a member of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that drew up the interim report let me say that the figures in the report were figures from the Department of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). These are the figures that relate to the period in which the Government has been in office. I think that this is an explanation that the House and the people ought to understand.

Mr MacKellar:

– I am not disputing the figures in the report. I just said that they were not up to date.

Mr JACOBI:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that we may get back to the business of the House.

page 3138

STATES GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1976

BUI presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide parliamentary approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a rural adjustment scheme. The details of the scheme are set out in the agreement which is contained in a schedule to the Bill and in a schedule to the agreement.

This scheme has emerged from recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission which conducted an inquiry into the broad issue of reconstruction and adjustment in the rural sector. The proposals of the Industries Assistance Commission have been the subject of a series of meetings between the Commonwealth and the States at both official and ministerial level. The scheme combines the various forms of rural adjustment at present provided under separate legislation, namely the rural reconstruction scheme, the dairy adjustment program and the carry-on scheme for beef producers, into one comprehensive scheme. The scheme also introduces a new form of assistance called household support which, for the first time, will extend help to those farmers, who have exhausted their cash and credit, while they consider whether or not to move out of farming.

Rural industries prosper or decline as technology changes, as buying patterns of export markets change, and as currency values vary. Much of the adjustment which is necessary to the long term economic situation in the rural sector has occurred, and will continue to occur, autonomously. The Government believes however that it has a responsibility to assist the adjustment process by providing the financial means to ensure that resources continue to be used in those industries, where their earning power is greatest and, at the same time, provide welfare assistance to those farmers so seriously affected by circumstances that they are unable to remain in the industry.

It is an historical fact that the percentage of Australia’s work force employed in the rural sector has decreased significantly in recent years. The number of farms has fallen and their average size has increased. Economic circumstances have required farmers to amalgamate, diversify, and vary the proportion of their various inputs. This has meant that while some farmers were able to remain and develop more profitable enterprises others found it necessary to transfer to other employment.

Two of the forms of assistance available under the existing rural reconstruction scheme to assist farmers who are potentially viable are to be continued in this new scheme. Debt reconstruction assistance is designed to help the applicant whose prospects are sound but who is unable to obtain finance to carry on and is thus in danger of losing his property or other assets. The assistance may provide for a rearrangement or composition of debts to allow more time for payment. Money may be advanced for repayment of all or part ofthe debts and for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development.

The farm build-up provisions are designed to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under current conditions. Finance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property to buy adjoining land to build up his property, or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. Grants may be made at the discretion of the State administering authority to cover, in whole or in part, losses sustained in the disposal of assets included in the purchase price of the property which are not useful for the built-up property. Under the dairy adjustment program, assistance is available for the restoration of an uneconomic property to economic viability by improving the effective use of an existing farm without adding to its area. Assistance of this kind will be extended to the whole farm sector under the farm improvement provisions of the rural adjustment scheme. To be eligible for such assistance the applicant must be in the position where he is unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms from any other normal source. He must also be able to demonstrate that his existing farm has been, but is not now, viable, that the property is of sufficient size and the proposed improvements are of such a kind as to offer sound prospects of restoration to long term commercial viability if assistance under this scheme were provided. Farm improvement assistance may take the form of advances for plant, livestock, carry-on expenses and further property development intended to restore the economic viability of the farm, either in the existing form of production or in another form of production. Grants at the discretion of the State authority may be made to cover, in whole or in part, losses sustained from the reduction in value of assets which are either not useful or are less useful because of the changed pattern of farm operation. Such grants will be kept to a minimum and will be made only where the changed pattern of farm operation is, in the opinion of the authority, essential to the restoration of long term commercial viability.

Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm buildup and farm improvement will take the form of loans on such terms and conditions, including interest rate, as the State authority considers appropriate. The maximum repayment term will be 30 years. State authorities administering the scheme will have the right to review the interest rate on individual accounts at any time. They are required to review the terms of repayment including interest rates at regular intervals with the objective of encouraging the borrower to transfer to commercial credit as soon as circumstances permit. There are occasions when a particular rural industry encounters a severe market downturn or similar eventuality and assistance is required to enable many of its producers to carry on pending the recovery of the industry’s fortunes. If such assistance is not available many producers, particularly young men getting themselves established, suffer permanent financial damage and the country’s productive capacity suffers along with the individual. The events which have occurred recently in the beef and dairy industries provide examples of this situation. It was therefore decided that the rural adjustment scheme should include a standing faculty to enable loans to be made for essential carry-on purposes in times of severe market downturn or similar situation, but excluding circumstances covered by natural disaster arrangements, in those rural industries where the Commonwealth and States agree from time to time that it is necessary. It is, of course, true that as far as natural disaster arrangements are concerned, there is a separate facility available to the States to provide the specific help needed. They are backed up by the Commonwealth according to a formula which has been explained on many previous occasions in the Parliament.

The Commonwealth and the State will agree on the terms and conditions of the assistance to be provided in particular circumstances and the facility will be activated by notice to that effect in the Commonwealth Gazette. Carry-on assistance available at present to beef producers and dairy farmers under industry schemes will be continued from 1 January 1977 under the terms of the new rural adjustment scheme. As I said earlier, the carry-on assistance is designed to assist the producer who has reasonable prospects of long term commercial viability. In making its assessment of the applicant, the State administering authority will have regard to the farmer’s asset structure and will make its assessment on the assumption of a market recovery to the long term trend. The applicant must also be in a position where he is unable to obtain carry-on finance on reasonable terms from any other normal source.

Household support is a new form of assistance designed to provide help for up to one year to farmers who are judged to be non-viable and who have insufficient resources to meet living ex- penses and who are in need of assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship while the farmer considers whether to adjust out of farming. A farmer will be eligible for such assistance if he is assessed by the administering authority as being non-viable in the long term, is unable to obtain financial assistance from any other normal source and will suffer personal and family hardship if not assisted. Assistance will be provided for a period of up to one year sufficient to raise the applicant’s estimated future net income from all sources to the level of payment which would be applicable to him if he were eligible for unemployment benefits. In those cases where a demonstrable effort has been made to move out of farming an extension to 2 years may be allowed at the discretion of the administering authority. Advances are to be paid to the farmer at intervals decided by the authority but not longer than 3 months. Prospective income for each period will be assessed by the authority on the basis of a declaration made by the applicant.

Where it would take some time to assess an applicant’s entitlement interim assistance may be granted by the authority as a loan provided there is prima facie evidence of urgent need and unavailability of alternative sources of finance. If the authority subsequently determines that the applicant has a viable enterprise, the interim assistance will be regarded as carry-on finance and would, of course, be repayable. At the end of the first period of 6 months for which a farmer receives household support, the assistance he receives may be converted to a grant. If the farmer adjusts out of farming within 3 years of the time he first received household support, any advances made to him and not already converted to a grant may be so converted. If he does not adjust out of farming within 3 years of first receiving assistance any advance made to him and not already converted to a grant will be repayable to the Authority.

A farmer who is eligible for household support and who is prepared to adjust out of farming may, at the discretion of the authority, receive in lieu of household support assistance, a lump sum payment of $3,000 less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming. For the purposes of the household support provisions of this scheme, a farmer will be regarded as having adjusted out of farming when, in the judgment of the authority, he has effectively disposed of his productive resources. The other form of assistance provided to farmers who are judged to be non-viable and are obliged to leave the industry is rehabilitation assistance. Such assistance is provided at the discretion of the administering authority and may be converted to a grant also at the discretion of the authority. The authority must be satisfied that the applicant will suffer financial and personal hardship if not assisted under this provision. The maximum loan will be $5,000. Eligibility for rehabilitation assistance is not affected by the farmer having already received assistance under the household support provision.

The rural adjustment scheme is essentially a joint Commonwealth-State operation. Broadly the Commonwealth will provide the funds for the scheme while the States will be primarily responsible for the detailed adminstration of it in accordance with policies agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. Funds for the general components of the scheme, that is debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation will be advanced by the Commonwealth to the State; 85 per cent in the form of a loan and 15 per cent in the form of a grant. The loan component will attract interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum initially, although this is subject to review if the long term bond rate changes substantially. The loan component will be repayable over 20 years including a 3 year principal repayment holiday. The funding of household support will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Carry-on assistance will be funded on a cost sharing basis between Commonwealth and States to be agreed on each occasion that the facility is used. The existing 50/50 cost sharing arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States will be maintained for dairy and beef carry-on assistance at least until 30 June 1977.

The Commonwealth will share equally with the States administration costs up to 2 per cent of the value of approvals in each year for all forms of assistance, except carry-on, the administration costs for which are included in the cost sharing arrangements. The financial assistance to be provided each year for debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation, will be determined by the Commonwealth before the commencement of the financial year after a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers which will review the circumstances relating to the financial year and consider submissions made by the States. The amount to be made available by the Commonwealth to a State for the purposes of carry-on assistance will be determined at the time that the Commonwealth and the States agree that the provision of such assistance is warranted. Household support assistance will not be subject to prior allocation of funds. States will recoup from the Commonwealth funds used for this purpose.

For the period 1 January to 30 June 1977 the Commonwealth Government has agreed to provide for a total approvals program of $20m for debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation purposes. Individual State allocations are New South Wales $5.6m, Victoria $4.75m, Queensland $3.4m, South Australia $2. 75m, Western Australia $3.25m, Tasmania $250,000. This approvals program will be reviewed by the Commonwealth and the States in February 1977. Beef carry-on and dairy adjustment funds not committed at 3 1 December 1976 will continue to be earmarked for these purposes. The assistance measures provided for in this Bill have been subject to rigorous examination. I believe they are economically justifiable and socially desirable. The scheme will be subject to review annually and will undergo a major review in 4 years time. It might be worth while my stating that in the interim both the Rural Bank concept and the young farmers establishment scheme may involve some extensions or modifications to this legislation. Those will be adopted only after they have been a matter of some discussion with the States and after promulgation of both concepts in this Parliament and in discussion with those persons who will be affected by or interested in each of the 2 proposals of the Government. The Government will certainly not hesitate to make changes in the scheme where the need for such changes becomes apparent. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3141

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 2.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 -

In sub-clause ( 1 ), after ‘sub-section (2)’, insert ‘of this section and to sub-section 8(5)’.

Clause 8.

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

In sub-clause (1), after proposed section 19BA, insert the following new section: “ ‘ 19B AA. Where a Department of State of the Commonwealth is abolished and, immediately after its abolition, a Department with the same name as the abolished Department is established-

the first-mentioned Department shall, for the purposes of section 19B, be deemed not to have been abolished; and

b ) that Department and the other Department shall, for the purposes of section 19BA, be deemed to be the same Department”.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

After sub-clause (2 ) insert the following new sub-clauses:

After the commencement of this sub-section-

) section 40 of the Audit Act 1 90 1 shall have effect as if the words ‘at the Treasury’ were not included in the section;

sub-section 55 ( 1) of the Audit Act 1901 shall have effect as if the words ‘in the Treasury’ were not included in the sub-section;

section 60 ofthe Audit Act 1901 shall have effect as if, in place of the words ‘in the Treasury’ in the section, there were substituted the words ‘by the Treasurer’;

sub-section 71 (2) of the Audit Act 1901 shall have effect as if, in place of the words ‘Secretary to the Department of the Treasury’ in paragraph (a) of the sub-section, there were substituted the words ‘Secretary to the Department of Finance ‘;

the Treasury Regulations in force immediately before the commencement of this sub-section, or those Regulations as amended and in force from time to time after the commencement of this sub-section, may be cited as the finance Regulations or in such other manner as is provided by the Regulations;

any reference in a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or in an instrument under or having effect for the purposes of such a law, to the Treasury Regulations shall be read as a reference to the Regulations referred to in paragraph (e); and

any reference in a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or in an instrument under or having effect for the purposes of such a law, to a Commonwealth Sub-Treasury (whether by that name or a similar name) shall, if the Treasurer, after the commencement of this sub-section, establishes under the Regulations referred to in paragraph (e) offices by the name of Accounting Offices, be read, in the case of a reference that is not a reference to a particular SubTreasury, as a reference to an Accounting Office so established and, in the case of a reference to a particular Sub-Treasury, as a reference to the Accounting Office established in place of that Sub-Treasury.

Provision may be made by regulations under the Audit Act 1901 for and in relation to the application and effect, after the commencement of this sub-section, of any directions given before the commencement of this sub-section by the Secretary to the Department ofthe Treasury under the Regulations referred to in paragraph (3) (e) and of any instrument issued, or act or thing done, before the commencement of this sub-section, being an instrument, act or thing under or having effect for the purposes of the Regulations referred to in paragraph (3) (e) or of those directions.

) If a Department of State of the Commonwealth by the name of the Department of Finance is not established on or before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, sub-sections (3) and (4) shall not come into operation until the day on which such a Department is established. ‘ ‘.

Title.

A Bill for an Act to amend the Acts Interpretation Bill 1901.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 4-

After ‘ 1 90 1 ‘, insert ‘, and for other purposes ‘.

Mr ELLICOTT:
AttorneyGeneral · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The amendments that have been made by the Senate are Government amendments. Broadly, they do 2 things. Firstly they will insert a new section after proposed section 19B a in order to put beyond doubt the application of section 1 9ba to a case where a department is abolished and a department with the same, name is established, as in the present case in relation to the Department of the Treasury. There is doubt whether section 1 9ba as it appears in the Bill would cover such a situation. Secondly some amendments will be made to the Audit Act and to consequential provisions concerning references to persons and things in other laws which have been found necessary as a result of the announced reorganisation of the Department of the Treasury involving the substitution of 2 departments- the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance- for the existing Department.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– As indicated by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), these amendments, which are Government amendments, have already been agreed to by the Senate. They are necessary because the Government, in view of its economic decisions, has split the Department of the Treasury into 2 departments- the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance. Accordingly it is necessary to include this amending section to cover a situation where a department is abolished and then a department with the same name is immediately re-established. The Audit Act is also amended accordingly. The Opposition notices that this is merely a machinery measure and has no objection to it. In view of the economic circumstances, I suppose there will be many more such amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3142

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Stevedoring Industry Amendment Bill and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter ofthe 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bills now before the House are not contentious and are not opposed by the Opposition. What they seek to do is to extend for another 6 months the temporary provisions that currently regulate the industry and to remove long service leave provisions for waterside workers from the Stevedoring Industry Act, thus enabling them to be covered by an award of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in accordance with the wishes of the parties to the industry. The need for the Government to seek yet another extension to the so-called temporary legislation, which has been in operation since 1967 or almost a decade, is that the Government has not been able since it last sought an extension of the legislation in May this year, to determine the new permanent arrangements under which this industry is to operate. Last May, after successive governments had grappled with the very difficult issues involved and after a number of inquiries, two of which were initiated by the Australian Labor Party Government, the current Government announced after consideration of the report of the second of Labor’s 2 inquiriesthe Northrop report- that it had decided to free the industry from government involvement, to abolish the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and to establish a basis on which the industry could proceed as any other industry.

It sought an extension of the temporary provisions for another 6 months, until 3 1 December this year, in which period it expected to be able to determine in association with the parties involved how the industry would operate in the future. As time passed and the Government made no further announcement, it became apparent that it was having some difficulty in extracting itself from its regulatory role. Indeed it is not apparent from the speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) that that is the case. The Government has still to secure the acceptance of various arrangements by the parties to the industry, without which it says it will not withdraw from the industry. The most difficult issue to solve at present is that relating to surplus labour. The Minister says that this surplus is of the order of 1200 men and that the Government will not in any circumstances condone the existence of such a surplus when it is costing $20m per annum for idle time payments. He has therefore proposed that the parties should get together quickly to work out arrangements by which immediate separation of those stevedores aged 60 to 65 years could be achieved, thereby reducing the number of waterside workers by approximately 500 and then to further reduce the numbers in the lower age brackets.

What this amounts to, of course, is compulsory retirement, and that is something which the waterside workers have refused to comtemplate since achieving permanency in 1967. However, they are well aware that there is now a substantial surplus and they are not now opposing the concept of compulsory retirement for those in the higher age brackets, so long as the terms on which they are retired are suitable. Hitherto the Waterside Workers Federation has agreed only to voluntary retirement but it is apparent to all that the rate of reduction in Federation members through this process will not achieve any dramatic reduction in numbers unless perhaps the retirement allowance for those who retire voluntarily is to be substantially increased. However, that is not in contemplation by any party to the industry, so the issue now concerns the terms on which compulsory retirement is to be agreed to.

As I understand it, there seem to be reasonable grounds for optimism that such agreement will be reached. If, however, agreement is not reached and the Government tries to enforce compulsory retirement on conditions that are unacceptable to the waterside workers, we could very quickly find massive industrial disruption on the waterfront across Australia. Having achieved permanency after long and bitter struggles, the union would be likely to react strongly to any attempt to dilute that concept without Federation agreement. This is all the more true since the union maintains that there would be no problem of surplus labour now if it had not been forced to recruit in 1974 when the volume of imports and exports was very high. The Federation was most reluctant to take on increased numbers of stevedores at that time as it could see that with the prospects of a decline in trade in the future there would be pressure on it to reduce the numbers again and thus the very concept of permanency would be threatened. In the event, however, it was persuaded, under strong pressure from the stevedoring companies, to recruit more stevedores but the agreement was conditional on these additional recruits becoming permanent.

In Sydney and Melbourne alone over 1000 men were recruited at that time. Since the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) puts the figure of surplus labour at present at about 1200, it can be seen that this excess labour is almost totally accounted for by the 1974 recruitment drive. It is ironic that soon after the recruitment drive the volume of trade fell with declining economic activity, both here and overseas, and idle time costs accelerated accordingly. Thus, the fears expressed by the union were soon brought to light. Furthermore, increased mechanisation of cargo handling and a continuing swing towards containers has accentuated the labour surplus problems. The situation remains then one in which the union has modified its approach to allow for compulsory retirement. Hopefully, a formula will be found that will enable this matter to be resolved without industrial disruption. While on this point, however, it is worth noting that even if all surplus labour is eliminated from the industry, idle time payments will still have to be made because of the very nature of this industry with its fluctuating work loads. When the Minister refers to idle time payments of $20m as being intolerable, he should understand that with no surplus labour at all idle time payments of several million dollars still have to be made. Therefore, the measure of the cost of surplus labour is well below $20m.

Another matter that relates to the rearrangement of procedures in this industry and which should be mentioned in this debate concerns the Government’s anxiety, as expressed by the Minister last May, to ensure that in vacating its regulatory role in the industry, the Government would still have the power to maintain and influence costs and efficiency in the industry through the application of the Prices Justification Tribunal and Trade Practices Commission. However, since then the Government has decided to modify the Prices Justification Act in such a way that the Tribunal will lose most of its effective power to have any control over the level of prices generally or in particular industries. The Government has also initiated a Committee of Inquiry into the Trade Practices Act. This Committee has recommended various changes that would weaken the powers ofthe Trade Practices Commission. Thus, the Government’s reliance on these governmental bodies to limit inefficiency and excessive costs in the stevedoring industry, as claimed by the Minister last May, sits oddly with the Government’s subsequent behaviour in weakening those very institutions on which it places reliance. Clearly the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission will be less capable of influencing costs in this industry in the future than they would have been if the legislation enacted by the Labor Government had been allowed to remain.

Furthermore, the need for the Prices Justification Tribunal to keep a close watch on stevedoring company charges has been displayed vividly by the inquiry which it has initiated into the prices being charged by James Patrick and Co. Pty Ltd and its subsidiary, Patrick Operations Pty Ltd, whose operations extend to 8 ports on the east coast of Australia. This remarkable public inquiry began in October and soon revealed a massive profit rip-off and a bonanza for company directors.

Debate interrupted.

page 3144

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I interrupt the honourable member for Gellibrand and seek his acquiescence in my making an announcement. I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Turkey led by Senator Mehmet Unaldi, Vice President of the Senate. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation.

May I also extend to members of the delegation, and through them to the Parliament and the people of Turkey, the sympathy of the Australian House of Representatives in respect of the tragic loss of life and property that occurred as a result of the earthquake which devastated areas of the Van Province on 24 November and the severe blizzard conditions which followed.

page 3144

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr WILLIS:

-Operating profit for the company for 1974-75 of $5.8m represented 580 per cent on paid-up capital, or 88 per cent on funds employed. The dividend payment that year was $1.20 for each $1 share. In addition, 5 directors shared $656,700 in directors emoluments which excluded further fees of $3,000 each. This was for the year 1974-75. The vast majority of this incredibly high remuneration to directors went to one man, the Managing Director of James Patrick and Co., Sir Reginald Reed. The other fascinating aspect of this inquiry has been the revelation that apart from the enormous profits and directors emoluments, the company works on a cost-plus basis for its pricing policy which, amazingly, operates on the basis that as the business expands so profit margins should increase. The so-called logic for this policy is that the larger the business the larger the risk.

The success of this pricing policy from the company’s point of view is clear from its exceptional profitability. The impact of this policy on the rest of the economy which pays for this company ‘s excess profits through higher prices for various products is difficult to quantify but certainly it is very important to disclose such profiteering. Without the Prices Justification Tribunal operating as it has under the Labor Government’s legislation, we would never have known of this profiteering. Accordingly, the Opposition is greatly concerned that the substantial weakening of the Prices Justification Tribunal will mean that such exposures are unlikely to occur in the future and that the ability of the Government to ensure that excessive costs are not foisted on the Australian public by rapacious stevedoring companies will be lost.

I want to mention the position of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority who are vitally affected by the Government’s proposed scrapping of its direct regulatory role in this industry. The Authority is to be disbanded and the staff of about 220, who are scattered throughout Australia in the various ports, are all to lose their jobs. As practically all of them are not members of the Australian Public Service, they do not have automatic right of transfer to other Public Service jobs. Accordingly, they have been greatly concerned at the Government’s intended action. They all received 6 months initial warning of likely dismissal in July this year and they were led to believe, as we were all led to believe, that the Authority would cease to function as of 31 December this year. After some negotiations on redundancy agreements, an agreement was settled which was reasonably satisfactory to the staff of the Stevedoring Industry Authority, but the uncertainty of not knowing precisely when the axe would fall has provided understandable difficulties for them. It was accepted as part of that redundancy agreement that no one would leave for 3 months but that after that time they would be free to go to other employment while retaining the full redundancy benefits.

In fact, however, some staff members who found other jobs were refused permission to leave after the 3 months had expired. That, coupled with the problem of not knowing whether the Authority would cease operation at the end of this year or at some later date, led to growing unrest amongst the staff. However, with the Minister’s statement to the House a fortnight ago and his subsequent discussions with staff representatives, the air has been cleared. Staff members have been told that those who obtain an alternative job will be released wherever possible and that the Authority will almost certainly cease operations at the end of June 1977. The initial warning of likely retrenchment has, in fact, been extended to 26 June 1977. Nevertheless, the Government deserves criticism for not keeping the Authority’s staff well informed of its intentions and its progress in establishing the new arrangements, thereby causing unnecessary traumas and anxiety to the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. In conclusion, I note that there are still many difficulties for the Government and the parties to the industry to overcome in establishing the new basis of operation in the industry and in establishing transition arrangements that do not disrupt the working of the industry. Hopefully for all concerned these difficulties will be satisfactorily resolved and we will accordingly not need to debate again for the umpteenth time a Bill to extend the temporary provisions that have applied to the industry for a decade.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-This Bill obviously is not a contentious one. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) stated that the Opposition supports it. I think everybody in the Parliament realises the inevitability of extending the temporary provisions until the middle of next year. The gutsy part of the debate concerns the Government’s intentions as expressed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and the possible reactions of the parties involved on the waterfront to the negotiations that will take place over the next 6 months. I wish the Minister and the Government well in these negotiations. It is almost a cliche now to say that the waterfront industry in Australia is unique in character, origin and history in that traditionally it has had to have a temporary work force because of the fluctuations in the demand for labour on the waterfront from day to day. One day three or four ships requiring just a few waterside workers might be berthed in a port like Melbourne. The next day dozens of ships might be tied up in the port with other ships waiting in the bay, and every available man and then some will be needed. It is a unique industry, with an uneven demand for labour.

I pay the Minister an enormous tribute for the outstanding success that I believe he has achieved in a short period. It is unique also to see a Liberal Minister of the Crown sitting down with the Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia at several meetings, having fruitful, progressive and helpful discussions and coming to decisions which, by the look of it, both parties will honour. The Minister has certainly achieved other things but that to me is a remarkable achievement and shows the character of the Minister and how he is held in the utmost respect in the industries over which he has control. Notwithstanding that he will need- I am sure he will agree- a lot of luck, patience and inspiration before the end of June next year to bring off something that will give this industry some stability.

This is not the time for union bashing. I am one of the people who believes that that is against the interests of this country at the moment. In discussing the waterfront I think it is good to try to find out why it is traditionally so militant and why it is an area in which trade union activity over the years has always been one of disputation, zeal, heat and bitterness. This is not only unique to Australia. The waterfront industries all over the world are essentially like that. I have done a fair bit of study ofthe history of the Australian waterfront. It is interesting to note, when one looks at the bitterness which has existed there and which, to some extent, still exists there, why militants or communists are elected by the men to fill positions. One does not have to go back very far to recall the days when the employers on the waterfront behaved monstrously. I have read ghastly stories, when unemployment was very high- something like 25 per cent to 30 per cent- of employers, with their top hats and striped pants, standing up on the balconies when 200 men were waiting down below for a day’s work so that they could feed their families. The top-hatted employers in between each sip of champagne would, just for fun, throw some silver or nickel tokens down in the dust. There would be a resultant brawl amongst these hungry, workless men. They would fight each other like animals to grab a token which would entitle them to a day’s pay so that they could feed their families. This was of much amusement to the employers. That is a story which shows some of the industrial history on the waterfront. I inject that into the debate for those of us in this Parliament and for the people outside who sometimes become irritated with the behaviour of a union like that on the waterfront.

That kind of assault on human dignity and human liberties that occurred in this industry years ago is not forgotten easily. It is handed down from father to son; the stories still circulate. But the bitterness is there. I believe that sometimes if those of us in control of these sorts of things could understand why there is bitterness and why there is an unreasonable attitude on behalf of the Waterside Workers Federationit has been unreasonable on many occasions- it would put us in a better position of understanding. It is a militant union and that has brought its own problems. I cannot say anything more favourable about the employers on the waterfront. If I wanted to be mischievous I could say something much less favourable about them. They have a very sorry history. It is not confined just to the kind of incident which I have related. They seem to have adopted the attitude at times of utter irresponsibility.

Another cliche needs to be stated. In a nation like Australia which relies so heavily on imports and exports with virtually everything coming in or going out of the country by ship, we are totally reliant on the people who employ the labour to load and unload the ships and on the people who actually do the task. I have been critical of the Association of Employees of Waterside Labour and its confreres in previous times. They have been compliant even to the point of being passive in irresponsibly increasing costs on the Australian waterfront without giving any consideration at all to the people who are affected by actions taken on the waterfront, namely every citizen in Australia. No matter whether you are an importer or an exporter or just an ordinary person going to the supermarket to buy your goods your standard of living is affected by the behaviour of the waterside unions.

Let me give one example of how the Australian waterfront is as bad as, if not worse than, most of the world. I very seldom extol the case of the apple growers of Australia and particularly of the Shepparton area in this House. I leave that to more competent colleagues like my friend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). Let me give the facts on exporting a case of apples from Shepparton to London. Goodness knows it is hard enough to sell a case of Australian apples in London now. For every dollar spent on carting a case of apples from Shepparton to London 60c is spent on getting the apples from Shepparton to the hold in the ship at Port Melbourne. I do not think anybody can justify that as a fair deal. It is not only the apple growers who suffer over a thing like that; every person in Australia suffers. If we cannot sell our exports and if our balance of payment position deteriorates we are brought to a situation which, among other things, demands devaluation and a lowering of the standard of living of Australians. It is a very important industry.

The second reading speech of the Minister furthers his declaration of 6 May. To pinch the beautiful phrase of my friend the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), the Government is now going to get out of back seat driving in the stevedoring industry. We have been in the back seat for a long time. We have meddled in the affairs of this industry, with the Australian Stevedoring Industry Association and with many other authorities. As the Minister said on 6 May, provided certain things happen the Government will get to hell out of the area completely and allow the industry to be administered by the labour force and by the employers. Again, that is a monumental decision. I wish the Minister luck in that undertaking because the behaviour of the 2 parties in the past, for the reasons I have given, does not give much hope for success. But I do wish him luck.

I digress for a moment to inject a little philosophy concerning the trade union movement generally. As I said, I most certainly will not engage in union bashing. As chairman of the Government members’ Industrial Relations Committee I have asked the question which I will pose shortly of hundreds of people and I have never got an answer. Recently I was in the United States and, amongst other things, was studying the industrial relations framework in that country. At that point, the motor vehicle workers had concluded a deal with their bosses. As honourable members will be aware, the conciliation and arbitration system that we have does not exist in America. Every 3 years they have a drag- ‘em-out-and-kick- ‘em-all fight about the wages and conditions for the next 3 years. They reach agreement. When I was there, the motor vehicle workers and their employers had just reached such an agreement. I asked around and said: ‘Will the union stick to its word and will the employer stick to its word?’. I was treated as though that was a stupid question. The answer to it was: ‘Of course they will’. It is virtually unknown in the United States for a union or an employer to break such an agreement. I thought that in Australia this is one of the areas in which we behave quite strangely. Despite our attempt sometimes to be trendy, I would have thought that Australians of all people are a law abiding people. We are a law and order people. Australians suffer, more than anything else, from the instructions of authority. The decision of an umpire to an Australian is almost sacred- as anyone would testify at the Melbourne cricket ground any winter afternoon.

Mr Scholes:

-You would hear 100 000 boos.

Mr CHIPP:

– The spectators might disagree with the decision of the umpire but they stick to it. No one goes out onto the field and takes over the game as sometimes occurs in banana republics. Yet the Australian public allows a union or an employer but particularly unions- I think I am being fair here- to make an agreement today, have it arbitrated on and the very next day or week break it. Nobody is outraged and nobody says that it is not fair play and that the umpire’s decision is not being respected. The question I am asking is: Why does this happen in Australia? Is it because of our British heritage? Is it because we are too easy going? We do not encounter that sort of behaviour anywhere else. We condemn anarchy- sometimes too quicklyfor example, if a few students march through the streets or kick up a fuss at a university. If people do not obey the law the Australian public is very quick to condemn them. Yet we have industrial law being broken with equanimity and nobody seems to object. I do not know the answer to the question I posed earlier. Why are we so easy going in relation to this matter in Australia? I think that this is an interesting philosophical study which honourable members on both sides of the House ought to look at because whether one is a member of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, one does not want strikes. We do not want disputation because we all know that that hurts everybody. It hurts the worker and it hurts the community because productivity is lessened. I have not been able to get an answer to the simple question of why this happens in Australia. I would be very grateful if anyone could enlighten me.

I should like to have the indulgence of the House to deal with another piece of philosophy that is not directly associated to the Bill but which, I think, is relevant to it. I am sorry that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) did not commend the Minister on this point, but I think that the Minister very wisely is not opting for a confrontation with the Waterside Workers Federation by forcing redundancy. He will do it- if I can describe it in cynical terms- by means of a golden handshake. How golden the handshake will be has yet to be determined after discussion. The fact is that 1200 men in the industry now are doing absolutely nothing and being paid for it. They are being paid in total the amount of $400,000 a week or $20m a year- not by the employers but by us. The Australian public is paying that many men to do nothing. It is not the fault of the 1200 men. It is the fault of the crazy system which applies to the waterfront. They have to be retired in a graceful and peaceful way that will not cause confrontation.

I again wish the Minister and his advisers great luck in handling those negotiations. As chairman of the Industrial Relations Committee of the Government, I commend the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Mr FitzGibbon, for the patience and tolerance he has shown so far in these negotiations. I hope that he continues to display that patience and tolerance in the future because this is such a vital matter. If we, as a government, became heavy handed and said: ‘Right! Out! No golden handshake- out under the existing conditions’, only one sure thing would happen. The redundancy problem would not be solved. There would be a national confrontation. The Waterside Workers Federation, and probably the Seamen’s Union, the Transport Workers Union and everybody else would have a national strike. The cost of such a strike to the waterfront alone would be $Sm. That would be the naked cost of holding up the ships.

Mr Street:

– That would be $5m a day.

Mr CHIPP:

-I thank the Minister. It would be $5m a day. One could imagine a strike such as that lasting for 3 weeks. A conservative estimate of the total national cost of such a strike would probably be 10 times that figure. Therefore, I am delighted that the Minister and the Government are exercising wisdom and tolerance in this area. Many people are talking about confrontation with the unions and saying that unemployment will make the Phillip’s curve come into play; because of unemployment the unions will be meek and mild and this is the time to really hit them. Let me convey to the House the thoughts of the trade union movement and people who sensitively look at the industrial relations scene. I ask those honourable members particularly on this side of the House who are saying: ‘Now is the time to take on the unions’, to think again of the consequences of a national stoppage.

We have had wage indexation now for a couple of years or thereabouts. I do not intend to canvass the merits or demerits of wage indexation but I believe it exists as a sleeper. It does not allow a trade union leader to make a big fellow of himself with his union as much as he used to be able to do. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission virtually is doing the job of the trade union leader. The Commission virtually is giving these automatic increases to members of unions. When the election time comes around for each trade union leader he will be able to say in respect of fewer matters to his union members:

Look what I have done for you in the last 3 years’. Therefore, I believe that any provocative act by employers or government would encourage even union leaders of moderate unions- this is human nature and I am not condoning it but I am saying that it would happen- and give them an excuse to say: ‘Right, we will take you on’. I believe that any sort of move to get tough with the unions has to be thought out very carefully or we might find ourselves, for a variety of reasons, with a national stoppage which, at this stage of our economy, would virtually cripple Australia. I commend the Minister for what he is doing. I wish him good luck in his efforts. I also wish good luck to those people he appoints to the various committees and I hope that they will continue to use the tolerance and patience that they have shown up to this point of time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to speak in this debate to express concern at the future situation of employment not only on the waterfront but also in other areas. Regrettably, there is a tendency for certain occupations to become redundant or obsolete in areas of activity which were promising or which appeared to have a reasonable future. We are dealing specifically with the situation on the waterfront. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has referred to a substantial number of about 1200 men who are in excess of general demand on the waterfront. The stevedoring industry is one of a considerable number of industries in which the employment opportunities have declined. Fortunately, the stevedoring industry is one of those industries in which a fair degree of negotiation has been possible. It would appear for the first time that the employers of waterfront labour and the union are in fairly close harmony about the future development of the Australian waterfront. Certainly the union is not going to be satisfied with whatever redundancy agreements are reached although most likely it will come to some acceptable compromise. We would hope that that will be the situation and I understand the people concerned are working along that line. But that may not necessarily mean that the individuals concerned will be satisfied with that kind of agreement. It may well be a good agreement but monetary compensation may not be sufficient or in any way attractive enough to a person of 50 or 55 years of age who finds himself redundant and without skills to obtain another occupation.

People look forward to retirement until they get close to it. When retirement comes, a considerable number of people do not actually want it all, no matter how attractive the retirement conditions are. It does not appear to attract a considerable number of people. In this regard I might mention High Court judges who can retire on very substantial emoluments to which they have not had to contribute but a few of them have stayed around until they were nearly 90 years of age.

Quite seriously, the waterfront is only the tip of an iceberg. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) referred to industrial trouble and said he could not understand it. There are considerable areas of employment where the work opportunities and career opportunities of the people who have chosen to enter those fields are being substantially cut back. I could refer to the area in which I worked formerly as an engine driver. I think that about only half the number are now employed in this area in Victoria when compared with the number when I joined the service in 1949. Opportunities for progression in that area do not exist. Waterside workers are in almost the same position. The numbers employed are declining rapidly. A lot of the industrial problems in the electricity industry in Victoria today relate to a decline in opportunities. You, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will remember that not that long ago the Victorian Premier was talking about the Latrobe Valley as the Ruhr of Victoria- an area of unlimited opportunities.

Mr Martyr:

– You fellows fixed that.

Mr SCHOLES:

-The honourable member for Swan does not understand. He should remain silent because he really does not want to make his ignorance public. Migrants took up residence in that area in good faith and I think everyone thought that opportunities did exist. However technological and other changes have made their future insecure and their positions redundant. People who reached supervisory positions in that area suddenly found themselves back on the floor. They had been looking forward to a life style of a certain standard and suddenly it disappeared. The area in which they live does not offer alternatives. Operations like the Lurgi gas plant and the briquette industry just disappeared from sight.

Uncertainty- unrelieved uncertainty- creates problems, and those problems exist in a lot of industries at the moment. It would be of benefit if the Government looked at those uncertainties. I might make the point that a decision was made here a few days ago about mining operations on Fraser Island. It was decided that in the national interest mining there was to stop. The price for protecting the national interest will not be paid by the nation but by about 300 employees and a couple of companies. Those 300 employees have been left with nothing. If they became militant, if industrial unrest grew in that area, it would not be an unexpected reaction because they are being asked to meet the cost of something said to be in the national interest.

I am concerned also about the port of Geelong, an area I represent. Permanency does not exist at that port. According to my understanding, about one-third of the work force would become redundant if permanency applied. If employment there were permanent a considerable reduction in the work force would be required- a number much greater than those who would be in the position of being able to face retirement easily, even with a golden handshake. A number of other provincial ports in Australia are in exactly the same situation or a worse situation. Work opportunities for people over 45 years of age, the people that one would expect would become redundant in that area as they are unskilled persons, are almost nonexistent. In major ports it may be possible to bring the employment figure down relatively easily over a fairly short period of years but in areas where alternative work opportunities do not exist in any form the work force would be reduced to those of 45 to 50 years of age and people above that age would be condemned to permanent unemployment. Transfer arrangements and other such provisions may meet the situation but it is not easy for people who have lived all their lives in one area to suddenly move to a capital city or into a lifestyle they are not used to for the last 10 years of their lives.

This is a serious problem and I hope some resolution can be found for it. A number of things could be done to assist. One is an examination of the plans that the Melbourne Harbour Trust has for the development ofthe port of Melbourne. I think it is going to move to the inner suburbs and turn the whole area into a port. I am not sure that that is the sort of port development which should be encouraged when already there are ports such as Westernport and Geelong which could better serve parts of Melbourne than a port in the central business district with all the traffic problems and other difficulties which would arise.

I do not intend to delay the House much longer but I ask the Minister to look seriously at this area. I think that half of the people concerned are most likely his constituents anyway. According to official figures I think there is a surplus of about 70 men on the Geelong waterfront.

I make this point: If the reduction of employees is of the order suggested that port would not be capable of handing any increase in its use such as does occur although only temporarily. The numbers would be too low to make it a viable general cargo port. I think it ought to be used as a general cargo port because its access to the western suburbs of Melbourne is far better than that from the port of Melbourne, not in miles but in the movement of goods.

One could say a number of other things about the general aspects of this matter. I am not speaking about other States but in the metropolitan port areas of Victoria there is a need to look not only at the number of people working on the wharves but also at the utilisation of the ports themselves. I think there is a fairly uneconomic use of ports in Victoria and this may well be costing the community sums of money as large as or larger than the cost attributed to industrial unrest and other obvious areas of excess cost. I ask the Minister, in reviewing the general operations of the waterfront, to consider with his colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) the effects of uneconomic utilisation of port facilities, especially in Victoria. In that State there are existing port facilities but there are plans to duplicate them in other areas and not fully utilise the existing facilities.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Earlier speakers in this debate have indicated the purpose of the 3 Bills which are designed to extend the provisions of the present temporary stevedoring arrangements for a further 6 months. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) explained the situation in his second reading speech on 6 May when he said that the present conditions would be extended for a further six months. He laid down some of the guidelines that the Government would be looking for or working towards in its policy of replacing the existing provisions with a better, more satisfactory and more permanent arrangement for the waterfront. The new arrangements have not come in in time; therefore the extension. As other speakers pointed out, the delay is due to a very complicated situation and to the need to resolve several issues at the same time- the problem of redundancy, new control mechanisms and arrangements in any new policy, etc.

To me, the delay has certain worthwhile features about it. I refer to the information revealed at the Prices Justification Tribunal hearings. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) referred to some ofthe figures quoted concerning the commissions, the director’s fees and so forth of the stevedoring company, James Patrick and

Co. Pty Ltd which is being investigated at present by the PJT. To me and to many other Australians, if not to those who are already expert in waterfront affairs, the figures have shown that there are factors in the employer area of the waterfront which are just as deserving of criticism as is the area of the employees or the unions. I believe that it is very important, because of these revelations, that any new arrangements which the Government introduces for the waterfront should control the unfair practices of employers as well as and as much as the unions or the employees if we are to have a cost efficient and effective waterfront for the benefit of all Australians.

I refer to a few examples of the information that has been revealed. Examples will be used against both employers and employees. I quote firstly from yesterday’s Australian Financial Review which reported the final addresses to the Prices Justification Tribunal. I suppose one could say that certain questions were put from the employer’s point of view. The questions were: Why was the man-hour divisor as low as 798 at Sydney whereas it was 1522 at Port Kembla? Why was worker’s compensation charged at 28 per cent in an instance for Brisbane whereas the rate was 7.2 per cent? I could quote other points. Other questions were: Why had the cost of a gross man hour of waterside worker labour moved from $2,572 in 1962 to $7,556 in 1974, and why in 2 years it had now doubled to $15.46? These are very important questions for which the answers must be found in the formulation of the Government’s policy.

At an earlier PJT hearing, as reported in the Financial Review of 25 October, evidence was given about the stevedoring industry. I quote from that article.

One Australian glass importer, Astor Glass Industries, has put these charges into a commercial perspective in terms of glass imports in the following terms:

Those terms generally are the costs on the waterfront. I continue quoting from the article:

Sorting and stacking charges for Sydney and Adelaide ports, as they stand today, represent the single largest added cost after f.o.b. value and ocean freight, for the kind of product we import.

Expressed as a nominal rate of tariff protection, sorting and stacking charges would be the equivalent of a duty of approximately 20 per cent ad valorem, whereas the general tariff rate is 15 per cent.

In other words, the waterfront provides more effective tariff protection than does the Government ‘s tariffs. I am sure the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) would be interested in that area of tariff protection. I quote again:

That is to say, sorting and stacking rates, as a kind of natural protection, represent a greater barrier to importing window glass than the Government intended by way of tariff protection.

As far as glass is concerned, the service we receive and pay for is for the transporting of cases from ship’s side by forklift into wharf shed, and placement in upright stacks according to marks.

Total distance travelled would be rarely more than 60 metres and total time no more than 5 minutes per case (about one tonne each).

For this service in Sydney we are currently paying $18.10 per tonne.

In comparison to this we employ a carrier at the rate of $5.40 per tonne to load, deliver, receive and temporarily store our glass, which obviously involves much greater utilisation of labour and machinery than that required for wharf sorting and stacking. Yet wharf sorting and stacking costs are 140 percent higher.’

I now quote from the current affairs program- A Current Affair series ‘The Australian Waterfront’, part 2 and part 4, of 6 October and 8 October, the interviewers are Mike Minehan and Tony Ward. Tony Ward said:

In the recent April to June period the average earnings of a Sydney wharfie were $205 for 24 hours work. At the container terminal they were $309 for 33 hours work and at Beauty Point in Tasmania, $33 1 for 34 hours work. The average earnings over the same period for an Australian male were $ 1 7 1 for 40 hours work. Apart from their high pay rates they are paid double time for a midnight shift, double time and a half for Sundays and they also enjoy benefits such as a 25 per cent loading on holiday pay, a 25 per cent loading on long service leave, a generous pension scheme, accumulated sick leave, fully payable on termination of employment, and their three-quarters of an hour lunch break is part of their 7-hour working day. They have achieved already the 35-hour working week. But more important than that, no retrenchment. They cannot be retired before they reach sixty-five whether there is work for them or not.

I quote from part four:

When the Federal Government reorganised the waterfront in 1967 and gave permanency to employees, it was banking on containerisation keeping freight costs for our imports and exports down, and above all, labour costs controls. In reality just the reverse has happened. In the last 18 months alone, container terminal charges have risen 85 per cent. Labour represents 75 per cent of this total.

An administrator who was being interviewed said:

On 20-foot containers we are about 2 to 3 times higher. New York charges $69 a container, San Francisco $53, London $60 and m Sydney we have to pay $ 1 54.

Another administrator said:

The system here which is different from anywhere else in the world is that the 40-foot container attracts charges exactly twice those of a 20-foot container. This is completely unreasonable and anomalous because it involves no more effort to lift the 40-foot container than it does a 20-foot container.

That is the end of the quotation from A Current Affair.

I want to quote some other figures on the problems of cost created by the position on the waterfront. I emphasise that I am not apportioning blame between the employees and the employers. I would think blame rests somewhere, if not equally, between the two. I deal firstly with wool. In May 1975 the Australian Wool Corporation revealed that taking wool from a Melbourne wool store to a ship’s hold cost 7.22c a kilo. For the ship to take the wool to Europe and have it delivered to a mill door cost 8.49c a kilo. The apple grower gets approximately $2 a carton for all of his labour. The cost of a carton of apples becomes $4.50 by the time the apples are picked, packed and delivered alongside a ship. It then costs $1.17 a carton just to load those apples into the ship. It now costs about $24 to shift a tonne of bagged rice from the rail truck beside the ship in Sydney into the hold of the ship. By comparison the rice mill has to receive, store, transport, mill, quality control- in fact, do everything- for $23 a tonne compared with $24 a tonne to move the stuff from the rail truck into the ship.

With the history of the waterfront and its cost to every person in this country, as shown so clearly by these figures and by other speakers today, it is tremendously important that the correct decision is made about control mechanisms and arrangements for the future on the waterfront. I believe the Minister indicated that it is the Government’s intention to move out of its regulatory role, through the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, rather than to move the other way- that is, virtually to acquire or nationalise the industry. When referring to some of the important areas of concern in making decisions as to how this will be accomplished, the Minister, in his 18 November speech, referred to 3 special areas. They were:

Measures aimed at securing cost restraint.

Measures to protect the interests of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.

Measures to overcome the problems of the industry as had been identified in the report presented to me by Mr Justice Northrop.

I emphasise as strongly as I can that if we are taking this role for the future- I am in no way disagreeing with it- it is tremendously important that the Government establish, through a market force system or some other system, a mechanism which will prevent an unholy alliance between the employer and the employee on the waterfront which will be to the detriment of all Australians, particularly those who live by exports or imports.

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

– This has been, I think, a useful and interesting debate. I wish to make a few references to issues that were raised by all honourable members who have contributed to it. When leading for the Opposition, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) made some criticism of the Government for not being able to determine final arrangements for the industry by the end of this year. I can remember speaking in this House and indicating some concern at the continual extensions to the temporary provisions legislation. But I do say that since this Government has been in office more has been done in this year to work out some better future arrangements in the industry not only than occurred in the 3 years when the Labor Government was in office but also than occurred for a great many years. The discussions which have taken place so far have been complex. The negotiations have involved a great number of different organisations and different individuals, all with different objectives. We have come some way towards charting the future for the industry. I am glad to hear from the honourable member that he too feels that there are chances of reaching reasonable agreement.

The honourable member referred to changes in the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation. I must say that it is nonsense to suggest that the Prices Justification Tribunal in future will not be able to expose costs in the industry as it has in fact done on this occasion. In my statement on 6 May I said that it was proper that costs in this industry should come under surveillance to ensure that prices set are fair both to the supplier and to the consumer. Under the changes to the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation, the Tribunal can still initiate its own inquiries. Indeed, the Government can take the initiative as well.

Mr Young:

– This industry is highly competitive; it will be exempted.

Mr STREET:

– There will be no question of exemption in this respect. It is just not true to say that the changes in the legislation will make it impossible for the PJT to do in the future what it is doing now. That is the point I am making.

The honourable member for Gellibrand rightly drew attention to the problem of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority staff. This has been an issue that has caused me great concern. I have referred to it on more than one occasion in this House. I think the honourable member was a little unfair when he criticised me for not keeping the staff of the ASIA informed as to what was going on. I kept the staff informed to the maximum extent possible. But I would not think that the honourable member or any other member of this House would consider it proper to inform the staff of the Authority ahead of informing the Parliament. That was my first responsibility. As soon as that was done, I informed the staff of the Authority of what I had in mind. As the honourable member has said, negotiations and discussions have proceeded with the staff. I appreciate the concern of the staff members, but it just was not possible to take the action recommended by the honourable member prior to informing the Parliament itself.

The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) made a most interesting and useful contribution to this debate. I thank him for his personal comments. The Government certainly does need goodwill, support and perhaps a little bit of luck as well in arriving at a fair and reasonable arrangement for the future of this industry. The honourable member rightly drew attention to the turbulent industrial relations history of the industry and the legacy of bitterness that previous practices have left behind them. He referred also to the great problems caused by employers not always resisting pressure from wage claims made on them. As he rightly pointed out, conceding in this area affects all Australian citizens because of the increased cost of goods coming into and going out of the country. The honourable member referred also to the question of contracts of employment in the United States of America and the possible application of this principle in Australia. What he said is true: Industrial law in this country is flouted in a way which does not happen in other areas of law. Nobody benefits from that state of affairs. We certainly do need to find a solution to the huge economic and social problems that that situation causes.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) referred more particularly to the problems of redundancy not only in the stevedoring industry but also in other industries. He drew attention to the specific difficulties of the smaller non-permanent ports such as Geelong. The Government is well aware of this aspect. We have already said that we will need to be satisfied that the smaller ports will not be disadvantaged. The honourable member referred also to the fact that the possible future reduction of the port quota in Geelong would mean that the port could not handle any peaks in cargo which might come into the port. I say merely at this stage that in the context of the negotiations on redundancy which are going on now we are looking at the major ports. I remind the honourable member for Corio that reference to my statement of a week or so ago will show that the transferability of labour is an essential part of any new arrangements.

The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) raised several important issues flowing from the Prices Justification Tribunal inquiry, particularly the high costs of handling cargo in Australia. I referred to that aspect a moment ago. He drew attention to the very favourable terms and conditions of employment in the waterfront industry. That of course is one of the main concerns of the Government. The inquiry by the PJT has brought all these costs out into the open for the first time at an official level. We will certainly need to be satisfied, as I said on 6 May and reiterated the other day, that adequate price surveillance mechanisms will be available to help keep the costs of the industry under review.

The discussions and negotiations on the future ofthe industry are now under way. I am hopeful that they will be pursued with vigour and speed. I think there is a willingness on both sides of the industry to do just that. It is in nobody’s interests that these discussions should drag out too long. That applies particularly to the future of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. They, too, want to know with certainty as soon as is possible what will be happening to them.

I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I also pay tribute to those members of the industry and to members of my own Department who have done a tremendous amount of work in laying the ground rules for the negotiations which are now under way. This has required patience, tolerance, and goodwill on all sides. I am hopeful that, if those qualities can be brought to the negotiations themselves, we may be at last on the way to a better, more workable structure for the Australian waterfront. That will be in everybody’s interests. The objective of this Government is certainly to achieve that result.

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 Street) read a third time.

page 3153

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Street) read a third time.

page 3153

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Street) read a third time.

page 3153

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Australian Heritage Commission Amendment Bill 1 976.

Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1976.

New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill 1 976.

Air Force Amendment Bill 1 976.

Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 976.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1976.

page 3153

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 26 ( 1976)

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 26 (1976) give effect to the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on animal foods, etc. The effect of the decision is that minimum rates of duty will apply to imports of prepared animal fodder and certain residues and waste of the food industry. This represents little change to the position previously existing, as most of the products concerned were entered either free of duty or at low rates of duty.

Also included in these Proposals are alterations of a drafting nature arising from the Government’s decision to discontinue the system of tariff quotas on certain sheets and plates of iron and steel. A comprehensive summary of the changes which operate from tomorrow is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 3153

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– Imove:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1977 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals 23 to 26 introduced into the Parliament during the current session and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 now before this House. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for 6 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a customs tariff amendment Bill which will formerly enact the tariff changes contained in the Proposals.

It is anticipated a customs tariff amendment Bill will be introduced during the autumn session to cover the Proposals included in this Bill. Honourable members will have an opportunity at that time to debate the Proposals or any general questions of Government tariff policies. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission:

Cosmetics and toilet preparations;

Leather and leather substitute products;

ADP equipment and parts; and

Animal foods.

Full details of the changes concerned were supplied to honourable members at the time of introduction of the relevant tariff Proposals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 3154

PRICES JUSTIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Before commencing to comment on this Bill let me just say that the Opposition is becoming perturbed at the manner in which the administration of legislation is being handled in this House. For the third time in as many weeks the Opposition has been asked to break the normal procedures in dealing with legislation in that it has had to deal with amendments that have come into this House late, well after legislation has been presented. It ought to be understood that there has been some sort of convention about allowing an Opposition at least one week to look at the way in which governments will deal with legislation. In the case of the conciliation and arbitration legislation, the Aboriginal land legislation and now the legislation to amend the Prices Justification Tribunal Act we have been forced to consider amendments that have reached us very late in the legislative process. The Opposition registers its protest at this method of application because, as in the case of the 2 other pieces of legislation that I have mentioned in respect of which amendments were given to us late, the proposed amendments to the Bill before us are quite considerable in the intent of the way in which they propose to amend the Act.

I think that the Government should be able to tidy up its method of dealing with these Bills and that the Opposition should be given the legislation in toto. If the legislation is not prepared properly and is not ready to be given to the Opposition it should be delayed until such time as it is complete. If this practice is adopted our committees will be able to deal with all the matters that will come up for debate. The Opposition was given the proposed amendments to the Prices Justification Amendment Bill yesterday. Opposition members who will follow me in this debate will deal with the ramification of those amendments. I will be dealing mainly with the effect of the social contract that may have been in existence in Australia prior to this legislation being introduced into the House.

This Bill is opposed by the Opposition. The Government seems intent on hoisting on Australia some massive dose of economic madness. Whilst in the process of hurling abuse at the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Government brings into this

House legislation which in essence draws the teeth of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Devaluation will bring greater pressures on the wage and salary earners to attempt to keep up with massive price increases which will follow as a result ofthe increased price of imported goods. I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) and the Government to explain how any social contract will continue in this country under such conditions?

I want to pay some attention to the devaluation that has taken place subsequent to the introduction of this Bill. It is a pity that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) has left the chamber because I am sure that he would be taking an interest in the impact of the 17½ per cent devaluation upon the social contract, the inflation rate in Australia and the role of tribunals like the Prices Justification Tribunal in the present circumstances. I do not think that the impact of devaluation can be ignored in this debate. Instead of limiting the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal, whether it be in terms of staff, administration, public inquiries or whatever, the legislation should be extending the role enormously. We all should have learned the lesson of the tariff cuts that took place under the previous Government. At the time those cuts were made it was felt that considerable benefit would flow through to consumers in Australia. But we found that perhaps the importers were much smarter than the then Government in terms of marking up goods that were imported at the lower dutiable rate. Now we have the situation where, in Australia, we should have considerable stock which has been bought at the old price. But there will be an overlapping of the prices which should be paid now and the prices which should be paid on new goods which will have the 17.5 per cent added to the price, perhaps together with the freight rates which may be paid in some foreign currency, particularly United States dollars. As the Prices Justification Tribunal warned during the week, it should be given an increased role, a policeman’s role, of seeing what will happen to consumers in this turnabout.

A prediction was made a few weeks ago by a colleague of mine. He has received great blame for devaluing the dollar. All honourable members on this side of the House consider that to be absolute nonsense. He said that blind Freddie and his dog could see that the Australian dollar was overvalued and that action would have to be taken. If I can use the same phrase, I point out that blind Freddie and his dog can see that tariffs will have to be reduced. It is absolutely incredible that the Government has made the announcement on devaluation without accommodating action being taken on tariffs. While industries around Australia are perhaps welcoming this additional protection which has been given to them, they know as well as anybody else inside or outside this Parliament that they could not possibly go to the Industries Assistance Commission and seek that type of additional protection under normal circumstances.

It is absolutely astounding why the Government has to make these decisions apart from each other- why this cannot be done in a package. The spin-off in not reducing the tariffs is, as we have seen demonstrated in the House this week, the belief that the Government by some magic wand will be able to convince the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that everybody should ignore the increased inflation rate which will occur in Australia because of devaluation and with no action being taken or tariffs. There are people with better knowledge than I in relation to the economic system which will apply in Australia over the next 12 months who say that under present circumstances devaluation could possibly add 4 per cent to 5 per cent to the expected inflation rate in this country. Are we to believe that the Government will convince the Arbitration Commission that the increased cost of living which has been bestowed on wage and salary earners in Australia through the increased cost of goods will be ignored, that the wage and salary earners have to take this drop in the living standards to overcome the problems? The answer is: Obviously not.

If action is not taken on tariffs, if the Arbitration Commission is interfered with- perhaps in some subtle way this is inferred by Government spokesmen, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch)- we will have either an enormous inflation rate in Australia or a great industrial confrontation in 1977. The Government must know this. When the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon) led the attack in the Government party room yesterday, honourable members should have listened. What he was saying is correct. I draw attention to what the Government is expecting. This is why I draw this matter into the discussion on the Prices Justification Tribunal. As far as we can see this is relevant. The reason for setting up the Tribunal was to try to build some sort of social contract in Australia. If the wage and salary earners are to go before the Arbitration Commission to justify their prices increases, why should not the employers or the manufacturers go before the Prices Justification Tribunal to justify their price increases? It seems to me that Government supporters want the best of both worlds. They not only want the Arbitration Commission to ignore the justice in the claims for keeping up with the consumer price index but also want to take away from the Prices Justification Tribunal its overseer role in looking at price rises in Australia.

The action of the Government last week has only to be seen in the annual report ofthe Department of Overseas Trade for honourable members to understand what sort of effect it will have in Australia. The economist for the Adelaide Advertiser, Edward Nash, considers that imports could cost Australian purchasers or consumers an additional 22 per cent. If we look at the figures for the Department of Overseas Trade we find that in relation to the $8000m worth of goods which we import- if we add onefifth to that amount we take it up to almost $ 10,000m- we are asking consumers to bear the brunt of the additional cost of the present tariff level. At the same time we are saying that these people cannot be compensated through the Arbitration Commission. We are insisting that wage and salary earners go before the Arbitration Commission and we ignore the other end of the spectrum, namely, the justification of price increases.

Many matters are involved in the amendments which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) brings before us today. One should trace the history of the Prices Justification Tribunal. My colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), when he was Treasurer of this country in 1973, introduced a measure to establish the Prices Justification Tribunal and he made it quite clear then, as has been established subsequently in both speeches in this House and in the annual reports of the Prices Justification Tribunal, that the Tribunal was not established as a prices control body. Some people in Australia thought that it should have been. They thought that as far as possible we should have had a prices control body. But that is not why the Prices Justification Tribunal was established. It was established as a justification tribunal, pretty well along the same lines as the Wage and Salary Justification Commission.

Now we see that amendments are brought in to try, in some way, to have the representatives of the trade unions and the white collar organisations believe that the Government has not gone back on its word, following the election, not to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal. That was the promise given to supporters of the Liberal and National Country Parties during the election campaign. It was promised that the Prices Justification Tribunal would be abolished. Immediately after the election the Prime Minister found it convenient to bargain and barter with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the basis that wage indexation would survive and that the Prices Justification Tribunal would survive. We see these amendments being brought in which will virtually destroy the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. We have also seen the word of the Prime Minister on wage indexation destroyed because the Government has continuously been before the Commission arguing against the continuation of wage indexation. So wage and salary earners- the vast majority ofthe people and their dependants in this countrymust understand that what they are being asked to do in the latter half of this year and in the whole of 1977 is to take a massive drop in their living standards to prepare the way for this Government to be returned in 1978.

One predicts with a certain amount of assuredness that this just will not work. It is absolutely impossible to do any arithmetic which will lead one to believe that the people of Australia will take a drop of 6 per cent or 7 per cent in their living standard during 1977. But that is what the Government is asking, if it is asking that the supervisory role of the Prices Justification Tribunal be taken away in looking at prices, in exposing price abuse, in holding public inquiries and in doing all those things which perhaps have had an impact on the ways in which these major companies carry on their business. The Tribunal has had a great effect upon those companies and upon the way in which they manage their business. It has meant that in many ways they have changed their procedures within the company in order to meet the demands ofthe Prices Justification Tribunal. Just as the investment allowance was a flop, in terms of talking about an economic recovery this matter will also be a flop. In the last week in particular this Government has gone mad. As I said earlier, we can expect another major decision on tariffs, otherwise the inflation rate and the cost of living in this country will soar. I shall cite, on some commodities, a few figures which were exposed in the newspapers during the week. Perhaps people do not understand what this Government is asking consumers to do. Twenty per cent of the motor vehicles sold in Australia are fully imported- that is, about 140 000 motor vehicles from overseas are sold in this country.

Let me point out the way in which the cost of living in this country will be affected. Not only will the price of imported motor vehicles jump by about 20 per cent but without the Prices Justification Tribunal it will be a fairly simple process for local manufacturers to lift their prices to near the mark of the imported product. That will be the spin off from taking away the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Let us have a look at some of these prices. The Chrysler Lancer, an imported car, which now sells for $4,386 will be $5,307 under the new valuation rates. The Datsun 260Z costs $8,909 at the moment and will cost $10,769. The Fiat 128 which is now $4,657 will be $5,634. The Peugeot 504 costs $9,189 at present and will cost $11,130. The Saab 99, which is a popular imported car, costs $10,401 and will cost $12,585. People can get some idea from those motor vehicle prices of what will hapen with all the other commodities. As I said, 8,000m worth of goods are corning into this country from overseas and, when the old stock runs out, they will be 20 per cent more expensive. That will mean a great hike in the inflation rate in this country. Obviously some action has to be taken in regard to tariffs.

The Prices Justification Amendment Bill cannot be seen in isolation. It must be seen in the context of the decisions taken by the Government in relation to the PJT in the 1976-77 Budget. This Bill must also be seen as the second step along the road to the announced Liberal Party policy of abolition of the PJT. The Lynch Budget sealed the fate of the PJT, the only price monitoring body in Australia. Salary appropriations were slashed by 10 per cent in real terms. Administrative cost appropriations were cut by 32 per cent in real terms. A deliberate policy was introduced to reduce further the number of inquiries undertaken by the Tribunal.

This Bill confirms the real desire of the big business supporters of the Liberal and Country Parties. They were the people who required the Prime Minister to pledge the abolition of the PJT in return for their financial support for the coalition in last year’s election campaign. Now they have realised the effect that carrying out this pledge would have in industrial relations terms. They realise that it would demonstrate to all that what business wants in this country is to freeze wages and free prices and profits. The Tribunal itself in its recent annual report recognised these motivating forces. Acknowledging that it has been a natural target for criticism, it said on page 121:

Some of the criticisms did not go to the nature of the Tribunal ‘s operation, but appeared to be mainly motivated by sectional considerations.

These sectional interests, supported by the Government, have thus devised the indirect approach- slow suffocation rather than the immediacy ofthe guillotine. But the fact remains that the real intention of these amendments is to confirm the uneven ‘social contract’ which the Government is imposing on wage and salary earners. Side by side with the National Employers Policy Committee, the Australian Government breasts the bar of the Arbitration Commission to argue for a reduction in real incomes for wage and salary earners, while in the privacy of the boardrooms and in thinly veiled legislation such as this, business is advised that with profits and prices they can ‘ let it rip ‘.

This Bill is further evidence of the Fraser Government’s willingness to bow to narrow sectional interests. It has done it for the graziers with the superphosphate bounty and for the doctors with Medibank, and now it is doing it for the wealthiest companies in Australia. On the question of devaluation, time and again we have been told that the mining interests and the exporting primary producing sections were carrying an uneven share of the burden in our economy. There are more people unemployed in Australia today than work in the mining industry. What about their share of the burden? What is happening about putting them back to work and doing something for them rather than worrying about the mining interests or some sections of the rural industries which we are told are carrying an unfair share of the burden?

There can be no doubt that the Tribunal has been successful in limiting price increases and there can be no doubt that this is the real reason for this legislation. The Federal Law Review in June 1975 declared that the PJT occupied a unique place in the development of Australia’s legal and economic systems. The PJT itself estimated that it saved the Australian consumer $235m in its first year of operation. This is the answer to the spurious claim of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs that his amendments will allow the PJT to concentrate more on eliminating price abuse. The PJT has already dealt effectively with price abuse. There is no way known that it can be ‘more effective’ with a reduced staff, reduced funds and restricted terms of reference. The proposed changes may satisfy the whims of 1 per cent of the biggest companies in Australia, but they will not deal with price rises by the thousands of small businesses which live by purchasing goods and materials from large companies.

The Minister is dishonest in speaking of ‘public submission’ on the future of the Tribunal. The Government took submissions from the public when reviewing the PJT legislation but it has never made those submissions public. There is no evidence to support the Minister’s assertion that most of the submissions sought changes in the Tribunal. There is no evidence of any duplication of functions between the PJT, the Industries Assistance Commission and the Trade Practices Commission. The IAC looks at the problems of industries as a whole; the PJT looks at particular companies. The Minister also refers to consultations which have taken place with the trade union movement, but in the same breath he makes it clear in his second reading speech that the changes contained in the Bill reflect the decisions taken by the Government. Token consultation was all that was involved.

It is naive for the Minister to claim that because 90 per cent of notified price increases have been approved there is a ‘high level of price responsibility’ among Australian business. The impact of the PJT extends far beyond the 10 per cent of price increases which are disallowed. Business generally has been restrained from raising prices unnecessarily through the mere existence of the PJT. The fact that companies have had to go before it and justify their proposals has forced them to look more critically at their operations and their responsibilities to the public. The annual report ofthe PJT for 1975-76 underlines this point. At page 1 1 the report states:

Since the beginning of its operations on 1 August 1973 the Tribunal has processed 19 100 notices of higher prices; 3859 in 1973-74, 7502 in 1974-75 and 7739 during 1975-76.

Over the same period, the Tribunal has held 53 public inquiries; 15 in 1973-74, 33 in 1974-75 and 5 during 1975-76. 2757 notices of proposed higher prices received over the period were either withdrawn by companies or were varied to provide for lower prices than those originally proposed, following inquiries by the Tribunal and discussions with the companies concerned. The numbers of notices withdrawn or amended was 457 in 1973-74, 1 181 in 1974-75 and 1 1 19 in 1975-76.

Quite clearly, many millions of dollars of ‘excessive’ price rises have been involved in these applications. Recognition of this factor has forced companies to modify their price demands. The Government is proposing that these requirements be eased. Its attitude on modification of price demands is markedly different from its attitude on modification of wage demands. The Government proposes that the PJT exempt from price justification those industries in which there is ‘significant and effective competition’. This proposal begs the question of how the degree of competition is to be assessed. Would it be on an industry-by-industry basis after suitable public inquiries? This implies a very long selection process. It also implies consequent injustice to those arbitrarily placed at the end of the queue. Would the Trade Practices Commission be required to provide its assessment of the degree of competition in each industry by way of an analysis of cleared or authorised restrictive practices, and the apparent level of unauthorised and illegal practices, in that industry? Or would a very large cross section of industry be arbitrarily selected on the basis of concepts such as the number of competing firms in the industry, the level of imports or the recent history of price increases of the overall level of profits to be used as criteria.

Concepts of competition are difficult to define. It is well recognised that under normal business conditions a fairly hig’ degree of price leadership prevails in Australia and it is very unusual for a firm with substantial capital assets to cut prices so as to increase significantly its share of the market, thereby obtaining increased production and economies of scale with a rationalised range of products. Competition tends to be soft competition and price cuts are usually muted by descriptions such as ‘specials’ for a limited period with a subsequent return to the recommended retail price.

Like the Budget strategy, the real aims of this legislation remain unstated. Any examination of the Government’s words and actions in recent months leads to the inevitable and now widespread conclusion that the Government’s desire to increase the profits of its business supporters is to be achieved at the expense of wage and salary earners. Certainly, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has made no attempt to hide the fact that he expects wage earners to carry the major burden for the fight against inflation through deliberately increased unemployment and cuts in real wages, on the one hand, and devaluation, on the other hand. The winding back of consumer incomes is certainly not likely to generate a consumer led recovery. Consumers cannot spend more when their wages have been slashed through the imposition of the Medibank levy and higher taxes or when their jobs are threatened by company crashes and closedowns and when prices are increased by the effects of devaluation. No matter how high profits are allowed to go, business will not invest unless consumers have the ability and the desire to buy the new products produced.

Capital investment is now declining rapidly and, in real terms, is already less than the quarterly levels existing at the end of 1972. The windfall double depreciation and investment allowance package in the first half of this year did not achieve the take-off of investment demand, the increased employment and the boost to consumer spending predicted of it by the Government. Part of the reason for the failure of that package was, of course, the fact that this Government had deliberately set out to reduce spending power for wage and salary earners. The Government has stated that the key to its desired economic recovery is a return to pre- 1 972 levels of the relative share of gross non-farm domestic product going to capital and labour. There is no particular reason advanced for this thesis. The Government may say that the tribunal will have greater capacity to use its resources to investigate those areas where there is evidence of price abuse, but the facts belie the statement. At page 7 of its report, the Tribunal alludes to this contradiction when it says:

The refilling of any staff vacancies has also been particularly difficult due to the uncertainty about the tribunal’s future operations.

Later the report states:

Such a climate was hardly conducive to the efficient operation of the Tribunal and was particularly unsettling from the point of view of policy development.

It is clear that the Tribunal is destined to be reduced to a pale shadow of its former self and will simply monitor price increases, rather than force companies to justify them. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) says as much in his statement. In congratulatory terms he records that the ‘cumulative purpose of the changes is to bring about a very significant reduction in the number of companies which must notify the Tribunal of their price increases’ with a view to the Tribunal’s principal function being that of ‘price surveillance rather than price approval’.

Already companies are refusing to co-operate with the Tribunal by refusing or delaying the supply of requested statistical information. The effects of the Government’s proposed changes will be to enable price increases for goods and services to flow back and forth between industries until they appear in the consumer price index. At that time, as we all know, the Government will attempt to stop the key supplier of servicesthe labour force- obtaining its price increase. Thus, the Government’s policy is clearly one in which productivity gains are to be considered from now on as the exclusive reward of the business sector. There are many other areas which the Opposition will discuss during the Committee stage. My colleagues who speak after me will expose what the Government is doing at this end of the spectrum on the question of price increases by manufacturers and businesses in Australia.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) made an absolutely incredible speech. The speech was obviously written by someone who was not aware that the Government, after the election in December, decided to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal. The first half of the speech presumed that the Tribunal was to be abolished. The second half of the speech contained a great and growing misunderstanding of what the Tribunal was about.

It is said that every member of this place has it in him to make at least one good speech in the same way as every block of granite has it in it to make at least one good statue. I have seen many a good statue but I am still waiting for a good speech from the honourable member. It did not come from him this afternoon. In the first place, he has a quaint misunderstanding that the activities of the motor car industry will not be monitored by the Prices Justification Tribunal. That is just not correct. It was never intended and even the simplest person in this chamber did not misunderstand it in that way. Nevertheless, we heard that proposition from the honourable member. The second proposition that he put forward ought to be remembered. He wants the Prices Justification Tribunal in today’s circumstances to maintain- I use his own words because I think they should be repeated over and over again- a policeman’s role. His understanding of the policeman’s role is of somebody who would pry, pimp, cajole and bully. He sees for the Tribunal the role which was understood to apply to it prior to December 1974. In his own words he wants it to return to that role.

In his third proposition he shows his complete misunderstanding. He does not realise that the first of the 2 principal amendments to the Prices Justification Tribunal Act- there are a number of minor amendments- merely raises the size of turnover by a corporation which has to abide by the notification procedures from $20m to $30m. That has been a perfectly reasonable, fair and sensible proposition. He does not realise that the other substantial amendment applies in respect of the subsidiaries of companies which are subject to the notification procedure. They are not subject to it again. The honourable member who comes from a State which has a large white goods and motor car manufacturing industry, fails to understand that thousands of subsidiary organisations will now be released from the procedures. By not understanding it, he does not realise that that is a boon and that the Tribunal is certainly not acting in the role of a bullying policeman. The honourable member for Adelaide, a front bench member of the Opposition, does not even understand these points.

One other proposition which runs through his speech ought to be exposed. It has been put forward in this chamber since 1973 when the Labor Government was looking for excuses for the rate of inflation. Over and over again it said that inflation can be brought down by use of the effective price control powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal. That attitude was abandoned subsequent to 1973 but it was the philosophy that motivated the speech of the honourable member this afternoon. That proposition will not work. It was never likely to work and I am sorry to see him returning to that theory of 3 years ago. Common sense would indicate that he should not return to it.

I turn now to recent price rises in Australia. I refer to the last consumer price index to illustrate the point because it needs to be made. The Prices Justification Tribunal of its nature cannot be an aggregate brake on inflation in Australia. It can deal with certain companies which in fact propose to charge prices that are not justified, but there is no way in which it can brake the aggregate role of inflation in Australia.

One only has to look at the consumer price index over a period to see the multitude of price rises which are not subject to and which do not come even within the ambit of control or interest of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Almost none of the prices that have risen very quickly since 1968 comes within the ambit of control of the Tribunal. Some examples are rents, rates, service charges, motoring service charges by public authorities, all charges by public authorities and statutory corporations and postal and telephone services. If one is looking for a brake on inflation by merely consulting the changes in the consumer price index over a period to see where the pressures have been on the baskets of goods for which people have to spend their household dollars, the Prices Justification Tribunal philosophically, economically and in every other way cannot and is not equipped to do the job. I ask honourable members to look at the mentality that was put forward here this afternoon on that point.

I was fascinated with the proposition put by the honourable member for Port Adelaide this afternoon. It was like going back to the first days of the Tribunal when front bench members of the Opposition who were then in government conjured up the events subsequent to the Vietnam war as accounting for the rate of inflation which they generated in Australia. This was done by members of the Opposition. They said that an international transmission of money as a result of that war accounted for the rate of inflation in Australia. There were the old propositions about imported inflation. They have not been proposed in this chamber for some time but they still animate the mind of the honourable member who lead for the Opposition in this debate. I am afraid that he has not gone ahead with the times.

There is one area in which this body, I believe, can do a very great and salutary piece of work under today’s circumstances. Today’s circumstances have been dominated by the 7Vi per cent effective devaluation of the Australian dollar. In going for that proposition the Government has quite clearly said that it wants to promote by that means increased economic activity in Australia. We know that it has acknowledged that that is going to cause -

Mr Young:

– Why does it not work?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member’s Party has tried it in the past. He does not understand it. When his Party tried it in 1974 he did not understand it. It can be tried under certain circumstances of control and with the sense that our people have. The honourable member has never understood what he is talking about in this respect. He manifested that this afternoon for 30 minutes. I would like to test him on some of the clauses in the Bill. I would like to discuss some of these clauses when we come to the Committee stage. The honourable member has yet to prove himself.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope you do.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Let the honourable member for Port Adelaide defend himself. The honourable member for Grayndler can look after himself. He is big enough to do it. This is a serious proposition. When there has been a change of currency throughout the world in the past it has generated a sticky situation. A change then in the balance of payments of the country which devalued its currency existed for quite some time. There was also the situation in which the effect of imported goods on the degree of inflation in that country was muted for some time. It did not occur immediately. But with a quicker reaction on the part of entrepreneurs, buyers and sellers as a result of communication with changes in the price of goods, the effect on inflation will be rather quicker on this occasion than it has been in the past. Dr Perkins of the University of Melbourne pointed that out in an excellent article in the Australian Financial Review earlier this year. This means that the Prices Justification Tribunal will have the very salutary and important task to separate out the cost- price changes to goods presently landed in Australia from the cost-price changes to those which are bought by the new devalued Australian dollar. It has a very important role. It certainly is not a policeman ‘s role.

Let me take care of one other proposition under which the honourable member for Port Adelaide still labours. He has obviously used his argument at many meetings. He said it is important that the Prices Justification Tribunal should be strong. He said that because a union has to go to an arbitration commission to obtain a pay rise it is equally important that a company, corporation or somebody charging a price for a good in the field should go to the Tribunal in order to have that price accepted. The 2 situations are altogether different. When an arbitration commissioneven the one in the honourable member’s own State of which I hope he would have some knowledge- determines a wage rise it becomes mandatory and an absolute right.

Mr Young:

– And a rninimum.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right. It becomes an absolute guarantee. But when a company goes to the Tribunal and obtains a price variation there is no guarantee as to the viability of that company in the future. There is no guarantee as to its profitability. There is no guarantee as to its ability to employ people. So the 2 situations are altogether different. The honourable member for Port Adelaide ought to appreciate that they are quite different. After all the people who showed in Australia how to cause both inflation and unemployment at the one time and who introduced the new word of negflation into the Australian vocabulary were the members of the Opposition. It is due to serious misunderstanding such as I have mentioned that they were able to do so.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one part of the Bill about which I have some doubts. It is an alteration to the functions of the Tribunal. I do not doubt for one moment that the proposal has been brought in with the greatest goodwill and sincerity. That is obvious from reading this part of the Bill. But I doubt that it in fact can work. I refer to clause IS which states:

  1. In exercising its functions under sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall have due regard to the need for the company or companies concerned to achieve a level of profitability that is sufficient to enable the company or companies to maintain an adequate level of investment and employment.

That clause is very similar to one that was introduced as an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act earlier this year. The former amendment was designed to see that when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made a determination the effect on inflation and employment would be taken into account. In this case the level of profitability as it affects investment and employment can be overridden completely by the state ofthe economy at a particular time. In the former case the effect of a wage determination can be overridden in its effect on inflation and employment completely by the state of the economy at that time.

I merely suggest to the Minister that he might consider having a similar amendment made to the clause so that the state of the economy is considered at the time. There could be 2 equal situations in which a price rise might be awarded. One might be awarded when the demand through the front door and on the factory floor is too low. A similar price rise might be given when the demand through the front door and on the factory floor is much higher. In the second case the ability to be able to maintain an adequate level of profitability for investment and employment purposes would be much greater than it would be in the former case. So the Prices Justification Tribunal must and ought to take these matters into consideration.

The intention of this Bill is quite clear. Its purpose is to keep a promise that was made by the Government. The Government made a promise that it would keep the Tribunal substantially in the form in which it was towards the end of last year. To that end, it has introduced 2 principal amendments and a number of smaller amendments. It is absolutely absurd to say or to contend or even to misunderstand that the Tribunal effectively has been done away with. Many members of the Opposition say that the Prices Justification Tribunal was effectively emasculated towards the end of 1974 when there was the famous letter to the Tribunal by the former Prime Minister. It was not but the Opposition misunderstood the position in that way and it is misunderstanding in a similar way what has been proposed now. I believe that the Prices Justification Tribunal ought to be understood for what it can do, not for what it cannot do. It is not a prices control body. It is not a policing body. It is not a bullying body. It will substantially become a prices surveillance body. It is able to work in conjunction with the Trade Practices Commission and the Act. It will be able to work also with the Industries Assistance Commission. They will have complementary roles and not roles that substitute for one another and not roles that negative the effects of one another.

I believe that the Bill deserves an opportunity to work and ought to be looked at in that way by the Opposition. It ought not to be seen as the principal means whereby inflation in Australia can be brought under control. That was never the case. We have never said that that would be the case. It will have a limited role in relation to companies of various sizes and it will maintain its surveillance role. It will be able to do that to the satisfaction of the Australian people only in so far as there is total equilibrium within the Australian community and total equilibrium within the economic community. In the absence of aggregate equilibrium of the main ingredients of national production any tribunal such as this will not be able to intercept price rises that will just have to occur. That is where the most serious misunderstandings occur. We cannot pull off excess weight merely by pulling a belt in and we cannot puff down price rises merely by giving to the Prices Justification Tribunal the kind of policing role that was proposed for it by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). That will not work. It has been tried in the past and I hope that we would not revert to the role for the Tribunal that was reserved for it by members of the Opposition during 1973 and early 1974.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-I should like to say a few words about this measure. If I may say so, I think I was one of the architects of the Prices Justification Tribunal. I do not think we ever had any extravagant ideas that it would stop inflation. It was part of our election program in 1972 that just as wages have to be justified in the arbitration mechanism, equally there should be some justification on the part of those who fixed the prices of the goods and services that the wage earner was supposed to buy. The term ‘justification’ was used deliberately. The criteria of the Tribunal is, I think, well set out in its annual report for 1 975-76 in which it was stated:

The Tribunal’s attitude to criteria is conditioned by the fact that it is concerned with prices justification, not price control, and by the fact that the Prices Justification Act contains no guidelines, criteria or tests to be observed by it.

If I may say so, we made the Act deliberately skeletal. In fact, I often said that it seemed to me that everybody seemed to know what the PJT ought to do, except the members of the Tribunal itself. This was the reason that we did not establish criteria. The annual report of the Tribunal continues:

In particular, the Tribunal believes that the legislation under which it is established is not intended to restrict companies unduly in using pricing methods which they have found most suitable for their circumstances provided they do not appear contrary to the public interests.

After all, one should be concerned occasionally about public interest. The report states further:

Thus, while the Tribunal must and does have general criteria by which it evaluates whether prices are justified, it does not believe that at this time they can usefully be reduced to a rigid code.

The Tribunal’s general approach was briefly summarised in a passage in the report concerning General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd and General Motors-Holden’s Sales Pty Ltd . . . which was cited at page 20 of the first annual report of the Tribunal and which is still largely appropriate.

I think it is sensible, therefore, to refer to what is said at page 20 of the first report of the Prices Justification Tribunal which states:

In considering this case we have had regard amongst other things to the following matters as being relevant, namely whether:

the cost increases were known to have occurred rather than merely expected;

such increases were unavoidable;

such increases could be offset by greater efficiency;

sufficient accounting allowance was made for the effects of improved productivity on costs and whether in general the benefits of improved productivity were being sufficienty passed on to the consumer;

the price increase is justified having regard to the profitability of the Company including the return on investment.

I simply cite that paragraph in particular. What is now being written into the Act has been followed already by the Tribunal. I would have preferred that it had been left that way. The first report of the PJT states further

We point out that such considerations are of a general nature and should not be applied in a rigid or mechanical way.

I also was rather interested to read a document prepared by a gentleman who I understand, in one of his roles, is an economic adviser to this Government. The gentleman to whom I am referring is Dr Neville Norman, senior lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne. In the document entitled The Prices Justification Tribunal Stage Two, the learned doctor refers to the rather confusing situation that exists in Australia at the moment- that the Prices Justification Tribunal, after all, is not the only body in Australia concerned with prices charged. There are two other bodies, the Industries Assistance Commission and the Trade Practices Commission. Dr Norman states:

The IAC believes that prices of most industrial goods in Australia are set with reference to the duty-inclusive price of imported goods -

That is rather interesting in the face of the recent devaluation and the great potential there is now for the setting of new prices by Australian firms if, as he says, the firms have acted on the assumption they can set prices nearly as high as the tariff would otherwise permit. Dr Norman continues:

  1. . the premise behind PJT operations is that market power and cost increases are used in a fairly simple fashion to enforce higher prices . . . than would otherwise be the case.

The third body, he states: . . the TPC acts to investigate various arrangements or practices that may be seen as preludes to the exercise of market power. The implied view of the price mechanism differs widely between the PJT and the IAC especially in reference to the relevance of cost movements. Here the theories used by the IAC dispute that movements in domestic costs in individual industries are reflected in prices; the PJT has built its operation largely on the premise that they would be.

I think that the time has come in Australia when we have to reconcile the operation of a number of economic control bodies. On one hand we have the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is resigned to regulate or justify the payment of wages. Wages are still the major source of income in Australia and wage earners are still the major source of consumer expenditure in Australia. On the other hand there. is the Prices Justification Tribunal. Its annual report contains some rather interesting figures on the number of firms which come within its ambit, and it states:

At the end of June 1 976, the Tribunal had 480 prescribed enterprises recorded in its register. The term ‘enterprise’ is here used to include single companies and ‘groups’ of companies as described in section 5 ofthe Prices Justification Act.

Associated with these enterprises were 4427 related companies. A breakdown of the enterprises by recent annual turnovers, according to information available to the Tribunal, is set out below.

There were 34 firms which had a turnover of between $20m and $25m, 48 firms with turnovers between $25m and $30m, 52 firms with turnovers between $30m and $35m, 44 firms with turnovers between $35m and $40m, 25 firms with turnovers between $40m and $45 m, 16 firms with turnovers between $45m and $50m, and 261 firms, close to two-thirds of the total, with turnovers of $50m or more. One can make the rough economic calculation that two-thirds of the total activity is within the ambit of those 26 1 companies and their alliances.

On the other hand, if one is talking about the consumer price index, for the most part we are talking about retail prices. Many of the prices that the Prices Justification Tribunal is concerned with are not so much retail as wholesale prices. In fact, had I had my way in regard to the Tribunal I would not have put retail pricing within its ambit. I believe retail pricing is better controlled in the hands of the States. This simply shows the difficulties we have in a federal system. It is all right for the Government to take great unction to itself about new federalism and saying that it is neatly encompassed in giving back a little of the income tax to the States. The variety of economic activity in Australia is diversified. There are 2 important places still as far as prices are concerned and they are the cities of Sydney and Melbourne. I have long believed that State governments have been very recalcitrant in not doing anything in the great arena of retail pricing. After all, what can be done in Canberra about the prices in the supermarkets of Melbourne or Sydney? Perhaps Mr Wran will be able to set a leading example in this direction to the State of Victoria.

I believe that the time has come when there has to be some co-operation and cohesion between the various mechanisms operating in Australia. After all, we set up the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission because of the belief that the community, while applauding the virtues ofthe market system, knows that in practice it does not operate. The big operators are very big and the small operator has very little chance in the face of the existence of the big operators. One of the means of slightly mitigating things in favour of the small operator is to have restrictive practices legislation. I regard as sheer nonsense the views uttered at the level of government at the moment about inflation causing unemployment, as though the whole of the unemployment in Australia would go away tomorrow if by some miraculous means we were able to eliminate inflation. The structural problems inherent in Australian industry are not being looked at at the moment. It may be a sort of truism that people are not going to invest more in a particular aspect of industry because they cannot get a high enough price for what they sell to recoup their costs, including their capital costs. For a firm to come along and merely say that if the Government lets it have the price it will guarantee to re-invest, in my view is not a sufficient sort of test.

I must say, from reading in detail over a period some of the cases of the Prices Justification Tribunal, that that Tribunal, in granting companies a profit kind of assumption, at least wanted to be assured that the investment was going to take place. On the other hand I think we have come to a stage in Australia now where occasionally we have to say that maybe it is time we stopped expanding investment in certain industries and encouraged it in others. These seem to me to be the kind of things we have to begin to work out between the 3 bodies.

We have the Industries Assistance Commission to encourage and assist Australian industry. Now we have the great riddle presented by the Jackson Committee which tells us that if manufacturing industry is to have much of a future it has to have it in export industry rather than in local industry. Until the recent devaluation, at least, it was pretty hard to come up with likely successful candidates to expand exports of manufactures in Australia in the foreseeable future. I am not too sure that altering the currency ratio by the stroke of a pen is going to produce the miracle either as far as manufacturing is concerned. It may be that in Australia we will have to reconcile ourselves to manufacturing being a smaller total provider of total employment in the future than in the past. We ought to be planning where the jobs are to be found for those who want to seek them. I have long said that in this country we have been training people to do jobs that will not be available and nave not been training them for jobs that are necessary for the future. I suppose that involves getting down to a study of the education system in relation to industry and its needs.

The Government has gone through traumatic experiences. It has been very nice for it in the last 12 months to blame everything that has gone wrong on the fact that we had a different government for the last 3 years. I have said over and over again that the problems in Australia are not essentially different from the problems in the United States of America, in West Germany and in the United Kingdom, to take only a few examples. The problem is that increasingly the pattern of industry in the manufacturing arena is large scale with a tendency to have more in the service and tertiary fields. I have had it thrown back at me for saying, as I did on one occasion, that one man’s increase in wages may be another man’s job. Nevertheless increases in wages are going on in some areas. The fact that the wage is as it is, at the margin, and may preclude an additional one or two people being taken on is not the answer to the 400 000-odd people in Australia who are out of work.

I think we delude ourselves by using easy sorts of slogans, just as I think the views of honourable members on this side are rather exaggerated at the moment in thinking that there will be some immediate impact on prices in Australia because of the devaluation. If one looks at what is imported into Australia one finds that producers ‘ materials are 40 per cent of total imports and that capital equipment is 29 per cent of total imports. About II 10ths of what is imported into Australia is the potential for new investment in industry in Australia. That is where the hurt will be as a result of devaluation. After all, the Government was claiming that it wanted to stimulate investment. Insofar as investment means new capital equipment, a fair part of which unfortunately still has to be imported, it certainly will be dearer in future by something like 17½ per cent to 20 per cent, and therefore not so likely to be attractive. This is independent of any action of any body such as the Industries Assistance Commission, the Trade Practices Commission or the Prices Justification Tribunal.

I think it is time that the economy of Australia was looked at as a whole. I suppose the majority of people, fortunate or doomed, in the next 30 years will be employees in either the private or the public spheres. They will be wage earners. On the other hand I still believe that the greatest stimulus to expanding economic activity in Australia is a rise in real consumer income. The Government is caught between those two. Wages are a cost but there is also the customer to be considered. A government has to tread the very narrow path that leads between right and wrong or between bad and good economic common sense.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– in reply- I thank those honourable members who contributed to the debate. I remind the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and the House that the purpose of this legislation is not to destroy the Prices Justification Tribunal. Certainly the purpose of the legislation is to alter the role of the PJT and, in the view of the Government, to improve its role. The Government, quite understandably, has a different conception from the Opposition of the role of a body such as this. We believe that there is considerable merit in having a body which can respond to areas in which there is evidence of price abuse. The effect of the amendments to the PJT legislation will enable a greater share of the resources of the Tribunal to concentrate on those areas of price abuse. So I think it ought to be made quite clear that this is no furtive attempt to destroy the PJT. It is an open system of amendments to the legislation which will certainly bring about a changed role. The Government believes that the role of the Tribunal should change. It hopes that the amendments will give effect to the view held by the Government.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide talked a great deal about the social contract, as he called it. I believe that the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) were quite relevant to the parallel that the honourable member for Port Adelaide drew between the procedures of the Prices Justification Tribunal and the procedures of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Nevertheless, the Government has acknowledged, and acknowledges again, that in reviewing the pre-election undertaking it made about the Prices Justification Tribunal it had very much in mind the industrial relations context. In the light of that, for the honourable member for Port Adelaide to say that we are being provocative in regard to industrial relations by changing the role ofthe PJT, when we had committed ourselves prior to the election to its abolition and then in the light of industrial relations considerations we reviewed that undertaking, is, I think, being totally unreasonable.

We consulted the trade union movement. It was consulted extensively about the future operations ofthe Prices Justification Tribunal. Those consultations occurred both at a Minister to President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions level and at a research officer-officials of the ACTU level. The honourable member for Port Adelaide upbraids the Government because the legislation represents the decision of the Government. Surely the honourable member is not suggesting other than that governments are elected to make decisions. Having discharged any commitments made regarding consultation with relevant sectors of the community, a government ought to be quite free to make its decisions.

In commending the legislation to the House, I repeat that its object is to alter significantly the role ofthe Prices Justification Tribunal, to reduce its price-approving role and to enhance its pricesurveillance role. I think the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) acknowledged the enormous difficulties of a federal tribunal of this nature undertaking a comprehensive priceapproval role. This is one of the considerations that the Government had in mind. It is one of the reasons why it is the Government’s wish- a wish expressed through this legislation- that the Prices Justification Tribunal concentrate more of its resources and its activities on investigating areas in which there is evidence of price abuse rather than on encumbering an increasingly large number of Australian enterprises with the admittedly costly procedure of complying with the detailed notification procedures. There is a cost in that. It has been passed on to the consumer. It is a cost which business has to bear. We believe that the combined effect of these alterations will be to produce a more satisfactory body, a body which can make a contribution towards understanding the reasons for price movements in Australia, but a body whose operations will at the same time not place undue pressures and strains on the capacity of business organisations.

Throughout the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide there is still the presumption that the greater the size of an organisation the greater is the malice of its operations. The assumption is simply made that there are areas of price abuse only where there are large companies and that it is the large companies of Australia that are responsible for all the unsavoury and unsatisfactory market practices. That may be true in respect of certain large organisations, but it has not been my experience -I do not think it has been the general experience in this country- that size necessarily equals degree of culpability so far as price abuse and baa market practices are concerned. There are just as many price abuses at the lower end of the scale as there are at the higher end ofthe scale so far as business operations are concerned. I think that the type of argument he brought to this debate represents a fairly outdated attitude- an attitude of making provocative statements about the industrial relations climate in Australia- and an approach which did not contribute anything towards the improvement of that climate.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 66

NOES: 26

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition wishes to raise some questions about not only the clauses which the Government will seek to amend but also other provisions in the Bill. Before dealing with those matters, I turn to clause 5 which provides for the escalation of the ceiling from $20m to $30m. The Opposition has no objection to this proposal. We see this as a -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat for a moment. It is difficult to hear what the honourable member is saying. There is too much audible conversation in the chamber.

Mr Howard:

– He cannot hold his audience.

Mr YOUNG:

– Someone made the accusation that I could not hold my audience. I notice how the Liberal Party is holding its audience in recent times. If that incident had occurred with the Australian Labor Party, it would have been headlines in every newspaper in Australia. The Liberals are so fortunate.

The Opposition has no objection to the lifting of the ceiling from $20m to $30m, as clause 5 provides. This provision will cater for many of the companies which were mentioned by my friend the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). The honourable member seemed to think that it was unique or ironic that a member from an Adelaide electorate should question the role of the motor car industry in Australia. Later in his speech, he seemed to take some exception to a provision inserted by the Government that the Tribunal should take into account the profitability of the motor car industry and its ability to employ people.

Let me say this for the benefit of the honourable member for Lilley: Most of the people whom I represent are consumers. That is the position not only with me but also with every other honourable member who comes from South Australia. Those people need to be protected. Again, for his benefit, I make the point that I have already made, that lifting the prices of imported vehicles- this will occur as a result of the devaluation this week- will give the Australian motor vehicle industry a greater opportunity to lift the prices of its vehicles to that range. He may say that will not occur because the Prices Justification Tribunal will rope it in as it is over the $30m mark. But the honourable member would then agree that perhaps the motor car industry can exempt itself because it is so highly competitive.

I would have thought that one of the first bodies to greet the Tribunal after the passing of this Bill would be the vehicle manufacturing industry which would be able to say: ‘Look, we are in a highly competitive industry’. In fact it could prove that it is in the most competitive automobile industry anywhere in the world. Nowhere in the world do so many motor vehicle manufacturers and potential motor vehicle manufacturers have so few consumers. Nowhere in the world would the automobile industry consider having 5 manufacturers for 600 000 units. So I suspect that under the Government’s provisions the motor car industry will be exempt from the surveillance, as we now call it, of the Prices Justification Tribunal. That being the case, my charge still stands: The way is made easier for such companies to lift the prices of their product to the prices of the imported product.

It seems to me rather ludicrous to raise the question that if one comes from a certain State one should not say anything about an industry operating in that State. I do not know whether the honourable member for Lilley has much interest in sand mining on Fraser Island, in bananas, in pineapples or in coal or whether he is to remain dumb on any questions concerning Queensland. Obviously we should be speaking out. The Opposition has no objection to the lifting of the amount from $20m to $30m. But the sting of clause 5 is in the tail. I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee how we are to avoid the breakup of major companies into subsidiaries. Proposed new sub-section ( lA) of section S states:

A company that is a subsidiary of another company is not a prescribed company for the purposes of this Act if the sum of the amounts received by the first-mentioned company during the period of 12 months that ended on the immediately preceding 30 June as payments for the supply of goods, or the supply of services, or both, did not exceed $5,000,000.

It seems to me that the Government is not sincere about what it is proposing. We on this side of the chamber do not believe that what the Government says and the way in which it expresses its intentions will really bring about the fact as far as the Prices Justification Tribunal is concerned. I would like to read to the Minister a sample of companies, together with the number of subsidiaries of those companies, taken from the Key Business Directory. I want the Minister to tell the Committee what action the Government or the Prices Justification Tribunal can take to see that companies such as the ones I am about to mention do not break up into penny packet organisations so as to completely avoid the criteria set down for the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Let me just list some of the companies and the number of their subsidiaries. Without checking, I believe that each of these companies together with its respective subsidiaries would have an annual turnover of more than $2Sm or $30m. Let me give a breakdown of the companies. Allied Manufacturing and Trading Industries, 67 subsidiaries; Associated Pulp and Paper Mills, 23 subsidiaries; Australian Consolidated Industries, 35 subsidiaries; Boral, 80 subsidiaries; Brambles Industries, 65 subsidiaries; Burns Philp, 76 subsidiaries; Carlton United Breweries, 84 subsidiaries; Concrete Industries, 52 subsidiaries; Consolidated Foods, 44 subsidiaries; Consolidated Press, 20 subsidiaries; John Fairfax, 29 subsidiaries; Hoffring, 62 subsidiaries; Metal Manufacturers, 46 subsidiaries; Pioneer Concrete, no less than 165 subsidiaries; Ready Mixed Concrete, 35 subsidiaries; Repco, 70 subsidiaries; and George

Weston Foods, 64 subsidiaries. It seems to the Opposition that if a subsidiary is operating in a totally unrelated area- and I ask the Minister to listen to this -

Mr Howard:

– I am listening.

Mr YOUNG:

-I know that the Minister is interested in what the honourable member for Lilley has to say. But I ask him to listen to what I am saying and to tell us how he will avoid the proposition I am putting to him. If the subsidiary is operating in a completely related area to the parent company, is the subsidiary roped in or is it allowed out of the net, or is it the intention of the Government to exempt only those subsidiary companies operating on a turnover of less than $5m in a totally unrelated area to the parent company? If the Government is to say that any subsidiary with a turnover of less than $5m is exempt we would like to know how the Government will stop the breakup of some of these major companies to avoid the criteria of the Prices Justification Tribunal and thus to frustrate its operations?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I would be very happy to answer that query. This clause which deals with subsidiaries was put in quite deliberately to cover the situation where the parent company of a group of companies is obliged by reason of its turnover to notify price increases. It is reasonable that small subsidiaries in that group be relieved ofthe like obligation. If the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) reads the earlier parts of the legislation, not the amending Bill but the principal Act, he will find defined what constitutes a subsidiary company. A subsidiary company for the purposes of this operation is a related company to a parent company as defined in the Act. It becomes a prescribed company because the parent company is a prescribed company, being over the turnover bench mark.

Obviously the effect of this amendment will be to exclude the subsidiary companies of which the honourable member has spoken. There is no proviso about these companies operating in a separate area. The test of relationship is the test already embodied in the Act. No further definition of relationship is introduced so far as the amending Bill is concerned. If one goes to clause 4 of the amending Bill one finds for the purpose of the legislation what constitutes a holding company and a subsidiary company and the circumstances in which a company is to be regarded as a subsidiary company. It is quite clear from that what the answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is. If one goes to the final part of clause 5, which deals with the $5m proviso, one can see the scheme of the legislation.

Mr Young:

– The point we are raising is in respect of further fragmentation.

Mr HOWARD:

-I will come to that if the honourable gentleman will be patient for a moment. My information is that the effect of this amendment will be to take out of the notification procedures of the Act about 1000 subsidiary companies.

Mr Young:

– At the moment.

Mr HOWARD:

-Yes, at the moment. The honourable member for Port Adelaide says that large companies will further subdivide themselves into subsidiaries to take advantage of the fact that the subsidiaries will not be required to comply with the notification procedures. It is true that this could occur in some cases. It is equally true, though, that it is not a completely costless exercise to embark upon a corporate restructure. If one has a holding company that has large capital assets and it transfers those capital assets to related companies it pays almost confiscatory rates of stamp duty and so forth. It is just not always an attractive economic exercise to do this.

Whilst I can see that in some cases companies will take advantage of this procedure, I just do not accept that the great majority of the large enterprises will go to the bother and expense and be subject to all the managerial problems involved in corporate restructuring just for the purpose of avoiding the notification procedures. I do not deny that it could occur in some cases. That is acknowledged. We go into that with our eyes open. I just do not believe, having in mind the costs and so forth which will be involved in that sort of corporate restructuring, that it will occur in very many cases.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a most unsatisfactory explanation. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) for more than half his time set up a proposition with which no one on this side was disagreeing. We all accept the explanation of the provision which is found in the explanatory notes which were circulated. That states:

Clause 5 . . . Releases from the obligation to notify price increases those subsidiaries of prescribed companies which have annual turnovers not exceeding $5m.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) put to the Minister and to the Committee that this will lead to the fragmentation of existing groups of companies in order to avoid the notification procedures. If the Minister is not aware of ways in which companies can avoid paying duty on the disposition of assets, I will be pleased to tell him. But I suspect that he is aware and that the honourable members behind him are aware. There will be a considerable opportunity for existing groups of companies to set up new subsidiaries, to incorporate existing divisions and this kind of thing. In relation to the point that there is a carrying cost involved in organising different groups of companies, the Minister will remember back to the days when companies used to organise so many different subsidiaries so that they were below the threshold for payroll tax. That is a very common thing for business to do in this country. If the Government sets up a procedure, mark my words business will use the device the Government is laying open to it. The Minister has not given any explanation as to why the subsidiaries are to be exempt from the notification procedures of this legislation.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7.

After section 7 ofthe Principal Act the following section is inserted:- “7a. (1) The Minister, after consultation with the Chairman, may appoint persons to be associate members of the Tribunal. “(4) The Chairman may, by writing signed by him, direct that, for the purposes ofthe exercise ofthe powers of the Tribunal in connexion with an inquiry and report in relation to a specified matter, not being an exercise of those powers by a Division of the Tribunal, a specified associate member or specified associate members shall be deemed to be a member or members of the Tribunal and, in that case, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this Act to a member of the Tribunal shall, for the purposes only of the exercise of the powers of the Commission m connexion with that inquiry and report, be construed as including a reference to that associate member or each of those associate members, as the case may be.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

In proposed section 7a (4), omit ‘Commission’, substitute Tribunal’.

The purpose of this amendment is purely to correct a printing error which appeared in the original amending Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 15- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 16.

  1. 1 ) Section 1 8 ofthe Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the figures and word ‘30 days’ and substituting the figures and word 90 days’;
    2. by omitting from sub-section (2) the figures and word ‘30 days’ and substituting the figures and word 90 days’; and
    3. by omitting sub-section (8) and substituting the following sub-sections:-

*(8c) An exemption granted in pursuance of an authorization given under sub-section (8) shall not be revoked unless-

  1. the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances by reason of which the exemption was granted no longer exist or that there has been a material change in those circumstances; and
  2. the Chairman has given to the company or companies concerned 14 days’ notice in writing of his intention to revoke the exemption. ‘.

    1. Notwithstanding the amendment made by paragraph (D(c)-
  3. any authorization given by the Tribunal under subsection 18 (8) of the Principal Act that was in force immediately before the commencement of this subsection shall have effect as if it had been given under sub-section 1 8 ( 8 ) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act; and
  4. b) any exemption granted in pursuance of an authorization given under sub-section 18 (8) of the Principal Act, being an exemption that was in force immediately before the commencement of this sub-section, shall be deemed to have been granted in pursuance of an authorization given under sub-section 18(8) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-I wonder whether the Opposition will allow the Minister to move 4 amendments together. It seems to me that that will facilitate the conduct of the debate. Is leave granted? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

Before proposed sub-section (8C), insert the following sub-sections: “ ‘(8ba) For the purposes of this section-

‘market means a market in Australia; and

‘market’, in relation to any goods or services, includes a market for other goods or services that are substitutable for, or otherwise competitive with, the first-mentioned goods or services. (8bb) The grant of an exemption in pursuance of an authorization given under sub-section (8) shall not be made subject to any condition. ‘ ‘.

In sub-clause 2 ( a ) omit “ and “.

In sub-clause 2, at the end of paragraph (b), add “; and”.

At the end of sub-clause (2 ), add the following paragraph: “(c) where an exemption granted in pursuance of an authorization given under sub-section 18 (8) of the Principal Act, being an exemption that was in force immediately before the commencement of this subsection, is subject to a condition, that condition is of no effect.”.

The purpose of the amendments dealing with the definition of ‘market’ are to give greater clarity to the word ‘market’ as used in the clause. I think those 2 amendments are self-explanatory. The other amendments relate to the question of exemptions. The Government has decided to provide in the legislation that a company having obtained an exemption from the notification procedures of the Act is not required to comply with conditions attaching to that exemption. The legislation is being amended to expressly provide that when an exemption is granted by the Tribunal, if the exemption was in force immediately before the commencement of sub-clause (2) (c), and was subject to a condition, that condition will be of no effect. I stress that the question of whether an exemption is to be granted is a matter for the Tribunal to decide in the light of a number of considerations. Some of those considerations have been spelled out in the legislation but others have deliberately not been spelled out in the legislation. I think all honourable gentlemen will realise that when we get into areas such as trying to define what is competition, what is extensive competition and what is a monopoly position, that while the legislature can give some guidance it is extremely difficult to put in a complete shopping list which defines all the circumstances which will point one in a particular direction.

What the Government is trying to do with new clause 16 in the Bill is to indicate some of the areas to which it believes the Tribunal should, firstly, direct its mind and, secondly, having decided that a certain situation exists as a result of that decision, to treat those areas as being relevant matters. As I said in my second reading speech and I think, as I said in the statement which I attempted to make to the House some 2 months ago, the Government believes that where an exemption is granted the company which obtained the exemption should be entitled to the benefits of that exemption. The Government does not believe that exemptions which are granted and which have attached to them very considerable reporting conditions quite meet the objective of the exemption procedure. The exemption procedure is designed to ensure that if, for a combination of reasons, the Tribunal believes that a company should be exempt from the notification procedures- in other words, excused from complying with the notification procedures- then the company should be entitled to the full benefit of that decision of the Tribunal and not be in a situation where, on the one hand, a decision is made that circumstances justify the exemption being granted and then, on the other hand, find that some of the conditions attaching to the exemption go considerably along the way to restoring what might be the position if the exemption had not been granted in the first place. That is the rationale behind the amendment.

We believe that the amendments give effect to that point of view. They are consistent with what has been said publicly over the past 2 or 3 months about our proposal regarding the Prices Justification Tribunal. They are consistent with a situation where, more and more, the Tribunal will be in a situation to concentrate on investigating areas of price abuse. I think the amendments will clarify both in the minds of the Tribunal and of companies which must deal with the Tribunal what view the Government takes as to the nature of exemptions and what should be the consequences of those exemptions being granted.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 16 is a most outrageous provision introduced by the Government. This provision will, in effect, destroy the Tribunal. Honourable members ought to be in no doubt about the central importance of the exemption powers in the workings of the Tribunal. Section 18 of the Act, which deals with notification of proposed price increases, is the central provision of the Prices Justification Act. The exemption power is absolutely vital to the administration of that provision. I read very briefly what the Tribunal had to say about this power in its annual report for the year ending 30 June this year. It stated: the exemption power contained in the Prices Justification Act complements the notification power in 2 very important ways; first by providing an optional power and second, by providing the Tribunal with the means of exercising a discretion based on the circumstances and nature of individual cases.

The Tribunal has used that power to develop 12 categories of cases in which it grants exemption. The conditions of the exemption are largely standard in those categories. The Tribunal comments that the development of those categories has been of enormous practical value both from the Tribunal’s and the companies’ points of view. What the Government is proposing now, especially in the amendment just moved by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard), is that the grant of an exemption by the Tribunal cannot be made subject to any condition. I want to show how important it is that when granting an exemption the Tribunal ought to be able to impose conditions. The bona fides of the Minister, quite frankly, in this exercise is open to grave doubt. When he introduced the Bill on 1 1 November he stated:

The Government expects that in most cases exemptions will not be subject to reporting conditions.

He concluded:

The thrust of these changes is to ensure that exemptions are of real benefit to companies and that they do not have associated with them the onerous reporting conditions attaching to the notification procedures.

Since 1 1 November he has talked to someone else and someone else has convinced him that no conditions ought to attach to exemptions at all. He gave us no good reason why. He mentioned earlier by way of interjection that he was not in favour of the retail industry being subject even to the notification provisions of section 18. If one looks at that very difficult question of the retail industry one will see that it is precisely in that business that the Tribunal has developed exemption procedures that seem to work quite well. At page 43 of its annual report the Tribunal says:

  1. . the new exemptions-

That is, in relation to the retail industry- provide a better surveillance of the retailer’s operations yet there is little requirement for information not normally compiled by the companies in the course of their business operations.

Just how is it proposed that the Tribunal or in fact the Government is going to have any knowledge of what is going on in these industries unless the people who get the exemptions are subject to conditions on the way in which they conduct their businesses and unless they have to provide the Tribunal with a continuing body of information so that it remains expert in price surveillance? The Tribunal pointed up at page 45 of its report how very important is the information that comes to it as a result of the conditions imposed under exemption authorisations. Talking about inquiries pursuant to section 16 of the Act it said:

The initiative for these investigations came through advices received from the major retailers as a condition of retail exemption orders, from information about higher costs supplied by prescribed companies in support of notices of higher prices, and from information provided by members of the public.

Of the 3 ways in which the Tribunal gathers information which leads to a section 16 inquiry situation, the most important is the continuing reporting of conditions imposed under the exemption authorisations. Yet the Minister proposes to do away with those conditions. Not only does he propose to do away with those conditions prospectively but he proposes also to do away with them in relation to exemptions already granted. Of course, that is completely outrageous, because the kinds of matters in this new legislation to which the Tribunal is to direct its attention in granting authorisations were not statutory requirements at the time those previous exemptions were granted. It means in effect that where the Tribunal has granted exemption on one set of circumstances, and the Tribunal has said it will grant the exemption subject to certain conditions, the Minister is now saying that the exemption will stay in place; the conditions will not apply. Of course I can anticipate what the Minister will say, and that is that it is perfectly possible for the Tribunal at any time to revoke its authorisation of the exemption. He ought to be aware that to do that in every one of these cases where there is an existing exemption which imposes conditions would throw the whole system into chaos.

The orderly development of price surveillance, if that is what the Government wants, depends upon reliable information being provided to the Tribunal on a continuing basis. The way in which that is done under exemption, where an exemption is granted, is to impose conditions. The alternative is to revoke those exemptions and to insist in every case that there be a notification of the proposed price increase. How otherwise can the Tribunal develop any information? If one looks at the new provisions which the Government has inserted in relation to the exemption power one will see that in the proposed new subsection 8a which the Minister talks about as producing the integration of the provisions of the Prices Justification Act with those of the Trade Practices Act. He says in his second reading speech:

In respect of the first of these elements the Bill in effect copies the monopoly provision of the trade practices legislation. This will promote a greater consistency of approach between the deliberations of the Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission regarding the nature and structure of markets.

What absolute rubbish. Anybody familiar with the provisions of the Trade Practices Act would know that whether one is a monopolist or not is only one of the considerations that affect the many provisions of that Act which relate to competitive behaviour. The key question at which the Government ought to be looking is whether in fact there is price competition. That would be a relevant consideration for the granting of an exemption. But the fact that a company is or is not a monopolist is a complete red herring. The provisions of the Trade Practices Act relating to restraint of trade which govern price fixing, to exclusive dealing, to resale price maintenance and all these objectionable practices affecting competition and which affect cartels are directed to competition. It is not central to the question whether the company or groups of companies involved are monopolies. So it is a complete red herring, and to suggest in any event that this will lead to a greater integration of the work of the

Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission is nonsense.

The Tribunal is under staffed at the moment, as the Minister ought to know. The Tribunal has no expertise of the kind that the Trade Practices Commission has in relation to markets and the competitive effects of different companies’ activities in those markets. This provision is designed to give a wink and a nod to the Tribunal that if it can determine that a company is not a monopolist then it ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and it ought to be granted an exemption. That is clearly just not good enough. The exemption power contained in the provisions dealing with the notification of proposed price increases is absolutely central. By weakening it in this fashion the Government is ensuring that the Tribunal will not have access to the continuing knowledge and information which it needs about markets, about price movements in particular industries and in particular companies. One only has to look at the kind of information in the annual report for last year to see that it will not be available another time.

I want to say one other thing in relation to this legislation. The Minister talks about monitoring activity. How on earth is he to monitor activity when the Tribunal does not have this information? In his statement tabled on 16 September the Minister talked about a greater use of section 16. The Government has been in power for about a year and yet we have seen no use of section 16 and I do not expect that we ever shall. In any event how will the Government ever know what the activity is in any particular industry area unless it gets the information, which will be denied to it as a result of the provisions which it is introducing into this chamber tonight?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I would like to reply to a couple ofthe more extravagant remarks made by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) in his usual robust style. On the question of section 16 applications the honourable member for Grayndler upbraids the Government for not having utilised section 16 at all in the time it has been in office. It so happens that a proposed exercise of the section 16 power ofthe initiative of the Government occurred contemporaneously with a decision of the Tribunal at its own initiative to carry out an inquiry under section 16. The whole point of these amendments is to free the resources of the Tribunal which are now devoted to the notification procedures. As a consequence it will be possible for the Tribunal to play a much greater role in the area of section 16 inquiries, particularly inquiries which are in response to complaints expressed by consumers about price abuse.

The honourable member for Grayndler should realise that there exists in Australia now a considerable number of bodies which receive complaints and information from consumers about pricing practices. As a result of contact which is operating very well between the Trade Practices Commission, my own Department and the various consumer affairs bureaux of the States we are steadily getting into a better position to have an Australia-wide appreciation of the incidence of consumer complaints regarding pricing behaviour. As a consequence of this it will be possible for the Government to identify areas where there is public concern about the level of prices which are charged. I call to mind the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). Even if one has the same philosophical view about pricing as was expressed by the Opposition during this debate, having a federal body such as the Prices Justification Tribunal endeavouring to sift through large numbers of price notifications is a considerable difficulty and it will continue to be a growing difficulty. What the Government is really saying is this: Free the Prices Justification Tribunal from many ofthe responsibilities and constraints involved in the notification procedure, give it the opportunity to be more active in responding to areas where there is consumer concern about price abuse. The Government believes it can play a far more useful role.

The Opposition has commented during this debate about staffing levels in the Prices Justification Tribunal and about the salary situation there. I assure the House again that the Tribunal has been treated no differently by the Government, with respect to the Government’s expenditure restraints and staff ceiling restraints, than any other body. There has been no attempt by the Government to single out the Tribunal for discriminatory treatment. Of course the future of the Tribunal was in doubt for a period of time. We make no secret of that. It was in doubt because the Government was in the process of consulting interested parties, including the trade union movement and sections of the business community, regarding the future of the Tribunal. It was only natural that there would be doubt during that period of time. The Government understood fully the difficulties under which the Tribunal laboured during that period. Let us not beat about the bush. The Government gave a pre-election undertaking that the Tribunal would be abolished. Then, for the reasons I have explained, that undertaking was revised and the

Government undertook to look at the body again. It was only natural that there would be a period of doubt, a period during which the future of the Tribunal would be in the grey area, but that doubt has now been removed.

The role of the Tribunal will be significantly changed by this legislation. The honourable member for Grayndler complains about our approach to the exemption procedures. The fact of the matter is that, as a result of fluctuations in a company’s profitability, it can go quite arbitrarily in and out of the notification procedures. Under the proposed amendment if a company has a turnover of $3 1 m and this figure then falls to a figure below $30m, it goes out of the notification procedures. The information that the Tribunal gathers, as a consequence of that, is also lost to the Tribunal. What the Government is putting is that if the Tribunal, while exercising its judgment and discretion, believes for a combination of reasons, including, not only that a monopoly position exists, but also that there are aS sorts of other factors, that a company should be exempted from the notification procedures, that company ought to be entitled to the same benefits of that exemption as is a company which may be below the turnover limit. I put it to the Opposition that the approach of the honourable member for Grayndler is that we should have an exemption situation which says, on the one hand: Yes, you have satisfied certain criteria. For a combination of reasons you should not be required to notify. On the other hand, we are going to attach reporting requirements as a condition of your receiving that exemption ‘. In many cases these requirements could be almost as onerous as the notification procedures themselves.

The fact of the matter is that, in substantial areas where exemptions have been granted, the notification procedures have been quite onerous. The purpose of this further amendment is to make it perfectly clear that in the view of the Government if a company is entitled, according to the assessment of the Tribunal, to the benefit of an exemption, this should be a real benefit and a benefit which the company is entitled to enjoy to the fullest.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want very briefly to call in aid the views of another person to the effect that the exemptions, with conditions, are an important part of the operations ofthe Prices Justification Tribunal in Australia. In today’s edition of the Australian Financial Review, Mr Russell Scott writes:

It has developed a system of granting conditional exemptions, particularly for retailers.

This frees a retailer from the impossible task of notifying the PJT of every price variation of every product on sale, but usually involves the duty to lodge regular accounts and financial information showing profit figures.

In other words, although the retailer is able to increase rices without telling the PJT, the PJT receives regular (e.g. alf-yearly) -

I trunk it is more often quarterly- profit and trading information which would allow it to carry out an inquiry if it wished, or to revoke the exemption.

Mr Scott singles out retailers. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) will know that this applies to other industries as well. I think that when Mr Scott wrote that article he took the optimistic view about the Government’s alterations to the legislation. He had in mind only the legislation introduced on 11 November. If he had been aware of proposed new sub-section 1 8 ( 8bb) or of the effect of paragraph 2 (c) of clause 16 of this measure, he would have thought that the effect would be to destroy effectively prices justification in Australia.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken together.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I am particularly concerned about clause 17 which amends the Principal Act:

  1. by omitting sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following sub-sections: - “( 1 ) Subject to sub-section ( 1A), an inquiry conducted by the Tribunal shall be held in public. “( IA) If every party to an inquiry to be conducted by the Tribunal (other than a person or body of persons that became a party to the inquiry by virtue of section 20) gives notice in writing to the Tribunal, before the commencement of the inquiry, stating that that party does not wish the inquiry to be held in public, the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, hold the inquiry in private.

I think this sets a very dangerous precedent because it means that there will be a very distinct tendency- it was not there before- for more and more companies and people who go before the Tribunal to endeavour to ensure that the inquiries into their pricing practices are held in private. This is one of the fundamental issues arising from this Bill.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is a new notion.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That is right. I agree with the honourable member. For example, let us consider devaluation and the rip-offs that will occur as a result of that decision.

Mr James:

– Rip-offs or strip-offs?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The matter to which the honourable member refers occurred in a different place. Let us consider rip-offs with regard to imported goods, as a result of devaluation.

Mr Bourchier:

– Tell us about our export business.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The honourable member is apparently not concerned about the fact that members ofthe public can be taken down. He is not concerned in any respect whatsoever to protect the general public. Honourable members opposite are only looking after the interests of those people who put funds into their election coffers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles:

– Order! The honourable member might dodge the dogfight if he addresses the Chair.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, but some honourable members opposite are so provocative one just has to reply. As I was pointing out, there will be considerable rip-offs following devaluation. This means that there is an even greater need than ever for price fixing machinery. The Minister, in his second reading speech, admits quite definitely that this amending legislation means price surveillance instead of price approval. It is not necessary to have huge machinery for price surveillance. It is comparatively simple to undertake surveillance of price movements. Surveillance means the monitoring of movements in prices. It is different altogether from price approval. Of course, anybody can go in for price surveillance. I submit very firmly that the teeth have been taken out of this whole Act.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Talk about the fees of the directors of Patricks, the stevedores.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That was a public inquiry. The facts behind the case which the honourable member for Grayndler mentions would never have been known to the public if it had not been for the public inquiry provisions of the Act as it has so far stood. The facts are that parties not subject to an inquiry should be able to ensure that they can find out what practices are being used. One must ask the Government and the Minister the reason for suddenly agreeing to the secrecy. I think the Minister should explain why such secrecy suddenly has been introduced.

I wish also to make the point that the legislation has acted as a deterrent to price increases because of the fear of unfair and nefarious pricing practices being revealed in a public inquiry. That has been one of the most effective activities of the Tribunal in the past. It has meant that improper acts would be revealed to the public at large and that in due course the public would take it out on the company concerned. That has been most useful. It is to be regretted very greatly that the Government is now bowing to pressure from those organisations which perpetrated nefarious pricing practices to now vary the Act to make it easier for those organisations to obtain a secret inquiry.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He did not mention it in the second reading speech either.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– No, the Minister did not. As a matter of fact I went right through the second reading speech to try to find some reference to it. The honourable member for Grayndler is quite right. I have sat here this afternoon going right through the second reading speech to try to find a reference to this part of the Act. It is not there. We can go on through these points, but I still make the point which I made in the first place. The Government gave certain undertakings to the trade union movement. I know that before the election it gave an undertaking that it would abolish the Tribunal. The Government is virtually abolishing it now. It is taking the teeth right out of it. Subsequent to giving that undertaking there were understandings with the trade union movement. Honourable members opposite should not kid themselves. They have received fairly good co-operation from the trade union movement up to date. They are now deliberately confronting the trade union movement. Up to this point of time they have received good co-operation. One reason for that cooperation was the understanding that the Tribunal would be retained. They are now going through the back door and virtually abolishing it. They are destroying its effectiveness. They are taking the teeth out of the whole organisation.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– Let me just tell the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) 2 things on the question of public inquiries. Firstly, it is purely at the discretion of the Prices Justification Tribunal whether an inquiry shall be held in public. There is no question, the discretion is in the hands of the Tribunal. It can only consider not holding an inquiry in public if all the parties involved make such a request. It is still ultimately -

Mr Armitage:

– Why have you introduced it?

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Because at some inquiries the parties, even though they have opposing interests, may wish to have the inquiry held in private. It is very unlikely that many inquiries would fall into that category. I assure the honourable member for Chifley that I would be very surprised if all the various parties to the inquiry to which he alluded had wanted it to be carried out in public.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Howard)- by leaveread a third time.

page 3174

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I claim to have been misrepresented. Today’s Daily Mirror- a. newspaper which is always trying to denigrate parliamentarians- carries a sensational headline which reads ‘Girl Strips before MPs’. As an MP in this Parliament I wish to make it clear that I was not present when any girl stripped in Parliament House, nor was any member of the Australian Labor Party. I understand all those present were members of the Liberal and National Country Parties.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 3174

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Estate Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1 976. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment BUI (No. 2) 1976. States Grants (Fruit-Growing Reconstruction) Bill 1 976.

page 3174

LONG SERVICE LEAVE (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 October, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate on this Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill 1976 and the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 as they are associated measures. Separate questions, of course, will be put on each of these Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Therefore, I suggest that the House permits the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 Bills? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Two ofthe Bills now before the House provide improvements to long service leave benefits, or furlough as it is otherwise known, for Australian Government employees. The other Bill relates to the quite different matter of establishing a separate Public Service for the Northern Territory. The Opposition does not oppose any of these Bills.

Firstly I should like to refer to the long service leave Bills. The Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1976 provides for a number of improvements in long service leave benefits all of which were proposed in a Bill last year by the Labor Government. That Bill was introduced into the House in May last year. It was not proceeded with before Labor’s untimely removal from office. There is, however, one important difference between Labor’s Bill and that Bill now before the House which I will explain later. It is appropriate at this time to note that the need to improve the long service leave entitlement of Australian Government employees in recent years has been a matter of agreement on both sides of the House to some extent, although not in every respect. Before Labor came into office in 1972, the McMahon Government proposed a number of improvements to the furlough provisions, although the timing of it made it suspiciously look like an election gimmick. On 26 October 1 972- only a week before the issuing of the writs for the Federal election that year, the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, issued a Press release which, in part, read:

The Public Service Board has reviewed (long service leave) provisions for Commonwealth officers and employees, having regard to various representations, including those from staff associations. The Government has approved the Board’s recommendations for a number of legislative amendments. These include: Reduction ofthe basic Qualifying period from IS to 10 years; provision for furlough to be made a right; payment to the estate of a deceased officer or employee where there are no dependants; extension of furlough to part-time employees; recognition for furlough purposes of prior services to local governing bodies.

Of course, no legislation to implement these conditions was passed in the following week before the issuing of the writs so, it then rested with the Labor Government to implement such improvements. Labor’s policy called for improvements in long service leave for Australian Government employees. In pursuance of that policy the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced in April 1973 that the Government intended to legislate for a considerable number of improvements which included all those proposed by Mr McMahon but added a number of others. The new items which were included in

Mr Whitlam ‘s Press release of 3 April 1973 were:

Removal of all provisions which provide a furlough penalty to an officer or employee because of conduct record or dismissal . . . anc? new accrual rate of 3 months for the first 10 years and one-half month per year thereafter.

Removal of the provision for payment in lieu of furlough on resignation due to domestic or other pressing necessity.

Payment in lieu of furlough based on completed months in respect of a partly completed year of service.

Removal of the 12 months limitation on the period of furlough which may be granted at any one time . . .

Recognition of leave without pay granted to officers or employees under Section 7 1 ( 1 ) (a) of the Public Service Act to accept employment as staff association officers as qualifying service for furlough purposes with the Commonwealth being liable only for Commonwealth service proper.

In his Press release, he also stated:

All improvements to be available to officers and employees who were in Commonwealth employment on or after 1 January 1973.

This was a much more comprehensive list of proposals than that which had been announced by Mr McMahon. Following this statement of intent, legislation eventually was introduced at the end of 1973 to implement some of these provisions. The benefits were passed by the Parliament- without debate, I might add- at that time. They were, firstly, a reduction of the qualifying period from 15 years to 10 years; secondly, removal of long service leave penalties associated with unsatisfactory service or misconduct; thirdly, elimination of provision for payment in lieu of furlough on resignation due to domestic or other pressing necessity.

In December 1974 Cabinet approved legislation to introduce the various other amendments foreshadowed in the April 1973 statement of intent but with a few revisions. The original proposal to allow payment in lieu of furlough after 5 years service on cessation for any reason was discarded and a few new provisions were added. These were the revision of the definition of ‘authority of State’ to reduce the need to specify bodies in regulations which was purely a machinery matter; provision that no leave without pay breaks continuity of service and the employing authority, or the Board, may determine whether leave counts as service; no form of full time post-defence forces service vocational training scheme breaks continuity of service; absence due to ill health from any relevant service for furlough purposes does not break continuity; and exclusion from the legislation of locally engaged staff overseas, other than those employed before the amending legislation.

It was also stated again that these improvements would apply from 1 January 1973. In May 1975 a Bill to implement these substantial proposals was introduced into the House. As I have already indicated, the Bill had not been passed before the Opposition blocked supply and eventually seized office. The long service leave Bill now before the House incorporates all of the provisions of the 1975 Bill with one exception; that is the increase in the accrual rate for long service leave entitlement after 10 years service from one-third of a month to one-half a month a year. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) says that such an improvement would have set an unduly generous standard which could lead to pressure on other employers to match it. In fact, however, the standard for Commonwealth Government employees at present is one of the lower levels of furlough entitlement for Government employees in this country. Three States provide a higher rate of accumulation of long service leave entitlement than the Commonwealth. They are New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out a comparison of cumulative totals of furlough entitlements for the various State public services, the Commonwealth Public Service, and those provided for in the 1975 Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr WILLIS:

-The table shows that the rates of accumulation were rather lower in the Commonwealth Public Service than in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, as I have already mentioned. For instance, after 20 years the Australian Public Service entitlement is 6.3 months which compares with 7 months for New South Wales Government employees and 6.5 months for Queensland Government employees. After 30 years it is 9 months for the Australian Public Service, 12 months for the New South Wales Government employees, 12 months for Western Australian Government employees and 9.75 months for Queensland Government employees, and so on. After 50 years the comparison was 15 months for Australian Public Servants, 22 months for New South Wales Government employees, 21 months for Western Australian Government employees, and 16.25 months for Queensland Government employees. The Labor Government proposals would have raised the level for the Commonwealth Government employees to only fractionally above that of New South Wales and Western Australia. Therefore they were not setting any substantially new standard but rather were bringing the Australian Public Service standard and that of other Australian Government employees up to a level fractionally above that applying in New South Wales and Western Australia.

Turning to the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2), as I mentioned earlier this Bill is part of the process of establishing a separate Public Service in the Northern Territory. The Bill provides for the transfer of Australian public servants to the new Northern Territory Public Service which will be established by the Northern Territory Public Service Ordinance. That ordinance is already before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation but it does have a couple of reservations about it. Those reservations principally relate to the welfare of officers who will be transferred out of the Commonwealth Public Service into the Northern Territory Public Service. I understand it is proposed initially to transfer 260 officers out of the Australian Public Service into the Northern Territory service with effect from 1 January 1977. Eventually more than 6000 officers will be transferred. In transferring to the Northern Territory Public Service these public servants will be entering a very different service from the Australian Public Service. The Territory service being much smaller obviously it will not offer anything like the diversity of job opportunities that are available to members of the Australian Public Service. This could pose real problems for recruitment in the future in that young able people who may have been prepared to serve in the Department of the Northern Territory for some years but did not wish to spend their whole careers there could now be reluctant to join such a limited service. On the other hand others who see rapid promotional opportunities in the new public service may be very enthusiastic about the new arrangements but they are likely to be the more senior officers. The possibility of recruitment problems in the future, particularly of the most capable people, is one to which the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) may wish to give some consideration.

The major problem, as we see it, is the haste with which the Government is rushing into this action of establishing the Northern Territory Public Service. Here we are at the beginning of December with less than a month to go before the new service comes into operation and still, so I am informed, no notices of transfer have been issued by the Minister. Admittedly, until this Bill is passed, he does not have power to transfer officers to the new service but in practice that does not stop him issuing notices pending the passing of this Bill by the Parliament. Staff who receive notice soon, and surely it must be within the next week or so, will be faced with having to decide in just 3 weeks approximately whether they wish to go to the new service or whether they prefer to resign and seek other employment as some may do when they realise the full implications of transfer. I understand that this matter has been concerning the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and that it has requested the Minister for the Northern Territory to consider delaying implementation of the legislation until the middle of next year. So far it has received no reply from the Minister. If such deferment were adopted then staff who are to be transferred would be able to give full and adequate consideration to their options.

One matter which will be of concern to staff who are to be transferred will be the fact that although provision is to be made by regulation for them to be able to transfer to the Commonwealth Public Service, in practice it is not likely to be at all easy for them to do so. There is no guarantee of acceptance back into the Commonwealth Public Service. Thus staff who may now be living in Brisbane or Canberra and who do not want to go to the Territory on a permanent basis will have to contemplate what they are going to do and they are being given little time to make what for them and their families are quite crucial decisions.

I should also mention that this Bill, by giving the Minister power to transfer Commonwealth public servants to the Northern Territory Public Service, appears to over-ride the provision in the Public Service Act which enables officers to decline transfer. Thus the only choice effectively being offered to those who are to be transferred is either to accept transfer or resign. The decision to resign is not one which any public servant is likely to take lightly and in the view ofthe Opposition more time should have been available for the full implications of the establishment of the new service to be understood by all officers before it was implemented.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-The 3 Bills we are debating tonight cover important provisions for public servants. The Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees Bill) 1976 and the Public Service Amendment Bill 1976 relate to changes in the long service leave conditions of Commonwealth Government staff and staff of statutory bodies. Both are important to people in the Commonwealth Public Service work force. They also relate to employment in Papua New Guinea. Persons concerned will have certain rights if in the future they have to join or do join the Public Service or statutory bodies after leaving Papua New Guinea. The other Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2), was introduced to facilitate the transfer of Australia Government Public Service staff to the Northern Territory Public Service as a further step in the constitutional development of the Northern Territory.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the first 2 Bills I mentioned are particularly important to the people of Canberra. Some 55 000 people in Canberra rely on the Government or statutory authorities for their employment. The third Bill I referred to also is particularly important to public servants employed in the Department of the Northern Territory as the Northern Territory moves towards statehood. It is also important to my electorate as the Australia Capital Territory is moving towards a greater measure of responsibility for its own affairs, albeit short of statehood. Undoubtedly public servants in Canberra will carefully watch the implementation of statehood in the Northern Territory as it will be a guide to their position when Canberra creates its own local administrative structure.

In discussing the long service leave provisions I would like to say how proud I am that the Government I support has implemented this legislation, and similar legislation for the private sector, albeit not as generous, in its first year of government. The legislation for both sectors honours promises made by the Liberal and National Country Parties during the recent election campaign and, with respect to the Public Service, in 1972 by the McMahon Government. I took some interest in the claims of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that the Labor Party would have made the legislation more wide-ranging. My simple answer to that claim has to be that the Labor Government had a good deal of time to implement its more wideranging provisions but it did not introduce such a Bill until IS May. I do not think that the excuse that it was denied the right to get that legislation through because of the events of December last year really stands up. It had almost a whole year to get that legislation through after making promises in 1973 that it would do so. It did not get it done. I suggest that it seems that the Bill that the Labor Government introduced in May was a little more emaciated than some of the lofty promises it had made earlier. My only conclusion about this is that that Government must have been becoming aware of the realities of the broken economy it had created and realised it could not continue to give largesse in a benevolent and irresponsible way to public servants in this city.

I do not very much like making political points in debates such as this but I think it very important, particularly when my electorate is having rather a rough time, to point out and remind the people of Australia who wrecked the Australian economy, who wrought the damage to our economic foundation and who in Opposition have not profited by the lessons they should have learnt over those terrifying 3 years. As we have heard from the honourable member for Gellibrand, unfortunately the handout mentality still exists. Honourable members on the Opposition side seem to be continuing to say, as they have said over the last few weeks: ‘To hell with the economic consequences, be popular and give away the people’s taxes’. That is a continuation ofthe sort of economic vandalism we have seen from the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) while exercising his ego over the last few months in relation to devaluation. That man is now smugly taking pride in prophesying the inevitability of devaluation which he did so much to ensure as a senior and once respected member of the Opposition. One of the most irresponsible acts of 1 976 was the former Treasurer undermining the confidence of a whole nation by saying that devaluation had to happen.

The long service leave Bills proceed with the changes set out in the Bill introduced by the Labor Government in May last year, with the exception of the proposed increases in the rate of long service leave accrual. The proposition in these Bills maintains the existing basic entitlement of three-tenths of a month’s leave, that is 9 days, for every year of service, to be taken after 10 years of service- that is, 3 months ‘ leave after 10 years service. Honourable members will remember that the former Government’s offer was marginally more generous, as it offered the same entitlement for the first 10 years but thereafter the entitlement accrued at the rate of 15 days a year rather than the 9 days a year that is included in this legislation. The Labor proposal offered this for service only after 1 January 1973. Service before that gained credit at the normal rate. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made it quite clear that the Government could not see its way clear, in the present economic circumstances, to grant such a significant change in accrual rates. It is clear that the Labor Party had similar thoughts last year when it introduced a caveat on the longer long service leave entitlements by having the bench mark of 1 January 1973 to limit the extra provisions.

The 2 long service leave Bills tidy up provisions in this area, but they do much more than that. I would like to canvass the more important changes which, in the main, have their genesis in the policies announced by the Liberal-Country Party Government in the latter part of 1972. A very important provision is the extension of long service leave entitlement to part time employees. The Public Service and statutory authorities employ many thousands of part time people. Many of these people have worked for very many years in that capacity because it suits their lifestyle and their family commitments. These people have not had the benefit of entitlement to long service leave- a right which they had earned. The machinery provisions to implement this change are complex and take in the variations in service of an employee over time- that is, the work mix of some full time and some part time- and also make allowances for periods when the employee may have ceased work for relatively short periods or have been given leave without pay. Details of that can be seen in clause 20 ofthe Bill.

Another most important provision, one which flows directly from the proposals of the former Government, is that an employee will receive payment in lieu of long service leave after one year’s service where employment ceases due to death, ill health, retrenchment or aged retirement. The present position is that such payment in lieu can be made only after at least 4 years’ service. The recognition of prior service with local government bodies is another very important provision. This will make for greater flexibility in respect of people moving from one area of employment to another. Employees will receive credit for employment with local government bodies when they join the Commonwealth Public Service or a statutory body. The equity is clear. It will obviously be of considerable benefit to many people who have at least felt in part that they were becoming locked into employment in the local government sphere. Their opportunity to seek promotion and job enrichment without disadvantaging themselves is increased substantially.

The anomaly of limiting payment in lieu of long service leave only to dependants on death of an employee has been removed. This anomaly was quite iniquitous. Earlier this year I had a case in which an elderly migrant father of a public servant who had been killed in a car accident had no right to his son’s long service leave entitlement. The father used his life savings to pay for a decent funeral but could not claim any amount of funds in lieu of long service leave entitlement because technically he was not a dependant of his son. Under this legislation that man will now be paid.

The long service leave Bills contain provisions to ensure that persons in public employment in Papua New Guinea prior to Independence who worked for the independent state of Papua New Guinea after Independence and who then entered or who in the future may enter Commonwealth employment will get entitlements. Obviously this is a most important provision as Papua New Guinea moves to nationhood and replaces Australian nationals with its own trained staff. Another useful and interesting set of provisions is that designed to ensure that minor interruptions to service will not cause an employee to lose entitlement to long service leave. A break in service of less than 12 months will not cause an employee to lose his or her entitlement. A woman who was working as a typist in local government in Sydney, who was shifted with her family to Canberra, who took the opportunity of settling her family in the Canberra community, who was off work for no longer than 12 months and who then decided to take a job with the Public Service, would continue to have an entitlement to long service leave credits. This would be of considerable benefit to her. The period off work would not be included in assessing the long service leave entitlement.

Leave without pay will not break continuity and may, if the employing authority or the Public Service otherwise determines, count as service. Leave without pay to undertake full time employment as a union official counts as service for the qualifying period. I think that raises a question of some interest to members of Parliament. It seems to me that, if a public servant can maintain his long service leave credits when he works full time for a union, serious consideration should be given to allowing public servants who become members of Parliament and who, for some reason or other, return to the Public Service, to continue to have the entitlement. Mem- ‘ bers of Parliament are serving their country as well as trade unionists are. I suggest that the trade unionists among us in this Parliament should make some moves in that direction. Full time training under post-defence forces vocational training schemes will not break continuity of service, so that a serviceman can leave the forces, do his retraining under the vocational training scheme, join a statutory authority or the Commonwealth Public Service and maintain his continuity for long service leave purposes. Absence due to ill health does not break continuity. One of the most important provisions in this legislation is that it will have retrospective operation to 1 January 1973. This is being done to honour the intention of the former LiberalCountry Party Government as announced in 1972.

I pass to the legislation in respect of the Northern Territory. I think that was very carefully and thoughtfully dealt with by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I do not think there is very much for me to say on that matter, except perhaps to expand a little on what I said earlier in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) is busily explaining to the people of Canberra what greater responsibility will mean. A lot of work is being done in government and in the Public Service to work out the details of that. There is considerable disquiet among some public servants in Canberra as to what will happen when they transfer from the Commonwealth

Public Service-from the Department of the Capital Territory and other areas involved in running Canberra. There is some feeling, albeit a psychological or emotional feeling, that if they join another body which does not have quite the stature of the national Public Service, somehow or other they will be second grade citizens in the national capital. It will be extremely important for us to watch very carefully how this legislation works in the Northern Territory and to ensure that we profit from that experience. The operation of this scheme in the Northern Territory will have a lead time of at least some months on legislation which is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory. This will enable us to ensure that the difficulties which have been forshadowed by the honourable member for Gellibrand do not create problems and, psychologically, do not cause the people in the Capital Territory administration to feel that they are losing any stature when compared with other public servants. I am certain that the mechanical provisions of the new legislation will guard their legal and employment positions. But I say to the Minister for the Capital Territory that I think it is most important psychologically that the feeling of people who have been working in the Public Service in this national capital for the people of the Australian Capital Territory should be guarded in every way. This aspect should be safeguarded most carefully.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this legislation, basically because it embodies the objectives that the Labor Party set out to achieve in its short term of office. Contrary to what the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) said, the passage of the Labor Party’s legislation on this subject was not stopped by the events of 11 November or 13 December. It was the extended period of obstruction and frustration which went on for many, many months before the events of 11 November which stopped our legislation. Our Bill on this subject was just one of the victims of that period of intense frustration suffered by the Labor Government. It is only just that this legislation should be made retrospective to 1973. That is the least that this Government could do.

Generally, we applaud the Bill. We welcome it. It is pleasing to see that all long service leave conditions wilt now come under the one Act. People who are permanent, temporary, parttime or part-time temporary employees will all be covered. Many people in Canberra have been employed on a part-time basis for many years. Among the disadvantages of being a part time and not a full time employee is the lack of reward for service and lack of financial security which are embodied in many ways in long service leave conditions. We welcome these provisions on those grounds. There are many other aspects of the legislation which we applaud. It is good to see the removal of the limit on long service leave to 12 months. Again, this provision was a disincentive for people to serve for long periods in the Public Service.

Another heartening provision is the portability of long service leave entitlements being extended to people who enter the Commonwealth Public Service from local government. Most people will agree that the 2 levels of government- federal and local- will improve if there is a greater interchange of personnel between those and other levels of government. Lack of portability of long service leave entitlements was one disincentive. We applaud this provision. We hope that it will result in a greater interchange of people among the different levels of government.

However, there are a couple of aspects of the Bill about which we are not happy. I will mention these briefly. This Bill is less generous than the former Labor Government’s legislation in its proposed rate of accrual of long service leave after 10 years. The honourable member for Canberra referred to this. The difference is quite substantial. Under the Labor Party’s legislation, after 10 years’ service 5 months’ leave was accumulated for that 10 years ‘ service. This legislation provides 3 months’ leave for 10 years’ service. In adopting this standard, the Government has failed to acknowledge the need for and the justice of a higher rate of accrual for people as they become more senior in their service and of the greater need for them to take longer periods of long service leave.

I believe that the attitude of the Labor Party on this aspect was most progressive; the passage of such a provision would have been most welcome. Had it been introduced it would have provided an added incentive to the Public Service and would have resulted in better service in the Public Service. After all, this provision is a far cry from the ideas which are current in some of the more progressive countries of the world where some form of sabbatical leave is being considered. That is the direction in which we should be looking. Certainly, in view of what is happening under the present Government, such an attitude would be quite inappropriate. Instead of looking backwards as this Government is doing, we should be looking forward to the day when it will be practical to talk about sabbatical leave in the Public Service. I hope that at some future time this will become a subject for serious discussion. The idea of the present Government is not to provide incentives and, in fact, to provide disincentives for people to serve in the Public Service.

The other important aspect of the scheme which, I think, can very justly be criticised is that relating to the invalidity provisions. One category of people will be worse off under the provisions of this legislation. While I recognise generally the progressive aspects of this legislation, it is unfortunate that any provision should mean that some people will be worse off. This is the position in relation to the furlough provision which allows pro rata three-tenths of a month for any year or part of a year whereas, under the present provisions, there is a minimum furlough allowance of 2 months for periods from 4 years to 8 years. In other words, anybody with 4 years’ service who was invalided out of the Public Service received a minimum of 2 months’ furlough. Under the proposed three-tenths of a month pro rata provision in this legislation, an employee would need to serve 7 years before, on invalidity, that employee was entitled to 2 months’ furlough.

As I said, at present furlough of 2 months is available after 4 years’ service. People who fall into that category and who are invalided out of the Public Service are certainly worse off under this legislation. That fact cannot be denied. Under the existing legislation, invalidity after 7 years’ service would attract a furlough entitlement of 2.1 months. Invalidity occurring between 4 years and 7 years service under this legislation would result in the public servant being definitely worse off. Those 2 provisions in relation to furlough invalidity payments and the lower accrual rate mean that this legislation is certainly inferior to the Labor Party’s legislation.

In his second reading speech, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) said

The remaining changes, on the other hand, are generally supported by practices elsewhere.

This claim is quite misleading, as the honourable member for Gellibrand has pointed out. In fact, 3 States have legislation which is better than what this legislation proposes. In New South Wales entitlements after service of 20 years, 30 years, 40 years and 50 years are relatively better than what this legislation proposes. Long service entitlements in Western Australia are superior for service of 15 years, 30 years, 40 years and 50 years. The long service leave provisions in Queensland are better right across the board. We often say nasty things about Queensland, but it has much more progressive long service leave provisions than are available in Canberra. Public servants in Queensland are approximately 10 per cent better off in the accrual rate of long service leave right across the board.

So, in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, long service leave conditions are superior to the provisions contained in this legislation. The Commonwealth provisions will be basically the same as those applying in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. The Commonwealth’s provisions are not better than those of any State in the Commonwealth. There is no suggestion that, through this legislation, the Commonwealth is to be the pacesetter in respect of long service leave conditions. The provisions in this legislation are very mediocre. Generally, when a new scheme is introduced, it represents an improvement on existing schemes. That is not so in this case. The new scheme will be worse than those in 3 States and the equal of the schemes in the other 3 States. It is not better than the scheme in any State. No aspect of it represents pacesetting.

The complexity of Australian Government operations today- particularly when we consider the type of government that we have now at the federal level- demands an extremely competent Public Service. We should provide conditions which will attract the very best people in the land to the Commonwealth Public Service. I do not think we should be satisfied to have conditions which are second-best, third-best or the equal of others. I think there is a much more demanding job to be done and we should be, if anything, a little bit better than the States. We should be the pacesetters. I do not think we should apologise for being pacesetters because, as I have said, government today demands the very best brains and the best trained people we can attract in the community. We will certainly not attract those people by offering long service leave conditions that do not compare favourably with those of other States.

The other aspect, of course, which we will have to consider later and which also indicates the lack of the Government’s awareness of the need for a very high standard of Public Service is the idea that has been put up in other legislation for management initiated retirement. What a great incentive that is going to be to the Aus.tralian Public Service! It is just another indication of the lack of imagination and the lack of appreciation of the need to attract the very best people to the Service by the present Government. It is to be deplored. Of course, that is the subject of other legislation which we will have the opportunity to discuss later. Generally we applaud the legislation now under consideration. It is progressive in some respects. It is just bringing us up to date with some of the States. It leaves us behind 3 States. It is not as good as the former Labor Government’s proposal in respect of the accrual rate, and it certainly disadvantages certain people in respect of provisions relating to furlough.

It was very good to hear my colleague the honourable member for Canberra admit that people in Canberra had in fact been having a tough time. They have been having a very tough time since 1 3 December last year. This, of course, will not make it any easier when they compare their situation with that of people in other areas. I do not want to go through the reason why they are going through a tough time because that is well known to everyone. When my colleague admits it there is no need for me to press the point.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I want to support the remarks that were made by my friend the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry). I agree that the Government has taken at least one useful step during its term of office, namely the consolidation of the long service leave provisions for the Commonwealth public servants. For too long this Parliament has tinkered with pieces of legislation ad infinitum, stacking them end on end so that we are disadvantaged in the way we debate them and the citizen who is trying to find out his or her rights and eligibility in respect of various things is also disadvantaged. So perhaps instead of doing some of the other things that this Government is doing it might concentrate on the consolidation of legislation.

As my friend the honourable member for Fraser has pointed out, there are still some serious disadvantages flowing to some people. I would like to refer to a question raised in the second reading speech of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters (Mr Street), namely the question of the accrual rate which we increased last year and which has now been dropped from the Bill. As I read the Minister’s second reading speech the theory is that if we allowed certain provisions we would be advancing Commonwealth public servants to such a level that a dangerous precedent would be set in the community. It is argued that the other members of the community would look at public servants green with envy and demand that their rights and eligibilities should be increased to that level. It is further argued that if this were done there would be the devil to pay in the economy and so on. This argument is used consistently as an excuse for not doing anything in the present economic situations.

The honourable member for Fraser has pointed out that the legislation falls a long way short of establishing new trends or making public servants the pacesetters in the Australian community. I say emphatically that it is important for the Government of this country and for the continuance of good government of this country that the Australian Public Service should be the best employer in the country. I cannot think of any reason at all why it should not be not so much a trend setter as a standard bearer. The community as a whole is more dependent in a large measure upon the work of public servants than it is upon the work of people employed in private industry. I know that the common jargon says: ‘Well, three-quarters of the people are working in private industry and therefore you have to transfer all sorts of advantages to them’. But the facts of life in the community are that the real machinery for making society work lies in the hands of governments- municipal, federal and State governments and public authorities. It is also true that industry relies in a large measure upon the Public Service system for the sinews of war. Transport, communications, power, gas and a great deal of banking, insurance and so on are in public hands in this country.

It is my strongly held view that as time marches on the private sector will become decreasingly significant in the whole social arrangements. As productivity rises in the manufacturing sector fewer and fewer people will be employed in it, and fewer and fewer establishments will be involved to supply the community with its needs. The transfer of enterprise to the public arena will have to be accelerated, not reduced. To handle these arrangements we will have to demand the best brains and the best people and give them the best opportunities that the community can offer. I think it is a major heresy to try to reduce the competence of the Australian Public Service either by reducing its working conditions, by keeping it behind other areas, or by regarding it as an undue expense. I am glad that people such as part-time employees will be cared for a little better under this legislation.

I want to support some of the remarks made by our colleague the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem). It is not often that I agree with him, but occasionally he must be right. I refer to the remarks that he made about public servants being elected to parliaments. I was a member of the Victorian teaching service when I was elected to this Parliament. I would like to refer to the history of a member of the Victorian teaching service who was elected to the Victorian Parliament in 1947 or 1948, He was a member of a Labor government. He was defeated at a subsequent election and returned to his service at the bottom of the list. Subsequently in 1952 a Labor government was returned and it set to work to change the legislation so that people who were elected to the Victorian Parliament from the Victorian Public Service would be able to return to their jobs with all rights reserved. Subsequently, just before I was elected to this Parliament, the Act was changed- as a matter of fact it was a good piece of behaviour by a Liberal government- so that people elected to the Australian Parliament would be able to return to their jobs up to a period of 9 years after their election with all their rights reserved. I know that this was a substantial piece of security for people such as myself, even elected for seats such as mine. As everybody knows there are not only hurdles at elections; there are redistributions, pre-selections and matters such as that that lay in wait for the unwary member of this Parliament.

Dr Jenkins:

– You are one of the great survivors.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right. I am one ofthe survivors. I think the term ‘great’ may well be applied but I am too modest to admit it.

Mr Staley:

– Why?

Mr BRYANT:

– Frankly, I cannot explain why I should be modest about it. I think that this is an important area. I remember discussing this matter with my colleagues when we were in office. But as my friend the honourable member for Fraser has pointed out there was a serious obstruction on the other side of Kings Hall which prevented us from getting on with many of these things. So I suggest to the Ministry that it immediately examines the situation in Victoria and places in the Australian Public Service Act, the provisions which permit members of the Public Service elected to a parliament to be able to return to the Public Service upon defeat or retirement with their rights reserved. I would regard that as one of the democratic operations which a society such as ours ought to accept. All people ought to be available to the service of this Parliament without having to make any sacrifices. I advocate quite strongly such a change to the legislation.

There are one or two other matters upon which I would like to remark. I think that the Australia Public Service is too miserable altogether regarding the question of leave without pay, particularly in the case of people in the lower ranks. Every time there is a new flurry in the economic arena and Prime Ministers or other people in the Government put ceilings upon the Public Service there is a great reduction in the opportunity for members of the Service, for example, to take 12 months off to complete a university degree. I think that is a serious disadvantage. I take the theme which has been developed in relation to the Northern Territory Public Service and which subsequently perhaps might be developed for the Australian Capital Territory. I refer to the portability of rights and the ability to transfer from that service to the general Australian Public Service at will. I think we should be doing this much more and in a much wider way. It ought to be much easier for people to move from the Public Service to the private sector and back again during their lifetime. I advocate that. I think that with the society which will develop in the future it will be to the advantage of everybody for that to happen. I know this from my own experience in life. I am sure that the time I spent in the armed Services improved my capacity to do the job properly.

Portability is important towards producing flexibility in people who are operating in the service. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about some of those matters which I have mentioned tonight. I hope that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) will be able to explain what we have done so far about a matter which is quite irrelevant to this Bill. I hope that the Deputy Speaker is not listening. This matter relates to long service leave for private employees in this city. With those few remarks I add that as time marches on we must increase the level of leave and have shorter working hours or we will not be able to fit the people into the system which is developing.

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

– If I might also be irrelevant for a moment, I shall respond to the question asked of me by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). It is a fact that in the Aus.tralian Capital Territory the Government has acted to provide for long service leave for private employees. But we did not provide for long service leave which was quite as generous as some people would have wished. We provided, as a legislative requirement, for long service leave which is as generous as exists throughout the private sector over most of Australia. It is not equal to the conditions enjoyed by Commonwealth public servants or by a number of the public services of the country. But it has been done and it is something which I know was being pursued by the honourable member for Wills who has just spoken. We got there.

Mr Bryant:

– That is 2 shots to you.

Mr STALEY:

– It is 2 shots to us. That remark from the honourable member I think sums up the spirit of this debate where there has been some agreement on all sides. There has been only goodwill for this legislation from all sides. I do, on behalf of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, that is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), thank honourable members for their contribution. The Minister was unable to be in the chamber tonight but he came in and he is aware of the fact that the Opposition is supporting this legislation. He has asked me to say that he will take full account of what has been said by honourable members. A matter, which was drawn to my attention and which I shall mention before making a brief concluding remark, concerns Commonwealth public servants who are transferred to Darwin. As I understand it, there is no question but that they will enjoy full, normal rights of promotion from Darwin into positions elsewhere in the Commonwealth Public Service throughout Australia. Promotion, as honourable members know, is based on merit. If justice is not done, then the appeals procedures which apply in normal Commonwealth Public Service cases are open to people who have been transferred to Darwin. So, as a matter of fact in law their rights are preserved.

Mr Willis:

– They are not convinced of that.

Mr STALEY:

– I am told that that is, in fact, the position. I must say that I can understand people’s fears when they move to distant parts whether they are with a Territory Public Service or simply with an arm of the Commonwealth Public Service in an area which happens to be relatively remote. I think people often fear these things without their fear necessarily being based on fact or law. It is not unnatural for people to have these sorts of fears as was noted in the case of people who live around the lake in the Australian Capital Territory. They fear what might happen when there is a delegation in authority in certain areas to the Legislative Assembly. I thank the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) for his comments. I could not agree more about the need to reassure Commonwealth public servants presently working in areas which will be delegated to the Legislative Assembly, that their rights and their futures will be fully preserved. It is worth pointing out that in the case of the Capital Territory we are not proposing anything like statehood such as is proposed for the Northern Territory. People who work here will be working for a Commonwealth territory administration as far as I am concerned forever and a day. Everything we do here will be done under the Commonwealth Constitution, in accordance with the powers of this Parliament and solely within the powers of this Parliament. So we are looking at Commonwealth territory legislation. With those few words I again thank honourable members for their most constructive comments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)When the last 2 speakers, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) made comments which were irrelevant, a tremendous temptation was created for the Chair. Fortunately, I remembered the biblical injunction and I resisted the temptation to make a comment.

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 3184

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)-Is leave granted for the 4 amendments to be moved together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

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

– I have 4 amendments which relate to schedule 1 which reads:

page 3184

SCHEDULE I

Schedules Inserted in Principal Act

page 3184

SCHEDULE 2

Departments

The Department of the Senate

The Department of the House of Representatives

The Department ofthe Parliamentary Library

The Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff

The Joint House Department

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs

The Department of Administrative Services

The Attorney-General ‘s Department

The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

The Department of the Capital Territory

The Department of Construction

The Department of Defence

The Department of Education

The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development

The Department of Foreign Affairs

The Department of Health

The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

The Department of Industry and Commerce

The Department of National Resources

The Department of the Northern Territory

The Department of Overseas Trade

The Postal and Telecommunications Department

The Department of Primary Industry

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

The Department of Science

The Department of Social Security

The Department of Transport

The Department of the Treasury

The Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs

page 3185

SCHEDULE 3

Permanent Heads of Departments

The Clerk ofthe Senate

The Clerk of the House of Representatives

The Parliamentary Librarian

The Principal Parliamentary Reporter

The Secretary of the Joint House Department

The Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs

The Secretary to the Department of Administrative Services

The Secretary to the Attorney-General ‘s Department

The Secretary to the Department ofthe Capital Territory

The Secretary to the Department of Construction and Director-General of Works

The Comptroller-General of Customs

The Secretary to the Department of Defence

The Secretary to the Department of Education

The Secretary to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

The Secretary to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development

The Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs

The Director-General of Health

The Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

The Secretary to the Department of Industry and Commerce

The Secretary to the Department of National Resources

The Secretary to the Department ofthe Northern Territory

The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade

The Secretary to the Postal and Telecommunications Department

The Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry

The Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

The Secretary to the Department of Science

The Director-General of Social Services

The Secretary to the Department of Transport

The Secretary to the Department of the Treasury

The Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Since the introduction of the Bill a new department, the Department of Productivity and an office of permanent head of that Department has been created. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has announced that it is proposed to abolish the Department of the Treasury and replace it with a new Department of the Treasury and a Department of Finance. At the same time, offices of permanent heads of those Departments will be created. The amendments which have been circulated to honourable members reflect those administrative changes. On behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters (Mr Street) I move:

After-

The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development ‘ in proposed Schedule 2, insert-

The Department of Finance

After-

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’ in proposed Schedule 2, insert-

The Department of Productivity

After-

The Secretary to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development’ in proposed Schedule 3, insert-

The Secretary to the Department of Finance ‘.

After-

The Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’ in proposed Schedule 3, insert-

The Secretary to the Department of Productivity ‘.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3185

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

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

page 3185

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate on this Bill and on the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 5 Bills to be debated together.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 5 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-This debate is a cognate debate on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976 and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1976. The purpose of these Bills is to provide for the imposition and collection of levies on the production and sale in Australia of apples and pears and a charge on apples and pears exported from Australia. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

The legislation introduced by the Government is in response to recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association to finance the activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. Under the present legislation the funds provided to the Corporation are derived exclusively from a charge on apple and pear exports. Over the last few years the export trade in apples and pears has declined and therefore there are insufficient funds available to meet the brunt of the development costs, particularly those related to the local market. With the changed sale picture, the great bulk of apple and pear production is marketed in Australia and it is on this basis that the Apple and Pear Growers Association has proposed in fairness to all growers in the industry that collections should be on the basis of production rather than on exports.

At the time of the dissolution of the last Parliament similar legislation had been prepared for enactment but of course lapsed. These Bills are similar to those that were previously introduced by the Labor Government to finance equitably the Apple and Pear Corporation which was itself a creature of that Government. However, the Bills of the Labor Government provided for the levy on a hectare basis. This legislation is on a per case basis. The only point of objection which the Opposition raises is that it will be difficult to administer the collection on a case basis when so many apples and pears are delivered on a bulk basis. So in that sense we believe that the legislation of the former Government on a hectare basis suited the industry better. I am reliably informed that most sections ofthe grower association also believe that to be the situation. However, the majority ofthe States decided in favour of a per case charge.

Whilst the Opposition supports the equitable collection of levies for the operation of the Apple and Pear Corporation, particularly in respect of marketing, it does not support the inactivity and lack of imagination of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). Obviously the Minister hopes that the Apple and Pear Corporation will solve his problems. At this stage the Government has 2 Industries Assistance Commission reports in front of it on the apple and pear industry but, until this time, it has proposed nothing positive for the industry. This legislation is to finance the operations of the Corporation, but what of the policy underlying the industries problems? What does the Minister intend to do about the fact that export markets are falling off? What does he intend for the Australian domestic market?

The introduction of the Tasmanian Fruit Equalisation Scheme is an indication that the Government does not know what factors are influencing marketing both domestically and on the export front at this time. What happens if all the Tasmanian growers take up the Tasmanian Equalisation Scheme and ship all their fruit to the mainland? Have the Minister and the Government given any consideration to what this will do to prices or what it may do to the livelihood of areas supplying domestic outlets? Obviously the Government and the Minister believe that the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation is to be the arbiter in these matters.

One needs only to look at the final statement by the Minister in his second reading speech to understand that he is out of touch with this industry. In his second reading speech he makes some disturbing admissions which confirm” that he is unaware of the direction in which the industry is heading, the policy needed to arrest the industry’s declining fortunes or the way in which such policies can be put into operation.

The Minister says:

I am confident that there is a place in Australian horticulture for a viable apple and pear industry and I believe the Corporation will become more significant as a focal point for the industry’s re-organisation and adjustment. It is imperative, however, that its financial support be assured if it is to fulfil its objectives.

Such glib utterances and insincerity can be of little consolation to the apple and pear growers in the Huon in Tasmania or to those at Stanthorpe in Queensland or Manjimup in Western Australia. For 12 months the Government has been in office yet these growers have seen nothing positive from the Minister to arrest the decline in real income in the industry. It would do the Minister good to visit some of these fruit growing areas to see at first hand what is expected of him. Obviously growers in the industry are now sick of talk and sick of promises and require some positive action.

The Australian Labor Party believes that alternative measures designed to facilitate adjustment could provide more help to fruit growers, their families and the communities dependent on them at much less cost to the nation. These measures could also benefit those who remain in fruit growing and facilitate their adjustment to subsequent changes. The Minister should take notice of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations and should act on the following propositions:

The adjustment of interstate quarantine regulations and other restrictions on interstate trade with a view to obtaining agreement with appropriate States to eliminate unnecessary restraints on trade.

Liberalisation of the Corporation’s restrictions on methods of sale in export markets other than Europe and North America.

A maximum exporters’ commission being fixed in terms of a percentage of the f.o.b. value of produce and liberalising the requirements for the issue of new export licences.

The Minister should also turn his attention to that part of the IAC report on fruit growing and reconstruction which deals with the structural adjustment measures mentioned. These industries and the people who work in them require some leadership and positive action, not just a pile of measures to collect money from them. That is all that these Bills amount to.

The National Country Party in the past has shown no inclination to promote sensible agricultural policies within Australia. It has relied always on the piecemeal approach of one price support scheme complementing another. The horticultural industry is one of the industries hit most hard by a decline in Australia ‘s agricultural export activity. In many cases what the Government has on its hands is an urgent welfare problem. Only policies of structural adjustment, sympathetically instituted, can overcome the hardship which is now plaguing this industry. Growers can only look to the national Government for some kind of planned national initiative. After all the promises in Opposition from the Minister for Primary Industry and the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) it is time they got off their backsides and started honouring them.

The Industries Assistance Commission has set down a blueprint for the reconstruction of this industry. The Government, and the Minister for Primary Industry in particular, must face up to their obligations and give urgent attention to these specific recommendations. The horticultural industry can do nothing now but wait until the Government acts positively to rectify the plight which many growers now face.

In conclusion, the Opposition supports the legislation. It is legislation which it had planned to introduce in Government. But it recognises that this legislation is just a small part of the measures that must be taken to re-establish a viable apple and pear industry in Australia

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) may be a quite nice fellow but he does not know very much about the fruit industry. I think he should go down to the Huon Valley armed with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and with the criticisms which he made of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). If he does that he may get a real shock.

Mr Keating:

– You will get a shock if you go.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-I will go with you and we will see who comes off the better.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Jenkins

– Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-The purpose of these Bills, the Apple and Pear Levy Bill, the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill, is to provide for the imposition and collection of levies on the production and sale in Australia of apples and pears and a charge on apples and pears exported from Australia. These legislative proposals give effect to the recommendations of the

Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association for a new basis of financing the activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. -

The Corporation has derived its funds from a charge on apple and pear exports. With the steep decline that has occurred in the export trade, particularly in apples, the Corporation is lacking the necessary financial reserves to carry out adequately its functions, particularly those related to the development and promotion of the Australian domestic market. Given that the great bulk of production is sold in the domestic market, the Apple and Pear Growers Association has proposed and the Government has accepted that m the interests of equity all growers should contribute financially to assist the activities of the Corporation. The Bills are designed to assure a firm financial base for the Apple and Pear Corporation which has a vital role to play in assisting the industry in the face of problems which have developed in recent years, resulting in a severe cut back in the volume of apples moving to export markets.

The additional funds to be placed at the disposal of the Corporation from the new levy arrangements will enable it to make a more positive contribution towards market development, particularly on the domestic scene. As many honourable members will be aware, the apple and pear industry has for some seasons now been facing problems of increasing seriousness and complexity, mainly in the export field. These problems derive principally from the large volume of exports which the industry has traditionally sent to markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. Because of the developments in these markets, the export operation is characterised by increasing uncertainty. These developments include increased competition in this field from European fruit and the increasing competition from other exporting countries supplying the British and European markets. The general uncertainty created by these developments is aggravated by difficulties in the field of shipping. Much has been said about the cost of freighting a carton of apples from the wharves at Hobart to the United Kingdom. In 1969 the cost to freight a case of apples from Hobart to the United Kingdom was approximately $1.70. In 1975 it had increased to $4.74 and it may be as high as $5.50 in 1977. Thankfully, the devaluation ofthe Australian dollar will assist this industry and will enable it to be more competitive with other countries which, in the past, have had a distinct advantage in the rate of exchange.

Once again, I make no apology for being parochial. The situation of the export apple industry in Tasmania is serious and it depends heavily on the export trade. It is absolutely imperative that the United Kingdom and Europe take the bulk of its apple exports. I realise that Western Australia has significant problems but the Corporation, with a great knowledge of the problems relating to this industry would, if given the financial assistance, be able to look at ways of overcoming the problems, particularly in the area of marketing and in the context of the fruit going for the producer to the ultimate consumer. I firmly believe that there is a need in the industry for a highly skilled, effective and nationally organised body that can come to grips with the marketing problems that beset the industry. I believe that the Corporation will supply this need, and that its operations, hand in hand with the industry’s own efforts, will once more place the industry on a sound economic foundation.

Many experts, including those from Government and industry, have come forward with recommendations for a viable fruit industry. Some have considered that it should be restructured; some have also looked at the social implications but I believe that we have now been able to pinpoint the problems. They have not been the problems ofthe growers. I have said before that Tasmanian orchardists are among the finest in the world. They are able to compete, on the basis of quality, on any given market. If I may say so the reason why there has been such controversy from other growers in Australia is that they fear that Tasmania apples may glut the mainland market. It is a fear only of quality. If they continue, as they have done this year to infer that Tasmania has a distinct advantage because of the freight equalisation plan, I will endeavour once again to bring this particular issue completely out in the open.

The stabilisation scheme and the ability of Tasmanian apples to be exported at a fair and reasonable price, returning a fair and reasonable profit to the hardworking orchardists, should be defended and assisted by the mainland growers. If they do not, the Tasmanian orchardists will find it necessary to look for alternative markets and, in fact, may be forced to glut the market in Australia. As a consequence, nobody would win. There would be once more complete pandemonium in an industry which, given the right incentive and the right direction, will once again prove a valuable asset to the economy of Australia. The Corporation will consist of 9 parttime members. They are an independent chairman, 4 members to represent growers, one member to represent the Australian Government and 3 other members. All the members of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. The members representing growers will be selected from nominations submitted by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. The 3 other members referred to in the Bill, who might be termed members with special qualifications will be appointed after consultation with the Association, the Australian Apple and Pear Shippers Association and any other appropriate bodies.

At this juncture I must pay special tribute to the retiring Chairman of the Corporation, Mr Reginald Baine, a Tasmanian. I say quite sincerely that Mr Baine has contributed greatly in a difficult period, a period that I feel it would be far better to forget. It would be better to aim for the future and, hopefully, once again restore confidence and stability to an industry that I and many other honourable members feel will be important to the economy of Australia. The new Chairman, Mr Leslie Gordon Leckie, O.B.E., A.S.A., of Melbourne is a distinguished businessman and was formerly the Deputy General Manager of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria. He will bring a wealth of knowledge to the Corporation and under his independent guidance I believe that the Corporation will be able to overcome the serious problems that now confront the industry and possibly will do so for many years to come.

The members of the Corporation have been specially qualified for appointment by reason of their experience and expertise in marketing generally and also in the marketing of apples and pears. The functions ofthe Corporation are wide and varied and they include the control of the export from Australia of fresh apples and pears. It has the power to recommend to the Minister the terms and conditions of export, the persons who may engage in export, packaging and labelling for export and quality standards and grading for export. It also has the power to determine quantities for export by State and country of destination and to negotiate shipping arrangements. Reliance and confidence in the Corporation by the grower is imperative as the Corporation will be active in many fields apart from trading and the regulation of fresh fruit exports. It will be expected to play a prominent role in the field of research, the role of the sales promotion, to initiate research in all aspects of the industry, including quality improvements, cost saving practices and techniques and in all stages of production, marketing, packaging, handling, storage, transport and the provision of technical advice in the processing field.

I and all honourable members will, of course, look closely to the Corporation to improve the whole marketing system from the producer to the consumer, particularly in Tasmania. It is a fact that 1 1 per cent of the total value of agricultural production in Tasmania is derived from apples. In New South Wales it is 0.78 per cent; in Victoria 1.14 per cent; in Queensland 0.60 per cent; in South Australia 0.S8 per cent and in Western Australia 0.83. From these figures it can be easily discerned a continuing fruit industry is most important to the economy of Tasmania. It is not my intention to say that the Corporation will be the organisation that will be able to overcome all problems. It must have complete assistance from the Government. The Government must realise that if an industry is to survive it must work systematically and conscientiously at removing the problem associated with freight about which I have already spoken. Also, if I am going to point the bone, I should point it at the shippers. When one reads about James Patrick and Co. Pty Ltd, which was able to pay $650,000 in directors’ fees to 5 men last year, one really starts to realise that the freight problems are immense and we, as a government, should work determinedly to overcome the severe restraints on the industry. There is certainly gold in those wharves but not in the homes of many small orchardists throughout Australia who, because of problems other than high wages, seasonal fluctuations and inflation, have been battered to pieces.

People could talk about the fruit industry and the problems associated with it until they are black and blue in the face. The time has come to formulate plans for the future and I sincerely hope that the Corporation will look at long-term marketing and export opportunities in countries other than the UK and the Continent The protective import devices and disruptive export practices which have operated in agricultural producing countries for most of this century have seriously distorted resource allocation, employment and income distribution from that which should have resulted given a freer trade situation.

Any negotiating position put forward to reduce the existing levels of protection should take account of the economic and social impact of such reduction on resources. It would be unrealistic to expect that the developed countries will soon dismantle their agricultural support programs. Any sudden shift from existing positions would be extremely costly to governments in terms of adjustment and income support programs and could lead to a painful period of instability in world prices and production. In essence, there is a need to find ways to improve access to importing countries, achieve more rational export policies among exporters and reasonable stability of price and supply within a framework that permits a gradual adjustment of domestic policies towards the principles of liberal trade. I support the Bills and once again reiterate my strongest intention to support the apple industry, to make absolutely certain that if it is given the opportunity it can once again become a great exporter.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I think it is quite remarkable that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is supposed to be so well acquainted with the apple industry, had very little to say about the actual Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill. He did not offer any condemnation or criticism of it. He said a great deal about the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, about who was on it, what they were going to do and how they were appointed and not elected. This had nothing to do with the Bill. Yet there are some very grave weaknesses in the Bill of which he should be aware in the interests of producers. Apparently he is not aware of them at all. I generally support this Bill because it has the same broad objectives as the intended legislation of the previous Government. Unfortunately the objectives will be much more difficult to achieve because of the change in the nature of the arrangements for collecting the levy. This is what the honourable member for Franklin should be concerned about.

When the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill was originally suggested I understand the idea was that the levy would be collected on a per acre or per hectare basis which, of course, is the most rational way to do it. It is no problem to go to an orchard and to find out how many hectares or acres of bearing trees there are. Once you have that figure you know what the levy will be. It will be a regular amount year in and year out. Now the levy will be based not on the area but on the product. This opens up a great Pandora’s Box of how the levy can be collected on fruit which is sold in a variety of ways all over the country. This proposed method will be all right for the apples that are packed in boxes and sent through an agent. Providing the agents are honest, and I think most of them are, they can collect the levy. What happens to all the thousands of cases of apples that are sold in bulk? The equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cases of apples are brought into Canberra every year from Batlow in bulk bins and sold directly to the retail markets. I would like the Minister to tell us how the levy will be collected from those people. An army of inspectors would be needed. A whole range of options is opened up for evasion ofthe levy. All this could have been overcome if the Government had stuck to the original concept of imposing the levy on a hectare or acre basis.

The Government should have learned something from the egg industry. Tremendous problems were experienced in trying to collect a levy on the eggs. The method was changed and the levy was based on the hens. Even though hens have feathers and can fly, it was much easier to keep track of the hens than it was of the eggs. This should have been a lesson to the apple and pear industry. It is not that the industry did not know. My information is that 75 per cent of the growers favoured a hectare or acre basis for imposing the levy. Why did the other 25 per cent of growers not favour that measure? My information is that the growers adopted this method of collecting levies based on the product because of a very rash and irresponsible promise that was made by a member of the present Government during the last election. I understand that the promise was made to Queensland producers to try to get a few more votes. This very unsatisfactory method of collection has now been imposed on the industry because of an irresponsible election promise. This is typical, of course, of the way in which the Government operates in terms of responsibility towards primary industries. I think the honourable member for Franklin should be concerned about this.

I understand that Tasmanian growers wanted the levy imposed on a hectare basis and not on a box basis as the box basis opens up a whole range of avenues for evasion. For instance how will the levy be collected from people who sell their fruit at the orchard? I understand there is an exemption for the first 500 boxes, but how will it be known how many boxes are sold? There is no way of checking it. There is no way of checking out the huge quantities that are sold in bulk. The levy will be so much a box irrespective of whether it is a packed case of fruit or a loose case of fruit. Anybody in the industry would know that there is something like a 20 per cent differential between a packed case and a loose case. Here again the people who market their fruit loose in boxes will in fact be paying more by way of levy than those who pack their fruit.

There is also the question of evasion through agents; some people try anything. Here again it will be very costly in resources on the government departments concerned to police this process of collection. This would have been avoided if the levy had been based on the acreage. Some people suggested that the levy should be based on the trees but this would not be satisfactory because the method of cultivation varies so much. Some areas have only 80 trees or 90 trees to the acre while others in which the hedge row method is used might have 200 trees to the acre. There is no question that the proper way would have been to impose the levy on a hectare or acre basis. I think the Minister owes some explanation to the House why that method was not adopted when my information is that that was the desire ofthe majority of the growers.

The other objection to this method of collecting the levy is that it makes it very difficult for the Apple and Pear Corporation to budget when it does not know what its income will be. It is the nature of the beast with the apple and pear industry that one tends to get an off-year and an on-year. One gets a tremendous crop one year and then a very light crop the next year. The Corporation will not know how much money it will get. How can it do a satisfactory budgeting job under these conditions? This problem would have been avoided if the levy had been imposed on a hectare or acre basis. The Corporation would then have known how much revenue it would get. The amount involved would have been lesser because everybody would have been paying something. There would not have been a large section of the produce in respect of which some method of evasion was practiced and on which the levy was not paid at all.

There are also anomalies in the way the payment is arranged. The usual arrangement is that the grower or the person who sells the fruit pays monthly. For some reason- I do not know whyone particular section of sellers, those who sell direct to retailers or to minor retailers or to roadside stalls, do not have to pay by the month at all. They get 12 months in which to pay. Why the discrimination in favour of this group? It is reducing its expenses anyway by cutting out the middle man and selling produce direct to the public. These people then get a further discrimination in their favour by having 12 months to pay their levy. Everybody else gets only one month Perhaps this was an election promise also. I did not hear about that promise but it is quite likely that it was made.

The important aspect, of course, as far as the industry is concerned, is how the money will be applied when the levy is collected. If the levies are collected, after offsetting the costs of collectionthe Bill does not say who will bear the cost of the collection of the levy- it is very important to know how the money will be applied. Will the

Apple and Pear Corporation use the money to promote a very doubtful export trade or will it apply the money to promote the domestic market? It is not clear on this point. I hope that the Corporation has enough judgment to realise that there is some question about promoting the export market. The Corporation may be much better advised to spend money on the domestic market. It has done this in the past to some extent by promotion. I hope that it will continue to pursue that avenue. Of course, it has allocated money to research, particularly research into methods of producing new fruit products which may meet a new market. I must also commend the Apple and Pear Corporation for the fact that it has made grants already to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to carry out research into some aspects of fruit processing. Normally, of course, such research is the responsibility of the State departments of agriculture. The additional funds which may come from the Apple and Pear Corporation will be a valuable supplement to this source of research. Of course, research over the years has led to more efficient methods of production in many areas. New South Wales at least is now planted to hedgerow production which is much more efficient and labour-saving and has allowed certain sectors of the industry to survive. From what I know of the Apple and Pear Corporation it is a responsible body. I am confident that it will apply the funds in the most effective way.

I want to refer briefly to the effect of devaluation. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) did not mention this. Devaluation, of course, is immediately of great benefit to the apple and pear industry. I understand that the South-East-Asian markets, particularly, were very tight. Devaluation will allow the growers to stay in that market and possibly expand it. But I think that the other side of the penny has to be acknowledged: Devaluation makes it much more difficult for those same countries to sell their products in Australia. They have to protect their own balance of payments and if the import of more Austraiian apples creates more difficulties for them then they, in response, will put up import barriers or taxes to protect their own industry in some way. I think that the fruitgrowers are generally well informed people who are aware of the disadvantages and the pitfalls of devaluation as well as the immediate benefits that they may derive. Of course, they are very much aware that they are dependent on imports which will cost more, particularly the imports of chemicals for spraying and some parts of orchard machinery such as harvesting machinery, ploughing machinery- much of which is made in Australia but some of which is imported- and particularly pump equipment which is often imported. Whilst devaluation will ~~ be of some benefit, I do not think anyone in the industry should be carried away and believe that it is the answer to their problems.

Generally, I think this is a commendable piece of legislation which, because of the unfortunate and irresponsible promise made during an election campaign, will now be much more costly and difficult to administer because of the abandonment of the original idea of the levy being on an acreage or hectare basis. I want to refer now to another particular aspect of the Bill. The honourable member for Franklin referred to the superior quality of Tasmanian apples. I thought that he threatened the New South Wales growers by saying that if the situation became too tough the Tasmanian applegrowers would flood the market. I want to destroy a myth which seems to have developed. Many honourable members in this House have spoken about the apple industry and seem to believe that Tasmania is the biggest producer of apples in Australia. I do not wish to destroy a great illusion in the mind of the honourable member for Franklin but the House should be aware that in 1975, New South Wales was the largest producer of apples in Australia The census figures indicate that 5.622 million bushels came from New South Wales and 4.963 million bushels from Tasmania. So let us settle that myth once and for all: New South Wales is the largest producer of apples in Australia, not Tasmania. The great difference, of course, is that New South Wales growers are able to entice the people of New South Wales and the rest of Australia to eat their apples and they do not have to export many. The Tasmanians, for some reason or other, are unable to do this and have to send their apples all around the world. So much for the superior quality of the Tasmanian apples.

Mr Goodluck:

– What would you do if they came into New South Wales?

Mr FRY:

– We have often had Tasmanian apples in New South Wales in the past. The New South Wales apple industry is in much better shape than the Tasmanian industry, so that speaks for itself. I have eaten plenty of apples from both places and there is no question about the best of quality although, certainly, the Tasmanian apples keep much better. This has to be so, of course, otherwise they would not have an export market. But I do not think there is any real worry in New South Wales about the superior quality of the Tasmanian apples.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I have listened with some interest to the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) who has just resumed his seat. I was amazed at his lack of knowledge of the industry, considering the fact that he spoke on this Bill. He talked about the value of having a levy based on an acreage or hectare basis. Any one who is conversant with this matter will know that the Apple and Pear Growers Association did recommend a production basis as a basis for a levy but problems were associated with the collection and we recognise that. At least the honourable member for Fraser does know that much. Nevertheless, one has to look at what is fair and reasonable for the assessment of any levy. There is no doubt that a levy based on a

E reduction basis is fair and equitable. The honorable member for Fraser emphasised this when he said that the imposition of a levy on a tree basis was considered and that is correct also. The honourable member said that he would not agree to a levy being imposed on a tree basis, if I heard him correctly, because there are more trees on some hectares than on other hectares. What is equitable about that on a hectare basis? The basis of Queensland’s objection to that proposition was that it had not been able to produce per hectare the amount of apples that are produced in other areas. Yet, it is a viable industry, a good industry and an industry on which the town of Stanthorpe is based. All that Queensland required was that production would be the base of a levy. Nothing can be fairer than that. I ask honourable members to examine other systems of the collection of levies. The honourable member for Fraser referred to the egg industry. I am not sure about it. But I do know that in most instances it will be found that the levy is usually assessed on a production basis and that is a reasonable way of doing it.

The honourable member for Fraser spoke about rash electoral promises made by the Government. He referred in particular to Stanthorpe. I suppose that Queensland has a smaller production of apples than most other States. Therefore, one would not get the amount of electoral support from applegrowers in Queensland as one would get from applegrowers in many other areas who must have argued that the levy be based on production. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who lead for the Opposition in this debate asked why the Government did not implement the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission.

Mr McLeay:

– He did not read the report.

Mr CORBETT:

-He possibly did not read it. What the honourable member for Blaxland recommended was a dollar a bushel support for the Tasmanian apple industry, if he wants the IAC report implemented.

Mr Goodluck:

– He does not want them coming on to the market.

Mr CORBETT:

-Apparently, the honourable member for Blaxland does not want the Tasmanian people to have a reasonable opportunity to export their apples and maintain their export to the traditional markets. This Government was generous enough to say that it would give 2 dollars a bushel as export support. The Labor Party must accept that. Its leading spokesman on this matter said that we should have implemented the IAC report. I hope that the Tasmanian apple growers are listening to me tonight and will remember my words at the next Tasmanian State election. I am sure that this is something which will give them a great deal of concern. I make no apologies for Queensland asking that the levy be on a production basis. We are quite unequivocal about that point. It was not an election promise but it was a logical argument and it was accepted by the Government. I hope this Government will continue to accept logical arguments coming from that great State of Queensland. I am sure it will

We are having a cognate debate tonight on 5 Bills relating to the apple and pear industry. The first 4 Bills will form a new basis for financing the activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. These proposals conform to the original recommendations and are accepted by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association which represents apple and pear growers throughout Australia. The Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill will enable a levy to be placed on fruit marketed in Australia and defines that the rate of levy will not exceed 6c a box for apples and pears sold for consumption as fresh fruit, that it should not exceed 60c per tonne for juicing fruit and $1.40 per tonne for processing fruit other than pears for the production of canned fruit. From the commencing date of the legislation, 1 January 1977, the levy has been fixed at Se a box for fresh apples and pears whether marketed in Australia or exported, 50c per tonne for juicing fruit and $1 per tonne for processing fruit. Income for the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation as a result of this levy should be in the vicinity of $850,000, which is some $600,000 more than the amount which would have become available from the present levy being applied on apples and pears exported. That was the previous basis. This new levy will give the Corporation the finance necessary for it to perform the many duties it will have to perform, particularly in the promotion of sales on the domestic market and abroad. I believe that that money is necessary and that it will benefit the industry that provides it.

The honourable member for Fraser said that we would not be able to estimate what that income will be. If he goes to the trouble of getting a list of statistics he will find the figures set out every year. I have them for every year from 1971 up to and including an estimated figure for 1975-76. The statistics show a variation from one year to another. It is true that there is alternatively a big crop and a small crop but the results are assessable. There is no problem in that regard. Anyone looking at these figures will see that they go up and down- that they vary every alternate year- but the whole industry is well aware of that situation. It will be necessary, no doubt, for the Apple and Pear Corporation to regulate its budgets because those variations certainly are likely to happen.

The relevant Act will be amended so that the annual reports and financial statements of the Corporation will be based on a calendar year instead of a financial year. That is a good idea. It is more appropriate to have this done on the basis of a calendar year because of the time at which funds flow to the Corporation under this levy scheme. It is very important that we note that when a proposal of this kind went before the previous Government the idea was for the Corporation to be financed from the proceeds of a levy on an acreage or hectare basis. The honourable member for Fraser confirmed what I am saying. As I have mentioned before, and I want to emphasise it again, that was a very distinct disadvantage to those areas which, while being quite capable of having a viable industry, had to overcome the problem of not being able to produce the same amount per hectare. We believe the present proposal is an equitable basis for the levy.

One very important factor which must be considered and which will be beneficial, despite what has been said to the contrary, to returns for fruit exported from Australia is the recent devaluation of the Australian currency. Obviously the devaluation decision will substantially benefit people exporting fruit. If we are to maintain a stable apple industry in this country we must continue to enable our fruit exporters to supply the traditional export markets. We also want to try to build new markets and I hope the Apple and Pear Corporation will be successful in doing so. There is no doubt that the devaluation of the Australian dollar will greatly assist those people, particularly traditional exporters of fruit. This applies particularly to Tasmania. I hope that the Tasmanian growers are listening to what I have to say and I hope they will remember this during the current election campaign in that State.

The apple and pear industry is very important to a number of electorates throughout Australia If it were not for the fact that we are hoping to be able to get through the legislative program by Thursday of next week more honourable members would have put their names on the list of speakers for this debate. I made a note of a few members of my own Party who would have spoken. They are the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie), the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd ) and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan). All those honourable members from my Party alone would have liked to have spoken in this debate. We thought we would be only allowed one speaker and what I am saying reflects their views to a large extent. They are concerned about the welfare of the industry. I have no doubt that that applies also to my colleagues from Tasmania. They would have been anxious to support these Bills, as they were supported so splendidly by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). While honourable members from Tasmania were not allowed the number of speakers that they would have liked in this debate they can take some consolation from the splendid effort of the honourable member for Franklin. I commend him on his address.

Although I may not always agree with the ideas of honourable members from other States when we are trying to solve a problem of this kind, the real way to tackle a national problem is to look at it from the points of view necessary to arrive at a program or a policy which will give the greatest national advantage. We must always remember that in this national Parliament. I recognise the importance of the apple industry to Tasmania and the effect that it has on the economy of that State in comparison with other States. I must take up one point with the honourable member for Fraser. He said that New South Wales apples could be sold in New South Wales but Tasmanians could not sell their apples as well to the Tasmanian people. I suggest that he overlooked the populations of the 2 States. He did not take that factor into consideration. We should be fair. He did not consider the number of people to whom the apples could be sold. You can sell only a certain number of apples to a certain number of people, no matter how much they might like to eat them. If we had the relevant figures we might find that Tasmanians eat as many or more apples than the people of New South Wales on a per capita basis. My honourable friends from Tasmania would agree.

A great deal of work has to be done by the Apple and Pear Corporation. Added finance will be available to it for research and other purposes which were mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Franklin. However in my opinion its important role, its prime objective, should be sales promotion. Let us consider the situation in round figures. If the Australian demand approximates IS million bushels or thereabouts- on the average we export approximately 4.S million to 5 million bushels- and we increase domestic consumption by something like 10 per cent and another 1.5 million apples are absorbed by the domestic market, we will substantially reduce the percentage of apples that have to be exported. This would give people dependent on exports a better opportunity to choose better markets and they would not have to contend with so many apples. More apples could be absorbed on our mainland markets.

There are many aspects of this industry that the Apple and Pear Corporation will have to consider. Another aspect worthy of mention in connection with the apple and pear industry is the processing and selling of apple juice. In my own area the people of Stanthorpe have endeavoured, to their credit, to provide a juice production plant. One of the reasons is the hailstorms which hit the area. They spoil the fruit to the extent that it cannot be put on the fresh fruit market, but it is excellent fruit. It could be processed into juice. It would be a very healthgiving food. Scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have developed a formula which they hope will make apple juice more popular as a fresh fruit juice. This is something at which we should look. It is one way by which the products of this industry could be diversified. Fruit which otherwise might not be made available to the community or utilised economically could by utilised. The drink, which could be appearing this winter, has a special flavour. It will not have a sweet flavour, which is common to many apple juice drinks and of which people are not so fond. At least they will have the option of having either kind of drink. That would be a very good aid to sales for those people who are producing apple juice. The formula was developed by Sydney based scientists of the Food Research Division of CSIRO. It shows what can be done. I believe that this is something which we should follow up and which the Government should encourage to the maximum extent.

I am the only speaker from this little corner. It is not always talked about in a complimentary fashion, but it is an effective corner. It has done a grand job for the national Parliament and for Australia generally. If I take a little more time than I usually do, I feel justified because of the performance of members from this corner. I know that my colleagues are in accord with me on many of the things that I am saying. We want to promote the sales of fresh fruit and of apple juice in Australia. We want to look at our export markets and to do everything we can to assist this industry, which is a valuable one and which, it must be borne in mind, provides a very healthy food for this nation and for those people to whom we export. The old saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away’ has a very sound basis in truth because an apple is such a health-giving food. We need to remember that. I hope the Australian people will take this opportunity to buy the fruit on our domestic market.

I regret that sometimes the cost of fruit in some areas is higher than I think it ought to be. However, transport costs are heavy. I think we should look at a means of providing this health-giving food, fruit- apples and pears in particular- to the consumers in this nation at a cheaper rate so that the families, the children in particular, can enjoy and benefit from the fruit available to them.

I commend the Government and the Apple and Pear Growers Association, which has advised the Government in relation to many of these areas, on the results they have achieved. I believe that the approach now being made could bring worthwhile results to the apple and pear industry of Australia. Along with representatives of other apple growing areas throughout Australia, I wish the Corporation every success in its endeavours to increase the sale of and to improve the distribution of the Australian apple and pear crop, not only for the benefit of those people who are producing the apples and pears but also for the benefit of consumers in this country.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (9.55)- I was very surprised to hear the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) refer to some uncomplimentary remarks that are made about the corner from which he is speaking. I assure him that there are very little grounds for his so doing. It is not the Opposition that leaves him on his own. Members of his Party have left him there tonight on his own to defend these apple and pear Bills.

Mr Armitage:

– Not one of them is there.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– Not one of them is there. I was very surprised to hear him criticise the ideas of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) on the method that should be used to collect these levies.

Mr Corbett:

– You would not know how to collect them, either.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I have had more experience collecting levies than probably anyone in this House. As Secretary of the Barrier Industrial Council I have collected thousands and thousands of dollars in levies. I assure the honourable member that everyone paid. In Broken Hill people are not very concerned about the method of collecting the levy, but they are concerned about the purpose of the levy and the way the money is spent once it is collected. I believe this evening the House should be more concerned about that than about the method of collecting the levy.

It has already been pointed out that the various Bills are legislative proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association for a renewed basis of financing activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, that it is intended to do so by the imposition and collection of levies on the production and sale of apples and pears in Australia and by a charge on apples and pears exported from Australia. When the Corporation took over from its predecessor, the Austraiian Apple and Pear Board- a Bill was presented to this House in November 1973 for the establishment of the Apple and Pear Corporation- it was made clear that financing through the export charge would be only an interim measure. I recall that at that time it was considered that policing the collection of a levy on all apples and pears produced and sold would present great difficulties because ofthe high percentage of fruit disposed of through undocumented or cash sales in some of the major producing States and that these sales lend themselves to an easy evasion of the levy and require a disproportionate effort to police. The honourable member for Fraser has already pointed out some of the problems connected with that.

When the Bill to set up the Corporation was debated it was pointed out that some of the fruit growers were unable to put their fruit on the export market because they knew that if they did their fruit would be sold at a loss, and they could not afford to pay for the picking and the freight costs to send the fruit away. Therefore, as the honourable member for Fraser said, a good deal of fruit was sold at the orchard. Some of it, we were told, was sold already on the trees. Buyers would buy the full crop and would pick the fruit themselves. I am not too sure that some of these problems will not be still with us once these Bills are passed. However, it was pleasing to hear the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), in his second reading speech, say that there is a place in Australian horticulture for a viable apple and pear industry and that these Bills were designed to ensure a firm financial base for the Apple and Pear Corporation. No doubt additional funds placed at the disposal of the Corporation, as provided by these new levy arrangements, will enable it to make a more positive contribution to market development.

However, it must be obvious to all who have studied these Bills and who have given some consideration to the apple and pear industry that this finance will have to be provided by near bankrupt producers. They are the ones who will have to provide these additional funds that are to be placed at the disposal of the Corporation. Therefore it is hoped that the Corporation will have some success in its marketing development. However, from reading the various reports, it is clear that many of the producers do not expect to remain in the industry to enjoy the increased marketing opportunities, if they are obtained by the Corporation, unless they are given some other form of assistance. From my observations and reading of various reports dealing with the whole industry, including the report of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, I believe that very huie can be achieved to bring about a viable apple and pear industry merely by changing the basis of collecting the levy on apples and pears from a system of deriving funds from a charge on apple and pear exports to a system based on a levy on the quantity of fruit marketed in Australia and overseas.

When the Bill to establish the Apple and Pear Corporation was introduced in 1973, it was pointed out that financing through export charges was an interim measure only which was to be replaced by a broader financial base for the Corporation through a levy on all apples and pears. However, it was pointed out further that apple and pear producers would not get out of their present financial predicament merely by forming the Apple and Pear Corporation. At that time, apple and pear producers were facing grave economic problems brought about by Britain’s entry into the European Economic

Community, and rising costs, especially freight costs. A proper solution could be achieved only by tailoring the quality and quantity ofthe fruit to the market outlets and by introducing the most economic techniques and practices. It was coupled with these proposals only that a highly skilled, effective and nationally organised body could come to grips with the marketing problem.

We all hope that the extra finance provided by the growers through these levies will allow the Apple and Pear Corporation to play a more meaningful role in obtaining marketing outlets. But we should be asking ourselves: Are we giving the Apple and Pear Corporation an impossible job? In 1973, the apple and pear industry was facing a very bleak future. What kind of a future has the industry today? We need only to turn to page 3 of the report for 1 975-76 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation to decide that point. Under the heading ‘Assessment of Overall Industry Position’, the report states:

In its First Report (1974-75), the Corporation provided a summary of the industry’s basic problems, emphasising the imbalance between current levels of production and the opportunities for economic disposal through export outlets, domestic fresh consumption and processing.

The 1976 apple season has been characterised by ‘off year production, particularly in Victoria and NSW. This has resulted in an overall improvement in prices for fresh local sales. However, despite substantially lower export quantities, particularly to UK/Europe, returns from major overseas markets have been most disappointing and in fact represent a distinct deterioration compared with last year’s results. In the processing field, there has been little improvement in demand for solid pack apples althought the prospects for increased consumption of juices (single strength) and cider appear brighter.

The recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission, which amount to a virtual phasing out of large sections of apple growers, added a further dimension to the general pessimism and uncertainty prevailing in the industry; however, there have been widespread and strongly based objections to the Commission’s findings. The Corporation, together with the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association, has made detailed submissions to the Government regarding the industry’s future.

The fresh pear industry, which in recent years has enjoyed reasonable returns from export markets, suffered a setback in 1976, particularly in North America and Britain. This decline will further aggravate the position of growers in the Goulburn Valley, already suffering the effects of problems in the canned fruits industry.

From reading that report one can conclude that the future of the apple and pear industry does not look very bright. We might well wonder: Is it a fact that we are giving the Apple and Pear Corporation an impossible job?

The recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission on the phasing out of many apple growers has only convinced the producer that this Government will not do much except put those in the industry on the skids and get rid of them. I remember when Mr Duthie, the previous member of Wilmot, used to speak on this legislation in this House. Members of the Liberal and National Country Parties often used to tell us what they would do when they were again in Government. I say tonight that there is certainly a big gap between their promises and their performance. Even now, Government members instead of searching for an answer to many of the problems of our primary industry are trying to escape all blame by claiming that the present situation was caused by the previous Labor Government. It seems strange to me that they should do this. We all know that the Labor Party had to fight 3 elections in 3 years and that all the progressive legislation of the Labor Government was held up in the Senate.

The producer is entitled to know how long the Government will hide behind the old dodge that the present situation was caused by the Labor Government. Surely 12 months in office is long enough to produce something positive instead of continuing to knock more and more industries out of action. Surely 12 months in office is long enough for the Government to produce something more than a reduction in everyone’s savings by 17’/2 per cent and an increase in the tax rate to provide for a national health scheme. Surely 12 months in office is long enough to produce something other than a record number of persons unemployed. There certainly is a big gap between the promises and performance of the Liberal-National Country Party.

It is not always the fault of the Government of the day that some sections of our economy are facing a crisis. I believe that it is the duty of all of us to try to come together and to find a way out of these problems. It is not much good if the Government continues to blame previous governments for what is taking place. What we should be looking at is a way to find better markets, to achieve better overseas prices and to really help the industry. What this country needs is a government that has the courage to take a positive role, not a government that takes the negative stance that present problems were caused by some previous government.

I am prepared to admit that adjustments are necessary. What we must guard against is the destruction of sections of the industry which have a long-term future beyond the existing adjustment period. I point out that it takes time and experience to grow apples and pears and to get the expertise to prepare and to market them. Tree pulls should be carried out in selected areas only where there is no possibility of a return to viability in the long term. In the meantime, the Opposition supports the Bills presently before the House as there is no doubt that spreading the levy over the whole production and sale of apples- sales in Australia and export sales-is the most equitable method of collecting the levy.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I hope that it is not the kiss of death to the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) or to the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) when I say sincerely that we on this side of the House are appreciative of the amount of work and constructive effort that they put into their speeches on industries such as horticulture. Sometimes a good thing goes a little bit too long when there are one or two other speakers each waiting to speak for 5 minutes. I know that the honourable member for Darling would never have transgressed on that if he had realised the position. I am not going to refer tonight to his devastating attack on the Government because there would be little point in it. The apple growers know the answers better than the honourable member for Darling in this instance. I say that in the nicest possible way. I have sat and listened to the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) on 3 occasions this session. He has really studied his work and has tried to produce a constructive and logical argument. I for one, regardless of others, appreciate it because he works on his contributions and I acknowledge it. I will refer later to a minor disagreement which I have with the honourable member, but as far as I am concerned that will be nothing but constructive.

What I wish to say tonight will be brief and disjointed because I want to try to leave some time for my colleague the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) to speak tonight. Firstly, I want to congratulate the apple and pear industry on attempting to put its own house in order. This is an industry that can probably less afford to do so than any other primary industry of which I can think. Yet it is determined to do this and to pay levies to support its own corporation. I think that this is the first tiling that the House wants to note in relation to this Bill.

If I might get parochial, I have 2 things to say in a few sentences. First of all, I thought the House would like to know that out of the 9 members appointed to the Corporation there is yet to be one appointed from South Australia. South Australians have been appointed to the position of president of the Apple and Pear Association. They have been men of great stature. I believe that in the future a South Australian deserves some consideration in the making of appointments to the Apple and Pear Corporation. South Australia is only a small State in terms of apple growing. We have much competence in the field. I want to draw attention to the fact that we do not have representation on the Corporation. I would be silly if I did not say that of course State parochialism has no part in the composition of corporations. If the Government has the common sense that it deserves it should look across the Australian scene and obtain the best people that the industry can muster.

I have suffered here in silence for 2 months. I have heard Tasmanians say that they have the best quality apples in Australia. I have heard the same story from members from New South Wales. I have even heard mutters from members from Victoria. Of course, if honourable members like to look at the facts they will see that South Australian apples have always had a premium on the United Kingdom market, way above that of the apples from the other States. The fact that we have had the sense to withdraw from that export trade is another matter again. But I think the principle still applies. Those are my 2 parochial comments in relation to the industry.

Mr Yates:

– They are good ones.

Mr GILES:

– I think they contain a certain amount of truth to back up my contention. The other thing I would like to say is that I think it is totally unfair for the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating)- I think this is the third occasion on which he has done so when leading for the Opposition in a debate on a rural matterto attack the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). He did it again tonight by saying that the Minister had never been to an apple growing area. This is patently absurd. If one applied the argument to the honourable member for Blaxland it might have some merit. But I happen to know that the Minister was in the apple growing area of New South Wales last weekend. He has been with me into apple growing areas of South Australia. He has probably been in many other apple growing areas as well. There are times, as the honourable member for Darling said, when members of Parliament have to get together for the sake of an industry and for the sake of rational thinking. On such occasions they need to chuck away stupid remarks that cannot be sustantiated by fact.

The honourable member for Blaxland, of course, took the side of the Industries Assistance Commission. He did not stop to recognise the fact that the Government did not accept the advice of the IAC, and that is terribly important to Tasmania. In fact, it refused the advice in relation to government subvention on risk fruit. This applies not to fruit exported to the Asian market, which is dealt with on a contract basis, but to risk shipments to European ports. The Government today introduced the total readjustment plan which will not be lost on those smaller fruit growers who are feeling the pinch. If I might be terribly polite, they are feeling the pinch because of undue cost in-puts visited on them by the previous Government. I do not think that is a political point and I do not wish it to be. But if one looks at the figures and the graphs I do not think that one can run away from that proposition. Therefore, the second thing that this Government has done, in addition to introducing the isolated tree pull scheme, the dairy scheme and what have you, is to introduce a total readjustment program that will allow such new matters as household support to apply. One can rant and rave- this is largely the job of an Oppositionthat the Government is doing nothing. But the facts rather belie that contention.

I think that in the few minutes that I have left before I allow my colleague to have his fair share of the time that is available I should comment on what was said by the honourable member for Fraser. He made a point that the area method of assessing the levies was the proper method. Contrary to what was said by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) I accept in principle exactly what the honourable member for Fraser stated.

Mr Fry:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GILES:

-Exactly. To do anything else does not encourage efficiency. After all if we were to impose the levy on a low production area on the same basis as we impose it on an area that happens to produce more apples that tend, by the way, to be high quality apples, we would therefore be on the side of efficiency. The big tragedy of the situation was that Queensland in this case is said to have won the argument. Should it have won the argument? That is the next point. It is assessed that if the levy is imposed on an area basis in 1 976 it will cost $200,000 to collect $ 1 m. I might quickly say that a rough estimate of collecting it on a production basis through very few sources is 5 per cent of Sim and not 20 per cent, which unfortunately would be the case if one stuck to the principle of levying on an area basis. If one collects the levy on an area basis one has problems with the definition of the leviable land. It is all very well saying that one can sit up in a chopper and work it out on a map. But how does one tell what crop is bearing? How does one tell what crop has a disease and will not bear?

How does one tell from the air what crop is suffering from drought? How does one tell what crop, due to a good season, is yielding higher than another one?

There is also the problem of the exact measurement of the viable land. One has to calculate the deductions. There are deductions due to hardship that would make it difficult to levy on a productive basis. There may also be claims for remission of levies as a result of crop failure, general hardship, low returns and other matters that I have already mentioned. The big problem of levying on a per acreage basis is this: One may have 7000 apple growers to levy, all of which have to be contacted individually. One does not have anything like that same picture when one looks at the other method that the Government has adopted. I repeat the fact that about 5 per cent of the $lm levy will be spent to collect the levy under the method the Government has now adopted.

There are various aspects about which one could talk in relation to the method of raising the levy. I do not accept what the honourable member for Maranoa has said. From memory I think he said that to impose the levy per production unit is the correct and the most efficient method. It is the most economic but it does not encourage efficiency of production. To that extent I am on the side ofthe honourable member for Fraser. I am just sorry that the method which the industry wishes to use to collect the levy is such a totally uneconomic one. I would have liked to have mentioned many other things. However, time will not allow me to do so. I support the Bill and I hope that the couple of isolated remarks that I have put forward will be helpful to the debate.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

-The purpose of these Bills is to finance the Apple and Pear Corporation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech said:

These legislative proposals give effect to the recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association for a new basis of financing the activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation.

Much has been said about the method of collection of fees. I know that I have only a few moments in which to speak. I will slide over many things which I would have liked to have said tonight. Much has been said about deficiencies in the method of collecting this levy. It must be recalled that again in the Minister’s second reading speech he stated:

Honourable members may recall that proposals were before the Parliament, at the time ofthe double dissolution last year, for the Corporation to be financed from the proceeds of a levy on bearing areas of apple and pear trees. The apple and pear growing industry, having reconsidered this proposal-

This is the industry itself- has confirmed its original view that it would prefer the levy to be based on the quantity of fruit marketed, both in Australia and overseas.

I agree with the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). I recognise that there will be difficulties in the method of collection. But I believe that this is the most equitable method by which the levy can be collected. Nothing need last forever. If this system proves to be inefficient maybe the Government, which has been guided by the industry in the decisions which it has taken regarding the raising of this levy, can have another look at the matter. There is no reason why it cannot, although I appreciate that there will be difficulties. But once again I point out that the Government had been guided by the industry in this matter. Much has been said about the new Corporation, the members on it, and thenexpertise. One must remember that this is a new corporation. I think the proposals before us to finance the Corporation are more equitable and that they will lead to a sufficiency of money for that Corporation. This should lead to a noticeable marketing benefit. The extra funds will allow the Corporation to put the necessary effort into seeking and developing new markets overseas. Areas such as South East Asia undoubtedly hold the key to the industry’s future and to its future viability in the export field. The extra funds will allow it seriously to build up the profitable home market for the first time.

We all wish the apple industry of Australia a prosperous future. But we all must recognise the difficulties which confront it. I also say tonight that many growers in Western Australia feel that while the Government has been guided by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association, they feel isolated from the Corporation. They believe that they should be under great scrutiny in the next year or so to see that they are carrying out a worthwhile endeavour. The levy which has been imposed may not seem like a lot of money but it must be remembered that the exporting States of Western Australia and Tasmania basically carried the old Australian Apple and Pear Board in years gone by. This is a more equitable system but they are the States which will keep the apple industry- I speak mainly of apples because that is my concern- on a proper footing. If the apple export industry of Australia fails the rest of the apple industry in Australia must fail. Some concern has also been expressed in my State of Western Australia. I have brought this to the attention of the Government before and I do so now. This concern comes from the Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries of Western Australia. In a part of its letter it states:

While the proposed collection process will not involve the grower or the Corporation in any cost, the cost to the community borne initially by agents and merchants will be high indeed and entirely out of proportion to the revenue raised. Collection of the levy on eachindividual transaction, the accounting for it and the remittance of the funds must, of necessity, be costly.

I realise that my time has come to an end. I flag those 2 warnings to the Government. I have done so on other occasions. I take this opportunity to say again that we must keep the new structure under closer scrutiny. We must be prepared to look at the method of collection of levies to see that it is equitable, that it does work and that it is practical.

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 Sinclair) read a third time.

page 3200

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Sinclair) read a third time.

page 3200

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Sinclair) read a third time.

page 3200

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Sinclair) read a third time.

page 3200

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3200

STATES GRANTS (BEEF INDUSTRY) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3200

ADJOURNMENT

St Johns College, Lakemba- Education-Works of Art on Loan to Governor-General- Discrimination Against Women-Incident in Parliament House- Resignation of Queensland Police Commissioner-Australian Economy

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

-On 18 November, 30 November and 1 December I presented to the House of Representatives petitions which read:

That, pending the increase or redistribution of funds in a more equitable manner as per section5.6 of the Report of the Australian Schools Commission 1977-79, emergency interim Australian Government financial assistance be offered to those NSW Catholic schools, with large numbers of students of migrant background, that had anticipated assistance for 1977 as per precedents established in previous years.

The signatures had been organised by the Parents and Friends Association and the Mothers Auxiliary of St John’s College, Lakemba, which is in my electorate of Lang, at the request of Rev. Brother Luke, the headmaster of that college. Brother Luke had become alarmed at a reduction in funds from the Catholic Education Office in Sydney, which meant a reduction in English as second-language teachers at St John ‘s from three to two.

As well as organising the petitions which I presented- they contained thousands of signaturesBrother Luke wrote to me on 23 November detailing the problems being faced at St John’s. I intend to give some details of the information which Brother Luke forwarded to me in his letter. I have discussed the matter with the Minister representing the Minister for Education in this House. I have given a copy of the letter to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) and a copy to the Minister representing him. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Permission for the incorporation was given by the Minister representing the Minister for Education.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The letter read as follows-

ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE P.O Box 8, Lakemba, 2195 Telephone: 759-4673 23 November, 1976

The Hon. F. E. Stewart, M.P., Shop 2, The Boulevarde, LAKEMBA.

Dear Mr Stewart,

On the 1st October, 1976, 1 was advised by Miss Catherine Duncan, Co-ordinator, Catholic Child Migrant Education, Catholic Education Office, Sydney, that for 1977 our “English as a Second Language” (E.S.L.) teachers were to be reduced in number from three to two. This reduction was caused by a shortage in Government Funding. A copy of Miss Duncan ‘s letter is attached.

This advice caused me grave concern and I made immediate representations to the Catholic Education Office for a reconsideration of the decision. My request was rejected. A copy of the reply is enclosed.

You will note from the letter that Catholic Schools in N.S.W. are funded for 174 E.S.L. Teachers with a class ratio of 66 students per teacher. It could not be held that this is a satisfactory position.

So great became my concern that, in co-operation with our Parents and Friends’ Association and Mothers’ Auxiliary, I organised the circulation of a Petition calling on the Federal Government to offer immediate interim financial assistance to Catholic Schools in N.S.W.

Some of these completed petitions have been forwarded to you and I trust you will take the necessary action to present them to the House of Representatives.

Whilst I appreciate that financial resources of the Commonwealth do not come from a “bottomless pit”, I firmly believe that value for money can be better achieved by a more careful ordering of priorities for the allocation of funds. Teacher Inservice, innovations, experimentations etc. are far less important than the essential staffing of schools.

The provision of funds to pay the salaries of essential teaching staff should take priority over all educational funding.

Despite Government funding, and for this all at St John’s are extremely grateful, our annual deficits for the last three years are as follows:-

1973- $33,863

1974- 564,346

1975- 552,416

I shudder to think of our impending deficit for 1 976.

St John’s College is understaffed and ill-equipped in comparison with the average Government School. We function without an Administration Block, operating from two inconveniently placed offices in separate buildings.

The Schools Commission is well aware of our problems.

There are in the school 622 pupils. On a count taken last week, these included 405 students representing 34 different national cultures, 65 per cent of the total school population. They are listed as follows:-

The parents of these children, mainly, are non or semiskilled workers and are socially and economically deprived.

I enclose two tables indicating the comparison of reading ages of our pupils compared with their chronological ages. The testing was carried out in mid-year 197S.

With reference to the table, one-third ofthe pupils in the school had reading ages more than two (2) years below their chronological ages. The lower years in the school have a higher percentage of migrants and are in greater need of the help available from ESL teachers handling smaller groups. Unfortunately, I have no figures available on years S and 6, 1975.

My concern is increased by the knowledge that thousands of migrant families live in this area. Our feeder schools, extending from Campsie to Punchbowl, are in areas of high migrant settlement. Indications are that the migrant population in these areas will increase in the year ahead.

At the present time, I am receiving one application per week for enrolment at St John ‘s for migrant children arriving in Australia.

Our external examination results over the years and this year’s gradings on the State-wide Reference Tests have been better than average, due in no small measure to the work of our dedicated staff, to our ESL program and reading schemes, to our organised seminars, to the spirit of study in the school, its good morale etc

A wonderful community spirit exists in the school. There is not the slightest hint of racial problems and all are very proud of what is being achieved.

I am attaching several reports summarising the work done this year, by our ESL teachers.

It is a great pity that a school like ours cannot provide an Industrial Arts Block where slow pupils could get some personal satisfaction and be given a better preparation for life. They cannot enjoy satisfying manual skills such as metalwork, woodwork etc We have not the money to provide these types of rooms and this type of equipment.

I am enclosing a School Information Booklet and last year’s Annual Report for your information.

As you well know, Frank, St John’s, despite its many disadvantages is highly regarded in the community. Our pupils are often commended on their fine behaviour and manner of dress. We concentrate on the teaching of the three ‘R’s’- as we must, given the heterogeneous nature of our school population- but we also insist that our pupils learn of the finer things of life. We try to inculcate into every boy good manners, respectfulness and a regard for discipline. We offer them opportunities to engage in healthy outdoor exercise and excursions, and encourage them to participate in many cultural, social, academic and sporting activities.

Our aim at St John’s is to allow every boy to make the utmost use of his intellectual and physical attributes.

However, our efforts must continue to be hindered unless we can employ qualified teachers in essential areas and ESL teachers are by far the most important, at this stage, if every boy at St John’s is to be given anywhere near equality of educational opportunity. Without ESL groups, our English classes average out at thirty-five (35) pupils per class throughout the school. The provision of three (3) ESL teachers reduces the average number in English classes from year 5 to year 8 to twenty (20) pupils per class.

You can see that I am alarmed at the loss of one ESL teacher from St John’s for 1977 and earnestly request you to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Education, Senator the Hon. J. L. Carrick. My concern is increased by the fear that 1977 will bring a further reduction in ESL staffing.

Do you think it would be possible for the Deputy Principal and myself to meet with the Minister or one of his senior officers to discuss-

  1. 1 ) the provision of ESL teachers,
  2. the granting of special assistance for the provision of an Industrial Arts Block,
  3. the introduction ofthe teaching of the Arabic language as an elective subject, and
  4. our need for special assistance as a disadvantaged school.

I shall be pleased to hear from you on this matter.

Yours sincerely, Brother G.LUKE, FSC, ARMIT, MACE, Headmaster

Mr STEWART:

– St John’s College at Lakemba has 623 students in years 5 to 10 or, in oldfashioned language, from fourth class to fourth form. Of those boys 405 come from 34 different countries, 373 of those boys come from 29 non-English speaking countries and 32 come from 5 English speaking countries. Without the ESL teachers- English as a second language teachers- the average numbers in English classes in years 5 to 8 increases from 20 pupils to 35 pupils. Brother Luke advises me that he is now receiving one application a week for the enrolment of migrant children, mainly in the lower classes and mainly involving newly arrived migrants. This is before the enrolments for 1977 have really opened. So Brother Luke can look forward to having a large increase in the number of migrant children attending St John’s College at Lakemba. A test carried out in 1975 comparing the reading age with the chronological age showed that in year 10 students with a reading age of 24-plus months below their chronological age was 35.5 per cent, in year 9 it was 37.8 per cent, in year 8 it was 37.5 per cent and in year 7 it was 33.9 per cent. This alarming and heartbreaking situation compels me to bring the matter to public notice. I merely request the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, who is at the table, to advise the Minister representing the Minister for Education that I believe that immediate, thorough and favourable consideration should be given to the allocation of special grants to St John’s College, Lakemba, and to other schools- not only in New South Wales but also in other parts of Australiawhose young pupils are faced with a similar souldestroying problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-I call the honourable member for Swan.

Mr Armitage:

– The Democratic Labor Party?

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-That is the voice of experience. No one in this chamber would be surprised to hear the nonsense which the honourable member for Chifley speaks, but I will not say much about that tonight. I regret that the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) is not here because limited- on his own admission last Tuesday night- and good-natured as I know he is, he could not grasp the central thesis of the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Sainsbury) last Tuesday night. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro presented a proper concern about the deterioration of literacy and numeracy in Australian schools. He cited the report of the Australian Council for Educational Research which showed that such deterioration was factual. On the other hand, the honourable member for Burke obviously considers that teaching the art of street demonstrations is much superior to teaching the basic skills of counting and sentence-construction.

Mr Scholes:

– You are misrepresenting him, are you not?

Mr MARTYR:

– That is what he said last Tuesday night. I want to support the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and relate some American experiences which seem to me to be directly related to the Australian situation. Actually there is not a great deal of difference. Nearly half of the entering class at the University of California at Berkeley, a fairly selective school which takes only the top eighth of California high school graduates, failed placement exams and had to be enrolled in remedial composition courses. Applicants to journalism programs at Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas and North Carolina flunked basic spelling, punctuation and usage tests at rates that varied between 30 per cent and SO per cent. A survey by the Association of American Publishers showed that first year university students really do read on what used to be considered just a high school level.

American students are not learning to write because nobody is bothering to teach them how. Like many other bureaucracies the United States universities have become in large measure ingrown, so self-contained that most of their faculties believe, without even pausing to think about it, that what is good for them is good for the culture at large. In English departments, where one would expect a concern for literacy to be located, the attitude of self-interest appears to be all but universal. Far from resisting the general dissolution, English professors as a group pay almost no attention at all to such mundane topics as literate writing. This will not really concern the honourable member for Chifley, so he can go back to sleep. The business of the American English department is not the teaching of literacy; it is the worship of literature.

An American professor, Gene Lyons, said that after 8 years’ experience as a student and seven more as a faculty member at five State universities, every day he was more astonished by the increasing distance between most English departments and the everyday concerns of the society that pays their bills. So accustomed have they become to thinking of themselves as the very vanguard, if not the salvation, of Western culture, that the average member of ‘The Profession’, as it likes to call itself, believes that society exists to serve literary scholarship rather than the other way round. What he was saying applied in varying degrees to almost every academic discipline that he knew anything about, particularly those in the humanities, arts and social sciences. As things stand now, it is rare to find more than half a dozen college students in the United States out of a class of twenty-five who say that they were given regular instruction in writing in secondary school. The more perceptive students see teachers like this less as dedicated practitioners of their disciplines than as persons whose good fortune it has been to convince the government or the trustees of schools to underwrite their hobbies. What students are learning from such teachers is that learning to write is simply not very important.

That is the sort of thing that we as taxpayers have had to put up with in this country for many years, particularly during the last 3 years, when every crackpot who wanted to announce himself as a sociologist was able to give advice to students, to go into the streets and demonstrate and not worry about the basic skills which the honourable member for Eden-Monaro spoke about last Tuesday.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was good enough to reply to a question which I had placed on the parliamentary notice paper and which was headed ‘Australian National Gallery: Loan of Paintings to Governor-General’. In his reply the Prime Minister provided information about the paintings and other works of art which have been made available to the present Governor-General in the short period in which he has been in office. It is very plain from the answer that was given that the Governor-General is monopolising works of art from the Australian National Gallery which should be available for the enjoyment of the Australian community. Since Sir John took office the number of paintings loaned to Yarralumla has more than doubled. Information provided by the Prime Minister in yesterday ‘s Hansard shows that some of Australia’s most valuable art treasures are included in the 69 paintings and 3 Aboriginal paintings now on loan to Government House. The works include paintings by Arthur Boyd entitled ‘The Rabbiter’, “The Valley’, ‘Unicorn and Figure in a Tree’, and ‘Rosebud Landscape’. They include the famous work of art by William Dobell, ‘Regent’s Park London’, and the Russell Drysdale paintings ‘Halfcaste Woman’ and ‘Country Boy’ and others. Also contained in the collection is Sidney Nolan’s ‘Death of Sergeant Kennedy at Stringy bark Creek’.

It is a marvellous list. I do not blame the Governor-General for wanting to have these paintings displayed in his residence. But there are 69 treasures of Australia’s art collection there. In addition, the Government House collection includes at least 11 ceramics, 4 pieces of sculpture and 2 tapestries, all acquired during His Excellency’s period of office. Moderate utilisation would be accepted as reasonable but I regard this over-indulgence as reprehensible. It would be more in keeping with the role of the National Gallery to put this unique collection on circuit as was done with ‘Blue Poles’. The collection should be put into the universities of Australia, into the colleges of advanced education, into the art galleries in the great cities, the country towns and the provincial cities and in civic centres and art galleries all around Australia to let the people who paid for them draw some inspiration from them.

I do not want to question the need for works of art to be displayed at Government House. I realise that His Excellency’s wife has a great appreciation of art and is very actively involved in this area. But one can engage in excesses. I do not know the value of these works of art because the Prime Minister declined to answer that part of my question. It could well be that works of art worth millions of dollars have accumulated at Government House. I regard that as unreasonable. The entire community would benefit if the collection was exhibited on a circulating basis to the places that I have mentioned.

I have no doubt that the Prime Minister’s refusal to provide information about the value of this Yarralumla collection is an indication of his embarrassment. Even to cite original acquisition costs, as could easily have been done, would have shown that the Governor-General is wallowing in a luxurious art arsenal rivalled only by a handful of eccentric millionaire art collectors of international notoriety. I put it to the Prime Minister that the Government has a responsibility to take action and to limit the degree of luxury enjoyed by the Governor-General in this regard. These works or art should be placed among the people of Australia, among the young students who also have an appreciation of the aesthetic things in life.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-This evening I wish to raise a matter of discrimination against women. In these enlightened days the opportunities for women have been greatly expanded. Most of us, of course, reject the extremist position of some feminists who, like all extremists who jump on a particular bandwagon, are seeking to use the women’s movement purely to pursue their own extreme left wing political and economic ends. Nevertheless there is a strong case for continuing to pursue the elimination of discrimination against women where it exists.

It would seem to me that the Australian Defence Force continues to be a bastion of such discrimination.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member: What about the women jumping out of the Liberal cake?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for Blaxland knows that that is not a point of order. I suggest a certain degree of reasonableness in the debate.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– In May of this year I took up with the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) the case of a constituent of mine, Miss Elizabeth Palmer, who is currently a matriculation student. Miss Palmer is a talented young musician and she had applied to join the Army band corps at the Adelaide recruiting centre. She undertook various interviews, auditions and tests associated with this application and, according to the officers involved, she passed these tests with flying colours. In fact, she looked set for a distinguished musical career in the Army. Then, 2 days before her final medical test the Adelaide recruiting office was advised by the authorities in Canberra that they were not taking women into the band corps and her application was therefore refused. However, subsequent advertisements showed that the band corps was still recruiting men to this sphere of activity.

The Minister advised me in July that a review of the employment of women in the armed forces was being undertaken with the aim of evolving common corps for each Service with like conditions and responsibility for male and female members. The aim was to redress areas identified as discriminatory to women. The Minister said that he was awaiting advice on the implementation of an effective program to bring about this aim. Of course, it was necessary to phase this program in because of practical problems, such as accommodation, changes to Service regulations, training requirementss and the primary and secondary combatant roles of various employment categories. The Minister’s answer to a question from the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) a fortnight ago indicates that this review is still going on some 6 months after I first raised the matter with him.

It would seem that the Department is a little tardy in completing its review and coming forward with appropriate advice on which the Minister could act in this matter. Women are already employed in the Army in at least 14 areas- in the survey trades, signal trades, as linguists, in the transport trades, in the nursing corps, in the dental area, in the ordinance trades, in catering, as military police, psychologists, publication illustrators, physical training instructors, as quartermasters and air traffic controllers. There would therefore seem to be no justifiable reason for excluding women from the army band corps. Paragraph 15 of chapter 5 of the Defence White Paper recently tabled in this House states that the Government intends that women in the Services should now have greater job opportunities and closer equality with men in training and conditions of service. It was also accepted that women would be permitted to serve in areas where hostilities were in progress but that they would not be employed as combatants or at sea.

With regard to the last point it could well be said that the distinction between combatant and non-combatant roles is blurred by the degree of technology in modern warfare. Certainly, the Army band corps must be accepted as a noncombatant role and should therefore definitely be open to women. Opportunities for women in the Australian Army are severely restricted by comparison with the United States Army where, of course, President Ford in October signed a Bill authorising women to attend Service academies, and that was a major step forward. Women hold senior positions right through the Armed forces in that country. I therefore urge the Minister to have this review of women’s role in the Army completed as quickly as possible and to implement policies which will broaden opportunities for women in the armed forces. Particularly as a Liberal I would urge him to do so because I believe that we, as a Liberal Government, should support the rights of individuals to have their opportunities expanded to undertake a career of their choice.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I am amused to hear the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) say that as a Liberal he is interested in women’s rights, particularly as just 2 nights ago the Liberal Party had a woman jumping out of a cake in Parliament House, demeaning not only the status of women in this country but also the status of the Ministers and members who were there.

Mr Chapman:

– Are you suggesting that I was involved in the party?

Mr KEATING:

– I do not know whether you were involved in the party. Let us find out from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Liberal Party which Ministers and members were at the party so that we can know which Ministers and members of the Liberal Party are interested in the rights, dignity and status of Australian women. Some time ago it may have been said that this kind of activity could have been expected of the Labor Party, the working class, but not of proper people, nor of the correct people in the community, not of the representatives of the establishment, to run what would otherwise be visible only in a peep show. But in the Parliament of this nation you and your Ministers are involved in a party in which you have a woman jumping naked out of a cake. You have demeaned the Parliament of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There are 2 tilings I must say to the honourable member for Blaxland. Firstly, he knows that he should address the Chair. Secondly, I suggest to him that a blanket accusation on a matter such as this is perhaps not the fairest way to speak in this House tonight.

Mr KEATING:

– We on this side ofthe House want to know who was involved- which Ministers and members were present.

Mr Chipp:

– I rise on a point of order. From my memory 5 standing orders demand that when honourable members speak they should uphold the decorum and dignity of this House. I submit that this candidate for the leadership of the Labor Party is demeaning this House by way of his conduct now. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to call him to relevancy and to uphold the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The adjournment debate is a very wide-ranging and broad one. I have already made one comment to the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr KEATING:

– A question was asked on this matter today and the Speaker, in my view, gave a very flippant reply to a very serious subject, and that is the behaviour of Ministers and members of this Parliament in the precincts of this House. We would like to know whether most members of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister share the Speaker’s view. Perhaps the Australian women’s movement and women in Australia generally would like to know which Liberal Ministers and members approve of the concept of naked women jumping out of cakes for their pleasure. The things we would expect in the peep shows of King’s Cross have happened in the Parliament House of the nation.

Mr Chipp:

– You are in your element. You are grovelling in filth.

Mr KEATING:

– Your Party is embarrassed. It might well be embarrassed by your behaviour. You have no moral standards.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind honourable members that a certain comment has been made this evening about the dignity of this House. I do not think that any of the interjections and some of the comments have been assisting in maintaining that dignity in any way whatsoever. I suggest that from this time on remarks regarding the dignity of this House be borne in mind by every honourable member.

Mr KEATING:

– A question of morality is involved. It is the same as the question of morality which arose last year when the people of this Party, the people who represent the establishment of this country, for their own selfish reasons ripped up the Australian Constitution. Those honourable members did the immoral things that they are now ashamed of. It just seems they never learn. We now find that, with the appointment of a Minister specially involved with women’s rights and with the Prime Minister’s glib talk about bis interest in the dignity of women, senior Ministers are party to this kind of charade in Parliament House. It is up to the Speaker to do something positive about it and not excuse people in his Party by way of bis glib references to the matter this morning. It is up to the Prime Minister to identify those people involved and to state his attitude about the matter. We on this side regard this behaviour as being unacceptable in Parliament House particularly as it is a massive sleight to the women of this country. We find it unacceptable that Ministers and members should cover up their behaviour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-I would like to take up tonight a matter that was raised on the adjournment debate on 30 November in connection with the police force of Queensland. I regard this as not necessarily a matter of national debate but particularly a matter of State importance. I am glad to know that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) is here. By inference, by omission, the honourable member indicated that the new Commissioner of Police in Queensland and the police force in Queensland are of a different standard to what has been accepted in the past in Queensland or in any other State.

Mr James:

– I worked there. Did you?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I worked in Queensland. I just do not know for whom the honourable member ever worked. I take up the comment that some ofthe references made were based on the experience of 194S, some 32 years ago. The honourable member indicated that he found certain evidence of corruption in the force then because police in similar situation to himself were able to spend twice as much as he was able to do. I think this is an admission of something we know as fact. The honourable member is known for his actual meanness and therefore he is quite capable of spending half as much as anybody else.

Mr James:

– I think I can handle you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I will handle the honourable member for Hunter in a moment, too. I do not mean physically, either. I would be under a bit of a handicap. I mean the other way.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– Mention was also made of the same matter in the Senate on 16 November. There is no question about the integrity or honesty of ex-Commissioner Whitrod. I believe that by omission the honourable member was actually describing incoming Commissioner Lewis as a man of inferior capabilities. This I dispute. I think this allegation must be corrected for the whole police force. It has been mentioned by both Senator Colston and the honourable member for Hunter that there are grave consequences in this action; that it was a tragedy for the police and the people of Queensland because of the evilness which is present. I dispute all of these things. The incoming Commissioner has the support not only of the police, the rank and file, but also I believe of the people of Queensland themselves.

Commissioner Lewis, as he now is, is a man who has had quick promotion. He is 48 years or 49 years of age and people have held this against him. But people have held the Prime Ministership of this nation at a younger age. I do not believe that the Commissioner’s age has anything to do with the capabilities that he will express. I think it is important that people in public debate should take cognisance of the fact that if their statements are ill made they can undermine the integrity ofthe police force as it exists at the moment. It can create suspicions and foster further divisions. The police force of any nation or State works under very grave and difficult situations. They are called upon to implement laws irrespective of whether the laws are good or bad. If we start pointing the finger of scorn in illconceived statements we can only further undermine the integrity of the police and the thoughts of the public on the police. I am not saying that the police of any State are not without their blemishes, but I think that politicians ought to look to themselves first before casting aspersions in any other direction.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Mr Deputy Speaker I claim to have been misrepresented. With respect to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) I never, by inference or otherwise, denounced Mr Lewis, the newly appointed Police Commission in Queensland. I do not know Mr Lewis. I spoke with first hand knowledge of the integrity of Mr Whitrod, the former Commissioner, and I adhere to every word I said about him. I only wish that members of this chamber were as honourable as former Commissioner Whitrod of the Queensland police.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Fraser Liberal-National Country Party coalition Government has completed 12 months in control of the Treasury and we now find that it has now made a mess of the country and the Treasury. About 300 000 people are unemployed. The figure will rise to 600 000 unemployed by next March. I am not crowing; I am just making remarks. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back 12 months. The policy of the Liberal-National Country Party coalition before the 1975 election- at the time when it was the caretaker Government- was to provide full employment and to reduce the rate of inflation. We heard the debate this week on devaluation. The Government has stated that there will,be more employment. We hope it is right, but miracles are hard to come by nowadays.

If we had an election on 13 November how many new faces would be in the Parliament? The oncers in this 30th Parliament would be back in the work force. They could be on the dole and then they might query their own Government’s policy. Unemployment is morally wrong. No one in Australia should be unemployed. We agree that if a person is fit she or he should have employment and should be producing and doing something worthwhile for personal satisfaction and for the country’s survival. This Government is only talking; but the ship is sinking and the country and the people are being sacrificed. From experience the Fraser Government and Government supporters should wake up to the fact that the private sector of the economy is not concerned with creating jobs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3208

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities (Question No. 1258)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Which projects had been announced under the program of Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities prior to 17 December 197S (Hansard, 6 October 1976, page 1611).
  2. What sum has been paid or is due to be paid for each project.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is too long to be included in Hansard, but copies are available from the Table Office, House of Representatives.

Licences for Citizens Band Radio (Question No. 1297)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

Will he have undertaken an advertising campaign to warn the public of the requirement for a licence to operate a transceiver in the citizens band.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Advertisements are placed regularly by my Department in both daily newspapers and periodicals to acquaint members of the public of the need to hold licences to operate radiocommunication equipment. Such licensing requirements are, of course, also given extensive coverage in various Government publications.

Citizens Band Radio Receivers (Question No. 1298)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

Are there any restrictions in force in relation to the importation and sale of transceivers in the citizens band.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is no.

Lockheed Electra Aircraft (Question No. 1299)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he state in answer to Question No. 1077 that the figures quoted by his predecessor in March 1962 regarding the costs of the Lockheed Electra LI 88 aircraft purchased by TAA also included the costs of aircraft spares and ground equipment whereas the figures supplied by him on 1 7 March 1976 did not include these costs.
  2. If so, what were the costs of the (a) spares and, (b) ground equipment for the Electra aircraft.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows: were circulated:

  1. Yes: However, the amounts quoted for costs of Lockheed Electra aircraft purchased by TAA and tendered by me on 17 March, require adjustment and should read as follows:

    1. 24 June 1959-SA2. 178m.
    2. 19 July 1959-$Al. 185m
    3. 19 August 1 960-$A2.289m.

The discrepancies arose because the original information tendered by the airline was believed to be in U.S. dollars, which is normal for monetary quotes relating to aircraft purchases. However, the airline on rechecking the previous information tendered, and in compiling a detailed list of costs involved, now informs me that the amounts quoted were in Australian dollars not U.S. dollars and no conversion in monetary terms should apply.

  1. The estimated project cost for each aircraft for spare engines and propellors was $A3S4,4S9, initial spares $A387,658 and ground equipment $A142,26S. So as the honourable member will be clear on the total cost of the Electra aircraft to TAA, I outline the estimated project cost setting out all costs associated with the purchase of one Electra aircraft.

Annandale Nursing Home (Question No. 1327)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the fees charged by nursing homes, can he say why the fees for the Annandale Nursing Home have risen from $80.89 to $ 1 65 in the space of a few months.
  2. ) Is another rise expected next week.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The current fee applying in Annandale Nursing Home is $125.72 a week. This fee became effective from 15 November 1976. The only increase in the home’s fee in the previous 4 months was on 1 5 October 1 976 when the fee rose by $3. 1 5 a week to $ 123.20 a week.

Fees charged in a nursing home are increased after the proprietor has applied to my Department and demonstrated that the cost of operating the nursing home has risen. Any increase in fees is based on the increase in cost. This procedure was followed in the case of Annandale Nursing Home.

Because of its concern about the widening gap between nursing home fees and benefits the Government proposes to increase the rates of nursing home benefits by $14 a week from 15 December 1976 as an interim measure while the

Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm completes its deliberations.

Qantas Boeing 747 Aircraft (Question No. 1373)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What length of service between overhauls was planned for engines fitted to the Qantas Boeing 747 aircraft when the decision was made for their purchase.
  2. ) Has that period been altered; if so why.
  3. 3 ) What is the length of flying time involved in a cycle for a 747 engine.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There was no fixed overhaul period planned. The initial maintenance program of the Qantas Boeing 747 and its engines followed closely the program approved by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S.A under the Maintenance Review Board system. This program included the regular internal inspection of the engine by horoscope, the retirement of critical engine parts at fixed life limits, the disassembly inspection of engine modules on a sampling basis and condition monitoring of all components.
  2. No, the same system still exists but some retirement lives of critical engine parts have been extended by fitting modified parts.
  3. The average flying time per heat cycle for Qantas Boeing 747 engines in 197S was 3.6 hours.

Qantas Boeing 747 Aircraft (Question No. 1374)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the performance of the Pratt and Whitney engines fitted to the Qantas Boeing 747 aircraft causing some concern to Qantas.
  2. Is there any plan in hand to replace them with Rolls Royce engines.
  3. If so, what would be the cost of the changeover for the whole Qantas fleet
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Qantas is not concerned about the performance of the Pratt and Whitney engines fitted to its Boeing 747 aircraft from the safety point of view but it has some concern in terms of operating costs.
  2. No.

Diabetes Statistics (Question No. 1382)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many people were suffering from diabetes in each State and Territory during each of the years 1970 to 1976 inclusive.
  2. What percentage of the population do these figures represent
  3. What facilities has his Department made available for the treatment of diabetes in Australia.
  4. Is diabetes on the increase in Australia.
  5. What overseas research into diabetes, both government and private, is being monitored in Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The precise number of people suffering from Diabetes mellitus in each State and Territory during the years 1970. to 1976 inclusive, is not available; there is no regular collection of such data in Australia since Diabetes mellitus is not a notifiable disease. The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a household sample survey in 1974 from which estimates of persons suffering from chronic illnesses, injuries and impairments have been derived. The number of persons reported suffering from Diabetes mellitus per 1000 of estimated population was 6.2 representing 0.6 per cent of the Australian population. These estimates are subject to variability due to a sample rather than the whole population having been enumerated and the fact that the information provided by informants may not have been based on diagnosis by medical practitioners and excludes cases where the respondent was not aware of the condition or chose not to disclose it.
  2. Although there are special diabetic clinics in some hospitals and similar institutions, generally speaking persons suffering from this condition are treated by their own doctor.

Cost for treatment and pathological tests can be claimed under Medibank arrangements. Insulin and other drugs used in treatment are available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, free of charge to eligible pensioners and to others on payment of a $2 patient contribution. A range of diagnostic reagents necessary for patients in the management ofthe disease is also available under the same conditions as above.

The Government has provided funds under the Community Health Program for a Regional Diabetic Service operating from the Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney. The aim of this Service is to identify management problems in diabetic patients referred from their doctors and to motivate and educate the patients and their families to adhere to their prescribed management regimen.

Funds provided by the Government for this purpose are as follows:

In 1973-74 Commonwealth funds under the Community Health Program were provided on the basis of 100 per cent funding. In subsequent years, funds have been provided on the basis of 75 per cent of capital costs and 90 per cent of operating costs, the remainder being provided by the State Government

In 1976-77 a block grant of $29.4m was allocated to New South Wales for projects under the Community Health Program. The Regional Diabetic Service will receive funds under this block grant to the State.

  1. Data based on the prescription of anti-diabetic drugs and entitlement applications from ex-service personnel from both world wars would seem to indicate that there has been an increase in prevalence over the past 15-30 years. However, this cannot be confirmed by the data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, whose data are limited to records of death certification and estimates derived from the household sample surveys.
  2. Overseas research into Diabetes mellitus is constantly being monitored by Australian diabetologists and others. Diabetic research has been, and is still being undertaken in Australia. Many such research projects are supported by the Government through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Transport to and from Tasmania (Question No. 1391)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the Australian National Line asked and when did it commence, to carry out the study, recommended by the Nimmo Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania in its Report presented on5 March 1976, of the comparative cost of moving general cargo (a) on its own wheels between Westernport Bay and Devonport and (b) in boxes and flats between Webb Dock and Devonport (Hansard, 20 October 1976, page 2017).
  2. ) When is it expected the study will be completed.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Priority has been accorded the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania directly relating to the transport assistance schemes. Consideration is currently being given to the most appropriate method of undertaking the various investigations suggested by Mr Nimmo into passenger and freight services between Westernport and Tasmania. ANL will not necessarily be required to carry out all or part of this study.
  2. A time frame for the study has not been determined. Following full implementation of the transport assistance scheme priority will be given to analysis of the Westernport proposal.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Special Projects (Question No. 1404)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the attitude of the Government to recent demonstrations in Sydney over the demotion of ABC producer Jennifer Hillier.
  2. Can he say whether the demotion is seen by some people as another attack on the ABC’s special projects branch.
  3. Can he also say whether there was a large number of signatures from the general public placed on the petitions circulated on this issue.
  4. Is there any plan to destroy the ABC radio special projects department in accord with the recommendations of the Green Inquiry.
  5. Does the Government regard the Green Inquiry as free of policitical bias.
  6. Does the Government consider that the ABC, especially the special projects branch, is fulfilling an important role in providing for a wide spectrum of political and social opinion.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The attitude of the Government is that personnel matters within the ABC are the concern of the Commission.
  2. to (6) The Government does consider that the ABC is fulfilling an important role in providing for a wide spectrum of political and social opinion. The special projects branch no doubt makes a contribution to the ABC’s effort. As the honourable member has now had the opportunity to read the Green Report he will agree that it is free of political bias and does not recommend any action in regard to the special projects branch.

Restrictive Land Covenants

Question No. 1439)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. 1 ) Have discussions been held with the States concerning the recommendations of the Trade Practices Review Committee that restrictive covenants over land should be regulated.
  2. Will the proposed legislation to regulate restrictive covenants affect in any way State or local government regulation of town planning and building requirements.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The recommendations of the Trade Practices Act Review Committee in relation to restrictive covenants over land expressly recognised that it would be outside the scope of the Trade Practices Act if a restriction upon a person using his land to trade in a particular way was imposed by a public authority operating pursuant to law (such as town planning rules). Any action proposed by the Government on this matter will be anounced when it has fully considered the Committee ‘s recommendations.

Tasmanian Southbound Freight (Question No. 1444)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will apples be included in the Tasmanian southbound freight equalisation arrangement as they have been in the northbound arrangement.
  2. If so, will the subsidy be at the same rate.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Southbound Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme will apply to producers’ goods and materials. Accordingly, apples shipped from the Mainland and used as a raw material input to Tasmania industry could be eligible for subsidy.
  2. Southbound subsidy rates have not yet been determined. However, the principle adopted in determining Northbound subsidy rates will be followed. Northbound rates are based on the assessed difference in levels of transport charges, for door-to-door movements between Tasmania and the Mainland, and the comparable movement of similar goods on the Mainland.

Sale of Lamb to United States of America (Question No. 1452)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Does a market exist in the United States of America for the sale of Australian lamb.
  2. Does lamb meat enter the United States free of tariff restrictions.
  3. What efforts are being made to promote sales in this market
  4. What is the present situation concerning lamb marketing to the United States.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A market for Australian lamb does exist in the United States of America and in recent years shipments to that market have been ofthe order of 3000 tonnes per annum.
  2. Australian lamb is subject to an import duty of 1.7 United States cents per lb. when imported into the United States.
  3. The Australian Meat Board in partnership with the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board and United States lamb producers, represented by the American Sheep Producers’ Council, jointly finance and conduct the activities of the Lamb Promotion Co-ordination Committee in the United States. The objective of this Committee is to develop a growing market for lamb in the United States, irrespective of its origin. Activities of the Committee include publications, film strips, display activities and advertising.
  4. Lamb is a relatively high priced meat in the United States and, despite the activities of the Lamb Promotion Coordination Committee, consumption remains low. Also there is a strong preference on the part of consumers for their own domestic lamb over the imported frozen product Australian exporters do not face any quantitative restrictions on lamb entering the United States and I am hopeful that Austalian exports will grow.

Canberra Airport: Passenger Statistics (Question No. 1458)

Mr Haslem:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many passengers, both inward and outward, used the Canberra Airport during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  2. What is the projected number of passengers, both inward and outward, who will use the Airport during each of the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics for passengers both inward an outward for each ofthe years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 are as follows:
  1. The traffic decline experienced during 1975-76 is expected to continue into the New Year. Thereafter, a modest growth in traffic may be expected. On this basis my Department estimates that total passenger traffic will reach the following levels for the next three years:

1976- 77-840000

1977- 78-855 000

1978- 79-875 000.

Letter Bomb Incident (Question No. 1487)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) To which letter bomb incident did the reward paid in 1975 relate, as mentioned on page 13 of the 1976 Annual Report ofthe Australian Postal Commission.
  2. Was a prosecution launched as a result of the information supplied.
  3. 3 ) If so, what was the outcome of the prosecution.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The reward was paid in relation to a device intercepted in Brisbane on 25 November 1975 addressed to the Prime Minister.
  2. Yes.
  3. Two children appeared in the Children’s Court Brisbane and were admonished by the Special Magistrate and discharged under the provisions of the Children’s Services Act.

Health Maintenance Organisation (Question No. 1501)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do health maintenance organisations in the United States of America generally use their own hospitals rather than community hospitals.
  2. If so, does this reduce the likely effectiveness of health maintenance organisations in Australia.
  3. What are the proposed hospital arrangements for the Wollongong health maintenance organisation project.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The longer-established Health Maintenance Organisations in the United States of America, such as the Kaiser Foundation based on the West Coast, generally provide care to subscribers in their own hospitals. These hospitals are also usually available for the care of non-subscribers on a feeforservice basis, and accept emergency cases. Many HMO’s, however, do use community hospitals.
  2. No. In order to qualify under the health insurance arrangements as an ‘approved’ organisation and thus to remove the requirement of subscribers to pay the Medibank levy, a health maintenance organisation will have to provide all services currently available to persons covered by Medibank. Where the health maintenance organisation does not possess its own facilities (such as hospitals) it must either contract out for their provision or make equivalent alternative arrangements. (3)I have not received, nor am I aware of any concrete submission for a health maintenance organisation project for Wollongong.

Qantas Flights: Sydney to Tokyo (Question No. 1513)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Transport, upon notice:

How many (a) first class and (b) economy class passengers travelled on the Sydney to Tokyo Qantas flight on each day between 7 June and 2 1 June 1976.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The number of passengers who travelled on the Sydney to Tokyo Qantas flights on the following days were:

Medical and Hospital Funds: Fees (Question No. 1579)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has any approval been given for any private medical and hospital fund to increase its fees from 1 October 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Since 1 October 1976 all medical benefits funds have been required to provide basic medical benefits (i.e in general covering 85 per cent of Schedule fees) on the same basis as Standard Medibank. Before 1 October these benefits were provided to all persons by Medibank. For hospital benefits funds, since 1 October, increased benefits have been provided because of increases in hospital charges.

Because of the increased benefits paid by funds, approval has been given to funds to increase contribution rates from1 October.

Transport: Studies and Inquiries (Question No. 1588)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which studies completed by the Bureau of Transport Economics during 1974-75, and mentioned in his report on the working and administration of his Department for that year (a) have been published, or (b) will be published.
  2. What studies have since been conducted or completed by the Bureau.
  3. Has the Government considered referring to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report any matters relating to transport; if so, what matters.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The following publications have resulted from the Bureau of Transport Economics activities as listed in the 1 974-75 Department of Transport Annual Report

Brisbane Airport: Economic Evaluation of Alternative Development Strategies

Townsville Airport: Economic Evaluation of Proposed International Facilities

Port Pirie: Economic Evaluation of Harbour Improvements

Mainline Upgrading: Evaluation of a Range of Options for the Melbourne/Sydney Rail Link

The Economics of an Australian ‘ Landbridge ‘

Provision of General Cargo Facilities at the Port of Darwin

Consumer Preferences in Urban Buses and Bus Services

Transport Outlook Conference 1975: Papers and Proceedings.

  1. (b) I am unable to forecast which BTE studies will lead to a formal report, or when such reports will be published. I am, however, of the opinion that the results of BTE studies should be given as wide a circulation as possible.
  2. As mentioned in the 1975-76 report on the working and administration of my Department, the BTE has been conducting the following major studies in addition to those listed in the 1974-75 report.

Investigation of the level of cost recovery for all modes

Information systems on transport research

A National Travel Survey of patterns of non urban travel

Evaluation of models relating urban land use to transport needs

Establishing the major determinants of modal choice between road and rail for long distance freight movements

The effect of the present range of freight containers in use on transport systems, terminals and equipment

Freight transport needs for Darwin and the Northern Territory

Development of methodology for determining airport passenger terminal layout

Alternative proposals to upgrade the track of the Tasmanian railway system of ANR

The economics of regional railway freight centres

Appraisal of the 2CM freight bogie

Planning of a research program into behaviour of rail track structures

Guidelines for the determination of weight of rail for mainline rerailing

A series of information bulletins on port cargo movements

Studies on overseas liner shipping operations.

Publications which have been issued to date as a result of these studies are

The 2CM Freight Wagon Bogie- An Appraisal

Occasional Paper No 3: Road User Charges: Theories and Possibilities

Occasional Paper No 5: Sampling Processes for the National Travel Survey

Information Bulletin: Port Authority Cargo Movements 1972- 73

Information Bulletin: Port Authority Cargo Movements 1973- 74.

  1. The Government is aware of the necessity to review the efficiency of all industry and the subsidy/tariff protection it is afforded. Some matters affecting the transport sector which have been referred to the IAC are

Commercial Ship Repair

Commercial Motor Vehicles

Inquiry into Passenger Motor Vehicles- Import Distributions

Report on Shipbuilding

Crude Oil Pricing.

Unemployment: Women (Question No. 950)

Mr Garrick:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to the survey carried out by the International Labour Organisation, as reported on 8 August 1976 in the Sydney Morning Herald, do the figures regarding unemployment for women reflect the Australian situation.
  2. Are women the first fired and last hired in times of economic recession.
  3. Is the percentage of unemployed women in excess of 40 per cent while the proportion of women in the work force is only 35 per cent.
  4. Does the Government have any plan to combat the problems which women have with regard to unemployment in times of economic slump.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. In August 1976 the International Labour Office in Geneva issued a Press Statement based on data collected by the ILO Bureau of Statistics from 18 Western European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The Australian statistics used by the ILO Bureau of Statistics were supplied by the Australian Statistician.

According to this Press Statement, which was duly reported in the Australian Press, the data, while not necessarily comparable from one country to another, showed that in the countries covered, unemployed women workers represented more than 40 per cent of total unemployment, while women made up only 35 per cent of their labour force.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that in August 1976, there were 118000 females unemployed in Australia, representing 44.7 per cent of the estimated total unemployed at that date. The Bureau’s classification of unemployed persons, which conforms closely to the labour force classification recommended by the Eighth International Conference of Labour Statisticians, 1954, includes those looking for part-time work, as well as those looking for full-time work. The August 1976 estimate of 118 000 females unemployed in Australia comprised 84 900 females looking for full-time work, and 33 100 females looking for part-time work.

In August 1976, the Australian Bureau of Statistics also estimated that there were 2 098 200 females in the work force, representing 34.9 per cent ofthe estimated total work force.

The latest available statistics on unemployment in Australia are those of persons registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). These statistics show that at the end of October 1 976 there were 86 064 females registered with the CES, representing 32.9 per cent of the total number of persons registered as unemployed with the CES. However, the number of persons registered as unemployed with the CES does not include those seeking part-time employment.

  1. While there are no data available to provide a definitive answer, it is reasonable to assume that in the engagement and dismissal of staff, a major consideration for employers would be the requirements of each job and the qualifications and ability of persons to fulfil such requirements. Further, in general, unions prefer to have the last on, first off principle applied in cases where retrenchment is necessary.
  2. 3) See answer to (1).
  3. The Government has recently introduced programs to combat problems associated with unemployment among the groups which are most affected. These are junior females and junior males, who are experiencing particular difficulty in finding employment.

Accordingly, the Special Youth Employment Training Program which Mr Howard announced on 22 September 1976, as extended along the lines I announced on 21 November 1976, and the Community Youth Support Scheme which I announced on 2 1 October 1976, have been initiated with the objectives of increasing employment and training opportunities for young people.

The first of these programs directly assists young people aged 15-19 years who have been away from full-time education for at least 6 months in the last 12 months, who are registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service and who have been registered with the CES for at least 6 of the previous 12 months. During the first six weeks of operation some 2300 young people have been placed under the program and it is estimated that almost 50 per cent of these were females. The program is administered within the overall NEAT context which itself is already assisting many women with training. At the end of October 1976 in the order of 5000 women, including those placed under the Special Youth Employment Training Program, were receiving assistance under NEAT.

The Community Youth Support Scheme, operative from 1 November 1976, aims to encourage community action toward the provision of supportive programs and services to the young unemployed, both girls and boys. Financial assistance is available toward the provision of a range of programs which would help to keep unemployed youth oriented to work, and improve their ability to apply for jobs and find employment.

Transport: Parramatta Region (Question No. 1182)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the final report presented on the Parramatta Region Public Transport Study.
  2. When will it be published.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) The report on the study was presented to the Joint Commonwealth/State Steering Committee at its meeting of 3 August 1976. The Committee then passed on the report to the respective Governments. Consequently the report is now available for use and a copy has been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Islamic Law Against Hijacking (Question No. 1222)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report of an interview with Colonel M. Kadhafi, the Libyan Head of State, appearing in Newsweek on 20 September 1 976 in which the Colonel is reported as saying that Libya applies Islamic Law against hijacking.
  2. If so, can he say what is the Islamic law referred to.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. I have seen a report of an interview with Colonel Kadhafi, the Libyan Head of State, appearing in the magazine Newsweek of 20 September 1976, in which Colonel Kadhafi is reported to have said that Libya is the only country in the world that applies Islamic law against terrorism.
  2. As I have been unable to relate Islamic law to terrorism I am unable to give an opinion on Colonel Kadhafi ‘s reported comment.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1251)

Mr James:

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

  1. How many persons in Tasmania were required to refund to the Commonwealth moneys paid to them under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. What are their names, and what are the sums involved in each case.
  3. Against how many persons were charges laid in respect of moneys fraudulently claimed under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Red Scheme dealt with organisations not persons. Thirty sponsors in Tasmania were required to refund to the Commonwealth moneys paid to their organisations under REDS. These were:
  1. None. The circumstances prompting the requirement to refund monies included overpayments to sponsors in relation to approved grants which were completed without the sponsor qualifying for the amount of the grant already advanced, or payments of advances to sponsors in relation to projects for which it was subsequently necessary to withdraw approval in order to contain the Scheme within its approved 1975-76 Budget expenditure. No question of fraud was involved.

Agricultural and Horticultural Industries (Question No. 1284)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. Are many agricultural and horticultural industries threatened by dumped or low cost imports at the present time.
  2. Is the confusion of departmental responsibility, type of protection required, questionnaires and responsible officer, etc., preventing many of these industries from making use of available protection measures.
  3. Will he, either from within his own Department, or in conjunction with the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Primary Industry, and Overseas Trade, prepare a simple document on the procedures, criteria and contact telephone numbers in those Departments on the various import protection measures available to the various agricultural and horticultural industries.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Customs is currently taking action on requests for anti-dumping action against imports of processed cheese and pie apple. The Bureau has more recently received an industry complaint in respect of several varieties of cheese from nominated countries. No other requests have been received from the agricultural or horticultural industries.
  2. I am not aware of any confusion arising from the procedures which have to be followed for firms or individuals to obtain a review of industry protection or action on possible dumping. The initial procedures to be followed are set out in (3) below.
  3. Any industry, firm or individual seeking a review of the protection accorded to them should initially contact, in writing, the Secretary of the appropriate industry Department Le. in the case of manufacturing industry the Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce, for primary industry the Secretary, Department of Primary Industry and for mining industry the Secretary, Department of National Resources.

Any firm or industry seeking information or action on dumping matters should initially contact, in writing, the Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

I have asked my Department to consult with other interested Departments to prepare a brief document along the lines requested in (3 ).

Licences for Citizens Band Radio (Question No. 1296)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Under what circumstances are licences issued for the use of tranceivers in the citizens radio band.
  2. How many of these licences are current.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no radio fequency band set aside in Australia purely for a citizens radio service such as exists in the United States of America and certain other countries. However portion ofthe 27 megahertz band has been used for handphone mobile radio services. Such services are authorised for emergency purposes, to facilitate industrial, business or pastoral activities and for other useful purposes which are considered to warrant the grant of a licence.
  2. As at 30 June 1976 25 099 of such licences were currently in force.

Qantas Flights: Hong Kong to Brisbane (Question No. 1512)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

How many (a) first class and (b) economy class passengers travelled on the Hong Kong to Brisbane Qantas flight on each day between 25 June and 9 July 1 976.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Qantas have supplied the following uplift/discharge traffic statistics for the Hong Kong/Brisbane route (and total on board on arrival at Brisbane):

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19761202_reps_30_hor102/>.